Article 50: Goodbye

Language is the most important territory to control during times such as these. The federast remainiacs have certainly controlled the language-territory during the brexit ‘process’.

All ‘mainstream’ media have been asking the same question: what happens if / when the UK ‘crashes-out’ of the EU? The answers don’t matter because the real answer is ‘not much’.

The point is the word ‘crash’. Such a word connotes twisted metal and broken glass; blood, pain and sirens. The effect of making this expression psychological ‘background-noise’ shouldn’t be underestimated.

The presuppositions used in language can be powerful, too – so can what is left out of one’s language.

Now that revoking Article 50 is ‘on the table’ with additional options, Laura Kuenssberg, on the BBC website, concludes:

‘Ministers are therefore today not just wondering about how to manage one last heave for the prime minister’s deal, but what they should do next, when – odds on – the whole issue is in the hands of the Commons, not Number 10.’

How terribly odd of her not to mention that leaving the EU on the 29th March is the default legal position – with or without a deal.

MPs should do nothing next.

They have already voted FOR the Withdrawal Act. They have already voted against Mrs May’s horrid deal – twice.

Hardly am I surprised that MPs have been said to be ‘angry’ with Mrs May for saying they need to make up their minds.

In asking them to make up their minds, Mrs May is actually asking them to CHANGE their minds. No doubt, behind their sincere anger, they will be happy to oblige.

The default legal position seems to have vanished from the ‘narrative’. Perhaps everyone will forget it was ever there to begin with.

This is, obviously, brexit-betrayal in action – live before our eyes.

Related image

The Mogg Anomaly

I was always sceptical that the country would ever leave the EU. The contempt the political class have for us is obvious

Hardly is it worth dwelling on.

The Withdrawal Act clearly states that we leave on 29 March – with or without a ‘deal’, so Mrs May had no business holding a vote to take no-deal ‘off the table’. Not least because it was those same MPs who voted for the Withdrawal Act.

I think the announcements from the EU, that any extension needs to have a solid reason for it, and that the ‘deal is the deal’ and cannot be changed are bluffs.

The EU really do not want the UK to leave. Their ‘hard-ball’ act is just that. Ultimately they will do anything to keep the UK in the EU.

Their insane utopian dream must continue.

My prediction is this:

The government – headed by Theresa May or her replacement – will declare, with the necessary expressions of ‘heavy-heart’ sorrow from whichever lizard says it, that Article 50 needs to be repealed because the ‘risk’ to the UK economy is too great.

The blame for this will be placed onto the MPs collectively – so that not one person can be said to be targeted for reprisal. Doing this will make it harder for the murderous hatred from the ignored 17.4 to be directed effectively.

But then there is the Mogg anomaly.

Mr Rees-Mogg is a splendid fellow. He has a fine mind, solid principles and exquisite manners. He should be Prime Minister.

He has stated many times that his preference is to leave with a good deal – but that ‘no deal’ is nothing to be scared of. This is where things get strange.

He has also stated that, given a choice between Mrs May’s ‘deal’ – the hideous Withdrawal Agreement – and no brexit at all, he would vote for Mrs May’s deal.

How can this be true? The deal is hideous. It keeps us in the EU, but with fewer rights and significantly reduced influence. The deal is worse than our current position.

Yet Mr Rees-Mogg is too intelligent not to know this.

Could Mr Rees-Mogg’s declaration that he would take Mrs May’s deal over no brexit be a tactical move designed to convince the government that, ultimately, the ERG would fold in the face of such a choice, therebye reducing the government’s motivation for superficial ‘changes’ to the deal and any need for longer ‘extensions’?

And when the time came for the ERG to fall at the feet of Mrs May’s ‘deal’ they would not do so – thus getting the objective they (and I) want – a no-deal brexit on WTO terms.

Could it be the case that Mr Rees-Mogg’s ERG suspect that article 50 could be repealed and, obviously, need to try to convince the government there’s no need to do that because they would take Mrs May’s deal over no-brexit?

I do know this is all speculation, but the question still stands:

Why would Mr Rees-Mogg say Mrs May’s deal is better than no brexit when the deal is so obviously awful?

Then again – I’m probably missing something.

Image result for brexit betrayal

Dark Forces

What is needed is a lightning-rod for mass public opinion. There is a massive gap between what the political / media London class think and what the majority of the country think.

The goldfish always thinks the bowl is the universe.

Once a figure appears who represents the majority view then ordinary persons can coalesce around him. Ordinary persons can see the extent of the popularity of their views thanks to social media. They see the disconnect between that level and the narrative of the ‘mainstream’.

May is a liar. The AG humiliated the May creature by stating his advice remained the same. This so-called “Christian” should have exiled her horrible self to Siberia right then.

By allowing a vote to take no-deal ‘off the table’ she has betrayed 17.4 million voters.

She is a federast remainiac like the rest of them. No-deal is default. The political class voted for the Withdrawal Act. It states we leave on 29 March with a deal or not.

These lizards can’t keep up the pretence forever. There must come a time when they actually perform their planned act of treachery. This has now happened. I suspect this is why May allowed the EU lizards to write her such an awful deal.

Who in the EU, government, or the majority of parliament wanted a good one? A good one would deliver Brexit. That was never part of the plan. This is how the EU and political class behave: if they get the wrong answer we either vote again or they ignore the result.

We all know this. May’s plan was to do the latter.

No deal is better than a bad deal?

Brexit means Brexit?

We leave on the 29th March?

Her plan was to prevent Brexit while trying to avoid blame for doing so. She is a disgusting creature who deserves to have her career end in painful humiliation. The contempt shown to the voters is staggering: but nothing must ever be allowed to de-rail the European project.

My only interest is in the possible consequences of betraying the 17.4.

Political violence must sometimes be justified otherwise ‘authority’ can do whatever it likes. I’m sorry to say this is logically obvious.

The history of democracy in this country is based on conflict – not signing soppy petitions.

What amazes me is that there exist humans who – even given the brexit-betrayal from May and our parliament of federasts – continue to believe that ‘protests’ can change things. This is forehead-slappingly naive.

There is no point in ‘telling the truth to power’ when power already knows the truth.

On another blog, a human said this to me recently on the question of MPs:

‘….should public feeling move against them they will be ejected in the next election which happens sufficiently often to keep them somewhat circumspect. That and not people with placards and tannoys is the real check on abuse of power.’

Really? Their replacemnets will always be party place-men and women, obedient to the party-machine which selected them.

This problem in underpinned by the stupidity of the plebmass which votes on moronic, tribal lines, and would vote for a disabled donkey with downs syndrome if it wore the correct coloured rosette.

I agree with his second sentence, however. Posters, placards, protests and petitions do not scare persons in positions of power. Especially not when those humans in power are protected within their little Westminster bubble.

The truth, I’m sorry to say – once the obvious facts about human nature are acknowledged – is a little darker.

They – humans in positions of power, MPs –  need to be made to fear for their safety if they contemptuously ignore the will of the largest majority ever given for anything in this country’s history.

If a mob tipped over Anna Soubry’s car, dragged her out and hanged her from a tree, then the rest of the ‘honourable’ members might think twice about treating the electorate with sniffy contempt.

Image result for politicians contempt for the public

Cultural Appropriation

It is part of the traditional recipe of the Cornish pasty to have jam stuffed into one corner.

This allows the clog-wearing pleb to finish with something ‘sweet’.

Indeed, the knotted band of pastry is designed has a ‘handle’, so the dirty, sweaty clog-wearer can hold it and eat the goodies without getting his filth on the part he’s eating.

Ginsters – those purveyors of fine food – don’t have jam in their pasties and don’t have the twisted, knotted pastry around the outside edge.

This is cultural appropriation at its worst and a form of ‘culture rape’, gastronomic imperialism – and is utterly racist against the Cornish.

I feel personally attacked by their non-Cornish pasty and will likely need a safe-space to hide in where I can slowly un-trigger myself.

Image result for ginsters cornish pasty

Picture: a recent rapist

Medicine versus Faith

Please choose to sign the above petition.

An American couple have been accused of denying their child medical treatment for religious reasons. The child is now dead. There is an online video of the child’s father’s mouth falling open when the judge reads out the charges. I’m not surprised he was surprised.

The Washington Post has a quote from the child’s alleged father:

‘“It didn’t seem smart to me that you would be saving people who weren’t the fittest. If evolution believes in survival of the fittest, well then why are we vaccinating everybody? Shouldn’t we just let the weak die off and let the strong survive?”

This is a perfectly reasonable position to take if you have managed to believe that after a person is dead they will continue to be alive – and if you also have no idea what you’re talking about. The problem is that ‘survival of the fittest’ has nothing to do with strength versus weakness. In this context ‘fittest’ means ‘best fit’ or ‘best suited to reproduce’. It is another way of saying ‘natural selection’ and has nothing to do with physical strength or weakness.

The child’s alleged father is also said to have little faith in doctors:

‘I’m not opposed to medicine or doctors, I’m opposed to bad medicine and doctors that are just, well, aren’t really doctors — they’re priesthoods of the medical cult. They have a certificate from some training camp somewhere that says they got this test score, but that doesn’t mean they know about the human body and stuff like that.’

It would probably have been bettere for the innocent child if this human had more faith in medicine and less in his god of choice.

I hope these terrible humans are given one of those proper American prison sentences; you know the sort of thing:

210 years in prison without possibility of parole – or something like that.

It’s time for a law stripping parents of the right to refuse their child treatment on religious grounds. If a child is ill all parents should be forced to seek medical attention and charged with violence against their child if they don’t or if they refuse to allow treatment for religious reasons.

I hope the pair of them are eaten from the inside by guilt and shame into old-age and death.

Image result for seth welch

The Chatterley Classes

In the 1990s some thought Eminem should be banned. In the 1980s it was The Beastie Boys and ‘video nasties’. There’s a new threat to the moral fabric of society every few years.

There have been many ‘threats’ to the moral fabric of society. Blacks marrying whites was one of them; same sex marriage was one of them.

Who could watch the debate between Douglas Wilson and Andrew Sullivan and not wince with embarrassment when Mr Wilson was asked to point to one bad thing in society which had happened as a direct result of same-sex marriage in some states of the USA? He couldn’t do it because there was nothing.

When will humans realise that what they argue for on grounds of ‘decency’ or ‘obscenity’ is no more than their personal preference or a form of denial. There is no objective measure of what is ‘obscene’ – therefore it is always a matter of personal taste.

And yet self-important, repressed posers continue to give themselves little injections of superiority by pretending they are oh-so-sensitive to literature, art and are refined in their tastes in matters of sex.

Isn’t it odd how many humans who are passionate about things such as diversity and tolerance are oddly intolerant about diversity of opinion?

It’s weird.

It’s almost as if a person who is intolerant (and jolly well knows it) chooses to disguise themselves as tolerant because the disguise is the opposite of their true nature.

Given this well-recorded psychological phenomenon, what could be said of all those persons who strongly object to the ‘shameful’ idea of anal penetration and pornography and all the rest?

Could it be that a person who rails against a behaviour might secretly want to engage in that behaviour?

There are no ‘filthy words’ – only words. The ‘filth’ is projected (imagined) onto them.

If a person doesn’t think novels should be banned (and they shouldn’t, ever) then it was the Chatterley ban which was an obscenity – not the book.

Image result for why dost thou lash that whore

Gender Jerks

I had no idea until yesterday the gender pronoun argument was a global phenomenon. I was reading a comment on a blog thread and the person mentioned a piece by Douglas Murray in the The Spectator about an interrogation a young teaching assistant was subjected to by faculty-staff at her university. The young lady recorded the Stasi Staff and sent the content around the world. I had thought it was a minor question, the reserve of attention-seekers.

It’s a global psychotic episode. Continue reading

Worse than Racist

Earlier this month, elsewhere online, I was following and sometimes entering a discussion about poppies. There had been a story or two about why celebrities or politicians were not wearing them, or were wearing them, and someone in one of the lefty papers typed a piece saying that poppies were racist now. Or something like that. I have one or two minor opinions about poppies and Armistice Day itself, so I joined the discussion.

I do not think it’s wrong to wear one, as some humans do, though I don’t see why anyone should be attacked for not doing so, either. It’s unimportant. But one person in the discussion said the following to someone who said he wouldn’t wear a poppy because the 1914 – 1918 war was ‘the most stupid thing this country ever got involved in [..]’

I quote his response to that exactly:

‘What might be your attitude toward the birthday of an illegitimate child, the result of his parents’ wrongdoing, but who bears no responsibility for either his existence or his condition?’

I was surprised that humans still manage to think like this. Only a significantly unpleasant and poorly informed mind could describe a child as ‘illegitimate’. But what kind of human mind is required to think a child whose parents were unmarried when he was born has for that reason a ‘condition’?

The idea of ‘bastardy’ is an example of religious bullying; religious bullying which tried to force parents to conform lest the ‘moral majority’ stigmatise their children as punishment for not conforming. Of course, those who choose to conform then become the most vicious in the name-calling themselves, because they hate themselves for being cowards, so most need to protest too much.

‘Illegitimacy’ and ‘bastardy’ do not exist and never have existed: they are to be found only in the warped imaginations of horrible, child-bullying humans. This is easily shown.

There is no blood test for ‘illegitimacy’, no biopsy a scientist can perform to detect traces of ‘bastardy’ in the blood. There is an irony at the expense of the religious bully. To have a ‘belief’ about the ‘illegitimacy’ of children, one which relies on the existence of a supernatural dimension, with a supreme supernatural being running things to make sense, means it’s the ‘belief’ which is illegitimate, not the flesh and blood child.

In point of fact, the person who manages to believe in ‘illegitimacy’ and ‘bastardy’ holds opinions which are demonstrably worse than racist. The argument is simple.

If the racist bully wants to bully a child, say because the child is black, then he can point his finger at the child and call it racist names so the child is in no doubt of its different status. If a man did do this – no matter how nasty and demented he’d have to be to want to do it – the child actually is black.

The religious bully does the same, but the reasons for which he does this do not exist in reality, they exist only in his horrible imagination. Therefore the religious bully is one step worse than the racist bully.

I kindly (and for free) pointed this out to the religious bully in question. He hasn’t responded yet.

A Jagged Edge

My mother told the A and E receptionist ‘He’s sustained a bad a cut.’ I leant in to the window and corrected her. ‘Actually, I’ve been stabbed,’ I said. It’s possible I sounded irritated, but I was speaking the truth. My sister had stabbed me in the upper left arm with a long, white-handled kitchen-knife. I had a small towel wrapped around the wound to soak up the blood. Continue reading

On the Wayne

Imagine going to Sainsbury’s or Tesco every week for years, handing over fifty quid each time, and those organisation never having what you’re looking for. The problem would only be with the supermarket for a ‘certain’ amount of time before ‘questions could be asked’ about the intelligence of the shopper. So on that note… Continue reading