Sunday, May 15, 2016

Ideology 101

Nationalism: Everything is the fault of Foreigners.

Feminism: Everything is the fault of Men.

Anarchism: Everything is the fault of the Government.

Socialism: Everything is the fault of the Rich.

Capitalism: Everything is the fault of the Lazy.

Liberalism: Everything is the fault of the Heartless.

Conservatism: Everything is the fault of the New.

Environmentalism: Everything is the fault of the People.

Because... like all good fiction, Ideology needs a Villain.

Sunday, August 16, 2015

The One Percent

The Rich getting richer and the Poor getting poorer, and it's about time the rich were made to pay - that's the usual refrain. But here's a fact for you: much is made of the 1% who own most of the wealth, and most of you reading this will imagine that you are one of the 99% who are being cheated. The truth, however, is that if you take the 1% stat and apply it GLOBALLY, (as it was meant to be), then anybody earning over £25,000 a year becomes one of the global elite. That's nurses, bus drivers, factory workers, etc. The fact is, compared to most of the world, most of us in Britain (and the rest of the West) are rich. See those migrants dying as they try to cross the mediterranean? That's how desperate they are to live the life you live. Now imagine that most of the world's poor had the political power to have your money redistributed to them, taken straight from your salary. Imagine that they were no longer happy with your charity offerings and public gestures. Imagine if they had the power to force you to hand over your house, your caravan, your clothes from Next and H&N, your Ford Mondeo and your football season ticket. How would it feel? Well, that's what this poster is promoting, if you think about it. It's great fun to bash the greed of the rich - but wait till it's your turn.

Saturday, May 30, 2015


The Anti-Austerity movements are little more than nostalgic attempts to hang on to a past that has begun to wane.

Sunday, April 19, 2015

The Truth About Immigration

It's election season in the UK, and the issue of immigration has crept reluctantly into the debates. It's not an issue that politicians like to discuss much, and there's a reason why. Here are some truths about immigration that many involved in the debate would rather you didn't know or think about. They are simple truths.

Small scale immigration is easy for a society to assimilate, and causes no problems. Large scale immigration causes problems for every society that experiences it.

When people complain about immigration, they are not complaining about immigration per se, but about large scale immigration.

The contemporary obsession with racism means that immigration is often treated as a moral issue, rather than an economic one. This is how it is taught in schools today: It's cool to be okay with immigration, and racist not to be okay with it, because the Nazis were racist and they're evil, and it's not cool to be evil.

Immigration before World War II was statistically insignificant. It rose significantly in the 50s and 60s. Immigration in the late 90s and after 2000 is two to three times higher than it was in the 50s and 60s. Immigration in the past twenty years is higher than at any time in UK history.

Population growth in the UK recently is entirely due to immigration. Without large scale immigration, the UK population would have shrunk.

In the southeast of England, schools are overcrowded, and councils have introduced arbitrary rules to cope with parental demand. In the rest of England, rural councils are closing small schools because there are not enough children to fill the necessary places.

The majority of recent immigrants live in the southeast of England.

Overcrowding in the southeast of England puts pressure on housing, raising the prices. It puts pressure on the NHS, increasing waiting times. It puts pressure on any infrastructure that has not been improved in time to cope with it.

The southeast of England is the economic powerhouse of the country. Whatever happens there affects the rest of the country. This is why house prices remain high, even after the 2007 credit crunch.

Indigenous UK born white people are not having enough babies to sustain their numbers. UK born black and Asian people whose parents arrived in the 60's are not having as many babies as their parents did.

The elderly population is growing, with more old people in the UK than ever before.

The majority of immigrants are young. The ones that stay will grow old some day.

Large scale immigration into cities creates enclaves of foreign born nationals who do not assimilate into UK society. They bring their home cultures with them instead.

Multicultural societies are not harmonious. The boundaries between the sub-cultures are a constant source of tension. When times are hard, these tensions easily become violent.

Austria used to be a multicultural empire. When it collapsed after World War I, it disintegrated into numerous nationalist and fascist states.

Yugoslavia used to be a multicultural country. When it collapsed, it disintegrated into numerous nationalist and fascist states.

Liberal society encourages immigration. Immigrant enclaves are socially conservative, and often suspicious of, if not hostile to, liberal norms.

Large scale immigration changes the nature of societies.

Most immigrants arrive as poorly paid manual workers and live in the poorest areas. They increase the number of poor people in a city, and compete with them for jobs, housing, school places and health care.

Liberal values are middle class values. Most immigrants do not live in middle class areas, nor take middle class jobs in sufficient numbers to drive down wages. This is why the middle classes are not threatened by the thought of immigration.

Most inner city teachers do not live in the same areas as their inner city pupils.

A nation's prosperity is entirely dependent on its population. A large, dense population is necessary for a thriving economy, even in the internet age.

An industrialised nation needs enough young people coming into the system to remain productive.

Elderly people in a society are a cost that is paid for by the work of the young.

The costs to the NHS of an aging society are huge. The costs to the country, with regard to pensions is huge. These costs are larger than at any time in UK history.

The indigenous population in the UK is growing older and is not having enough babies.

Among the middle classes, babies are seen as a lifestyle choice. Nobody sees them as vital to the nation's integrity. Nobody thinks like that anymore.

Mass immigration is a Capitalist phenomenon. Capitalism is about the liberal breaking down of boundaries. Money can now travel freely around the world, investing in whatever country it likes. Jobs can now travel freely around the world, with companies moving their offices and factories to where the wage level is cheaper. Now, with immigration, cheap workers can cross boundaries too.

Corporations love mass immigration, for the same reasons that they love other aspects of capitalism. Cheaper workers and lowered wages mean less cost and more profit. For managers of companies, it's simply a matter of economics.

The NHS needs immigrant nurses and doctors to cope with the aging, sicker society it serves.

Without a big influx of immigrant dentists in the last decade, NHS dentistry would have collapsed.

The UK has been in decline since the end of World War I. The two world wars bankrupted the country and destroyed its empire. The post-war influx of immigrants helped stave off a chronic shortage of workers for a while, but it could not prevent the economy from going into free fall during the seventies. Prosperity arrived in the eighties only because of the massive inflow of East Asian credit into the Western economies. It was a temporary solution.

In the nineties, the UK economy was still weak. Its industry was gone, its population continued to age, and its costs continued to rise. As did its debt, because it could only borrow its way out of trouble. This was unsustainable.

From the late nineties onwards, UK governments have quietly opened the door to mass immigration like never before, as a way of saving the economy.

Every nation in Europe suffers from an aging population. Only Germany has a strong industrial base. The rest are struggling to balance their books. Some seem stuck in permanent recession. Greece is bankrupt.

The only reason the UK seems to be doing so well economically compared to the rest of Europe is not because of the strength of its Pound, or its brilliant approach to business and innovation. These are fictions. The only reason it is doing so well is because of the number of young immigrants keeping our economy afloat and churning.

Immigrants travel the length of Europe to get to the UK. They pass through perfectly civilised nations to get to us. Clearly there is something about the UK they like.

It is illegal, under EU law, to discriminate against immigrants. Many EU countries, however, manage to circumvent these laws, placing administrative barriers to immigrants entering their health care systems, housing or welfare schemes. The UK is attractive to immigrants because these barriers are reduced or non-existent.

The UK is an island. Its borders are easily sealed, if the government really wanted that. Instead, our government quietly encourages that border's infiltration. They publicly posture against the issue of asylum seekers (a tiny number compared to other immigrants) to appease public unease, and pretend to be concerned about the UK working class's concerns.

But the truth is, if mass immigration were to be stopped now, then in less than a generation we would become like Greece. In other words, we would be in serious economic trouble.

Immigration is eroding and splintering UK society. It is also the only thing holding it up.

Behind the scenes, the UK economy has been in decline for a long time, and mass immigration is just one of the sticking plasters being used to hold it together.

Like all sticking plasters, it's a temporary solution that won't last.

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Thursday, February 26, 2015

"Yes we can!"

Link: Syriza Dumps Marx For Blair

The Blairite revolution is an increasingly common phenomenon in politics today. It involves secretly dumping the old affiliations of left and right whilst pretending to be an inclusive movement 'for the people'. Ideology is dead, and what is important now is to be seen to be young, fresh and populist. Politics is replaced by PR. Liberal pieties and collectivist slogans are waved as crowd pleasing flags, while behind the stage curtain, neo-liberalism is pursued with ever greater vengeance in order to desperately grab as much money as possible from the shrinking western economies. Obama represents the same trend in the US: a handsome, charismatic speaker who appeals to young student activists still in thrall to radical left-wing 60's ideals who then, once elected, does the opposite of what the idealists wanted. Syriza is another such party - a party that is actually just a small clique of PR men with no real political conviction. They have just returned from negotiations with the EU bankers with little to show for their apparent effort. They were filmed looking defiant and rebellious prior to this, yet they were also commited to staying in the Euro, and commited to the same European integration dream. As a result, their bargaining position was weak. They could have threatened to turn towards Russia and China for the money they needed, but instead they accepted US demands to maintain sanctions against Russia, and they begged the EU for more money. Everyone thought they would herald a revolution in European politics, changing the western capitalist landscape for ever, but the truth is they never wanted to leave that landscape at all. All they wanted was a bit more spare change. In Spain, the new political party of Podemos (We Can), which is also seen as fresh and revolutionary, will likely turn out to be the same - pretty boys with winning smiles, consultant-designed slogans and faded Karl Marx T-shirts underneath their smooth new suits. Politics is dead, and ideology is just a cloak to hide the fact that we have had no new ideas since the 19th Century. PRolitics is now the name of the game, funded by the same wealthy backers that these people pretend to despise.

Monday, August 18, 2014

Sensitivity and Gender War

Men are less sensitive than women. Indeed, it is a common criticism that men are not sensitive enough, as if this were some sort of personal choice - but it's not. It's just that nature made men this way.

Not all men are insensitive, just as not all women are sensitive. Whatever the rule, there are always exceptions. There is, then, a minority group of sensitive men.

Here's where the irony begins. Women have long complained about men, and feminism has clothed these complaints with political rhetoric (equality, justice, etc), as if these moans emanated from a higher ideological plane.

The targets of these complaints are those insensitive men whose insensitivity rubs women up the wrong way. But, of course, these men are insensitive, so the complaints about their insensitivity don't actually register with them. They don't feel the pinpricks to their conscience, because this is the whole point to insensitivity. It's an armour that shrugs off the stones and arrows of life. It's a thick skin.

Sensitive men, on the other hand, hear those complaints and take them to heart. Because they have thinner skin. And they either feel guilty and become feminists themselves, nurturing the force that attacks them, or they take umbrage and counterattack the feminists.

This turns into a comedy. The thin skinned men lash out at feminists. The feminists see this as proof of rampant male misogyny and demonstrate their outrage. The thin skinned men they are attacking are in fact the very men that feminists would allegedly like men to be - sensitive. But it's that very sensitivity that now makes them feminism's greatest enemy.

Thick skinned men, on the other hand, shrug and move on, unable to see what the fuss is about. They don't understand why women need to be so thin skinned about things, and they don't see thin skinned men as real men - because they appear to be as petulant and thin skinned as women. So they leave the stage, while feminists and thin skinned men - natural allies - fight to the death.

Thin skinned men who hear feminist attacks on men assume that they themselves are the targets. Again, that is a feature of sensitivity.

Thin skinned women (the majority of women) hear the counterattacks on feminists and, because they are sensitive, assume they themselves are the targets. They may not have a single clue about the ideological aspects of feminism. They may not label themselves as feminists. But when they see one woman attacked they assume all women are under attack. Thus do women band together in outrage when one of their number is slighted.

Men do not band together in the same way, simply because the majority of them do not really feel threatened, and don't feel the need to make common cause with those who do.

This is why men don't appear to be able to defend themselves against feminism. Those that do are quickly outnumbered and, because they are sensitive, emotionally wounded. Thicker skinned men don't see that there's anything to defend against.

The ideology of feminism is a lie. Quite simply, there is no coherent ideology. All it is is a mass of sensitivities disguised as reason.

The ideology of feminism has been described in generational phases. There is first wave feminism, second wave, third wave, fourth wave, etc. This just shows that there is no ideology. Each generation of women, from mother to daughter, reinterprets feminism to suit themselves with little regard to what went before.

Liberalism is based on the writings of notable philosophers like Kant and Mills. Marxism goes back to the writings of Marx. Feminism has no touchstone, other than what women feel at any given time. Feminism is made up as it goes along. Women cherry-pick the bits of feminism they want and spit out the rest. Women feel that this is their right.

Women feel that everything is their right. Their greater innate sensitivity defines their need. They will vociferously feed and defend that need just as they would feed and defend their offspring. This is not a personal choice. Nature made women this way.

Sensitivity is not distributed equally among the sexes. It never will be. It is neither a gift nor a burden. It is no more a virtue than a womb or testosterone. It's just a biological fact.

The gender war is a comedy of errors and misunderstandings. It will never end.