Blog powered by Typepad

« Australian shame | Main | There are simply no words . . . »

Saturday, 21 November 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Looks like Rishi Sunak, our last hope, has turned out to be a false flag ...

Mr Sunak will also set aside £2 billion for Brexit as part of his Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) on Wednesday, including a major upgrade of the customs system and £360 million to recruit more than 1,100 new border guards. Up to £572 million will be spent helping farmers to navigate environmental law and standards after Britain breaks from Brussels.

Another army of "Bottom Inspectors".

More cash for farmers - to add to the 80% of their revenue that comes from subsidies (yes, only 20% of their revenue actually comes from selling their produce).

And that's only the starting gun ...

Setting out his first national infrastructure structure strategy next week, the Chancellor will also lay down a "massive downpayment" on the £600 billion of investment promised by Boris Johnson to "level up" the country.

Printed money on schemes that independent capital wouldn't touch with a barge pole.

I notice inflation is starting to uptick, even in these recessional times. 0.5% last month, 0.7% this month.

With £600bn of extra dosh chasing no appreciable increase in goods and services output, let's add flared trousers to the mix and see if we can't make this exactly like the 1970's, why not?


Do keep up

A total of 37,470 people in *England* have died with a Covid+ test

96% had a pre-existing health condition

54% were over 80yrs old.

92% were over 60

The total number of people under 60 with no underlying health problems who died with Covid this year: 339..............

The co-ordinated reaction of the authorities to the Chyyynese Virus has been
to attempt to hasten in the "Great Reset", there is no other explanation that stands up.

Hanlon's razor:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

I'm finding, finally, a comment from Bob that's hit the nail on the head.

One I can't argue with.

What do we propose doing about it? Well, a good start would be to sack or force out some top civil servants, and then face down their ilk and the press when they accuse your ministers of bullying.

A book recommendation ... maybe even Bob, up your alley.

The author incidentally (of the book, not the review) is a Brit surprisingly enough. So it's probably not gonna cause you heartburn Bob by simply reading the review.

Here's how collectivisation, socialism, and monopoly actually runs ...

Sources also confirmed that some civil servants complained if Ms Patel tried to contact them over weekends to ask for support if crises erupted.

One source said: "National security is not 9-til-5", adding that on some weekends Ms Patel had found that "she was driving the ship completely". They added: "That is changing."

A former adviser said: "The snowflakes in the civil service would regularly complain about working even five minutes more than their allotted hours.

"Their chief complaint appears to be having to work over a weekend when they’re on call, despite this being their job."

So Whyaxye, you're no super-CEO, neither is Priti Patel, nor have any of the pols been since collectivisation, socialism and monopoly became the operational form for production and distribution by the state in 1948.

In fact, nor have any of them been anywhere in the world since collectivisation, socialism and monopoly re-established Feudalism II as the global format for statism after 1919.

Your diktat, or anyone else's, will never work, Whyaxye. It's designed to fail. The Good Lord made it that way, or the neural network, depending on which side of the Great divide you swing.

The only method of defeating Feudalism II is via a "state bypass". Turn the tax take around at source: in the independent sector workplace Give it to the people there with negative income tax, as Social Buying Power for the low income workers, or UBI, or Milton Friedman vouchers on their debit cards or phones. The Alt-State.

Starve the sclerotic, clogged-up, withered old heart of Feudalism II of its lifeblood, the tax-take, and let it arrest; let 3 million fake jobs in the civil service, "welfare" state, and public sector, go. Let those jobsworths, leeches and parasites find their true worth in the independent sector, like the rest of us.

As Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin said: it's inevitable anyway. Collectivisation, socialism, and monopoly will fail, and the state will wither away. Feudalism II is only a phase we're passing through to get back to the independent sector, the "Operational Olympics", being 100% of the supply side, and Social Buying Power a substantial portion of the demand side.

It's the only post-Brexit model that will work for Blighty.

Just do it.


The Great Reset will have its own 'body count' matching or surpassing the New World Order.

My word, what a betrayal that was, not just of the Iron Lady herself, but the British people individually and as a whole ...

It is 30 years since the fabled men in grey suits filed in one by one. Their purpose was to oust one of Britain’s greatest leaders. Mrs Thatcher, then sitting on an 102-seat majority, having won three general elections in a row, would later describe her cabinet’s actions as “treachery with a smile on its face”.

To her supporters, this was treason; a coup by the Party’s europhile wing which had always loathed her. To her detractors, it was a necessary power-grab from a domineering, out-of-touch premier. Yet Conservatives had struggled in elections since Macmillan, and Mrs Thatcher remained popular with Tory voters. This time history was written less by the victors than by the political establishment.

Like Mary Queen of Scots, who wore a blood-red bodice symbolising Catholic martyrdom on the scaffold, Thatcher managed her Commons swansong magnificently, delivering an astonishing performance the following day. Immaculate in her favourite satin-trimmed royal blue suit, she showed up Neil Kinnock as long-winded and graceless. Asked whether she would still oppose a European central bank, Dennis Skinner’s heckle convulsed the House: "No, she's going to be the Guv'nor!"

“I’m enjoying this”, beamed Thatcher as her backbenchers roared approvingly. Her best zinger came off the cuff to a young Simon Hughes “He would rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich.” But another lesser-known line fully captures her philosophy. “Labour's policies are a vote of no confidence in the ability of British people to manage their own affairs. We have that confidence. Confidence in freedom and confidence in enterprise. That is what divides Conservatives from socialists.”

Thatcher’s great achievements hinged on this overarching set of principles; a clear moral sense and uncompromising love of freedom. These inspired her during the Falklands, and drove her efforts to bring Gorbachev onside, ultimately ending the Cold War. Her departure left an intellectual void in Conservatism which has never been filled.



From the review:

Politicians who abandon the working class in favor of globalist trade deals that ship their jobs overseas. Politicians who unilaterally decide to completely remake working class communities by importing thousands of refugees with little or no regard to the impact it will have on those living there. Or, in our current situation, politicians who lock down their cities or states forcing working class folks to lose their jobs while major, multi-billion-dollar corporations like Amazon and Walmart see a windfall in profits.

I agree completely with the first sentence and have repeatedly mentioned presidents Clinton and Obama here as major contributors to roughshod globalism. Global trade in itself isn't a bad thing. The problem is in the way it was handled by Republicans and Democrats, but mostly by deregulated businesses who couldn't see anything beyond profit. I'd add that Obama made a major mistake by not prosecuting any of the Wall St. bandits who caused the 2007 crash. Neither party has stood up for workers. They just distract them with culture wars and identity politics.

We have longstanding laws that protect refugees. Scapegoating refugees and blaming current politicians for Central and South America's problems are pointless. It's a shame certain politicians who claim to not be politicians have been so successful with the politics of scapegoating.

The lockdowns are not political. They're public health measures. The economy can't recover while the pandemic is spreading. Blame nature. What's missing is continued economic relief for displaced workers. America can afford it, but the politics of wealth and obstruction are beating up working people the way they've always done.

Also, bashing "the media" makes no sense at this time. What media? Rush Limbaugh? The Drudge Report? Fox News? Newsmax? One America News? Glenn Beck? The problem with media is there's none with facts everyone agrees on. That's not exclusively a result of anything done by the left, it's mostly been caused by the likes of Rush and Rupert Murdoch who have gotten filthy rich telling people anything they want to hear and claiming it's the "real truth". MSNBC is a latecomer to the game. Social media are madhouses.

So OK, here's one you can read. Commentary isn't considered leftist either:

"The lockdowns are not political. They're public health measures."

To a point I agree with that. So long as it's the states doing the decreeing. (Paragraph 3 consisting of two short sentences - Bearing in mind the text of the Tenth Amendment. You'll maybe recall the whole of Biden's 'campaigning' was essentially, "The President's doing it wrong, I know better. I have a plan.")

Above that point I agree.

Carrying on. Below that one paragraph it's hard for me to disagree with what you've typed except to maybe, perhaps, put a finer point on MSNBC's never claiming to be anything other than (paraphrasing) The alternative to Rushian style 'journalism' - ie 'not-journalism'. And one can say "Pah!" to that sort of corporative directive all one wishes to say "Pah!" to to the same degree and effect that it has, or is ever likely to have on corporate behavior. Or just, howl at the moon. Either is as effective.

I'd already read that Bob. Happy to see you're expanding your horizons.


To my knowledge the federal government doesn't have the power to order a national lockdown without essentially declaring martial law, and no one has even suggested that.

The president did it wrong. That's probably the main reason he's going to be the ex-president.

Thanks and the same backatcha.

How exactly Bob, could a President, any President have "done it the correct way"?

Especially given the chaos that reined (in DC & the propaganda apparatus - as well as some specific governors' actions on or about the time the modellers were predicting two million deaths inevitably five months ago). Remember Fauci telling us Americans to "Go on a cruise"?

A list of ten items will be sufficient.

I'll be back in about six hours to check it out.


Whiters, "The Great Reset" seems reminiscent in naming style to Mao's "The Great Leap Forward" that lead to 60 million dead Chinese folks! What a "Great Choice" of nomenclature - ooops what a giveaway! ...



Here's what Trump could have done to handle covid the way a normal human would:

1. He could have acted in January when the characteristics of the virus were known. Instead he twiddled away almost 2 months. His bragged about "Chinese travel ban" allowed 400,000 people to enter without isolation.

2. He could have admitted covid's serious effects instead of downplaying it. We know he was lying because he later admitted to Bob Woodward that he knew it was airborne and deadly early on.

3. In fact, he could have not politicized everything about the virus instead of blaming it on the Chinese government, Democrats, cities, blue states, etc., etc.

4. He could have used the Defense Production Act to ramp up the manufacture of PPE and other supplies.

5. He could have coordinated the efforts of governors, or at least appointed someone else who could.

6. He could have not carried the argument to the point of throwing shade on experts, science, and medical personnel.

7. He could have not disbanded Obama's non-partisan pandemic task force.

8. Even without the task force he could have read and followed their recommendations.

9. He could have read. Including daily briefings.

10. He could have thought about other people instead of only himself for once in his life.

That's by no means an exhaustive list.

That Bob, is what a President could have done.


What's your point? The things I listed above didn't exceed presidential powers. They would have only required competence.

The comments to this entry are closed.