The Old Razzle Dazzle

In reaction to the result of the 1975 EC referendum, Mr Enoch Powell described the ‘yes’ victory as a ‘provisional result’ which would require ‘the continuing assent of parliament’. He said of those who had voted in favour: ‘the people do not mean it,’ ‘they are mistaken,’ and ‘they have still not been able to credit the implications of being in the Common Market.’  Those who try to dismiss the result of the ‘brexit’ referendum – by saying the same things of those who voted ‘leave’ – should feel a strong sympathy with Mr Enoch Powell. This might be a sympathy they were unaware of. It might take a disaster such as an earthquake to draw from a person their heroic qualities; of course, not everyone has a hero hiding under the surface. The person who told me about Enoch Powell’s comments said

‘If you agree with Mr Powell’s comments and many on the Leave side regard him as a hero, you cannot object to Remain supporting MPs using those arguments in reverse. Why can’t they try and frustrate Brexit in parliament and also question the wisdom of the people?’

I voted ‘leave’ and I told him Powell’s comments were a disgrace. The question is one of principle. Do you believe in the basic democratic principle that something gets ‘put to the vote’ and the side with the most votes wins? This is a yes or no question. Enoch Powell would have to answer ‘no’ to that; those who are trying to ignore the ‘leave’ result would have to answer ‘no’ to that; many ‘celebrities’ and business ‘leaders’ and academics would have to answer ‘no’ to that. Facebook allowed billions of persons to show each other daily they have boring and empty lives, devoid of physical or intellectual adventure, and the EU referendum has allowed many humans to reveal of themselves they have a creepy disregard for basic democratic principles. These consequences were possibly unintended.

A singer, Damon Albarn, (pick any ‘celebrity’, there’s plenty to choose from) stood on a stage and told a crowd that those who voted ‘leave’ were ill-informed. How could he know that? Persons in their millions voted for ‘brexit’. It is unlikely Albarn could read one mind: the likelihood he could read millions is less likely still.  A man in my office told me exactly the same thing the day after the vote. He said of the ‘leave’ voters ‘I don’t think they really understood what they were doing.’ This attitude, one which implies the holder of it does understand the implications of leaving the EU, and is therefore better educated and in position of a more refined mind, is in equal measure snobbish and sinister and infantile. (One thinks of a foot-stamping, lispy school boy, marching off to throw stones at birds in frustration at not getting his way.)

When someone claims to know something they don’t know, that is one thing; but when someone claims to know something they cannot know, well, that is quite a different thing. Claiming those who voted a different way to you are mentally deficient is the sign of an extraordinarily unpleasant individual. The question I think interesting is how much more unpleasant, anti-democratic impulses lie under the surface of those who would happily re-run the referendum – or ignore the result outright – and refuse to implement a genuine ‘brexit’? If they were given the political circumstances which allowed them to express themselves fully, what kind of political figure would they most resemble? Ghandi doesn’t come to mind.

Men such as Stalin were not ‘monsters’ but ordinary humans who, if their circumstances had been different, would have been working in offices and factories and would not have done the things which made them famous. This view is unpopular with some, for reasons which are understandable. Many of us dislike the truth about our lowly origins and have no wish to know we are mammals: animals about which the universe cares not. Not everything is a matter of opinion.

The person who used Powell’s comments to justify the behaviour of the ‘remain’ crowd revealed more than his simple opinion about post-result conduct; in addition, he made a very sickly and servile appeal to ‘authority’:

‘We people do not always get it right. MPs are surely slightly better educated than the average man or woman in the street.’

I wished he’d had the wit to say we ‘the’ people, but never mind. The best one could say about the way he reveals his class-based inferiority complex is that he does it by making an unsafe assumption. I am going to assume this person can read minds with the same skill as Damon Albarn. What constitutes the ‘average’ man or woman?

Here is where language reveals more about the person than they might wish to reveal. He chose to use ‘surely’ rather than, say, ‘perhaps’ – which would have admitted a little doubt. Why is he sure MPs are ‘better educated’ than…well, we’re back to defining ‘average’ again. A person could say that, look, it was a ‘throwaway comment’ and therefore one shouldn’t ‘read into’ it more than is there. I say bet the other way. If you wish to know what a person really thinks, consider what their language presupposes – what do they already assume is true? One can find a person’s presuppositions very often in their ‘asides’ or their ‘throwaway comments.’

The journalist, Peter Hitchens, has suggested here and there that Philip Larkin might not have been quite as atheistic as some (presumably even Larkin himself) thought. One doesn’t need to read minds to make this claim, for there is textual evidence to suggest Hitchens might have a point. For my own little contribution to this idea, consider the second stanza from Aubade:

 

 

The mind blanks at the glare. Not in remorse

—The good not done, the love not given, time

Torn off unused—nor wretchedly because

An only life can take so long to climb

Clear of its wrong beginnings, and may never;

But at the total emptiness for ever,

The sure extinction that we travel to

And shall be lost in always. Not to be here,

Not to be anywhere,

And soon; nothing more terrible, nothing more true.

The three words ‘be lost in’ seem to presuppose our continued existence after death. Larkin cannot hide the pea of hope under those mattresses of misery. Unless we exist, we cannot, in any sense ‘be’. Perhaps what we presupposes finds expression unconsciously, and we don’t see it to edit it out because we deny what we truly believe, thereby rendering these subtle clues to our unconscious invisible to ourselves? If this ‘sounds a bit Freudian’ then why not have some Freud? Consider this splendid paragraph from ‘The Future of an Illusion’. Here, Freud reasons that, if a person feels it certain that God exists, these internal feelings don’t necessarily impress someone who doesn’t feel them; therefore these feelings are not the basis on which to build a society. He says that

‘There is no authority higher than reason. If the truth of religious teachings depends upon an inward experience attesting that truth, what about the many people who do not have so rare an experience? Everyone can be required to use the gift of reason that they possess, but an obligation to all cannot be based on a motive that exists only for very few. If an individual has drawn from a deeply personal state of ecstasy the unshakeable conviction that the teachings of religion represent the real truth, what is that to the next man?’

There’s nothing wrong with his reasoning, but one wonders why, hiding in plain sight in the middle of the paragraph is the word ‘gift’. A gift from whom? Maybe the translator had a sense of humour?

Image result for two faced people

Christian Slaves, Moronic Masters

If some silly humans get their way, the Colston Hall in Bristol will be renamed. The excuse for this that the name, Colston, has ‘become toxic’ and because Colston was a slave-trader, the music venue needs a different name. Changing the name doesn’t benefit anyone, but it will give some single-issue merchants a rush of blood to the head for a few moments.

Changing the name doesn’t change the facts.

One of the defenders of this pointless excercise is David Olusoga. He says in the idea’s ‘defence’ that

‘Those who want to rename Colston Hall, like the students who want to topple Cecil Rhodes (not that I agree completely with them or their tactics), are campaigners for a fuller, more honest remembrance of history, not its erasure.’

That paragraph shows its typer simply doesn’t care. You do not get a ‘fuller, more honest remembrance of history’ by erasing the names of historical figures from public buildings.

In addition, you help nobody.

I promise you that, in removing the Colston name, no hungry children will be fed; no murderer will be caught; no teenage girl, trafficked from Eastern Europe and locked into sex-slavery, will be freed from her misery.

These campaigners are people without a grievance, looking to make themselves feel happier about their lives by claiming they did something good. They will have done nothing good. Nobody alive in Bristol suffered because of Colston’s business. Nobody alive in Bristol should apologise for the slave-trade because nobody alive in Bristol was responsible for the slave trade.

To campaign for the removal of the name is a form of narcissism, and I suspect these silly people are just a bit bored.

The musician, ‘Daddy G’ from ‘Massive Attack,’ was quite pleased with the name change. I have no idea why.

That ‘Massive Attack’ have for years ‘refused to play at Colston Hall’ is to fall for posing and gesture politics of the shallowest kind. If it were the case that ‘Massive Attack’ – upon learning of their city’s history – left the city in protest, refusing to spend their money here, or even enter the city because of it’s links with slavery, then I might believe they had principles. They are simply posing by picking an easy topic to decide to have principles about, one which causes them no inconvenience.

Muslim pirates enslaved white Europeans for centuries. As a white man, I managed to get the fuck over it about half a second after finding out about it.

Julius Caesar enslaved over a million white Europeans during his time in Gaul, helping to make Rome massively wealthy. I wonder if ‘Massive Attack’ has ever played a show in Rome?

Selective principlals are always fake principals.

Image result for christian slaves muslim masters

 

 

Virtus Maximus

That Fidel and his comrades overthrew Batista was a beautiful thing. Who would not think so? I’m not talking about the ‘regime’ which came after. Fidel might have been Cuban by birth, but he was Roman by nature.

Castro had himself a tyranny. It is justified, certainly, to say that, although it’s probably a good thing for all of us not to gaze into the abyss for too long. On tyranny, one thinks of a passage from ‘An Open Letter to Fidel Castro’ by Norman Mailer:

“We live in a country very different from Cuba. We have had a tyranny here, but it did not have the features of Batista; it was a tyranny one breathed but could not define; it was felt as no more than a slow deadening of the best of our possibilities, a tension we could not name which was the sum of our frustrations. [..] By law we had a free press; almost no one spoke his thoughts. By custom we had a free ballot; was there ever a choice? [..] In silence we gave you our support. You were aiding us, you were giving us psychic ammunition, you were aiding us in that desperate silent struggle we have been fighting with sick dead hearts against the cold insidious cancer of the power that governs us, you were giving us new blood to fight our mass communications, our police, our secret police, our corporations, our empty politicians, our clergymen, our editors, our cold frightened bewildered bullies who govern a machine made out of people they no longer understand, you were giving us hope they would not always win. That is why America persecuted you.”

Image result for tom holland rubicon caesar

Trumpton

On the morning we knew that Mr Donald Trump had won the election, I overheard part of a conversation on the bus, going to work.

An amusing woman was talking to her friend about the American election result. She claimed to be “shocked” that a sexist, misogynist (etc.) had won the election, and wasn’t it a tragedy Obama wasn’t going for a third term?

(This was what amused me the most that morning, until I read – a few moments after she’d said this – Philip Larkin describe Christmas shopping as the ‘conversion of one’s indifference to others to active hatred’, a comment so sweetly sour I thought it hilarious.)

The woman’s comment seemed to exemplify two problems.

One was the parroting of the media-line that Trump is a (insert bad word here) which he might be, but since when was stating the obvious worth doing?

The other, and the worrying thing about the Trump circus, is that nobody seems to want to acknowledge that no person is actually one-dimensional, nobody is asking ‘can he really be that bad?’ ‘Is he playing to the gallery?’ Obedience to the media is more that repeating its line, it’s refusing to think or question that line for yourself. Silence, then, is obedience.

This is a question of safe seats.

Consider some of the “safe seats” in our small country. In some parts of the north-east, say, a three-legged donkey would be duly elected so long as it had a red-rosette pinned to it. We the people are to blame for the third-raters who get into office.

Trump and Billary is what happens when the majority of voters are witless Kardashian fans who don’t care about who rules over them.

This latest “choice” shows America has become one huge safe-seat.

Image result for bread and circuses

Gay Cakes and the Whiff of Something Else…

That the ‘gay cake’ business found its way into a courtroom to begin with is an outrage to reason: one showing how rotted our national mind has become thanks to the thought-cancer of political correctness.

Alright, Mr Lee might be a total hoodwinker, but are the bakers any better?

I don’t think Mr Lee was asking the bakers to agree. That the bakers disagreed with the message is irrelevant. Their disagreement with the message did not prevent them from making the cake.

How do I know this to be true?

They could have made the cake without agreeing. Publishers publish things all the time without necessarily agreeing with their contributors.

Their refusal to make the cake might be more revealing than they realise. Indeed, their refusal to make the cake suggests they don’t really believe in God.

One assumes the bakers consider God to be an actual agent – a thinking being – who feels a great deal of love and is capable of forgiveness and so on.

One also assumes they believe God has the powers many have attributed to Him over time: the power to see-all and know-all, etc.. These are fair and reasonable assumptions. Indeed, this should be the least of it.

So why did they choose not to make the cake?

Surely to goodness, given what they claim to believe about the universe, they could have chosen to believe God would understand why they made the cake, would know they disagreed with it and that their principles remained unshaken, and been duly understanding and forgiving.

Is it possible the bakers were motivated by something else, and were using their “conscience” as cover for it?

This question is fair and reasonable.

In his Mail on Sunday column, Peter Hitchens takes a certain position on this case. His column is here.

Mr Hitchens also mentions Israel in this column.

Look at the colour of Mr Hitchens’s position in reply to those who criticise Israel with more enthusiasm than they criticise other countries for similar violence.

Mr Hitchens says these Israel critics are / might be, motivated by a dislike of Jews.

Apply that logic here.

(I mean, for heaven’s sake, a Christian who secretly doesn’t believe isn’t that weird an idea. I can read no minds, but consider Andrew Sullivan, no doubt a fine gentleman and an interesting person. Does he give anyone else the impression he is significantly unafraid of God?)

Had the bakers used the brains they were at least born with (or actually believed what they claimed to believe) they could have disarmed Mr Lee without a shot being fired. Their all-knowing God might not have understood this, but Sun Tzu would have.

These Christian bakers, thanks to their paw-licking, posing and preening, have done more than make themselves look like idiots: their tactical incompetence has resulted in yet more ground being won by the enemy.

They might not have meant to do that, but they did.

Image result for political correctness is evil

The Rotting Fish

The problem with the politicians is that they are controlled by political correctness. The political establishment is determined to believe that Islam isn’t a stupid and violent ideology because many of those who practice Islam have brown skin.

To criticise some of the ridiculous and dangerous ideas in Islam – martyrdom, apostasy blah blah – is to criticise the beliefs of persons with brown skin. This is obviously racist.

Political correctness is killing us.

The attacks the Islamists launch will get worse and more frequent and more innocent humans will be murdered. The cowardly politicians, police, and local authorities in this country will blame everything from TV to fast-food and passing comets for the killers’ behaviour.

What these lunatics actually believe about the universe will never be the cause of their behaviour because the PC groupthink won’t allow it. Our “leaders” are not leaders.

This is the most terrifying quote I’ve ever heard about Islamist violence. It’s from Mr Obama, responding to the murder of James Foley by first refusing to accept that Islamic State is Islamic, and giving the world a beautiful example of the fish rotting from the head:

‘ISIL speaks for no religion… and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day. ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt…. we will do everything that we can to protect our people and the timeless values that we stand for. May God bless and keep Jim’s memory. And may God bless the United States of America.’

It’s the stuff of nightmares…

Brexit Backtrack

Most politicians in this country will claim to be democrats, to ‘respect’ the democratic process and place democracy ‘above party politics’. It seems clear that large numbers of the Westminster elite have been hiding a sneering attitude to democracy and the ordinary voter behind their focus-group-arranged faces. This isn’t really a surprise. The surprise is that things are desperate enough for them to happily reveal their true natures.

Chuka Ummuna is the sort of super-smooth elitist who has contempt for the ordinary voter and was ‘talking up’ the sacred 48%; David Lammy – who at least had the decency to openly call the for the result to be ignored – is another.

The feelings of the 48ers must be ‘respected’? What does that actually mean in practice?

The creepiest politician I’ve seen since the result is Daniel Hannan. On the Friday morning, no more than a few hours after the result, he was on the BBC referendum programme saying that nothing needed to happen right away, and has since been getting into circulation the idea that immigration won’t be affected by leaving the EU. It is a very odd position for a ‘leaver’ to take.

Liam Fox – another one claiming to support leaving the EU – said exactly the same sort of things and asked for a period of ‘reflection’.

Why? Why not, after getting the result, should there not be a period of ‘action’?

Respect the result? No.

Obey the result.

David Cameron quite obviously made a significant error in promising a referendum on membership of the EU.  In addition, Boris Johnson knows he made a mistake in hitching a ride to Downing Street on the ‘Leave’ ticket.

What is Boris meant to do now? He’s on a sticky wicket. He got the wrong result.

I cannot believe Boris actually wanted to win. It would make his life easier if his side had lost.

The poor bloke now has to work out a way to say the right things to his party (which wants to remain in the EU) and to the country (which wants to leave) to ensure he gets the job, and he’ll also have to work out a way to renege on his Leave credentials after he’s in Downing Street, and that’ll be fiddly enough even if there’s no general election. No wonder he’s spent the weekend in the country surrounded by schemers. Now the weekend is over, and he’s back in town, he needs to set out to the likes of us what’s jolly well what.

What will be lurking under his carefully scripted and rehearsed words will be the secret desire to stay within the EU.

His words will contain no concrete pledge to enact Article 50 or to actually leave.

The only member of the political class who came straight out and said Article 50 should be enacted immediately, because the people had spoken, was Jeremy Corbyn.

And his party’s elite is showing yet more contempt (this time for their party’s membership) by trying to get rid of him, when, in party terms, he’s got a mandate the size of Jupiter to lead.

This is what will happen:

Corbyn will be got rid of and the leadership of his party will back in clutches of interchangeable political careerists.

Boris will become PM and will delay the Article 50 question and allow it to be forgotten in an ocean of waffle and ‘there’s no need to rush’ posturing.

The British people will go along with this. The British won’t care in large enough numbers because too many of us will be concentrating on our star-signs and picking our lottery numbers.

This Is Not An Exit

The Irish voted ‘no’ to the Lisbon Treaty and this was the wrong answer, so they were made to vote again.
 
Doesn’t that tell anyone anything about the EU?
 
The Lisbon Treaty used to be called the ‘EU Constitution’ but the EU had to change the name because ‘constitution’ made it sound like a constitution.
 
It was good they did.
 
Changing the name meant many countries in the EU didn’t have to hold the elections they promised. The British government promised us a referedum on the EU Constitution, when the EU changed the name, they reneged on this. It had a different name, therefore it was a different thing.
 
Doesn’t this tell anyone anything about the British political class?
 
It is quite depressing to hear what I thought were intelligent persons repeating, parrot-fashion, platitudinous rubbish they’ve heard on television, or seen on a front-page, as if it were their own opinion.
 
They stroke their chins and say “we need access to the single market. I’m voting in” because they like other people to think they have considered opinions
 
Then, they go back to watching Eastenders, feeling content because they’ve “had their say”.
 
Liberty and freedom are wasted on some people.
 
These human-sheep don’t know the difference between a common market and the single market. The difference is the same as the difference between a public park and a large prison excercise yard.
 
Now, the political class is all over the media getting into circulation the idea that nothing whatsoever is going happen because of this result, and that nothing will change.
 
This makes ignoring the result much easier because the public are being primed to expect nothing. The significance of the leave victory is being played-down.
All the suited politicians need to do is keep a straight face and not sweat too much.
 
I hope those who voted ‘remain’ will now be able to see what the EU actually is, and feel a modicum of shame for their stupidity and gullability.
 
It’s unlikely, however.
 
Somebody who didn’t know what the EU was after the Irish incident will NEVER be able to see what is in front of their faces.
This is not an exit:

Brexit Bullshit

The following words were spoken by David Cameron, the Prime Minister of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:

“I’m absolutely clear, a referendum is a referendum. It is a once in a generation, once in a lifetime opportunity and the result determines the outcome. If we vote to stay, we stay, and that’s it. If we vote to leave, we vote to leave, that’s it. You can’t have neverendums, you have referendums.”

He is talking about the vote to leave the EU his side lost two days ago.

Read the words with care. Note the three statements of the obvious which sound like he’s saying something else.

Yes, a referendum is a referendum, and yes, the result of the referendum does dertermine the result of the referendum; oh, and yes – if we vote to leave, we certainly have voted to leave.

What’s strange is that many persons have come out to protest the result, saying that they dislike the result and so want another vote. Such people don’t understand how these things work. The complainers could have kept their intolerance for democracy hidden.

There is no need for them to fight for another vote when the result of the one they lost will be ignored.

It is true that, these studenty types are so clueless about politics they don’t know when they’ve won.

Enacting Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty (which used to be called the EU Constitution, and we were promised a referendum on it; but they changed it’s name, so the government slimed out of the referendum it promised) will NEVER happen.

We will NEVER leave the EU.

Lisbon Treaty

Anything Goes. Again.

An imbecile has suggested the violence in movies might have contributed to the motivations of Jo Cox’s killer.

I have a question. Why does nobody ever question the violence and rape and horror which is found in poetry, drama, opera, sculpture and painting – yet the violence in popular fiction, is deemed to be morally dangerous?

Anyone?

Every decade has its cultural moral panic, because every decade another bunch of unintelligent, unthinking cretins become adults and begin spouting off about the latest ‘dangerous’ cultural phenomenon.

When I was late teenager / young adult in the 90s – we had the Eminem moral horror; in the 80s it was the Beastie Boys and ‘video nasties’moral horror; in the 70s it was Led Zep and Black Sabbath moral horror (You might remember they tried to turn the world’s teenagers into devil-worshippers); in the 60s The Rolling Stones were destroying the moral fabric of society; in the 50s Elvis tried to do this by swinging his hips; in the 40s Hitchcock had to have Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman kiss multiple times in one scene in ‘Notorious’ because one long snog on screen would destroy the moral fabric of society; it got so bad back then, Cole Porter had to write ‘Anything Goes’ – a revolutionary protest song against moral collapse; and back and back we go……

…In 1863 Edouard Manet painted ‘Olympia’ and this painting was shown in 1865. It caused moral outrage and panic. Olympia, bless her, was a prostitute, but that wasn’t the problem. The problem was the painting’s gaze. She looks directly at the viewer, making the viewer a customer. This painting almost destroyed the moral fabric of society.

It’s a miracle we’re all still here.

Edouard Manet - Olympia - Google Art Project.jpg