Lie like a PM, George, and you just may become one

Warm waves of euphoria are wafting over George Osborne, whose crack-papering budget is being hailed as the apex of sagacity.

Actually its chief feature is that it’s less damaging than Ed Ball’s would have been had he been in a position to draft one.

While improving Tory ratings and paving the way to George’s personal ascent, his budget doesn’t mend the structural flaw of our economy: having to service a national debt inexorably heading towards two trillion, if at a slightly slower rate than under Labour.

The only way to alleviate the problem is to halve our public spending, which effectively means eliminating the welfare state. This George hasn’t done, and neither he nor any other Chancellor will ever do it.

The prosperity we seem to be enjoying is phoney and therefore transient. The major reason we have it at all is that our ties with the moribund EU aren’t quite so strangulating as they would be had we joined the euro.

Young George’s talents are held in such high esteem that, now our economic woes seem to be over and some of his time has been freed up, he has been given an additional role: renegotiating Britain’s relationship with the EU.

George outlined his goals in a recent interview, in which he demonstrated he has every quality required in a modern PM: mediocre intellect, a rubbery elasticity of conscience and a single-minded devotion to power for its own sake.

He sees his new mission as “convincing ourselves that it is right for Britain to remain in the EU”. ‘Ourselves’ meaning whom? George and Dave are already convinced they want a sizeable piece of tangible power, which in Europe resides in the EU.

What George means is that he wants to convince those who aren’t sure that Britain’s best interests lie in becoming a cross between a German gau and a French département.

Only one trick has worked historically: lying that we’d be wealthy inside the EU and destitute outside it. This lie must be set up by another one: claiming that the EU is devoted to the economy above all else. Yet those even remotely familiar with EU history know that it’s a political project, not an economic one.

This is proved by the existence of the euro, a mechanism by which the economies of 19 countries have been to various extents sacrificed for a political cause: the creation of a European superstate run by an unaccountable, seemingly supranational, bureaucratic elite.

‘Seemingly’ is the key word there, for the hub around which the EU revolves is the Franco-German partnership cemented at Vichy circa 1943.

Germany is clearly the senior partner in this Vichy-washy arrangement, with France still reeling from the collective Stockholm syndrome she suffered in 1940. Like Patty Hearst falling in love with her SLA rapists, France is now eager to bring up Germany’s rear, kissing it as she goes along.

Hence any claim that the EU pursues purely economic goals is mendacious. And George can do mendacious with the worst of them: “But for Britain I always felt that the central attraction of European Union membership was the economic one.”

When 40 years ago I joined my first tennis club, its chief attraction was scantily dressed girls one could ogle and, at a braver moment, try to pick up. However, I discovered that ultimately that wasn’t what the club was about.

“I prefer to talk about [the EU] as a single market of free trade,” said George, as I preferred to talk about the tennis club as a pick-up place until realising that one had to play tennis.

“It’s free trade with the rules that enable the free trade to be a real success,” continued George. This suggests there was something unreal about Britain’s past success built solidly on the free trade the country more or less pioneered – amazingly without abandoning her sovereignty.

George’s remark sounded as if he foresaw Britain’s relationship with the EU becoming a purely economic one, and the interviewer asked if that understanding was correct.

A modern politician’s answers to such question are a Möbius strip, not a straight line. Hence George answered neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’ but merely paraphrased what he had said before.

That merry dance continued throughout, with the interviewer paraphrasing the same question and George paraphrasing the same answer, adding the odd irrelevant bit, such as “the security work that we do with the French” (I’d be embarrassed to mention this in the present situation, but I am not the PM-in-waiting).

The only way to have a purely economic relationship with the EU is to be outside it. It’s no more possible for a member to have such a relationship with the EU than for, say, Armenia to have had it with the USSR.

George knows this of course – and doesn’t care. The purpose of his and Dave’s machinations is to keep Britain in the EU at any cost, thereby perpetuating their own power and that of the wicked elite to which they pledge allegiance.

By George, the man’s ready to be our next PM. One just hopes that, when he occupies the post, it won’t be called ‘gauleiter’.

 

 

Let’s kill old people like dogs

Our true opinion formers are neither politicians nor businessmen nor even pundits, though some of them may have a bit of influence.

But not nearly as much as ‘TV personalities’ and ‘celebrities’. It’s possible to define those in either category as people I’ve never heard of, but this definition isn’t precise. After all, many of those who are unknown to me are also unknown to everyone else, other than their own families, friends and colleagues.

Even though I’m stuck for a tight definition, I can easily discern certain qualities ‘TV personalities’ and ‘celebrities’ have in common. They, with probably some exceptions of which I’m lamentably unaware, are stupid, immoral, photogenic and devoid of any talent or attainment recognised as such throughout the first 5,000 years of recorded history.

Since Katie Hopkins is both a ‘TV personality’ and ‘celebrity’, she possesses all those fine qualities to a hypertrophied extent, a fact she has to keep advertising in order to remain a ‘TV personality’ and ‘celebrity’.

Her latest gem came in a Radio Times interview. When asked what she’d do if she ruled the world, Katie came up with a masterpiece.

She’d solve the world’s most pressing problem, she replied, which is that “We just have far too many old people. It’s ridiculous to be living in a country where we can put dogs to sleep but not people.”

One can accept that Katie’s frank self-assessment has led her to believe that some people are in no way superior to dogs intellectually or morally. What has escaped her attention is that, for old times’ sake if nothing else, human beings do enjoy a special status in the animal world.

So special in fact that some sticks-in-the-mud still believe – and the law still grudgingly accepts – that human life is so valuable as to be sacred, while dogs’ lives aren’t.

Moreover, the memory of two satanic creeds of modernity, Bolshevism and Nazism, still hasn’t been expunged. Some – one hopes most – people may be put off by the prospect of killing 20 million people, which is roughly the number of those who may be classified as ‘old’ in Britain.

No such problems for our TV personality. The solution, she explained, is easy: “Euthanasia vans – just like ice-cream vans – they would come to your home… They might even have a nice little tune they’d play… I’m super-keen on euthanasia vans.”

Alas, Katie’s chosen solution to all our troubles lacks novelty appeal. It was the Bolsheviks who pioneered the use of such vans as a solution to pressing problems, in their case political rather than demographic ones. The design was as simple as all things of genius.

A hose was attached to the exhaust pipe and routed into the back of the van, which was hermetically sealed. The vehicle was then densely packed with political undesirables and locked up.

The driver would start the engine, those inside would begin banging against the van walls. After a few minutes the noise would die down. The driver would wait a while longer to make sure, then the van doors would be opened and the operators would unload the blue corpses, their faces distorted by the kind of grimaces Goya depicted in his Capriccios.

The innovation was so effective yet simple that it found a broader use when the Nazis took over. Cooperation between the NKVD and Gestapo started immediately, long before the world was treated to the spectacle of the Pact.

The SS and Gestapo knew they had a lot to learn. After all, by the time Hitler came to power the Soviets had been practising mass murder for 15 years, and the Germans respected their accumulated know-how.

As part of the friendly exchange, the technologically-minded Germans presented their Russian colleagues with a state-of-the-art machine for pulling fingernails. The Soviets in their turn taught the Germans how to save valuable ammunition by using ‘euthanasia vans’.

The idea caught on, and the Germans put it to wide use in Eastern Europe. In time they abandoned the practice in favour of one that utilised the advances of their chemical industry, and ‘euthanasia vans’ went the way of all outdated gadgets.

But now our own ‘TV personality’ has revived the concept, so far only in theory, as an ideal but alas still unattainable goal towards which we must strive.

It’s comforting to observe how euthanasia fans and birth-control enthusiasts converge in their longing for mass murder. Margaret Sanger, for example, the founder of Planned Parenthood who coined the term ‘birth-control’, was capable of uttering pearls like “Coloured people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.”

Sanger, who in her day was even more of a celebrity than Katie is now, didn’t mind letting wrinklies die a natural death. But modernity is nothing if not progressive, and it fell upon our own ‘TV personality’ to take Sanger’s idea to the next level.

What kind of society would allow such deranged monsters a public platform and an adulating audience? The single-word answer can be found in Sir Christopher Wren’s epitaph: Circumspice.

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ever wonder why the Germans became Nazis?

Repeat after me, 10 times: NOTHING unspeakable done by any ethnic or religious group comes from its character or history.

Good, now you’re ready to be a modern person, for you’ve just enunciated the core belief of PC modernity.

Though applicable to any group, these days it’s most widely practised in relation to Islamism, as Islam is fashionably known.

Hence Muslims regale us with videos of thieves having their hands chopped off because it sounds like a good idea on the spur of the moment – not, repeat NOT, because they take on faith Koran 5:36: “As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.”

Similarly, if you listen to any Russian chauvinist, Bolshevism had nothing to do with the Russians.

Never mind peasant revolts, ranging from local Jacqueries to full-scale wars, that started a few years after Russia became Russia and continued non-stop throughout the country’s history.

Never mind the aristocratic uprising of December, 1825, the attacks on the government throughout the 19th century, the murder of the reforming Tsar Alexander II by predominantly Russian terrorists, the escalating bloody war between government and society throughout Nicholas II’s reign – indeed anything showing any Russian roots of the Bolshevik nightmare.

No, all Bolsheviks were Jews and other aliens who landed from Mars in such huge numbers that, without any support from the native population, they managed to kill about 15 million people while Lenin (his grandfather a baptised Jew!) was still alive and before Stalin – Georgian! – got going.

As to Nazism, I once had an entertaining conversation with an American Germanophile professor of political science. The good professor indignantly denied my suggestion that Nazism had something to do with the German character.

Trademark Germanic bellicosity, first mentioned by Caesar in his Gallic Wars? Nonsense!

The obsession of German mythology with sylvan mysticism, all those witches, hobgoblins and blood-thirsty Erlkönigs? Rubbish!

General propensity for paganism, which makes the Reformation intelligible? Claptrap! 

German Romanticism, as typified by Wagner, glorifying all of the above and adding a touch of virulent anti-Semitism to spice things up? Nothing of the sort!

Having run out of possibilities, I had to ask if, in the professor’s learned opinion, Nazism actually happened and, if so, what if anything had caused it. He reluctantly answered yes to the first question and refused to answer the second.

Nothing caused Nazism. It just happened. Out of the blue (or brown, as the case may be).

As a believer in the First Law of Thermodynamics, expressible in layman’s terms as ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing comes out of nothing), I disagreed and we left it at that.

Then recently I came across Joachim Raff.

In 1863 this German-Swiss composer won a prestigious prize from the Vienna Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde for his 70-minute symphony To My Fatherland.

Frankly, I haven’t heard this work and nor am I ever likely to do so. What caught my eye was the composer’s programme notes:

First movement: Allegro. Image of the German Character: ability to soar to great heights; trend towards introspection; mildness and courage as contrasts that touch and interpenetrate in many ways; overwhelming desire to be pensive.

Second movement: Allegro molto vivace. The outdoors: through German forests with horns-a-winding; through glades with the sounds of folk music.

Third movement: Larghetto. Return to the domestic hearth, transfigured by the muses and by love.

Fourth movement: Allegro drammatico. Frustrated desire to lay a foundation for unity in the Fatherland.

Fifth movement: Larghetto – allegro trionfale. Plaint, renewed soaring.”

Now try to replace the word ‘German’ with ‘British’, ‘French’, ‘Italian’ or any other adjective denoting nationality, and you’ll instantly find out how futile such an exercise is. Nothing but ‘German’ fits.

There we have it, the German character in a nutshell. A useful illustration to my argument with the American professor, wouldn’t you say?

The rattle of jackboots and the Sieg Heil!!! roar of millions of throats can be heard loud and clear. Or else my ear is oversensitive, my taste for historical causality overdeveloped, and my sensibilities hopelessly retrograde.

My American friend probably thinks so. 

Huckabee is ‘ridiculous’ – and right

Obama’s triumphant tour of the African half of his roots was marred by Mike Huckabee, Republican presidential candidate.

Now I dislike any politician of a certain age who insists on being known by the diminutive version of his Christian name. However, Mr Huckabee’s ability to rile Obama entitles him to calling himself even Mickey if he so chooses. This is what he said:

“This president’s foreign policy is the most feckless in American history… he would take the Israelis and basically march them to the door of the oven.

“We forget Iranians have never kept a deal in 36 years… There’s no reason to think they will suddenly start doing it.

“The Iran deal is a bad deal, bad for America and bad for Israel.”

Obama was so incensed he had to interrupt his Kenyan tribal dance in mid-step. The drums fell silent, and only the president’s voice was heard once he had regained command of it.

That statement, said Obama, “would be considered ridiculous if it weren’t so sad…” And his acolyte Debbie Wasserman Schultz described Mr Huckerbee’s statement as “grossly irresponsible”.

This is good knockabout stuff, but it falls short of being a cogent argument. Trying to offer one, Barack Hussein proved he is as hard of hearing as he is hopeless at rhetoric.

“I have not heard another argument [against] that holds up.” That makes the president deaf, for every conceivable medium all over the West has been screaming devastating arguments against the deal.

These come from strategists, armament experts, political analysts, weapon inspectors – not all of them in the pay of the Republicans, Mossad or aliens from the planet Islamophobia.

But hold on, Obama has an argument of his own: “99% of the world thinks it’s a good deal.”

I congratulate the president on the proficiency of his polling service. Surveying a population of six billion in such a short time is a feat of monumental proportions.

So monumental in fact that one is tempted to think that no such poll has been conducted, and Obama’s calculation was pulled out of the portion of his anatomy he shakes when whirling to the sound of African drums.

But do let’s suppose for the sake of argument that what he said is true. In that case, his statement is a classic rhetorical fallacy, known as argumentum ad populum (if many believe it, it’s true.)

Of course modern, and especially American, politics is based on fideistic worship of majority opinion, which is one thing that’s wrong with modern politics.

But forget generalities of rhetoric or politics. Forget even Mr Huckabee’s oratorical flourishes that are as hyperbolic as to be expected from a politician in the throes of a campaign. Forget also the variously disparaging adjectives used by Obama and his retinue to describe Mr Huckabee’s statements.

Let’s just look at the points he made and, rather than calling them (and him) names, see if they’re true or false. Mr Huckabee believes this is a rotten deal because:

1) Iran has been trying to get nuclear weapons for decades.

2) Iran’s leaders honestly say such weapons will be used to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, presumably killing every Israeli.

3) Since Iran is a major sponsor and perpetrator of global anti-Western terrorism, her acquisition of nuclear weapons presents a danger not just to Israel but to us all.

4) Contrary to what Obama claims, the deal involves a great element of trust, for its provisions for verification are inadequate.

5) However, Iran is untrustworthy in view of her record of breaking or sabotaging every agreement she has signed since 1979.

6) Judging by the Iranian leadership’s publicly expressed belief that the deal constitutes America’s surrender, and huge Iranian crowds celebrating it with ‘Death to America’ chants, Iran’s view of it is different from Obama’s.

7) Hence the deal is awful first because it puts at the ayatollahs’ disposal billions that may be used for nefarious purposes and, second, because it practically guarantees their acquiring a nuclear capability within a decade.

8) Therefore Obama’s deal with Iran may well lead the world to nuclear holocaust.

These eight points, unchallengeable factually or intellectually, unpack the epigrammatic brevity of Mr Huckabee’s statement. Obama may call it what he wants, but I’ll call it what it is: true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Must a man wear a bra to be politically astute?

In his capacity as the Lords’ Deputy Speaker and Chairman of the Privileges and Conduct Committee, Baron Sewel, 69, was in charge of enforcing good behaviour in the Upper House.

His own behaviour, however, didn’t always meet the high standards whose guardian he was. The other day Lord Sewel resigned his posts after starring on hidden camera.

The video depicts His Lordship snorting cocaine through a rolled £5 note while cavorting with two prostitutes in his Dolphin Square flat. It’s unclear whether the pink bra His Lordship wore in some of the sequences belonged to him or was borrowed from one of his friends for hire.

Personally, I’ve never felt the need either to own a brassiere or to put one on after removing it from a woman, but I realise that some men have more sophisticated tastes. So my hat’s off to Lord Sewel.

As each of the young ladies comes with a £200 price tag, they set Lord Sewel back £400 – unless they came cheaper for two. As well they should have done, for the session came complete with valuable political insights.

Between sex acts his Lordship took breaks, understandably prolonged on account of his venerable age. Rather than wasting the downtime, he imparted on the young ladies some unsolicited pearls of political wisdom, enlightening them on the fine points of his colleagues.

Cameron, he said, “is false. He makes one-off commitments and cannot deliver… He just shoots from the lip… He’s the most superficial, facile Prime Minister there’s ever been.” The garment Lord Sewel sported when offering this observation takes nothing away from its accuracy, as far as I’m concerned.

Boris Johnson?  “A public school upper class twit… an a***hole [to be regarded as such up North]”.

One suspects that, being a career Labour man, His Lordship probably feels that all public school chaps fit this description. If so, he’s patently wrong. But there’s no gainsaying his judgement that Boris will be viewed in those terms “in Preston, in Burnley, in Manchester”. Why, I even know some people in higher-rent parts of the country who feel the same way.

Lest one might accuse Lord Sewel of bias against Tory politicians, he also took a swipe at the man to whom he owes his political career, Tony Blair.

In fact, he attributed the present, most pleasingly disastrous, state of the Labour Party to Blair’s dragging the UK into the “pointless” Iraq War: “He went to war because of this sort of love affair with George Bush… Blair fell in love with George Bush, absolutely.”

Love-related metaphors must have really rolled off His Lordship’s tongue under the circumstances, but one does detect a grain of truth in his diatribe. He might have added that Blair could give Cameron a good run for his money in the “facile and superficial” stakes, but party loyalty must have kicked in at that point.

In fact, he partly exonerated Tony by opining that his apparent obsession with money is inspired by his wife Cherie, who’s money-mad because she “comes from a working-class Liverpool background”.

One may think that the implicit contempt for such a lowly descent sounds odd when coming from a Labour peer, but in fact it’s par for the course. No one seriously thinks that there’s anything labour about the parliamentary Labour Party, or indeed anything conservative about the Conservative Party or anything liberal and democratic about the LibDems.

Blair, in fact, has a background similar to Cameron’s, and I’m sure that, just between them and a Krug bottle, they talk about the proles in equally derisory terms. And when Nick Clegg stops over for a quick glass, he must join in the fun.

Once Sewel got on a roll, there was no stopping him. The Labour leadership contest is “in a f***ing mess”. Again his judgement can’t be faulted.

Jeremy Corbyn is “a typical romantic idiot… Useless.” True, although I’m not sure about the ‘romantic’ bit. Communists are in my mind associated not so much with romanticism as with concentration camps, but hey, Sewel is a Labour man after all.

“Andy Burnham… goes whichever way the wind is blowing.”

Yvette Cooper is “not strong.”

Liz Kendall, whose name Lord Sewel couldn’t recall offhand, “is just too naïve”.

In short, “there’s nobody bright enough, or who has the leadership qualities…” And they’re all more or less run by union bosses like Len McCluskey who is “a f***ing idiot.” Yes, among other things, I’d be tempted to add.

And the SNP leaders aren’t much better. Alex Salmond, for example, is a “silly pompous prat.” And so on in the same vein, until His Lordship’s amorous vigour was restored by cocaine, and the young ladies stopped shirking and started working.

I don’t know