DUFF & NONSENSE!

The Sunday Rumble: 15.11.20

Brexit is the true test of Boris:   God knows - and He's not too sure! -  what Boris will get up to now that he has disposed of his two leading advisors.  However, we 'the great unwashed' have one litmus test by which we may judge him - BREXIT!  Either it happens, boldly and clearly, or it does not and ends up as a hopeless Euro fudge in which, as we have learned over the years, we always come off worse!

 

Nazi Germany:   I stumbled upon a TV programme last night which touched on the early days of Nazi Germany.  Good God, those Germans were stupid beyond belief!  Exactly how evil they were is another question.  Even so, surely they did not need a degree in Political Philosophy to see 'the bleedin' obvious', that Adolph Hitler was a charlatan with galloping megalomania who would bring down disaster on their nation.  We were right to bomb them to bits and then invade them and thereby humiliate them.  The only ones I feel sorry for were the children!

 

And still 'The Ginger Ninja' continues with his clown act!    Alas, it was only ever funny for a few days but now, as the flecks of spittle fly from his little gooseberry lips, it has become tiresome and, given the high political temperature that pervades America, it is positively dangerous!  Just go!

 

Alas, this is all too true:  Nick Cohen, at The Spectator site, has Downing Street summed up in his first paragraph:

For all his Falstaffian swagger, Boris Johnson resembles no Shakespearian character so much as Henry VI. He is a weak and vacillating king at the mercy of palace factions. He thinks whatever the last adviser he spoke to told him to think. He has no policies that cannot be changed under pressure or principles that cannot be abandoned if the loudest voice in the room says they must go. He does not know his own mind. At times it appears he has no mind worth knowing.

And whilst we have two clowns operating in Washington and London, the Chinese quietly get on with their malicious business!

 

 

No more Rumbles 

 

 

 

The eccentric political genius of the British

I try not to write in praise of my countrymen too often because, alas, there is all too much evidence to contradict it.  Even so, the event of 1215 in which King John signed, under intense pressure, the Magna Carta, was an event of world-wide and historic importance.  It was the foundation stone for the concept of democracy, although if any of the participants had known the long-term outcome, I suspect they would have agreed to tear it up on the spot!

Romantics (like me, I'm afraid to say) would dearly love to claim this as the first step to democracy.  Well, it was - sort of - but actually, in itself, it was just another roughly-hewn deal between two groups of powerful men trying to hang on to their riches without the risky business of going to war.  Even so, one damned thing led to another and then to another and then to yet another and - 'hey-ho!' - we were off on the democratic hurdle race.

For myriad reasons way beyond my educational 'ken', gradually, despite occasional setbacks, this democratic lark actually ascended until it became the icon for other nations to try and emulate it.  Not, of course, that it is political perfection, not least because it is operated by human beings - yeeeeees, quite!  Even so, where it has worked it has, by and large, been incredibly beneficial to people of all classes.

So, all I can say is, jolly good show, Britain!

 

 

 

There's no 'dirty rat' like a legal 'dirty rat', Donald!

As 'The Donald' has just found out the hard way, now that his prize appointment to the Supreme Court, 'Hizzoner' Neil Gorsuch, has turned into a 'dirty rat' and voted in favour of a legal ruling, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that protects gay and transgender Americans from discrimination in employment. That will not play well to the rural Right in those parts of America on which the president will depend in the Autumn election.  Imagine if the headmaster of the local school turns up one day wearing lipstick and a dress! 

Of course, all this is a perfect demonstration of American democracy in action.  It's messy, it's unpredictable and it constantly changes but would you prefer a well-drilled hegemony all marching in step liked the massed ranks of Xi Ping-a-ling's China? No, thought not!

 

 

 

This is an absolute 'MUST READ'!

Yes, it's a long read, written by an anonymous black Professor of History at Berkeley University and sent to some of his colleagues.  Alas, I cannot precis his letter, I have neither the skill to do so, or the inclination!  Give it a read and realise that amongst all the screeching loonies there are still some men, and women, with the intelligence to see the wider picture.

I am one of your colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley. I have met you both personally but do not know you closely, and am contacting you anonymously, with apologies. I am worried that writing this email publicly might lead to me losing my job, and likely all future jobs in my field.

In your recent departmental emails you mentioned our pledge to diversity, but I am increasingly alarmed by the absence of diversity of opinion on the topic of the recent protests and our community response to them.

In the extended links and resources you provided, I could not find a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative narrative to explain the under-representation of black individuals in academia or their over-representation in the criminal justice system. The explanation provided in your documentation, to the near exclusion of all others, is univariate: the problems of the black community are caused by whites, or, when whites are not physically present, by the infiltration of white supremacy and white systemic racism into American brains, souls, and institutions.
Many cogent objections to this thesis have been raised by sober voices, including from within the black community itself, such as Thomas Sowell and Wilfred Reilly. These people are not racists or 'Uncle Toms'. They are intelligent scholars who reject a narrative that strips black people of agency and systematically externalizes the problems of the black community onto outsiders. Their view is entirely absent from the departmental and UCB-wide communiques.

The claim that the difficulties that the black community faces are entirely causally explained by exogenous factors in the form of white systemic racism, white supremacy, and other forms of white discrimination remains a problematic hypothesis that should be vigorously challenged by historians. Instead, it is being treated as an axiomatic and actionable truth without serious consideration of its profound flaws, or its worrying implication of total black impotence. This hypothesis is transforming our institution and our culture, without any space for dissent outside of a tightly policed, narrow discourse.

A counternarrative exists. If you have time, please consider examining some of the documents I attach at the end of this email. Overwhelmingly, the reasoning provided by BLM and allies is either primarily anecdotal (as in the case with the bulk of Ta-Nehisi Coates' undeniably moving article) or it is transparently motivated. As an example of the latter problem, consider the proportion of black incarcerated Americans. This proportion is often used to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However, if we use the precise same methodology, we would have to conclude that the criminal justice system is even more anti-male than it is anti-black.

Would we characterize criminal justice as a systemically misandrist conspiracy against innocent American men? I hope you see that this type of reasoning is flawed, and requires a significant suspension of our rational faculties. Black people are not incarcerated at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict. This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries.

And yet, I see my department uncritically reproducing a narrative that diminishes black agency in favor of a white-centric explanation that appeals to the department's apparent desire to shoulder the 'white man's burden' and to promote a narrative of white guilt.
If we claim that the criminal justice system is white-supremacist, why is it that Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans? This is a funny sort of white supremacy. Even Jewish Americans are incarcerated less than gentile whites. I think it's fair to say that your average white supremacist disapproves of Jews. And yet, these alleged white supremacists incarcerate gentiles at vastly higher rates than Jews. None of this is addressed in your literature. None of this is explained, beyond hand-waving and ad hominems. "Those are racist dogwhistles". "The model minority myth is white supremacist". "Only fascists talk about black-on-black crime", ad nauseam.

These types of statements do not amount to counterarguments: they are simply arbitrary offensive classifications, intended to silence and oppress discourse. Any serious historian will recognize these for the silencing orthodoxy tactics they are, common to suppressive regimes, doctrines, and religions throughout time and space. They are intended to crush real diversity and permanently exile the culture of robust criticism from our department.

Increasingly, we are being called upon to comply and subscribe to BLM's problematic view of history, and the department is being presented as unified on the matter. In particular, ethnic minorities are being aggressively marshaled into a single position. Any apparent unity is surely a function of the fact that dissent could almost certainly lead to expulsion or cancellation for those of us in a precarious position, which is no small number.

I personally don't dare speak out against the BLM narrative, and with this barrage of alleged unity being mass-produced by the administration, tenured professoriat, the UC administration, corporate America, and the media, the punishment for dissent is a clear danger at a time of widespread economic vulnerability. I am certain that if my name were attached to this email, I would lose my job and all future jobs, even though I believe in and can justify every word I type.

The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people. There are virtually no marches for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence requires explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is.

No discussion is permitted for nonblack victims of black violence, who proportionally outnumber black victims of nonblack violence. This is especially bitter in the Bay Area, where Asian victimization by black assailants has reached epidemic proportions, to the point that the SF police chief has advised Asians to stop hanging good-luck charms on their doors, as this attracts the attention of (overwhelmingly black) home invaders. Home invaders like George Floyd. For this actual, lived, physically experienced reality of violence in the USA, there are no marches, no tearful emails from departmental heads, no support from McDonald's and Wal-Mart. For the History department, our silence is not a mere abrogation of our duty to shed light on the truth: it is a rejection of it.

The claim that black intraracial violence is the product of redlining, slavery, and other injustices is a largely historical claim. It is for historians, therefore, to explain why Japanese internment or the massacre of European Jewry hasn't led to equivalent rates of dysfunction and low SES performance among Japanese and Jewish Americans respectively. Arab Americans have been viciously demonized since 9/11, as have Chinese Americans more recently. However, both groups outperform white Americans on nearly all SES indices - as do Nigerian Americans, who incidentally have black skin. It is for historians to point out and discuss these anomalies. However, no real discussion is possible in the current climate at our department. The explanation is provided to us, disagreement with it is racist, and the job of historians is to further explore additional ways in which the explanation is additionally correct. This is a mockery of the historical profession.

Most troublingly, our department appears to have been entirely captured by the interests of the Democratic National Convention, and the Democratic Party more broadly. To explain what I mean, consider what happens if you choose to donate to Black Lives Matter, an organization UCB History has explicitly promoted in its recent mailers. All donations to the official BLM website are immediately redirected to ActBlue Charities, an organization primarily concerned with bankrolling election campaigns for Democrat candidates. Donating to BLM today is to indirectly donate to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign. This is grotesque given the fact that the American cities with the worst rates of black-on-black violence and police-on-black violence are overwhelmingly Democrat-run. Minneapolis itself has been entirely in the hands of Democrats for over five decades; the 'systemic racism' there was built by successive Democrat administrations.

The patronizing and condescending attitudes of Democrat leaders towards the black community, exemplified by nearly every Biden statement on the black race, all but guarantee a perpetual state of misery, resentment, poverty, and the attendant grievance politics which are simultaneously annihilating American political discourse and black lives. And yet, donating to BLM is bankrolling the election campaigns of men like Mayor Frey, who saw their cities devolve into violence. This is a grotesque capture of a good-faith movement for necessary police reform, and of our department, by a political party. Even worse, there are virtually no avenues for dissent in academic circles. I refuse to serve the Party, and so should you.

The total alliance of major corporations involved in human exploitation with BLM should be a warning flag to us, and yet this damning evidence goes unnoticed, purposefully ignored, or perversely celebrated. We are the useful idiots of the wealthiest classes, carrying water for Jeff Bezos and other actual, real, modern-day slavers. Starbucks, an organisation using literal black slaves in its coffee plantation suppliers, is in favor of BLM. Sony, an organisation using cobalt mined by yet more literal black slaves, many of whom are children, is in favor of BLM. And so, apparently, are we. The absence of counter-narrative enables this obscenity. Fiat lux, indeed.

There also exists a large constituency of what can only be called 'race hustlers': hucksters of all colors who benefit from stoking the fires of racial conflict to secure administrative jobs, charity management positions, academic jobs and advancement, or personal political entrepreneurship.

Given the direction our history department appears to be taking far from any commitment to truth, we can regard ourselves as a formative training institution for this brand of snake-oil salespeople. Their activities are corrosive, demolishing any hope at harmonious racial coexistence in our nation and colonizing our political and institutional life. Many of their voices are unironically segregationist.

MLK would likely be called an Uncle Tom if he spoke on our campus today. We are training leaders who intend, explicitly, to destroy one of the only truly successful ethnically diverse societies in modern history. As the PRC, an ethnonationalist and aggressively racially chauvinist national polity with null immigration and no concept of jus solis increasingly presents itself as the global political alternative to the US, I ask you: Is this wise? Are we really doing the right thing?

As a final point, our university and department has made multiple statements celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd. Floyd was a multiple felon who once held a pregnant black woman at gunpoint. He broke into her home with a gang of men and pointed a gun at her pregnant stomach. He terrorized the women in his community. He sired and abandoned multiple children, playing no part in their support or upbringing, failing one of the most basic tests of decency for a human being. He was a drug-addict and sometime drug-dealer, a swindler who preyed upon his honest and hard-working neighbors.

And yet, the regents of UC and the historians of the UCB History department are celebrating this violent criminal, elevating his name to virtual sainthood. A man who hurt women. A man who hurt black women. With the full collaboration of the UCB history department, corporate America, most mainstream media outlets, and some of the wealthiest and most privileged opinion-shaping elites of the USA, he has become a culture hero, buried in a golden casket, his (recognized) family showered with gifts and praise. Americans are being socially pressured into kneeling for this violent, abusive misogynist. A generation of black men are being coerced into identifying with George Floyd, the absolute worst specimen of our race and species.

I'm ashamed of my department. I would say that I'm ashamed of both of you, but perhaps you agree with me, and are simply afraid, as I am, of the backlash of speaking the truth. It's hard to know what kneeling means, when you have to kneel to keep your job.
It shouldn't affect the strength of my argument above, but for the record, I write as a person of color. My family have been personally victimized by men like Floyd. We are aware of the condescending depredations of the Democrat party against our race. The humiliating assumption that we are too stupid to do STEM, that we need special help and lower requirements to get ahead in life, is richly familiar to us. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be easier to deal with open fascists, who at least would be straightforward in calling me a subhuman, and who are unlikely to share my race.
The ever-present soft bigotry of low expectations and the permanent claim that the solutions to the plight of my people rest exclusively on the goodwill of whites rather than on our own hard work is psychologically devastating. No other group in America is systematically demoralized in this way by its alleged allies. A whole generation of black children are being taught that only by begging and weeping and screaming will they get handouts from guilt-ridden whites.

No message will more surely devastate their futures, especially if whites run out of guilt, or indeed if America runs out of whites. If this had been done to Japanese Americans, or Jewish Americans, or Chinese Americans, then Chinatown and Japantown would surely be no different to the roughest parts of Baltimore and East St. Louis today. The History department of UCB is now an integral institutional promulgator of a destructive and denigrating fallacy about the black race.

I hope you appreciate the frustration behind this message. I do not support BLM. I do not support the Democrat grievance agenda and the Party's uncontested capture of our department. I do not support the Party co-opting my race, as Biden recently did in his disturbing interview, claiming that voting Democrat and being black are isomorphic. I condemn the manner of George Floyd's death and join you in calling for greater police accountability and police reform. However, I will not pretend that George Floyd was anything other than a violent misogynist, a brutal man who met a predictably brutal end.

'Well said, that man!'  And thanks to the Zero Hedge site that picked it up and published it.

 

 

 

 

A celebration - sort of!

"81 today,

81 today,

I've got the key of the door,

Never been 81 before . . ."

And so on and on and on although, to be honest, it can't go on for much longer! Not that I'm complaining. '81 not out' is a pretty good innings especially given that, the odd rheumatic twinge and twang not withstanding, life is relatively pain free.  Also, and here I pause to wipe my brow with relief, it has been a pretty good 81 years.  Not that it was well planned - or even planned at all!  I had no goals before me, no aims or targets, I just drifted on from here to there and then on to somewhere else, so it is quite incredible that it has all worked out so well. 

Of course, much of my contentment has stemmed from impregnating and then happily marrying an exceedingly amiable lady who has been an ideal companion through my somewhat odd-ball life.  I am always reluctant to use the word "love" because I am not at all sure exactly what it means - although I suspect it means very different things to different people!  I prefer the word "like".  I "like" her and she "likes" me and we both "like" 'SoD', even if he is, occasionally, an irritating pain in the arse!

Frankly, I put most of it down to sheer luck, and for that slightly shameful reason, I really do feel genuine sympathy for those many, many, multitudes of people who are on the rough end of the toughest bad luck this world can dish out.

 

 

Oh, come on, Dov, just say what you mean!

Regular readers will have picked up on the  'irony ahead' warning in my title!  In it, I refer, of course, to Mr. Dov Fischer, of The American Spectator who has, shall we say, some choice opinions concerning the previous tenant of The White House.  For example and with my emphases:

I accepted Obama. I never articulated his first name, and I never called him “president,” but I accepted the results and accepted that this Pretender was our country’s lawfully elected chief executive. I watched his arrogance, the unctuous way he carried himself literally with his nose up, the way he never held a railing while walking a stairway because he was too cool, the kinds of human dreck he regularly invited as his White House guests, and I accepted it all with the soft whisper, “This, too, shall pass.” I watched the Corrupt Journalist Corps idolize him, crown him a king, admire him as a messiah and a deity, and I accepted the milieu. This, too, in time would pass. It meant living through eight years of the deepest public corruption. Lois Lerner stealing an election by leveraging the awesome power of the Internal Revenue Service to close down legitimate conservative political groups. Eric Holder — the nobleman who urged people to kick enemies — bringing lawlessness and corruption into the Justice Department, even approving the “Fast and Furious” idea of releasing lethal weapons to Mexican drug lords in the cockamamie scheme to find out how they access and move their weapons. Glenn Beck exposed Obama’s Maoist communications director, Anita Dunn, who walked children through the White House.

Riiiiiiight, Mr. Fischer, so not a fan then, I take it!

The waters did not stop rising on Obama’s watch. The Earth was not healed. On his watch, a country that finally had healed itself from the shame and scourge of imposing slavery on human beings more than a century earlier, a country that had atoned and that had created and institutionalized a new social infrastructure by which people no longer were denied because of their skin color or religion — a country that reflected that healing by electing a Black man president despite his manifest lack of personal achievement, close ties with an organized-crime felon, and questionable biography — suddenly erupted into a new era of racial bitterness. Michael Brown and Ferguson aflame amid the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” lie promoted by Obama and by Eric Holder but shot down by a Missouri grand jury. Freddie Gray and Baltimore aflame followed by a series of outright judicial exonerations handed down by a Black judge who saw that every accused cop had acted properly and lawfully. A lowlife killed by George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida, a thug whom Obama told us would have been the likes of his own son if he had had a son. Eight years of racial divide, social division aimed at tearing us up as a color-blind and religion-blind American People, just to promote electoral successes.

Weeeell, yes, actually, it's all coming back to me now!

When the Mets finally took it all in 1969, the other teams accepted the results. They lost gracefully. Now it was the Mets’ turn, and they had won it fair and square. But these past three years have been something different. Trump and Pence won fair and square. But there was no grace. Rather, there was instant character assassination, instant war, instant denial. Advertisements urging electors to violate their Electoral College oaths. Fabrications of collusion with Putin. Investigations that hamstrung a presidency. Lies and innuendoes leaked and published by the unindicted co-conspirators we call the “mainstream media.” A never-ending hunt to find scandals and Trump accusers: a bimbo who pole-danced at bars, her lawyer who now dances behind bars, another crooked lawyer who tape-recorded his own clients and now is locked up, disbarred from the Bar. One cartoon character after another.

Certainly that's what it looks like from 'over here'.  Rabbi Fischer, for that is what he is and has been for 40 years, is loath to hate but, alas, can no longer resist:

I have come deeply to hate. I hate that Donald Trump never was given a chance to be president of the United States for even one day’s honeymoon. I hate that, long before he won the presidency — fair and square — corrupt crooks and criminals in the United States Department of Justice, its Federal Bureau of Investigation, were actively plotting to take him down. I hate that there are so few outlets in the media that give voice to condemn the criminality and corruption that broke every accepted societal norm by which we play the game. I hate that Obama was in on it, yet continues to pontificate on what is just and on what threatens freedom.

In addition, Rabbi Fischer is outraged at the deliberate and vile destruction of General Flynn, a soldier who served his country compared to the smooth outcomes for so many corrupted crooks including,  especially, the utterly despicable Hillary Rodham Clinton.

There is something so evil in a society that tolerates a dual standard of justice, dual standards of everything. On the one hand, we political conservatives harbor profoundly deep feelings, but we do not destroy people’s lives based on abstract politics. Yes, we oppose them and expose them, and we hope that contemporary society and history judge them for the evil they represent. But we do not destroy them in their lives. They get away with everything. Hillary Clinton spoliated 33,000 emails amid a federal probe, a federal crime that always ends up with prison time — but not for her. It is a federal crime to lie under oath to Congress. Comey, Clapper, Brennan — how have they all avoided prison time? Strzok, Page, the whole bunch of them? Adam Schiff. The outliers on the Mueller team. Not one single slime among them in the swamp has been brought to justice.

Rabbi Fisher closes his passionate, outpouring of rage with a single deadly line:

There is a time to love and a time to hate. This is a time to hate.

 

 

 

 

Would you buy a used-car from this man?

Thought not but it's a pity 'cos that's 'Honest Nick' Machiavelli, a really decent 'geezer' when you get to know 'im, know wot I mean?!  

Well, 'maybe, baby'! He certainly told a few shocking home truths which make both for uncomfortable reading as well as surreptitious giggles!  Alas, some of his, er, fans make one pause:

Later, the Big Beasts of the modern era lapped up [his major work] "The Prince". Hitler had a copy by his bedside. Mussolini called it “the statesman’s supreme guide” and wrote a new introduction. Napoleon reportedly told Metternich that Machiavelli was the only author worth reading, although the story that a copy of "The Prince" annotated in the emperor’s hand was found in his carriage after Waterloo seems to be a Jesuit fabrication. [A Jesuit fabrication?! Surely not!] Stalin certainly did annotate his copy.

I raise the subject of this fascinating man because I came across a superb book review written by Ferdinand Mount, formerly of The Spectator (natch!) and a man whose views I respect immensely. Alas, I haven't had time today to read the full review but I urge y'all to do so and then to buy the book:

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/what-we-get-wrong-about-machiavelli-the-prince-ferdinand-mount

 

WWII - the best and worst of times

Or, to put it more elegantly allow me to quote a truly poetic writer, albeit writing of a different epoch:

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.”

Looking back at WWII I think Charles Dickens' words, written for an entirely different series of events, are entirely applicable and accurate.  The abject stupidity of so many men in positions of power, many of whom were  placed on their pathetic pinnacles by equally stupid but ordinary men and women, is almost beyond belief.  To balance the scales, of course, there were the men of intelligence and courage, albeit, possessing their own fair share of faults and weaknesses, who opposed them and eventually won the day - thank God - and them!

More and more over the post-WWII years I have grown to 'lurve' the A-bomb.  Here is a weapon system of such incredible, destructive power that it is enough to concentrate what passes for the mind of your average, spittle-flecked madman.  There is no escape - for anyone!  And even if you dig the deepest, strongest bunker in the world, when you eventually crawl out what will there be over which you can rule? 

Nothing!

Nada!

Zero! 

You will be left to wander Lear-like across a scorched and useless earth of nothing but dead things.  A dream of a nightmare!

 

 

I defend your right to hate

Apparently the Jocks, under the leadership of Mrs. 'MacWhinge' - whom I hate! - are getting set to pass new laws banning hate speech either written or spoken.  What's wrong with that, you may ask, but as is usual in the hateful game of politics, it is not intended to ban all 'hate speech', just the 'hate speech' of which Leftie nitwits do not approve.  As part of this, er, crusade, all blasphemy laws are to be removed from the legal system so the Christian community can look forward to a non-stop pounding which will not observe any courtesies.

If you think that this will open the doors to real freedom of speech you are dim beyond belief because, of course, the, er, 'freedom lovers' of Scotland have a long list of topics about which you must never - ever! - cast any criticism.  As Ms. Melanie MacDonagh explains in The Spectator:

How about these positions? That gender is not a social construct but a biological genetic reality. Taking issue with aspects of Islam relating to the life of the prophet of Islam. Expressing the view that abortion is immoral because it involves taking a human life (it’s forbidden to demonstrate outside clinics in many cities). Suggesting that the best model of parenthood is the heterosexual married couple. Pointing out that a man accused of predatory sexual behaviour isn’t guilty simply because women say so. Refusing to accept that all alleged victims of abuse must be believed, regardless of the evidence.

Personally, I am all in favour of permitting, or even encouraging, 'hate speech' - it says so much about you!  

 

 

 

In which I surrender . . .

This blog is not mine, it is yours!  I realised, reluctantly, some time ago that my commentary was merely the foundation on which 'y'all' could construct a splendid and interesting edifice and with certain rare exceptions - mostly from years back when I attracted the attention of the 'Bolshie Brigade' - you have fulfilled my hopes and expectations.  I should emphasise that it was not the 'Bolshie' message to which I objected, merely the tone in which it was often expressed.  Nor, I must emphasise even more strongly, do I ever wish to ban contrary views to my own.  This blog would be poorer without them which is why, for example, my regular contributor, Bob, a 'born-again' contrarian, is so essential, not just for his views which are always well expressed but for the re-action he provokes.  A perfect example of which occurred yesterday when I was being lazy - again!  It was a response from Malcolm Pollack to Bob and in impeccable English - oh alright then, American! - he encapsulates his considerable knowledge.  I am, of course, sympathetic to his views but that is not the reason I re-publish his comment here.  It is merely to ensure that such a well-written exposition reaches as wide a readership as possible:

 

"Such a fetish for this "democracy"! Look at your response to JK: "Should I believe from your closing statement that you're anti-democratic?" We can almost hear the basso profundo of Darth Vader: "I find your lack of faith ... disturbing."

Lord Vader would quickly have had his gauntlet on the throats of the Framers themselves, for they feared nothing more than this "democracy" you seem to regard as the summum bonum of American civic life. They had read their Polybius (most of them, in the original Greek), and they had learnt the chastening lesson of the classical world: that simple majoritarian democracy -- which Franklin is said to have described as "two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner" -- is a buttered slide to mob rule, anarchy, and then, inevitably, tyranny.
In the movie business there's something called "retconning", defined as follows:
        revising (an aspect of a fictional work) retrospectively, typically by     introducing a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events.

Here you are, then, retconning the Constitution with this breathtaking comment:
       "It could be argued that the electoral college is democratic by virtue of its being part of the Constitution, but that's diminishing the meaning of the word to a specific mechanism."

If this could be argued, I'd like to know how. The word "democracy", for the excellent reasons mentioned above, appears nowhere in the Constitution, and the Electoral College was devised specifically as a way to temper and dilute democracy while avoiding the separation-of-powers difficulties raised by the idea of having Congress select the President.

As for Donald Trump as an "aberration": he is the duly elected president of the United States, elevated to office by that half of the traditional American nation who rightly have felt despised and marginalized for a long time now by their globalist and "progressive" overlords, a scornful and condescending secular priesthood who occupy, by opprobrium, intimidation, and whatever means are necessary, the commanding heights of media, academia, popular culture, and the hulking edifice of the unelected administrative state. Donald Trump was rightly seen by these millions of American "Deplorables" as their last hope against a leftist juggernaut that sought to trample into dust all of the founding norms and traditions of the American nation, to throw open the borders, to distend and distort the Constitution into gelatinous goo, and to crush all resistance by a combination of judicial activism, executive fiat and suffocating social ostracism. Trump's legions of supporters understood that the First and Second Amendments, those great bulwarks of liberty, were under increasingly withering assault; they had to look no further than Canada, Britain, and Europe, where the people are forcibly disarmed and criticism of government policy is now enough to land you in jail, to see what lay ahead if the eight-year catastrophe of the Obama administration were to be extended by re-installing those despicable grifters the Clintons.

"Democratic norms", you say? For daring to take on this mighty Cathedral, and -- shockingly! -- capturing the White House, the upstart Trump has been the subject of a continuous conspiracy of what can fairly be called regicide, beginning with the former administration's bringing to bear the power of the FBI, the intelligence agencies, and the FISA courts (on a fraudulent basis) to spy on his campaign and to entrap members of his team. Following on that was the years-long charade of the Mueller investigation, followed by a ridiculous (and obviously doomed) attempt at impeachment, while the media throughout did everything they could to whip up a hateful frenzy. Even now, in a national crisis that would in any other era have made America put aside its squabbles and unite against a common foe, it is clear from the press briefings, media coverage, and the remark of his opponents in Congress that the real enemy is not the Wuhan Red Death, but that orange man in the White House.

It is to Trump's credit that he has not cracked or crumbled under this relentless personal assault, and this cataract of false charges spanning years; I'm sure nearly anyone else would have. But to suggest that it is Donald Trump who is "Orwellian", and not the former administration and its fawning Blue media who set all of this in motion -- now that is the sort of thing that we might expect from the Ministry of Truth."

Thanks, Malcolm, you are hereby awarded the 'Freedom of D&N'!

 

 

Peter Hitchens should move to Sweden

Mr. Hitchens, unsurprisingly, was the lone voice in Britain warning us all that the government and its apparatchiks were getting it all wrong with their draconian, 'Big Brother' approach to dealing with this pandemic.  Happily, we have a real-life experiment taking place in 'Yerdie-Durble-Land' (a.k.a. Sweden) by which we can judge the outcomes of the two 'experiments'!

Today, in The Daily Telegraph, we have an informed view from Mr. Fraser Nelson, the editor of the world's greatest weekly magazine - and y'all know what that is! - and it is worth reading because, his wife being Swedish, - lucky fella'! - he has intimate knowledge of the country.  

There is, still, no lockdown there. Shopping centres remain open, as are most schools and firms. Many work from home, many don’t – all are at liberty to choose. When I called a friend in Stockholm to ask about the Swedish experiment, he was on his way to a book launch. He’s still taking his sons to football matches and is proud that Sweden is keeping calm and carrying on. To him there is no Swedish experiment: it’s the rest of Europe that is experimenting – by locking down economies in response to a virus which may prove to be no more deadly than flu.

Crikey!  Anyone know what the Swedish is for 'hoodathunkit? 

Whoever wins this 'argument' it is worth remembering that in the beginning Boris stuck to his libertarian principles and held out for Swedish-style laissez-faire, until a report from the 'brain boxes' at Imperial College London warned that such an approach would lead to a holocaust.  When considering the pros and cons of this debate it is worth acknowledging the colossal financial Armageddon that will face this country over the coming years - and guess who will have to pay!  On the other hand, there is the (final) price that will be paid by 'zillions' of ordinary people depending on which strategy is adopted.

Pity the poor politicians - oh go on, try!

 

 

On leadership

Perhaps one of the minute 'good things' about this 'virus-thingie' is that it provides something of a test for our, er, glorious leaders.  So far, my impression is that Boris is doing OK, particularly as the various measures he has been forced to adopt are, in a normal world, absolute anathema to his liberal outlook on life.  The fact that he hesitated before slamming down all those edicts is something in his favour.  Lest you doubt me - you wouldn't dare! - just imagine the orgasms that would have rippled through the ranks of Corbyn's Marxists if they had been given such a chance, and it would take them decades before they gradually and reluctantly cut back on their own powers.

I am not qualified to comment on how 'The Donald' is doing 'over there' but the signs are that he is in the 'Boris spirit' and he can't wait to lift all those bloody edicts!  It says everything you need to know that the Dems attempted to use this emergency to force through some of their favourite bossy and entirely politically motivated schemes, until at the last moment they were shamed into dropping them. 

Just imagine if 'HillBilly' had been President!

 

 

That Rebecca Long-Bailey ain't all bad!

Of course, her political and economic opinions are dafter than a really daft thing but she has her good points, too.  I like her frowning disapproval of our totally lax laws on abortion, of which Dominic Lawson writes approvingly in today's Daily Mail:

He informs us that:

She pointed out that while abortions could not be carried out beyond the 24th week of a ‘normal’ pregnancy, it was allowed right up to full term if the unborn child was found to have a ‘disability’. Long-Bailey said: ‘I personally do not agree with this position.’

 

Good for her!  As Lawson goes on to inform us:

 

I am not a Catholic. Nor do I share Long-Bailey’s political views, which are what you might expect from someone who even after the election gave Jeremy Corbyn ‘ten out of ten’ for his leadership. But for personal reasons, I am grateful for her criticism of the way unborn children with disabilities are regarded as suitable for eradication at any time in the womb, unlike those designated ‘normal’. [My emphasis]

 

Politically, the girl might be nuts - but she's got guts!

 

 

His death is truly a loss

I refer to the late Sir Roger Scruton whose death has just been announced.  I can't claim to be an expert on all of his writings which were prodigious but when I came across him back in the '80s when I was a subscriber to the Salisbury Review, I instantly recognised a ferocious intelligence and intellect which seemed to become keener as he grew older.  Alas, today a brilliant light has been extinguished.

Douglas Murray - who better? - has written an excellent summary of Sir Roger's life over at the Coffee House.  It is well worth a read.

I am a self-confessed ignoramus!

'Waddya mean ya noo already!'  I have confessed on these pages before the sad fact that after five years in senior school I failed my maths, physics and chemistry exams.  I never saw my actual marks but my guess is that they were atrocious!  I would like to blame my teachers but the fact is that it was my inability to concentrate for more than 5 nano-seconds at a time.  Even so, it is curious that long after I had left school, I suddenly became utterly fixated on quantum physics.  I read - or, to be honest, tried to read - as many books as I could get on the weird and wonderful world that (sort of) exists at the sub-atomic level and even volunteered to attend lectures on the subject.

Of course, eventually I let the subject drop because it began to seem like reading Shakespeare in Chinese!  In the end, we all have to admit our limitations.  However, this afternoon the ashes of my previous fascination were rekindled by a superb essay at The Times Literary Supplement by Samuel Graydon - and 'no', me neither!  Whoever he is, I can tell you that he is a superb writer on what is, not very arguably, the most hideously difficult subject in the world!  Suddenly, all those names I sort of 'hero-worshipped' back in the day as I struggled to make sense of their phenomanally complex theories, came back to me.  What can I say except, 'Sorry, chaps, but I did try'.  Sometimes, just for a split micro-second I would understand and be truly amazed but then - bingo! - it would go, sometimes at the speed of light.

Even so, I urge y'all to give Mr. Graydon's essay a read and just see if 'it presses your buttons', too!

 

 

 

 

But when the Jews are dumb, they're really, really dumb!

Many a time and oft', I have declared my admiration for the intelligence of Jews but even so, they do sometimes get things very wrong.  The perfect example has arisen in an article in The Spectator this week by Johan Norberg.  It is summed up by its title: "The rise – and disastrous fall – of the kibbutz".  Now, I can vaguely remember as a young person - yes, even that far back! - hearing about the Israeli kibbutzim, in which Israelis of various ages joined together to form 'collectives' to till the land, grow their crops and raise their livestock.  Nobody received more money than anyone else, such 'profits' as arose were shared equally but only to the level to cover neccessities.  To a young person it all sounded rather attractive.  Alas, it was not!

As Mr. Norberg puts it:

Joshua Muravchik, who has documented the rise and fall of the kibbutz, explains that the first sign of trouble in paradise was the revolt against collective child-rearing. To break the tyranny of the bourgeois family unit, children were raised in separate houses, where they lived and slept. Some enjoyed it, but others have described the terror of being ripped from their parents, left to the mercy of gangs of other children. Family ties were seen as the nemesis of perfect collectivism. Indeed, Jon Lansman had only one complaint about his kibbutz: ‘I was disappointed,’ he mused, ‘by the absence of children’s houses’ — he had hoped his kibbutz would include a separate building for children to be honed into impeccable young socialists.

For those not familiar with Mr. Jon Landsman, he is the leader of an extreme socialist sect within the Labour party which, with the rise of Jeremy Corbyn, has now reached a position of real power inside the party.  

Mr. Norberg continues with his history of the collapse of the Israeli kibbutzim.  Needless to say, 'it wos the wimmin wot done it!' 

There was another powerful force that kibbutz utopians had not taken into consideration: women’s preference for choosing their own outfits. In a traditional kibbutz, clothes were deemed to be collective property. Dirty clothes were handed to a central laundry, and clean ones were handed out in exchange — but no tabs were kept on whose were whose. Women hated it and demanded cash allowances to buy their own clothes. As the pioneers warned, this opened up a Pandora’s Box of savage individualism. If you could own clothes, why not toiletries or furniture or even individual refrigerators?

Yes, it's always that damned irritating human nature that interferes with 'the best laid plans of mice and men':

There were other problems too. What happens when you can’t fire a slacker or reward someone productive? A scholar of kibbutz education, Yuval Dror, realised: ‘People like me who started as socialists concluded that you can work hard and get nothing while others don’t work hard. It is so unfair.’ Another kibbutz veteran concluded that his community was turning into a ‘paradise for parasites’.

And so, slowly but inexorably, the entire structure collapsed.  Even so, it is another credit to Jewish intelligence that nobody attempted to enforce the system against the wishes of the people.  If 'Jezza' and his 'polit-bureau' ever gain power in Britain, can we rely on them not to use extra-legal powers of coercian to enforce their mad dreams?  I would not bet on it!

 

 

 

This piece of irony is more sour than delicious

As y'all do know, there is no-one who appreciates irony more than me and yesterday, during that incredible action on London Bridge, there was a major example of it and yet … and yet … perhaps I should explain. A Muslim 'nutter' went berserk with a knife on a London street, killing two people and wounding several others and yet sundry passers-by courageously decided to take the man down themselves.  My admiration for them is boundless.

However, according to The Mail, amongst these heroes - and I do not use that word lightly - was a Mr. James Ford, 42, who instead of running away from a dangerous man who might have been wearing a bomb-vest, he stayed and attended to a wounded woman.  And now comes the irony.  It transpires that Mr. Ford is, himself, a killer who had recently been early-released from a long prison term for murdering a young woman in 2004 by cutting her throat!  Sometimes, there are just no words I can think of, so once again I thank God for William Shakespeare who sums up the quandry in one brilliant phrase;

 

"What a piece of work is a man"

 

 

 

'Vee haf veys of making you luf each oser'

Thus spake a 'beacon carrier' for 'lurve' in the somewhat dumpy form of Chancellor Angela Merkel.  According to Mr. Thomas Lifson, who is, of course, a very naughty boy, Chancellor Merkel has a very simple way to prohibit hate and instil love - all 'hate speech' ist verboten!  Well, it makes sense because if you ban all 'hate speech' then obviously people will love each other - simples!  

Jawohl, but there is the odd problem which will arise.  For example, who, exactly and precisely, will decide what constitutes 'hate speech'?  And what do you do if it arises?  Burn books - again?  That didn't work too well the last time you tried it in Germany, Frau Chancellor!  And, of course, you do realise that banning hate speech will not banish hate!  In fact, with no outlet for their bile, the chances are that it will intensify and soon the 'perps' will remember the old adage - actions speak louder than words!

Time, methinks, for your late-night schnapps, Frau Chancellor!

 

 

 

The Sunday Rumble: 17.11.19

Those damned Dambusters!   I am somewhat over-hyped because whilst slurping my morning 'drain-clear' (aka: my fresh orange juice) this morning, I read that part of Max Hasting's superb history of the 'Dambuster' raid in which the actual attacks went in.  I found myself gripping the arm of my chair!

Can you imagine flying that behemoth, straight and true at night, just 60' above the water, with German AA fire streaming in at you?  The courage and the skill required defies belief!  Mind you, it is worth pausing to also remark on the courage and sense of duty of the likes of Cpl. Schulze, the son of a local farmer, who remained at his AA post on top of the dam desperately trying to defend against this seemingly endless line of incoming bombers all of whom were firing back at him!  All that courage, all that skill, all that scientific expertise - and all for the purposes of mutual destruction!  One can only echo Othello: "But yet the pity of it, Iago! O Iago, the pity of it! "  And it's worth remembering that it was very much and Anglo-Saxon enterprise.  The crews were an ad hoc mix of British and British  Empire men from around the globe and also included an American (Joe McCarthy - no, not that one!) who had volunteered for the RAF before his country was involved.  It's a terrific book - treat yourself - or others - at Christmas!

 

Poor old Oliver Kamm, up the creek without a paddle!   As regular readers know, I have not just a soft spot for Oliver Kamm but admiration.  I remember way back in the day, long before he rose to the dizzy heights as a leader writer for The Times, when he was just another blogger, er, like me, really! (Well, not quite like me because he has brains, intelligence and learning and all that sort of thing!)  Anyway, I have, sort of, followed his progress since then and occasionally picked up his 'scribblings'.  Like today, for example, over at CAPX where the poor chap finds himself all at sea now that he accepts the cold truth that his lifetime of love and support for the Labour party needs must end.  He appears to be dismissive of the 'il-Lib-non-Dems' and somehow I cannot see him ever voting for Boris, so the question remains, who will he vote for next month?

 

We can't see ya' but we can hear ya and smell ya'!   According to the Sheriff's Office in Clay County, Missouri, a runaway dope-dealer suspect hid himself away so well they could not find him.  Alas and alack, he could not control his wind and let forth an almighty loud and long fart which gave him away.  The story does not say how long the sheriff had to wait up-wind before carrying out the arrest.  Possibly the suspect had over-indulged in a slug of Barney Magroo's finest!

 

Movin' along from Missouri to Louisiana:   Bad news for 'The Donald' in a State Governorship election in Louisiana.  The incumbent Democrat who took the 'Repubs' by surprise by winning the previous election, now he's done it again to win a second term.  This, despite three visits from 'The Donald' and a 'yuuuuge' campaign by the GOP who were anxious to regain what they considered to be a safe Republican state.  Not the best pre-Christmas gift Mr. President was hoping for!

 

Does anyone really know the real Boris?   I ask because I haven't a clue!  But next month I will probably help vote him in as Prime Minister.  What will he actually do?  The only 'hints', broadcast across the 'meeja' at full volume, is that he will spend money like a drunken sailor.  I must ask my e-pal, 'JK', how that works in practice but I fear the worst.  Part of the problem is that I have considerable difficulty in understanding what he is saying via that gurgling, stuttering,stammering burble that sounds terribly posh but is mostly indecipherable!  Mind you, I have no problem understanding 'Jezza's' agit-prop and I tremble!  Alas, when it comes to Boris, all we can do is hope for the best but expect the worst and comfort ourselves with the thought that his 'worst' is infinitely preferable to Jezza's best!

 

No more rumbles 

 

 

I stumbled over some Ibsen this morning!

Cruising the internet this morning, I came across a fairly hefty piece on the subject of Henrik Ibsen, and yes, you're quite right, he's not exactly a bundle of laughs!  Even so, I contemplated the idea of marking him as the second greatest playwright since old Bill Shakespeare!  Alas, dear reader, outside of Norway you are unlikely to come across a production of his work.  The reasons are manifold but one of them is the reluctance of 'theatreland' to actually produce any of his plays.  I used to read avidly the theatre reviews in the 'heavy' Sunday papers to see what was coming but these days I do not bother because the answer is zilch, nada, bugger all!  I suppose today the highest theatrical experience you might come across is a production of 'Hamlet', set in a spaceship with a black girl playing the hero and a 'trannie' man playing 'Ophelia'.

Alas for the 'modernistas', the stern and powerful plays of Ibsen do not lend themselves to such 'humbuggery'.  They are utterly welded into his 19th century world and yet, 'mirabile dictu', they speak to everyone of all ages.  I once had the considerable pleasure of directing a production of 'Ghosts', one of his greatest and most human of plays.    He never takes sides in the series of ghastly but all too human predicaments in which his characters become immersed but, unflinching, he holds a mirror up to his audience which illustrates the vagaries and the wonders of human nature.  

Another of his great plays that, alas, I never worked on was 'An Enemy of the People' but I did see a superb production of it in London with Damian Lewis in the lead.  This is local politics writ large and being 'local' there is nothing bloodier or more vicious.  The fascinating thing about this play is that the 'hero', quite properly, comes across as the only 'straight arrow' in a very messy and furious dispute.  It is only, perhaps, at the end of the play or afterwards that you begin to discern that perhaps the ego of the 'hero' may have another side to it.

If, and it's a big 'if', you get a chance to see a production of either of those two plays, even if it is as amateur as mine was, I would urge you to go!

 

 

 

And so it begins . . .

An ominous indication of how freedom of speech, always and forever under threat everywhere, will gradually but inexorably be strangled in Europe.  According to a report at Zero Hedge, the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) has just laid down an order that any decision by any national court in the EU ordering the likes of 'Facebook' to remove what it considers to be 'defamatory material', need not be confined just to that one country but should apply to all of Europe and, indeed, the rest of the world.  Thus, if a court in, say, Bulgaria, a nation whose legal heritage and defence of free speech is 'legendary' (by which I mean it's mostly a legend!) decides that a post on 'Facebook' stating that the Head of the Bulgarian Police is a total ratbag for sundry reasons, then 'Facebook' must remove it from their worldwide net.  Thus, we ardent followers of the latest 'news 'n' views' of Bulgarian affairs will never know!

OK, I can live without that particular speck of detritus but what about the very much bigger reports on the bully boys of Brussels?  Are they, so to speak, to have their messy bottoms wiped clean and sprayed with perfume everytime they fart?  Are we not to learn exactly how much booze 'Junck the Drunk' tips down his throat everyday at our expense?  There is only one response to this creepy injunction - PUBLISH AND BE DAMNED! - or be sued but let us know about it!

 

 

 

What actually makes a politician 'Great'?

I am provoked to this meaningless meandering by a small story somewhere in the three tons of newsprint I collect on a Saturday morning concerning a small American airbase which was permitted to set up in the Ukraine during WWII.  Needless to say, it didn't last very long before Stalin and his apparatchiks froze it out despite its useful contribution to the war effort.  It served to remind me that Stalin was, perhaps, one of the greatest, all-time dimwits in history - and there are plenty of contenders for that over-crowded dais.  Apart from dragging his country almost back to the stone-age prior to the war, he had 'his silly trousers taken down' by an even bigger idiot, Adolf Hitler.  Takes one to spot one, I suppose!

The list, of course, is endless.  Skipping past the woeful Kaiser Wilhem II, one thinks of that jumped-up, little, Corsican thug, Napoleon Bonaparte.  Yet another twerp who thought that he could ride on to never-ending glory on the backs of his long-suffering army - and the impoverished peoples of Europe!  Ask what all these political 'plonkers' share and the answer is obvious - political systems that permit endless rule!  Yes, democracy is messy and untidy and throws up an enormous stream of inedequates but, and this is the crucial point, none of them can rule for ever!  Thus, is the damage that they cause limited in its scope.  We, 'The Peeps', still suffer extreme irritation but, glancing at the history of Russia or Germany or today just about anywhere in South America or Africa, we must fall to our knees and praise our stumble-bum predecessors who didn't so much invent democracy, as nail it together with a few old political planks!

Mind you, that doesn't mean we can ignore the possibility that even as I write, some swivel-eyed loon is planning to rule the world!  I am provoked to this tedious ramble by a minor disagreement I had with an old friend who suggested to me that 'Vlad the Impaler' was, from a Russian point of view, a wise, shrewd leader.  Not so, I disagreed, the wretched, jumped-up, little squit is stupid beyond measure.  Yes, he can prance and preen around various parts of the world but mostly they are parts that anyone else with more than three brain cells would avoid like the plague.  In the meantime his own country, over-loaded to the limits of its financial ability with ferociously expensive and mostly useless armaments, sinks back down to the Stalin era of yesteryear.  What's the Russian for 'totally useless egotist'?

Perhaps our collection of plonkers aren't that bad after all!

 

 

Tricky and messy, this democratic lark

And so Parliament enters round 3, 6, 9, or is it 19?, of the never-ending Brexit war which appears destined to run and run.  But, hey, that's democracy!  We go on for decades with the usual 'boring-snoring', tit-for-tat of party politics which most people ignore until they attempt to shake off their lethargy and vote in a general election which they know in their hearts will not change anything very much.

But Brexit is different!

Not only do most people have a view on it, their views are likely to be very strong.  As a subject it refuses to be bound by the old party politics, hence the shambles to which Parliament has descended.  There is, of course, only one solution, not another referendum which will simply add fuel to the fire but a general election in which the feet of the candidates from any and all parties can be held to the fire.

Do not despair, my fellow Brits, what you have seen recently is democracy in action.  No governmental decrees backed up by threats of prison or firing squads, a la Russia or China, but messy, mixed-up, sometimes malodorous, democracy where at least our dodgy politicians have been forced to show their true nature.  Not very admirable in many cases but an election will allow us to reward the decent and dump manure on the malefactors.  Not, of course, that our individual views en masse are likely to be imbued with wisdom but at least it will be our choice - and thus our responsibility.

In the meantime, be glad the Gauleiters and Commissars are not let loose!

 

 

 

In which the 'Hefferlump' makes my point for me

Simon Heffer has an interesting review of a book in today's Telegraph.  Alas, I am unable to link to it.  In it, he reviews a recent book by Brendan Simms titled "Hitler: Only the World Was Enough".  Yes, I know, who the hell in his right mind, or even in his Right mind, would wish to read anything more concerning that foam-flecked maniac?  Even so, I was attracted to it on being informed by the 'Hefferlump' that one of Mr. Simms' main points in his biography was to emphasise the fact that whilst Hitler was many things, the fact is that above and beyond all else he was a socialist!

The Left, particularly the pig-ignorant dimwits who constitute the current Left-wing audience, always try to paint Hitler in his Nationalist colours and quietly ignore the fact that he was also a socialist and that part of what drove him on to extremes was his hatred - and fear! - of Anglo-American capitalism.

In academia's insane and self-destructive search for offence, Simms's well-supported claim that Hitler was concerned to challenge Anglo-Saxon capitalism, and determined to raise living standards in Germany to those in the United States has caused one  reviewer to liken Simms to the sort of person who calls Hitler "a socialist" in order to discredit Bernie Sanders.  It is ridiculous to equate contemporary socialists with Hitler and Simms does not even begin to do so.  But as Simms points out, socialism was one of the ideologies Hitler embraced, and it does not make Simms 'alt-right' to say so.

In my not very humble opinion, there are more than just a few leading socialists figures today who would feel right at home in the latter-day equivalent of the Berghof!

 

 

Hands up!

Yesterday I was looking at my hands!  Yes, well, life is a tad boring quiet round these parts and I gave up looking in the mirror decades ago - simply too, too demoralising!  Anyway, there I was, looking at my hands when I had a totally un-original thought.  They are an example of perfect design!

Take a look at your own.  Notice how the fingers are unequal in length which is probably better than having them all exactly the same length.  Then there is the exceedingly useful feature that, apart from the knuckle joint, there are two further 'hinges' along their length which allows you to change the shape of your fist.  Finally, there is that exceedingly useful thumb, set further down and off to one side to make gripping things much easier.  Of course, they were not designed that way, they simply evolved that way.

What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god!

Yes, yes, alright, perhaps old Bill went a bit OTT but when you think about it, he was spot on.

 

 

You will read this now - that's an order!

"The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from  a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural tonalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power."

Got that?

No, I will not be asking you questions to test your knowledge because, frankly, I can't understand a bloody word of it!

That passage, according to Wiki: "was awarded first prize in its fourth annual "Bad Writing Competition", which set out to "celebrate bad writing from the most stylistically lamentable passages found in scholarly books and articles."

It was written by Ms. Judith Butler, a well known leader in the micro-puddle of feminist/lesbian studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

No, not exactly my idea of a hot, Californian 'chick', either, but then she has absolutely no desire to be one.  However, what I can say with some conviction is that she is as "thick as six short Ghurkhas".*  Anyone who can with malice afore-thought deliberately write such incomprehensible garbage is in dire need of, er, 're-education'.

*NB: Gurkhas are anything but 'thick' in the sense of lacking intelligence but being frequently nearly as wide as they are tall it has led some, er, 'poet' to invent that witty phrase.

 

Now, about this 'God thing' . . .

My e-pal Malcolm Pollack posted an interesting comment following my idle words on the subject of religious belief - and my total lack of it!  Anyway, it has provoked me into further thoughts on, er, well, the beginning of it all!

'In the beginning', to quote a phrase, there was nothing - or to put that more clearly, there was 'no thing' of any sort, either material or immaterial in the sense of forces such as energy, gravitation, heat and light, etc.

Then there was something, and again to make that clear, suddenly there was 'some thing', although exactly what it was I do not know, particle or energy, you choose!

Needless to say, it is impossible to define the prime cause for the sudden appearance of 'some thing' but obviously it must have been something of super-human power and once 'created' it was a case of "Hey-ho and off to the races!"

Eventually, after a few zillion-trillion years during which all those naughty particles were pushed and pulled this way and that by those damned restless energies, disaster struck - Mankind developed!

Almost immediately - well, not really "immediately" because nothing in this long-winded tale is immediate, Man began to fashion ideas to explain the apparent 'miracle' of it all.  These ideas stemmed partly from observation and experience, and partly from all sorts of other motives ineluctably linked to the exceedingly complex nature of Man.  Because so many of the facets of 'creation' seem magical, even today, then many of the theories put forward were, shall we say, highly imaginative.  

It also became very clear, very quickly, that these almost magical explanations for what seemed then, and now, to be miracles, seized the imaginations of people and those able to propagate such ideas quickly obtained real power over their fellow humans.  Frankly, I lack both the brains and the learning and, most of all, the inclination to work my way through all these theories and decide if one is a better explanation than another.

Suffice to say that 'I ha'e ma doots' about all of them!

 

 

Sir Edward who?

You regular commenters here at D&N can be exceedingly irritating to me especially when you have the effrontery to disagree with my wise words which you do on a regular basis!  However, sometimes, I want to cover y'all in kisses because regularly you come up with some views and opinions and facts, not always your own but who cares, which blow open the ever-closing walls of my own mind.  Such is the case with an article forwarded to me by my excellent e-pal, 'AussieD'.  It is an article published on the Quadrant Online site on the subject of Sir Edward Coke - and no, I had never heard of him either!

As you all know, because I keep repeating myself, I believe that the greatest event in English history was when the nobles forced King John to sign Magna Carta in 1215.  It was the start of something truly great although none of the participants had the remotest idea of where it would all eventually lead.  Even so, for a king to have his powers clipped was a sign of things to come.  Like all cataclysmic events, nobody could foresee the eventual outcome which was definitely NOT pre-ordained.

Happily, during the reigns of Elizabeth I and then James I, our 'hero', Sir Edward Coke (or Cooke) had achieved high legal office and he was a brave and unabashed supporter of Common Law against Royal edict law.

English common law is a bottom-up system of jurisprudence “discovered” by judges who establish legal precedents based upon the individual cases they preside over. It is an expression of the people and their culture in judicial form; and a mode of dispensing justice that is fundamentally influenced by tradition and custom. Common law embodies the conservative ethos and is an organic expression of the conservative mindset, inherently opposed to the top-down statutes of “big government”, utopians and societal planners.

Now what, in this day and age, exemplifies "top-down statutes of “big government”, utopians and societal planners".  Well, you need look no further than Brussels for the latest example of this odious and un-English method of government by diktat carefully disguised with a flimsy veil of, er, 'democracy' which seeks to disguise 'Big Brother' and turn him into your beloved 'little sister'!  I do urge you to read the Quadrant article, it is fascinating.

And now I must go forth and find, if possible, a biography of my new hero, Sir Edward Coke.

 

 

 

Should I? Could I?

I have a deep philosophical problem to solve!  This will require a great deal of time, effort and resolve and I'm not sure at my grand old age whether I have it in sufficient quantities.  The question, like most philosophical questions, is deceptively simple: Should I buy A. C. Grayling's book "The History of Philosophy"?  I think I may have mentioned before that way back in my middle age I took an interest in economics which led me, inexorably, on to philosophy.  To my regular readers it will be unnecessary to confess that whilst I might have scratched the surface of these two abstruse subjects you would be hard pressed to find the scratches today!  

Even so, I remain - sort of - fascinated by philosophy and whilst a book telling the history of it from 600BC onwards is obviously going to be something of a slog, I seem to remember that I have another philosophical tome by Grayling and that it was very well written.  To be honest, if it was necessary to buy the hard-back version I would hesitate, not least on the grounds that I might not be able to lift the bloody thing!  However, today we can all enjoy the benefits of Kindle which allows you to carry virtually an entire library around with you in a slim plastic box which fits inside an overcoat pocket.  

Done deal, then, I'll buy it!

 

 

Justice Nathalie Lieven should be stripped of her legal authority

Dammit!  I had to read the American media to find this British story which is ugly, dangerous and immoral.  Apparently, Mrs. Justice Nathalie Lieven ruled, in what is laughingly called 'the Court of Protection in England' which is supposed to protect the legal and personal affairs of people judged to have diminished mental capacity, that a woman in her 20s but with a mental age of a child should be forced to undergo an abortion despite the fact that both she and her mother objected.  The mother offered to bring up the child.

The Catholic Herald sums it up this way:

Lieven ruled that a forced abortion was “in the best interests” of the pregnant woman, over the objections of the woman herself, her mother, and her social worker. The woman, who has not been identified, is reportedly in her 20s and is of Nigerian descent. Both she and her mother are Catholic, and the court heard that they objected strongly to the abortion on religious grounds.

According to The National Review:

Lieven argued that the mentally disabled woman, who is reportedly Catholic, would suffer mental distress from delivering the baby even if it were subsequently given up for adoption because “it would at that stage be a real baby.” At this stage of gestation, Lieven argued, the woman does not understand the implications of her pregnancy. “I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll,” the judge said.

Notice that nowhere does the dreadful Mrs. Justice Lieven have a word to say about the baby and its right to life!  Happily, Lord Justice McCombe, Lady Justice King, and Lord Justice Peter Jackson in the English Court of Appeal over-turned Lieven's diabolical ruling and it is worth noting that reports indicate that Justice Lieven has been a longterm advocate in favour of abortion.  In my opinion she should be removed as a judge with immediate effect!

 

 

Who would be a baker 'over there'?

I ask because it seems that the, er, 'LGBT' ( I am not absolutely sure what the correct initials are and, frankly, I can't be arsed to look then up) community are determined to put bakers out of business.  Not, apparently, because American cake-makers are crap but because several of then refuse to write loving sentences in favour of homosexual activities on their cakes.  If I were a baker, of course, I would take the money and give the, er, groom a kiss but that's because I 'luuuurve' money more than I dislike homosexual practices.  However, some bakers, particularly those in the rural hinterland of America, have strong religious objections and, whilst they would bake the cake, they refuse to adorn it with messages in praise of homosexual practices.  At that point, of course, the real 'dirty rats' enter the scene by which I mean the lawyers!  It appears that the lower courts, infused with political correctness, tend to act in favour of the complainants and dish out 'yuuuuuge' fines and damages which, thankfully, the Supreme Court tends to overturn.

I don't wish to be bogged down in the pros and cons of homosexuality which, by and large, is a subject of zero interest to me, but I am intrigued by the notion, which appears to be rampant these days, that we must, absolutely must, all 'luuuuurve' one another.  This appears to be something of a Left-wing 'schtick' but, of course, the Left-wingers always feel free to express not just their dislike of Right-wingers but their deep and abiding hatred of them.  Personally, I believe that people should be free to hate who they like (if you get my meaning!) but it is what they actually do about it that matters.

Now, about that Jeremy Corbyn . . .

 

 

 

The law vs. politics

I have mentioned before one of my peculiar habits in bed - no, not that one, behave!  I am referring to my practice of sticking a radio earpiece in my ear and listening to the 'wireless' (what a lovely old-fashioned word that is!) during the night.  I switch between the World Service, Radio4 and 'Talk Sport' depending on which of them is the least boring.  However, I must admit that from time to time one or other of them come up with some fascinating programmes, for example, the current Reith Lectures given by Lord Jonathan Sumption, a former practicing lawyer, a Supreme Court judge and an historian of some repute.  This is a man who can rightly be described as a 'brainiac'!

I have only heard two of his lectures so far and, needless to say, given that I listen to them whilst in bed, I am prone to drifting off to 'nod-land' or waking in the morning and, as an officially 'old geezer' having passed my 80th, with only a hazy memory of what he had to say.  Even so, I was left with the distinct impression that this is a man of 'yuuuuuuge' intelligence and learning.  If you know how to work the latest 'whizzy-do-thingies' which will allow you to listen to his lectures then I urge you to do so.  If not, then you can read the text of his lectures at this site: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00057m8

If I urge you to do so you should not assume that I agree with everything he says.  However, given his learning and my ignorance, I would hesitate before arguing with him.  Whatever, you will learn much from an exceedingly intelligent man.  And I should add that given the breadth of his views, my American friends will be equally fascinated.

 

 

 

Krugman is a crock!

I refer to the gentleman in the photo below, Mr. Paul Krugman, an eminent economist, the recipient of a Nobel Prize for Economics and a regular contributor to the New York Times.  He is worshipped by the Left as a sage possessed of the highest possible intellect.  I think he's a plonker!  I confess that it is difficult for an economic ignoramus like me to prove my assertion but I am immensely grateful to the internet, which silly old 'Krugs' treated with total disdain 'back in the day'.  His own words say more about him than anything I could say! 

 

To give you the full quote, this is what he wrote:

"A winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, Paul Krugman wrote in 1998, “The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’—which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants—becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.”"

Try telling that to Bill Gates and/or Larry Page!  And here are another list of Krugman's, er, 'forecasts' courtesy of 'Investmenty'.com:

Told Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan "to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."

Praised the European economic model just weeks before the eurozone crisis began.

Argued before Argentina's recent default that the country's economy was a "remarkable success story."

Called the U.S. "just a bystander" in global energy only months before America surpassed Russia to become the world's biggest oil and gas producer.

Wrote in Rolling Stone magazine last week that Barack Obama is "one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history."

Would you buy a used-car from this man?

 

 

"Freedom of Speech" by Norman Rockwell

It has been a while since I indulged myself in a bit of 'arty-farty' but, dammit, I came across the name of Norman Rockwell and that led me to his famous quartet of paintings called "The Four Freedoms".  They were inspired by President Franklin D. Roosevelt's speech in 1941 which set forth an idealistic aim for the future of the world.  Roosvelt's aim was to ensure the existence of the basic Freedoms of Speech, Worship, Want and Fear.  Of course, in this modern, cynical world in which countless horrors are pumped into our living-rooms via TV on a 24-hour schedule it is hard, perhaps impossible, to cling to those ideals.  Indeed, Roosevelt himself was about to be launched into the conflagration of WWII where his idealism would be tested to extremes.  

Norman Rockwell decided to illustrate these noble ideals in four different paintings.  I give you "Freedom of Speech" as an example, not least because it is, in my poor opinion, the best from an artistic point of view.

It shows a working man in what looks like a small town meeting.  He is somewhat roughly dressed and is surrounded by other citizens who are, so to speak, 'suited and booted'!  The setting, I guess is a school-room and the blackboard behind the standing man makes an ideal background to concentrate on him.  Perhaps it was a tad excessive by Rockwell to make him quite so handsome!  Even so, note how he depicts the other members of the audience, all of whom are gazing with rapt attention to what he has to say.  In particular, the man in the light suit wh0 has twisted his body to better hear and see this 'speaker'.  Finally, note how Rockwell has the 'speaker' gazing slightly upwards, presumably to address citizens on a platform but which also suggests, perhaps, some inspiration from on high.

Yes, I know, I know, all the smart-alec sophisticates would, indeed have, and still do, sneered at its hopeless idealism, and indeed, I, too, have problems in that direction.  Even so, I don't care because there is nothing inherently wrong in high idealism as expressed by artists and particularly artists as skillful as Norman Rockwell.

 

 

'Liberal Islam' - an oxymoron, surely!

Well, no, actually because there is a liberal Islam in existence although you will need to visit Rwanda to find it!  Of course, as you may recall there was a time not so long ago when Rwanda plumbed the depths of depravity in a civil war which resulted in millions of people being slaughtered by their own people.  Perhaps it takes mass butchery to nudge people towards a liberal, live and let live society.  A high price but at least such an outcome helps heal the wounds.

I am grateful - yet again! - to 'The Speccie' for pointing up this rarity in human affairs and introducing me to a truly extra-ordinary man, Sheikh Salim Hitimana.  He is the Mufti of Rwanda and thus the leader of the country's Islam-worshippers.  Not only is he a wise religious leader but also a shrewd operator.

‘Before the genocide, there were perhaps 200,000 Muslims in the country, and no Rwandans wanted to enter Islam,’ he says. During the genocide, Muslims stood out for refusing to take sides and for risking their lives to shelter those under attack. ‘People started to think: who are those people? Why don’t those people commit genocide like us? People became attracted to join us.’ The country’s Islamic population has grown fivefold, he says, to more than a million.

Also, he has recognised the two great defects that lace through the two contrary practitioners of Islamism:

The Mufti wants to preserve an Islam that adheres to scripture, without the new politicised elements of sartorial — and therefore social — control. ‘I introduced a religious fatwa against the niqab in 2016,’ he says proudly. ‘We saw that niqab abroad, but in Rwanda we have stopped it. Everything you have to practice here must be mentioned in the Quran.’ There’s nothing Islamic, he says, about the niqab — and Rwandan Muslims, he believes, do not have to look radically different from the rest of the population.

Rwandan Islam has followed the Shafi’i school of Islamic thought, which differs greatly from the harsher Hanafi, found in Pakistan, and Hanbali, found in Saudi Arabia. To understand Islam, it’s crucial to understand these distinctions.

He is, I would suggest, a good man and a wise man and perhaps eventually he might be one of those rarities, a recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize who really deserves it!

 

 

'Hoonoo'? Well, not me!

In mooching gently through various reports engendered by the breaking story that Martin Luther King was, in 'Pythonesque' terms, "a very naughty boy" I discovered a new fact which, of course, is hardly surprising given my general ignorance.  'Hoonoo', for example that MLK has a statue in Westminster Abbey?  Well, I didn't but even more surprising to me was that his statue is merely one amongst ten modern, er, 'saints' selected to have their statues placed in niches round the main entrance to the Abbey.  This occurred about twenty years ago.

What is even more embarrassing to an 'ignoramus' like me, is that MLK apart, I only recognised one of the names of the others - Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  Even so, I am not exactly sure what he did but I seem to recall that he was one of the few who offered vocal opposition to Hitler and his treatment of Jews.  Anyway, here is the entire list, and as I am on shopping duties this morning, I leave it to you to find who they are and why they qualify as, so to speak, 'latter day' saints:

MLK, Maximillian Kolbe; Dietrich Bonhoeffer; Manche Masemola (South Africa); Wang Zhiming; Grand Duchess Elizabeth of Russia (killed by revolutionaries); Bishop Luwum of Uganda (murdered by Idi Amin); Oscar Romero; Esther John (Pakistan); and Lucian Tapiedi (New Guinea).

My thanks to Randolph Parrish at The American Spectator.

 

 

The age of the untalented

I take my title from an exceedingly talented writer, 'Theodore Dalrymple', whose essays nowadays appear mainly in 'Taki Mag'.  'Taki', of course, is the very naughty but 'yuuuugely' rich, Greek playboy (although given his advancing years 'boy' is hardly the word!) who has entertained me for decades with his "High Life" column in 'The Speccie'.  He started his on-line mag a few years ago and there are usually some gems to be found in it, most of them from 'Dr. Dalrymple'.

Today, he has been provoked to a useful insight by reading a memoir of a little known Hungarian called Sándor Márai - and no, me neither!  From it, 'Dr. Dalrymple' tells this story from WWII in which, of course, Hungary fought with the Germans:

There is a story in the opening pages of his memoirs that seems to me of wide application in the modern world. He recounts how, in Budapest on his name day on 18 March 1944, he invited guests to a traditional celebration. Budapest had been an island of relative peace among European capitals, despite the fact that Hungary—with rather little choice in the matter—had been Germany’s ally. Márai’s name-day celebration was to be the last bourgeois dinner party he ever attended in Budapest, and though food was limited, the table settings were elegant, the wine flowed, the evening became convivial and the conversation lively. He was never to see any of the guests again. [My emphasis]

During the course of the dinner the rights and wrongs of Hungarian support for Hitler cropped up with most agreeing that it had been a disastrous mistake.  However, one ardent Nazi sympathiser disagreed with passion:

I am a National Socialist! You [he continued, pointing his finger at Márai], you cannot understand because you have talent. But I, who have none, I need National Socialism.

There was a little nervous laughter at this, and then the Nazi supporter said something that was revelatory not just of his time, striking himself on the chest several times:

"You cannot understand. At long last, the age belongs to us, to us the men without talent!"

What a perfect example to explain the absolute dearth of talent, or even minimal intelligence, to be found in political circles - then and now - and here and everywhere!

 

 

 

Why don't we just ban ALL religions?

I frequently pose dumb questions on this blog but the one contained in my title above takes the prize!  Mind you, as the body-count, in the name of religion, rises all around the world it is tempting.  Of course, the dreaded 'Peeps', being the way they are, would soon find other reasons to slaughter each other.  Perhaps rival football fans would erupt onto the pitch at the end of each match and fight to the death in support of the Rovers or the Rangers!

Mind you, the various religions have much to answer for.  How can they continue to prate and preachify to the effect that there is, somewhere, a Supreme, All-powerful God who watches over all of us?  If so, He, She or It are pretty ineffectual 'Masters of the Universe' given the oceans of blood that has been spilled through the aeons.  Equally, the 'Peeps' themselves - that means you, and you and you over there trying to avoid my pointing finger - all of you who try to avoid the responsibility of thinking for yourselves and simply swallow whole the prating of the preachers.  Is it not obvious by now that religion is simply politics under another name?

Well, obviously it is not obvious to the vast number of my fellow 'Peeps'!

ADDITIONAL:  

Not, perhaps, the most thoughtful post I have made on this blog but I was in 'Grump Mode: Factor 10' when I wrote it!  Actually, it is not God who is infuriating me, it's people!

 

 

 

Oh no, not another book!

"Good grief, Charlie Brown", only the other day I was bemoaning the fact that I was "booked out" with nothing to read and no idea what to buy.  Then, as an 'apperitif', I treated myself to a thriller by that master, Linwood Barclay, who sets his tales in the most 'boring-snoring' of American suburbs - and then frightens the pants off you!  On top of that, I treated myself to a mammoth history book on the life of Thomas Cromwell, so problem solved, I thought to myself.

But then, dammit, The National Review tipped me off on a post mortem book by the late, and very great, Charles Krauthammer.  

It is a compilation of his writings put together by his son.  I cannot tell you how much I miss that man, nearly as much as the superb Bernard Levin.  Happily, I suspect that it will not be a book that needs to be read from cover to cover but one to be dipped into as the mood takes.  In this mad, mad, mad, mad world, what a relief!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Point-All-Lifetime-Great-Endeavors-ebook/dp/B07GD5XDM4

 

 

Labour step over the edge but will the Tories follow?

First, let me salute those seven Labour MPs who have decided that the stench from a rotten, festering Labour party is now more than they can tolerate.  The unpalatable fact for them, as well as many non-Labour observers, is that the often silly but decent, democratic socialist party that was once Labour, has now fallen under the control of evil men and women.  I stress the word 'evil' because it is the only suitable word to describe the leadership of a party that is now both virulently anti-Semitic and fundamentally undemocratic.  If the likes of the terrorist-admiring John MacDonnell now control the party it must be destroyed and hopefully this will be the start.

Meantime, in the 'blue corner', the Tories remain riven over Brexit.  Not surprising, of course, because it is a matter of deep conviction even if the convictions often arise more from emotion than thoughtful analysis.  It remains unknown whether in these last few tense weeks the party will split in any fundamental way.  I hope not because with Labour disintegrating from the inside, this is the Tories' chance to rule for another 20 years.

 

 

The Sunday Rumble: 17.2.19

An amendment to the D&N constitution:    Henceforth and forever, the name and writings of Herr Kurt Friedrich Gödel are banned.  The reason is simple - he makes my head hurt!  Also, of course, he's a damned Hun, need I say more?  Finally, he is the sort of irritating, troublesome sort of fella' that would make the proposition '2+2=4' doubtful.  I have read, sort of, the arguments below on Gödel vs. the constitution of the USA and I have decided to go back to bed.  I shall return!

 

Sorry, sorry, sorry!   Alas, I went on 'the missing list' today but it was entirely due to those young 'Brainiacs' at Taunton Hospital who zapped me with those 'Death Rays'!  They warned me that my, er, 'waste disposal system' might play up and today it did, enough to drive me back to bed this morning, and confine me to my armchair for the remainder of the day in a state of total lethargy - so no change there then!

 

No more Rumbles today

 

In which, rascally pick-pocket that I am, I steal from my e-pal, Malcolm Pollack

Yes, well, you know me, every time I read something infinitely more perceptive than anything I could compose - I nick it!  Courtesy of my e-pal, Malcolm Pollack from his Motus Mentis site, I am in receipt of some excellent quotes from the incomparable, H. L. Mencken, which Malcolm posted into the 'comments' on a post below.  They are so brilliant that I have promoted them 'upstairs' as a blog post for you all to enjoy.  Very many thanks, Malcolm:

"The whole democracy thing has been a yuge loosah."

Yes -- and in exactly the way everyone gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 (indeed, every student of history since Polybius) understood and feared it would be. The Founders would be sad to see what we've come to, but not surprised. They did their best to inoculate their new system against the inherent and lethal liabilities of democracy -- and we certainly had a good run! -- but even their genius was insufficient to achieve what, in the end, simply cannot be done. "Rust never sleeps", and democracy is institutionalized rust.

Mencken:
It remains impossible, as it was in the eighteenth century, to separate the democratic idea from the theory that there is a mystical merit, an esoteric and ineradicable rectitude, in the man at the bottom of the scale – that inferiority, by some strange magic, becomes a sort of superiority – nay, the superiority of superiorities. Everywhere on earth, save where the enlightenment of the modern age is confessedly in transient eclipse, the movement is toward the completer and more enamoured enfranchisement of the lower orders. Down there, one hears, lies a deep, illimitable reservoir of righteousness and wisdom, unpolluted by the corruption of privilege. What baffles statesmen is to be solved by the people, instantly and by a sort of seraphic intuition. Their yearnings are pure; they alone are capable of a perfect patriotism; in them is the only hope of peace and happiness on this lugubrious ball. The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

Mencken again:
I find myself quoting yet a third German: he is Professor Robert Michels, the economist. The politician, he says, is the courtier of democracy. A profound saying – perhaps more profound than the professor, himself a democrat, realizes. For it was of the essence of the courtier’s art and mystery that he flattered his employer in order to victimize him, yielded to him in order to rule him. The politician under democracy does precisely the same thing. His business is never what it pretends to be. Ostensibly he is an altruist devoted whole-heartedly to the service of his fellow-men, and so abjectly public-spirited that his private interest is nothing to him. Actually he is a sturdy rogue whose principal, and often sole, aim in life is to butter his parsnips.
...
Out of the muck of their swinishness the typical American law-maker emerges. He is a man who has lied and dissembled, and a man who has crawled. He knows the taste of boot-polish. He has suffered kicks in the tonneau of his pantaloons. He has taken orders from his superiors in knavery and he has wooed and flattered his inferiors in sense. His public life is an endless series of evasions and false pretences. He is willing to embrace any issue, however idiotic, that will get him votes, and he is willing to sacrifice any principle, however sound, that will lose them for him. I do not describe the democratic politician at his inordinate worst; I describe him as he is encountered in the full sunshine of normalcy.

Dammit!  Why can't I think and write like that?!

 

 

The 'Heffalump' puts his boot in the arse of a disgusting historian

Needless to say, I know next to nothing about the late and utterly vile, Eric Hobsbawm, but I know a man who does - Mr. Simon Heffer!  He has written, in pure acid, a comprehensive review of a just published biography of Hobsbawm whose title I will not repeat because according to 'Hefferlump' it is "... tedious almost beyond endurance, stops short of hagiography but is clearly designed to boost the posthumous reputation of a man who cared nothing for the wreckage caused by the political system that he worshipped."

For the benefit of both my overseas readers and my younger readers (if I have any!) Hobsbawm was a so-called 'intellectual historian' who swallowed Communism at an early age, well, many of us do silly things when we are young, but who clung to it like a leech throughout his long life even as the monstrous piles of bodies mounted to such heights in the Soviet Union that it left Hitler looking like an amateur!  This disgusting creature went to Cambridge (natch!) and after the war, in which he served in the Army Education Corps (again natch!), he began to produce his communist agit-prop 'histories' which were, of course, beloved of newspapers like The Guardian and their disciples.

Let me confess immediately that I have never read a word he ever wrote.  It was sufficient for me, an ill-educated 'oik', to note as I grew up and began to take an interest in politics that anyone, absolutely anyone, who could write in praise of Stalin's Russia merely because it slaughtered people under the name of Communism, was a vile and twisted human being.  Needless to say, he attracted a vast flock of admirers, like the prat who wrote this bio, who sat at his feet and lapped up his rotten spew!

I wish I could direct you to Simon Heffer's review but, sorry, for some reason The Telegraph has not published it on the internet.  Life is very unfair because if anyone deserved ten years in one of Stalin's gulags it was that stupid, evil wretch, Eric Hobsbawm.

 

 

Thank the Lord that's all over for another year!

As I have indicated elsewhere, I am not a lover of Christmas.  I don't mind the religious aspect of it, if Christians wish to celebrate the alleged birth of their iconic leader then good luck to them so long as they don't go bonkers on the bell-ringing given that the nearest church to me is about a hundred yards away!  No, it's the commercial part of it that I detest not least because over the years it has more or less engulfed the serious side of it.  Most Europeans, I believe, simply concentrate on the religious aspects and the rest of what we Brits call 'Christmas' is over and done with in a day.  Very civilised and infinitely less tacky!

All of that, of course, leads me to the 'man' himself, Jesus Christ, and the central question - did he ever exist?  Every year I ask myself that question and promise that I will undertake a serious enquiry into the truth or rumour of it all.  Alas, I never get round to it.  The few pathetic attempts I have made always lead me into a maze of 'maybes', 'possiblys', 'he said', 'she said' and so on, ad infinitum!  Not that it matters, to me at any rate, because it is not the man himself that really matters but the message and there can be no doubt that the message is supremely intelligent. 

You can take all the other philosophical meanderings from the, er, 'greatest minds in the history of the world', and stick 'em where the sun don't shine because the essential message (allegedly) preached by Jesus Christ is both superb and sublime as a guide in how to conduct your all too brief life on this earth.  Alas, the words themselves were not considered enough by the creeps and crooks who quickly decided to enfold them into a corporate body.  Needless to say, as with most 'corporations', it was not long before they split and divided and then determined to put the other lot out of business!

And yet … and yet … the message lives on.  Like most good advice it is mostly ignored but there it stands as a constant reminder.  I don't know if you ever existed, Jesus, me old mate, but if you did then I owe you one!

 

 

Why are Universities so 'stoopid'?

Time for a trip down the Time Tunnel, I'm afraid - and I am grimly aware that my own particular Time Tunnel is exceedingly long and getting longer!  Anyway, I will open my remarks with a single name which may, or may not, get the memory banks ticking away - Norman Geras!  I should, perhaps, put it this way - the late Norman Geras, 25 August 1943 – 18 October 2013, R.I.P.

He was an esteemed University teacher and a Professor Emeritus of Government at Manchester University.  He was also an out-and-out Marxist with, no doubt, the reddest of red underwear!  For years he ran a personal blog in which he put forward his Marxist ideas which I read and, of course, criticised fiercely - but never angrily because it was obvious that he was an exceptionally pleasant man and not one to allow his Marxist philosophy to stop him from lashing 'the usual suspects' on the extreme Left if they were more than usually 'stoopid'.  In other words he was an idealistic Marxist but one who never forgot his humanity.

I am reminded of all this by an article at The Coffee House written by Nick Cohen who has discovered that some moron at the 'University of Morons', aka: Reading University, have issued severe warnings to students and teachers that the words of Norman Geras must be treated with extreme caution under the 'anti-terrorist Prevent programme'!  The fact that Norman Geras spent his entire life in passionate opposition to any action likely to cause civilian casualties seems to have escaped these pen-pushing 'Pecksniffs'.  Read Cohen's article and be reminded, yet again, that the biggest dunces are usually found in Universities!

 

 

Give that splendid 'Yankee-Doodle' a Knighthood!

It might be a busy morning for me today but before I put on my chauffeur's uniform and drive the 'Memsahib' to the shops (such fun!) I just had to record my immense gratitude to Mr. Matt Delacambre from Louisiana.  He it was  who spotted some nutter trying to smash the glass that protects one of the only four copies of the Magna Carta on display in Salisbury Cathedral.  He grabbed the man and held him down until help arrived.

I must confess that I was truly shocked at this example of vandalism because, whilst I am not usually given to emotion over the historic detritus that litters our old Kingdom, I do believe that the Magna Carta is an unbelievably important document.  It is important not to over sentimentalise it, after all, it was just the recording of deal struck between some 'robber' barons and an even bigger 'robber' king but it is the greatest example of one of those 'damned unexpected consequences' that constantly riff through history.

Pushed and pulled, this way and that, over the following centuries the fundamental essence of the document was never quite lost and then, gradually, they were built upon and it evolved into the foundation of our system of law upon which our liberties depend.  Perhaps of even greater importance was that its principles were taken across the Atlantic and lodged in America so that as we have gradually declined, America has grown and perpetuated its essence.  It is, perhaps, singularly appropriate that this precious document was safeguarded by an American citizen.

Thank you, Mr. Delacambre, I am truly grateful and should we ever meet, the drinks are on me!

 

 

Mary Midgely, 1919-2018, R.I.P.

I picked up this obit as I cruised The Telegraph and the name, sort of, rang some dim bells in that yawning chasm that is my memory.  As I have mentioned before, in my 40s I drifted into philosophy.  Alas, I did no more than paddle in the (very) shallow end because I lacked both the time and the brain to cope with the deep end!  At about the same time, I also became fascinated with Darwinian theory which, of course, has enormous philosophical ramifications.  It took that rather silly man, Richard Dawkins, to pick up the Darwinian 'ball' and attempt to kick his 'Selfish Gene' nonsense over the bar to score a goal.  Alas for him, amongst his very many intelligent critics was Mary Midgely who applied some much needed corrections to his theory - good for her!

I am severely tempted to buy one of her books but I dare not, my Kindle, already full to bursting, might explode!  Anyway, farewell to an exceedingly intelligent lady.

 

 

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves"

'Zillions' of people die all over the world and all the time.  But, just once in a while an individual death, particularly a suicide, catches my attention.  And, my God, how often the person concerned has, on the face of it, so much to live for.  Thus was it for the late Mr. Nicolas De-Meyer, 41, who jumped from his 33rd-floor room at the Carlyle Hotel on Manhattan's east side at 2:30 pm Tuesday.

He was the trusted assistant to the CEO of Goldman Sachs and was considered by him to be a trusted, family friend.  No doubt in such a position he lived well on the fringes of high society.  But then that damned worm in his character, about which William Shakespeare referred to constantly in his plays, turned and he began pilfering an a large scale from his boss's wine cellar which contained thousands of the very best and most expensive wines that only a CEO of Goldman Sachs could afford.  Some of the bottles were worth $133,650 each!

Eventually, and inevitably, he was caught and charged.  On the opening day of his trial he jumped from his 33rd-floor room at the Carlyle Hotel on Manhattan's east side at 2:30 pm.  What went through his mind?  Of course, I have no idea but instantly I thought of the mad, murderous Othello and his anguished words:

"but yet the pity of it, Iago!

O Iago, the pity of it, Iago!"

 

 

 

The Sunday Rumble: 16.9.18

Sorry for my absence yesterday.  I had a longish drive with the Memsahib to meet up for lunch with 'SoD' and his lovely 'dahlinkie'.  Alas, the pub-restaurant was not very good and it seemed as thought it was 'amateur hour' in the kitchen.  Never mind, it's always good to see 'SoD' and put him right on a few things - er, when I can get a word in, that is!

More madness:   This, of course, follows on from the incompetent lunacy displayed by the Electoral Commission about which I wrote yesterday.  Now I read, to absolutely no surprise, that the Met Police are similarly infected.  The commander of the Anti-Corruption Squad gave his officers a pep-talk the other day and whilst insisting that they must adhere to the very highest standards in there conduct he suggested that they must be "whiter than white".  To no-one's surprise, this was immediately made the basis of a racial complaint and the officer has been stood down subject to a lengthy investigation.  If Chief Constable Dickhead, ooops, sorry, Cressida Dick had more than 3.7 brain cells she would put an instant stop to it and re-instate the officer.  Don't hold your breath.

An absolute 'Must Read':   I refer to Mr. Andrew Sullivan's essay in the Daily Intelligencer.  It was provoked by the latest book written by Mr. Roger Scruton, a man whose intellectual powers I much admire.  The book is Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition and I read the reviews and would have bought the book on the spot but then I remembered I was only up to Henry II in my latest book The Story of Britain so I was going to be somewhat pre-occupied for a while!  Even so, it was enough to enthuse Mr. Sullivan to write an absolutely excellent article which I urge you to read.

'Laurenski' and 'Hardynski':  I refer, of course, to the two Russian clowns who tried to kill the Skripols - and missed! - then inadvertently killed a totally innocent woman.  The message according to the 'prints' is that they have badly embarrassed the Russian government and their own thuggish organisation.  Maybe, baby, but I don't believe you could embarrass that bunch of goons, and certainly not their 'glorious leader' in any way.  From Putin down they are so infused with their own swaggering conceit they wouldn't blush if their trousers fell down in the Praesidium!  Their motto remains  - 'Carry on Killing'!

He did it, by Jove, he did it - again!   Yes, (Sir) Lewis Hamilton, building on his incredibly quick qualifying lap, strolled away to won the Singapore Grand Prix and build a 'yuuuuuge' lead over Vettel in the leadership points table.  Mind you, I find these street races very tedious especially when they take place at night.

Peter Hitchens is hard, cruelly hard - but right!   In today's Mail, Peter Hitchens has some extremely sour opinions to ram down our throats.  I nearly threw up but managed to control it because very little of it was new to me.  Hitchens lacerates Winston Churchill for his conduct during the war and the old booby deserves it, or at least, some of it.  However, there is one thing about Churchill in the war that we should all admire and treasure and that was his brilliant effect on morale.  He was the ultimate symbol and his galvanising effect on morale was tremendous.  Hitchens has written a book on the subject and, dammit, I will just have to grit my teeth and read it.

The Phoney Victory: The World War II Illusion

 

Was there ever a bigger tit than this particular tit?

 I give you - oh go on, take him, there's no charge! - the Most Rev. Justin Welby, aka, the Archbishop of Canterbury.  He was the total tit who complained bitterly about the exorbitant profits and harsh working conditions associated with Amazon.  Guess what!  It transpires that the C of E have 'yuuuuuuge' investments in Amazon!  Now we learn from The Mail, who are very naughty boys and girls, that a Syrian refugee family of two adults and four children who were offered refuge in Lambeth Palace have now been given the less than holy boot and asked to leave.

 

No more rumbles 

 

Dammit, you can never stop learning!

So there I was, minding my own business and quietly reading the book reviews in 'The Speccie', when I came across a review of a biography of John Lilburne (1614 – 29 August 1657) written by Michael Braddick.  Well, the name rang a very faint bell so I read the review and then, intrigued, I looked up Master Lilburne's Wiki entry.  Crikey, what a man, or possibly, what a total pain in the arse!  And all you 'Yankee-doodles' should check him out because he had a considerable influence on your constitution and his writings have been quoted at the Supreme Court!

I will not attempt to summarise his life, either buy Mr. Braddick's book or read his Wiki entry!  You will soon learn that Lilburne was a non-stop agitator, forever clashing with 'authority, be it the royal government of Charles I or the Republican rule of Oliver Cromwell.  Like a nagging fishwife, he never stopped fighting for the rights of individuals against the supposed rights of governments.  Needless to say, he suffered for his love of liberty and his jail-time was extensive and once it included being whipped across his naked back as he was dragged through the streets of London behind a cart.  But he never gave in!

I imagine he was not easy man to like but today we owe him - big time!