Political Chatter and Financial Speculation

Why do people bother? Is there some public value in the gossip and interest that people take in the minutiae of politics?

All reasonably well informed people know that MP's have little or no influence on the course of events, so why do some people so desperately seek the job? Yes, there's the lure of pecuniary gain, and for some - especially Labour peers it seems, the opportunity to function as highly paid lobbyists, or to boastfully claim undue influence over the legislative process.

It appears that many of these people however, are more motivated by the prospect of forming part of an 'in' group, inflating their self-importance, seeming to know more than others, feeling closer to the centre of events, or just love of gossip.


They may be very shallow people, drifting more or less unconsciously on the currents of conventional opinion - herd animals; not leaders, thinkers, reformers or deliberately subversive revolutionaries, although the rhetoric to which they subscribe or succumb may make them claim to be such. It's probably not possible to have a polity without such people to transmit opinion and justification or criticism of the way things are to the mass of the public, and more faintly reflect back any strong episodes of public emotion.


As part of the mass media they can serve to tell the public what the public is allowed to think, delimiting the range of acceptable views and channeling the emotions of large sections of the public. Not so much pack leaders, as loyal exemplars and enforcers of pack discipline and etiquette. Broadly, they don't need precise instructions, although there may be influential spin doctors and others doing just that in limited circumstances. It's more a matter of instinct, being quick to pick up what is expected, and find ways to articulate and implement it. There may be a sequence of concentric circles of influence, with more precise knowledge and expectations nearer the centre, and the centre of influence may not be the centre of visible power.

When there's no actual real world power and wealth to squabble over, such people will still gather to form cabals, to gossip and award each other fancy titles. There are on-line free computer games involving thousands of players, for instance Ars Regendi, Jennifer Government, or eRepublik, where there is a 'cover story' of running your own country, but the main appeal is for people to chat, form notional alliances within which Poo-Bah titles and functions are distributed and electoral votes eagerly sought, and even wars may be fought - but without really affecting the notional countries the players are supposedly running. Of course, there are lots of more normal games where the players' diplomacy and politicing has direct consequences for their notional countries. There's clearly a strong instinct towards political gossip and machination and a love of marks of distinction - even when everyone involved knows it's all a game, or even a game within a game.


A good deal of what passes for 'real' politics and business may be just such games for insiders. "The money's just a means of keeping score", so to speak. When it's our blood and treasure our rulers use to keep score in their games, we the public are likely to feel aggrieved, but unlikely to be able to prevent it, and highly likely to be emotionally caught in the game, partly through the agency of our politicians.


This evening there was a TV programme about commodity speculation. Recently there have been others about financial speculation, and trading, and the role of 'securitisation' of mortgage debt, sliced, diced and traded, and generally just betting vast amounts, and how it's not working out as the public was led to believe. Just considering the function of speculation in 'normal' times, it is not clear to me whether it actually performs the useful tasks of counteracting excessive price movements and maintaining continuity of market prices, as its advocates claim; or whether it is just, (or when taken to excessive levels), legalised theft.


It seems to me to be an activity comparable to the political speculation already mentioned. Both seem to express an instinct to outwit others, partly playful, partly combative, more elaborate versions of the 'play-fighting' of young animals, not always involving 'real life'. Both may be tamed to be beneficial, or not greatly harmful to the public; but when they get out of hand using 'real life,' may be seriously damaging to large numbers of people and of benefit to very few.


It has been found, by observers at a park in America, that the local flock of ravens competes, drives off intruders, and the young males fight skirmishes with hawks, without serious casualties. Nature is able to keep a balance. We are not always so clever. Something that is deeply instinctive, however fashionably expressed, can't be ignored or suppressed without danger. Wisdom may find a way to allow the play without grave public danger, and even in ways that benefit the public overall. It is not something to be legislated away by our stupid and foolish leaders, too ignorant and arrogant to realise the truth of the old saying that you can throw Nature out with a pitchfork, but she will return.

Things fall apart

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world...

So the poet Yeats informed us. He wasn't thinking of our present economic, political, social or cultural situation but it's increasingly coming to look as if he might as well have been.

Day by day thousands of jobs are lost in the productive economy, but more tax consuming non-jobs are created in the jungle of state and quasi state bureaucracies of political control and correctness.That is now the main thing holding the country together and binding it to the EU, while sapping its life-force, poisoning the well-springs of culture and morality, destroying the identity and institutions of the native people and ever more egregiously draining their wealth to be squandered on third world filth, socialist vermin and blatantly corrupt 'Nu Liebore' legislators, administrators and publicists.

Soviet Britain, a report noted from the Sunday Times of 25th Jan 2009, at http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article5581225.ece (seen via Devils Kitchen and Samizdata) shows that almost half of the expenditure in the economy is made by the state. Even in the south ,it is over one third, and over two thirds in the north of England, 70% in Wales and almost 78% in Northern Ireland. Scotland escapes mention, but is probably towards the high end.

This cozy arrangement is now under threat. Labour's cunning plan to dominate Britain in perpetuity, by over-taxing the prosperous south to bribe their supporters in the rest of the country, and so maintain an overall parliamentary majority funded by those who opposed them can hardly continue much longer unchallenged. They thought they would have overwhelming majorities in regional assemblies,( which is why they were allowed in Wales and Scotland, but not in England). They overlooked human nature - as they usually do. The appetite for power grows by what it feeds on, and creating national assemblies just gave ambitious politicians outside the Labour fold an opportunity to wrap themselves in the local flag and beat the nationalist drum, so Labour is losing its hold on these areas.


That was already happening. The economic difficulties present a new and unexpected threat. Brown's government is reported to be spending about £14m per minute in excess of what they raise in taxes, funded by vast and imprudent borrowing. Brown's plan to save his own job, as tax revenues decline, is to expand this borrowing - but the lenders are increasingly reluctant to comply, as the risk of default grows, and the value of the pound in terms of foreign exchange falls precipitously. As the productive economy shrinks, the absolute and relative burden of the tax consuming classes grows. These people have a very strong and vocal sense of entitlement, and deep felt contempt for the people who are being taxed to pay for them. They are not going away, they won't cheerfully accept cuts in pay. They regard reductions in the rate of increase of expenditure on them as unjust 'cuts' to be ferociously resisted. They are the core of Labour's membership, the people who rent a crowd or get out the vote. The government will not be able to resist their pressure. Consequently, they will 'print' money to assuage them temporarily, and let massive inflation destroy the rest of the country. That's when times could get really 'interesting'. Looting what's left, and massacring 'kulaks' or 'aristocrats' or 'saboteurs' may keep the scum at the top precariously in power, but it won't keep the bulk of the population happy, or even fed. Consider that this country doesn't grow all its own food, it's ability to export enough to pay for it's imports is under strain, and the chaos caused by socialist economics, (the Soviet Union actually made it's people poorer than if they had sold raw materials on the international market and bought all their manufactured goods) and the certainty that when there's a shortage it wont be the nomenklatura and its administrative drones who starve. Democracy...meet Stasis.


Of course the EU filth are well aware of the possibility that discontent in the taxpaying classes may result in disturbances to their rule, so they are meeting with the scum that govern each state, to strengthen their grip. They are now criminalising bureaucratic misdemeanours, and creating databases on everyone. Raedwald has the news of this latest repression at http://raedwald.blogspot.com/2009/01/integrated-eu-blacklist-of-criminals-is.html

It's curious to note that the complex but vague system of cyclical history propounded by Yeats, in A Vision, suggested that the period of approximately 1927 to 2050 would be characterised by 'artificial unification of Europe'. We seem to be well on track. Not bad for a poet.


It's not surprising that Britain should fall apart over several generations. When there's an increasingly rich, powerful and successful entity, such as the empires of Rome or Britain, ambitious people want to join it. When it has a superior culture, people on the fringes are keen to assimilate to it. Even when most of Italy was under the rule of the Goths, their king, Theodoric, could famously say,"a good Goth wants to be like a Roman; only a bad Roman would want to be like a Goth." When Britain was successful, ambitious Welsh, Scots and Irish wanted to be part of it, and indeed made substantial contributions. There was bite in the well known joke made by Samuel Johnson, commenting on the beauty of Scotland's scenery, that the fairest prospect a Scotsman ever sees, is the high road to England.


Now the tide is starting to reverse. Britain, and particularly England's, history, identity, religion and culture, are scorned and reviled by the ruling scum of cosmopolitan leftist filth who have been brought to the fore by several generations of infiltration and propaganda. It's flag has been debased to a mere sports emblem. It's national day is not celebrated. Flooding the country with the detritus of the third world and making them 'British' has been and remains an urgent priority of our evil administrators. Some of the Asiatic and African immigrants are of superior moral status to the debased remnants of the British amongst whom they find themselves - although many are also the worst criminals and naturally favoured by our rulers.

Thus, and as the economic ability of England to generate wealth and dispense subsidies declines, there is less to attract people to it who could compete for wealth and status in their native Scotland or Wales, where a stronger sense of identity has been allowed to remain. The faster England declines, the sooner Wales and Scotland may be expected to break away, and claim as much independence as the EU will allow them. This will certainly include lavish lifestyles for politicians, who will be all the more encouraged to jostle, if there is not enough room for them to strut, upon the EU if not exactly the world, stage.

The debasement of English identity, and the Christian religion, was shown in a TV program last Sunday. It was presented by a black West Indian clergyman who spoke of 'we' English; and sundry white female academics and 'priests', who babbled about Bede and the 'inclusiveness' of Anglo Saxon Christianity in the time of St. Cuthbert and the Lindisfarne Gospels. No one was so politically incorrect as to comment on the relations between Saxons and the 'foreigners' - which was what 'Welsh' meant.

There can be no doubt that Cuthbert, and the other churchmen of the time would have welcomed the black man as a fellow Christian, but not being blind or dishonest, they could not have welcomed him as a fellow Englishman. Had they been able to have a vision of this show they would probably have regarded it as being a delusion sent by Satan. I'm not sure whether they would have been more shocked by a black man claiming to be English, or a woman claiming to be a priest - most probably the latter. They would certainly be upset to learn of the current state of the Church in England, where scarcely 5% of the population are regular churchgoers of any denomination. They would feel their missionary endeavours to have been unsuccessful, and would be amazed and saddened to find that the Church of England is rent between buggers and blacks.

To end, considering what the more distant future may hold, as we began, with a couple of lines from Yeats's great poem, The Second Coming:
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
slouches towards Bethlehem to be born

Yeats's own provisional answer, from the system of A Vision, was that by around 2150 a new tribalism would be evident. Like all others, the current dispensation will pass away. We won't see it, but the ravens may.

Electronic Ostracism and Referenda

Those democratic old Athenians had a wonderful institution, the Ostracism, an election whose winner was banished from the country for several years. It would be wonderful if we could take this idea and adapt it to our situation.


The Athenians had something else we don't have - democracy, even if we do have the best of the sculptures from their Parthenon in the British Museum (and let's hope our grovelling government will not send them back). We are not going to get up early and go to a dawn assembly on a hilltop, there to question and debate, pass laws, select and condemn leaders, and then spend much of the rest of the day carrying out 'government' tasks assigned by lot for a limited period, or sitting on large juries to decide law cases. Oh no, we pay specialists, experts, politicians to do all that stuff for us. Not surprisingly, they 'stuff' us. I have already written a long rant about how badly they rule us, and with what egregious venality and contempt. This time, lets consider how the internet could be used to ameliorate our state.

The speedy reversal of Brown's decision to force through concealment of MP's expense claims, may have been partly attributable to the rapid spread of protests via political blogs. The internet could be a good way to spread information and collect decisions, nowadays better than getting up early to go and write the name of the politician you most loathe on a potsherd, in hope of seeing him banished.

It should be fairly simple to organise electronic voting. Obviously not, of course, if any of those responsible for the infamous failures of government IT systems are involved, but in a better world they'd already be twisting on gibbets, and we may hope for a better world.

There's lots of scope for people to suggest how it might be done, but the basic idea of frequent electronic voting to get nearer to direct democracy is both desirable and feasible. Don't expect the political turkeys to vote for a democratic Christmas, however. Their owners would not like it either.

Switzerland is famous for its democracy. Their politicians are part timers, power is decentralised, they hold frequent referenda, they are not dominated by politically correct vipers, drones and invaders - and their economy is not falling apart.

We could take it further. For example, any citizen could be able to launch petitions on a government website. When politicians become unpopular, the number of people voting for their removal would grow, and after a fairly high (net) number, say a couple of million, these politicians would be expelled from office. It could even be the whole government.

Legislation could be introduced and passed (or rescinded) in a similar way. No more politically correct laws that go against the wishes of the real people.

I don't see why we should retain the current system of constituencies, parties, large governments, payroll votes, dependency etc. It would be comforting for many people to retain old forms- that's how new political wine gets poured into old constitutional bottles. It would be possible to greatly reduce the influence and corruption of a large high tax centralised state.


Naturally, there will always be some people who are more interested and more able and more willing to spend time promoting or discussing ideas than others. Parties and ideologies would not die, but would be less strongly entrenched in your wallet and in positions of bureaucratic vantage. No more built-in advantage for Labour in gerrymandered constituency boundaries. There could be regional groupings, even retaining existing constituencies to start with until people get used to electronic psephology. There could be all sorts of new ideas and experimental arrangements, if people bothered to suggest them.


Electronic democracy would be cheaper to organise, and change. Our MP's are useless at investigating government expenditure and bureaucratic bungles. Quite a lot of others would be interested in this sort of scrutiny, if information was more readily available. There would be less scope for party political programmes and fixed governments. Policies would be promoted, probably by much the same sort of prople, but with more of the general public and fewer party hacks in it for the money, power and glory. Each proposal would need the electronic assent of the public. No block votes. No whipping. No unintelligible legislative gibberish, unread by those who pass it. If it isn't in plain English it probably isn't a good law. If you want others to spend their money on you, or give you some sort of benefit, you should not be allowed to vote for it.


Probably, members of the public who want to vote on complex and expensive matters should be required to demonstrate a reasonable level of knowledge and competence. Better than currently held by most MP's certainly. There could be on-line information to help people - NOT dumbed down rubbish. Scope for large panels of people knowledgeable in particular areas - an extension of the old Athenian jury idea. Technical proposals might go to specialist groups to discuss and refine to a few proposals for public voting. The civil service could cost proposals. Those that don't get enough people to agree to personally pay for them, fail. No more airy-fairy promises to borrow from domestic and foreign lenders to bribe voters and let future generations repay the loans. You vote for the war, you fight it and you pay for it.

This is a rough outline of possibilities. Others could amend, extend or refine them. It shows that we could get a lot closer to direct democracy, and increase liberty, safeguard individual freedom and eliminate the encrusted filth encasing befouling and destroying the body politic. The current establishment won't permit this, but what great food they'd make for ravens.

Polluted Politics and Lost Identity

Now we're all so green, wouldn't it be nice to save the world from the toxic waste produced by our political institutions? Yes, we could help the planet if we could limit the emission of hot air by our politicians and the whole political class. Consider all the useful raw material that is warped and wasted by our political processes; all the people whose lives have been distorted and degraded by those who proclaim that they are doing this with the best of intentions, for the benefit of their victims and the whole world.


Well, that's a lot to consider, so we could start more modestly by considering the most recent example of the personal venality of our Members of Parliament. After the fuss about employing their relatives to do little or nothing but be paid by the public, and the second houses and John Lewis list scams, and the ability to claim expenses up to £250 without supporting documentation, the Speaker and a few cronies were to consider tightening the rules. No chance of Gorbals Mick tightening his own belt, or of tolerating any interference with the troughing rights of 'honourable' members. It was slyly and surreptitiously announced yesterday that in future, information about MP's expenses will be concealed from the public, and they will be able to claim £25 without documentation or justification whenever they want. An unemployed person would have to live for almost half a week on as much. Many more voters are becoming unemployed - and unimpressed by their rulers.


This Speaker is the rotten face of a rotten parliament, a rotten party and a rotten political system.


Speaker Lenthall, who defied CharlesI, appears to have been a sincere Puritan and a humble man. He wrote an epitaph for his own tombstone, 'vermis sum' - I am a worm. How much more apt a description for the current loathsome occupant of his venerable office. This is the same piece of vermin who was seen evading responsibility for allowing a raid by our Stasi police force on the office of an opposition MP who had embarassed the government by revealing leaked details of their incompetence in office. (That was why MP's of an earlier era were reluctant to allow Peel to establish a Metropolitan police force. They feared it would become a tool of repressive governments.) When details of the excessive expenditure of the Speaker and his wife - how she could be incurring legitimate expenses on behalf of Parliament was never made clear - were revealed last year , TV showed brief views of two Labour MP'S. One was of a thin elderly man who urged the Speaker to tighten the rules and clear up the mess swiftly, because it was damaging the reputation of Parliament. I suppose he is regarded as a troublemaker. The other was of a fat oily fellow, who surely must be well 'in' with the government. He was most indignant at the idea that the wife of a Labour MP (as Gorbals Mick is), might be expected to take a bus rather than a taxi to go shopping. It did not seem to occur to him that whatever her chosen mode of transport, she should pay for it herself. As she should pay for her shopping. Don't tell me she was shopping to provide refreshments for some occasion hosted by her husband. If they were not employed by government, they or their associates would have to pay for their own socialising and politicing, and the Speaker is extremely well paid and most plushly provided for.

These however, although extremely irritating, are only among the lesser lice infesting the body politic.

Parliament itself is almost an irrelevance. Blair rarely bothered to attend. Brown is a poor parliamentary performer, and prefers to bypass this irritating institution as much as possible. Despite the public uproar over the question of expanding Heathrow airport, he denies Parliament the opportunity to debate and decide the issue. It is said that up to 80% of legislation now comes from the European Commission in Brussells. The 'ever closer union' of a boa constrictor and its prey reduces our political institutions to no more than tourist attractions, and provides perverted means for the corrupt zombie class of socialist administrators to destroy the remains of anything worthwhile in this country. The EU itself is blatantly corrupt, not only in the way it runs, the deals it makes, its failure to account for its income and expenditure so that its auditors have refused to accept its accounts ( for 14 years running!), but also the irrelevance of democracy as all important decisions are made by the Commissioners, and our MEP's 'trough it' on a larger scale than our MP's and with far less press and public scrutiny. Some of these creatures even collect three sets of emoluments, pensions and expenses and opportunities for employing relatives, as members of Scottish or Welsh assemblies, MP's and MEP's. No wonder they don't seem to have much time or interest for anything but self enrichment. They hate and fear the light, anyone who attempts to shed light on their doings is persecuted. Several whistle-blowers have been hounded, whilst the evil continue to enrich themselves and betray their people. Never mind the meaning of the E at Delphi, the E in EU evidently stands for Evil. 'U'r Evil' could be a better description than European Union. 'Ur- Evil' might describe the forces controlling them.


Such people are obviously highly susceptible to blandishments and are more likely to be in search of temptation than able to resist it. So who might be whispering in their ears? It's not their voters. Perhaps it's rich 'Russian' oligarchs with strong Israeli connections, who stole the Russian economy, and who can now afford to cruise the Mediterranean entertaining their friends.

When we stop and take a hard look at our society and institutions and the attitudes that are now promoted and enforced, it's less of a surprise to find that our plastic Parliament is inhabited by plastic people. It's an almost powerless parody of what it used to be. It no longer represents Britain; Britain is what is being destroyed and swept away. In medieval times the House of Lords mattered, this was the assembly of the people who actually owned and ran the country, and who raised and commanded its military forces from their own resources. The King had a council, and could govern through favourites, but he could not overbear strong opposition among the Lords.They included some bishops because the Church was very wealthy and included the intellectual class who moulded opinion and the religious/emotional life of the people, and contributed educated administrators. The House of Commons consisted of the representatives of the richer townsmen and most influential local landowners. They mattered because these were the sort of people who ran things at a local level, and who would have to contribute and collect most of the taxes, so it was prudent to get their agreement to laws and impositions, especially as the king was expected to pay for central government from his own income in normal times and only appeal for one-off taxes to pay for emergencies, especially wars.
Meetings were infrequent. Travel was troublesome. People were not always keen to accept the responsibility. The majority of the population were not included, but few of them would have wished to be involved. Their wishes regarding government were usually that the King would be blessed by God and rule justly with good advice from his Lords and Commons, and that their own local superiors would not be too harsh or unjust towards them. The King was supposed to remedy injustice. The institution of the King in Parliament effectively expressed the economic and social structure of the country and articulated it's sense of identity. People and their institutions are not perfect, but this worked reasonably well.

Compare the present situation. Most of the people who own and run the economy of Britain are no longer British. A few years ago I saw a brief press report that the majority of the advertiser's 'A' class people are now American or Indian. These are the equivalent of the medieval Lords. They don't need to meet here in a House of Lords, their interests go far beyond Britain. London is just a convenient place to visit occasionally. The top level people may meet at places like Bilderberg, or various other places, or just electronically in a world of easy communications. Probably most of British businesses are subsidiaries or branches of American or other foreign companies. The people at the head of British companies are, in the main, not there because they and their ancestors established and nurtured them, but because they were appointed as stewards for those who hold a controlling interest. They have no personal interest apart from the money they expect to make in a company or in the country. They are not related to their managers, they feel no responsibility, beyond the legal minima and prudent public relations, towards their employees. Institutional shareholding reinforces rather than amends this pattern. They may not feel that they have much in common with the people of the land. They may be transferred around the world at a whim, they will probably live abroad when they retire. Their colleagues and outlooks are cosmopolitan. Even if they were British by birth, they are no longer British in soul or spirit.

Not much chance of getting good counsel from these people. Many of them may well be very able,dynamic, shrewd, knowledgeable and even wise, but why would they waste their time in a Toytown House of Lords, or advise fools? They don't have to be here, they can't be compelled, and they don't necessarily have British interests at heart. Strangely, Nu-Liebore seems to love rich 'non-domiciles' and fawningly gives them tax advantages, but apart from throwing them some money as political contributions, the affection does not seem to be reciprocated. Instead, the modern House of Lords is just a repository for decaying politicians, social climbing nouveau riche willing to make political or 'charitable' donations until they receive an 'honour' (puke!) - and oh yes, people the Prime Minister wants to have in his government without having to submit to the risks of a democratic election. Not much hope of robust defence of Britain from that lot either, although one should mention that the older holdouts from a slightly better era have managed to embarass the government occasionally by resisting their more obviously repressive legislation.

The socialist intellectuals who are the eqivalent of the medieval bishops are even more alienated. To be fair, many of the medieval bishops were foreigners, and some of the lords held fiefs abroad. Probably they didn't often despise and attempt to degrade the people of this land, unlike their modern replacements and the think tank inhabitants, journalists assorted 'experts' 'educationists', 'reformers' and 'artists' who are the equivalent of the lower clergy. Their mission is to spread intellectual and moral poison, and cause the people to reject their own identity and history. They have been successful.

The equivalents of the medieval MP's would be the bosses of successful local businesses, local bankers, lawyers or accountants, substantial farmers or people who have earned some local respect for their achievements. People who might be respected and trusted. Well, there's not many of them left in Parliament, or even locally. Many of our modern MP's have never held 'proper' jobs outside the state bureaucracy or quangocracy. A lot of them have simply crept from student politics, through unpaid service to an MP and party office, into parliament and then into government office. As long as they stick to the party line and avoid embarassment to their masters, they may circulate for years through a variety of jobs, like dirty bathwater draining slowly down a plughole, knowing little and caring less for the areas they are supposed to administer. Even the civil service is embarassed by the low quality of many of them. That's even ignoring the Labour drones, clapped out union officials sent to parliament as a retirement sinecure. Many of these people have never done an honest day's work and would be hard pressed, even in better economic times, to get a job paying anything near the average wage, let alone Parliamentary pay (about three times the average wage) and all those amazingly generous tax free allowances as well as the gold plated parliamentary pension. On average MPs' total cost to the taxpayer is estimated at around £250,000 per head per year, if I recall correctly. Serious money. No wonder it attracts rogues. Scope for an immediate 90% cut I would think. No surprise that this shower of wasters contributes virtually nothing to good government. They only represent the little cliques of (mainly) vermin that selected them and shoved them in front of the public at an election. The party system prevents individuals with ambition - and that's nearly all - from scrutinising legislation properly; government control of procedure prevents introduction and fair treatment of private members bills. Mostly carpetbaggers, few have local roots in the constituencies they claim to represent, and there are few strong local interest groups who could and would be able to support and re-elect an MP who showed independence.

So Parliament is just a hollow sham. It does not represent Britain. There may not be much of 'Britain' left to be represented. There's certainly an excessively large and growing population, but this is increasingly merely a garbage heap of the world's refuse, mixed with the debased and degenerating remnants of the British, administered by the vile vampires and brainwashed zombies of communist political correctness. This mess will certainly rot, but it won't produce the beneficial compost in which the New Eden can grow, supporting a marvelous new humanity. More than Watermelon Greens - (green outside, red within) will be disappointed.


Yes, this is the modern state. It does not exist to express the identity of a People,but to destroy Peoples and civilisations - except for one, of course.

I seem to have read somewhere that before the first world war, Britain ran it's empire with only about 2,000 civil servants. That may not have included all the menial jobs, but nowadays many of these are outsourced, so the numbers are probably roughly comparable. Britain's population may have increased by about half, but better communications and computer technology should make administration easier.It's obviously not about better or more efficient government.

Whole categories of government programmes could be eliminated, whole departments closed, if we were looking for fair, effective and efficient government; but that's beside the point.

Yesterday's Newsnight discussion showed that the junior ministers are just ambitious but indifferent and ignorant people 'going along in order to get along'; while the senior civil servants are office politician-empire builders.None of them care a damm about the public. Neither do the few near the top who devise the maniacal and wasteful policies.

Sinecure seeking parasites form the bulk of central and local government employees, augmented massively by all the interfering quangos. Indeed, someone has pointed out that the problem extends to some 6-8 million state employees. If they did anything useful, it could be provided by the private sector, but that would eliminate the control of the political class, especially the politically correct socialist filth, whose mission is to destroy civilisation and degrade humanity. Well, they're succeeding. Those who monitor corruption note that Britain is dropping down the table of international comparisons. This is increasingly a Third World country in every way. Even the invaders note and despise the decadence and immorality into which Britain has, not just fallen, but been pushed, by the evil garbage which has been governing it, and the even more evil intellectual and moral forces which have used them and which has generated the politically correct administrators to implement their rule.

In previous eras important people surrounded themselves with a brilliant entourage of lackeys, lesser lords and men at arms. In our grey Bureaucratic Era, they surround themselves with 'public servants', lesser politicians, advisers and consultants. Spin-doctors replace astrologers.

The whole political-bureaucratic-media-business class is corrupt and self serving. No real news in that, of course. The trick is to institute a form of government whereby politics displays some form of the 'invisible hand' of economics, whereby as Adam Smith pointed out, private selfishness produces public benefits.

Meanwhile we have an Augean stable, but no Heracles to clean it.

Maybe, one should acknowledge that England and Britain are dead, and that the immediate task is for the scavengers to devour the corpse. Later, something new may grow. Something that will wreak vengeance on the vermin now ruling the land. A Lord who will pull down the mighty from their seats, and glut his ravens.

Then and Now

Readers of Private Eye will be aware of complaints about the quality of housing for troops and their families, and that the these as well as the training facilities have been 'privatised'. We also hear that the government intends to expand public works programmes; and it has long been supposed that the defence industry has to be encouraged to sell to unpleasant foreign governments, (who have to be bribed, so causing moral outrage,) so that they can have sufficiently long production runs to produce something for British forces, at an affordable price. Their products are probably not quite as good as those of other major states, and the quantities supplied to the troops are often insufficient.

How things change. When Britannia was a Roman province, the Roman troops built the roads, they quarried the stone and they transported it and they built Hadrian's Wall, and probably other public facilities, such as aquaducts; as well as their own forts and barracks, and any seige engineering their campaigning required. Their fighting soldiers included men who were well trained in the requisite crafts and engineering skills. Their army bureaucracy efficiently organised the production and distribution of weapons and armour and uniforms. They did this over a vast empire which took several months to traverse, on foot, on horseback and by sail.

Come to think of it, the British army used to be able to do much the same, and also over a vast empire which took several months to traverse, on foot, on horseback and by sail. They both sold weapons to foreigners, who didn't need to be bribed to buy them, and even without foreign sales were able to supply their own forces with all they needed. These weapons were not inferior to those of their tribal opponents or rival states.

Isn't it strange that as we 'progress', our capacities diminish? Progress makes things worse, it seems. Progressives certainly do.

So, how about bringing the troops home from foreign adventures which don't benefit Britain, and have them improve their own quarters, handle their own training, organise their own arsenals (and hospitals) and help improve the roads and other infrastructure. Ah, but the unions and the profiteers who finance our rulers might not like that. What a pity.

Oh yes, one more thing. Those legionaries were versatile. They were also tough and ruthless. They had another skill. They were good at crucifying internal enemies of the Senate and People of Rome. I think it was Crassus who had his troops line the road south fom Rome with 6,000 rebellious slaves on stakes after the defeat of Spartacus.

What a picture that summons. Imagine the main roads of this country lined with the crucified corpses of the the internal enemies of the British people. Surely there'd be more than enough to stretch all the way from Downing Street to the Snot Gobbler's own Scottish constituency. Let the ravens feast!