Get Out of Jail Free?

One of the reasons I keep on posting here, in spite of the fact that, these days, only bots and AI seem to read it, is because I can't be interrupted, talked over or shouted down before I can properly develop an idea or construct an argument.  All of which behaviours are, in my opinion, reprehensible, demonstrating only the rudeness and ignorance of the guilty party.  Moreover, they represent the tactics of fascism - denying any opposing voices a platform.  When I taught, I certainly wouldn't tolerate any of these things in my classroom.  In the pub, unfortunately, there are a significant number of individuals who want only their own voices and opinions to be heard and are prepared to shout anyone expressing what might be something they disagree with down, refusing one the opportunity to unfold their ideas and arguments fully.  As you have, by now, doubtless guessed, I recently had just such an experience.  I perhaps wouldn't have minded so much if I hadn't have been expounding my, not entirely serious, thesis that the US is a nation of psychopaths, obsessed with violence, and that the whole Trump circus that the entire world has to suffer through right now, is an inevitable consequence of this.  Which is why I find myself constantly exasperated by Americans of my acquaintance who simply shrug and say, 'Well I didn't vote for him' as if that somehow makes it all OK and means that they don't have to bear any responsibility for what is happening.  At which point I was rudely and angrily cut off by an unprovoked tirade about how ridiculous it was to try and hold people responsible for the actions of governments they might not have voted for, because it wasn't their fault, I was an idiot etc, etc.  

The continued belittling and shouting down prevented me from my response, that, actually, you can hold people responsible not just what they do, but also for what they don't do.  The precedent, of course, being post-war Germany, where the German populace were held collectively responsible for the rise of Nazism.  A view actually shared by most of them, who understood that the Nazi regime didn't just happen, to some degree even those who didn't vote for Hitler and didn't actively support it, had allowed it to happen through their inaction.  They hadn't opposed it vigourously enough before inter-war German democracy was completely destroyed.  They saw what was happening but, through fear, through complacency, through the vague idea that all of us living in democracies have, that this is just a blip and that they system would eventually correct it, did nothing.  As long as the bad things weren't happening to them personally, it was easier to look away.  Now, this isn't something confined to either Trump's America or Nazi Germany.  All of us living in democracies and taking them for granted, are guilty of this complacency which allows evil to seep into the system and destroy it - by the time we react, it is often too late.  When I talk about 'opposing' these forces before they take root, I don't necessarily mean going out on the streets and beating them up or firebombing their offices, instead I mean simply pushing back at their poisonous narratives whenever we can, standing up for the minorities they seek to intimidate, simply having the courage to speak out.

But, more often than not, we don't do these things.  Certainly, I know that I haven't always done them: there have been times when I should have confronted individuals over their racist language, for instance, but I didn't because it would have drawn attention to myself, made me unpopular in the workplace, for instance, so it was easier not to do so.  I'm not proud of myself for these failures.  On the other hand, I did, on occasion, stand up for workers rights in my workplace, confronting management and making myself unpopular (and labelled an awkward bastard' by management and colleagues alike) in the process.  But I never regretted doing those things - doing the right thing won't make you popular, but at least you can have a clear conscience.  I've written before about the complete and utter shame as a Briton I felt while Boris 'The Fat Bastard' Johnson was Prime Minister, but back then I thought that just shrugging and saying 'Well, I didn't vote for him' was enough.  But, over time, I realised that it wasn't.  After all, how had we ever got to the situation where someone so manifestly unfit for office had been allowed to get so far?  Could it be that people like me, ordinary citizens, hadn't done enough to promote the opposing political narrative, to oppose and argue against the right wing at every opportunity?  Had we failed to win the battle of hearts and minds because we just couldn't be bothered and thought that someone else would do it for us?  So, despite not having voted for Boris, I had to bear my share of responsibility for allowing the political discourse that resulted in his ascension to go unopposed.  

Which leads, inevitably, to the not unreasonable question of what I'm doing right now to try and fight the rise of the right and their cohorts?  It's all very well preaching to people that they need to be more proactive in order to combat these people, but it means nothing if I'm just sitting on my arse complacently expecting others to respond to my call to arms.  Well, this is what I'm doing: writing stuff like this in the hope that it might inspire even one person to start actively getting involved in opposing the dark forces that seem to be gathering around Western democracies.  More than that, I'm still constantly churning out pieces for The Sleaze, satirising, parodying and ridiculing these people and their ideologies.  Satire is, I agree, a pretty weak weapon to wield, but these guys don't like to be ridiculed, it dents their egos, reveals them just to be flawed humans like the rest of us.  Besides, it is what I'm reasonably good at.  But on top of that, I try to be more vocal when it comes to opposing bigots and oafs, challenging their bigotry and ill behaviour whenever possible, (and whenever it is safe to do so).  Simply not voting for the likes of Trump or Farage isn't enough - you have to actively oppose them and their ideologies.  But, too many people, particularly middle class people, think that saying 'I didn't vote for them' is some kind of 'Get Out of Jail Free' card for their consciences.  Except that, in truth, there are no free passes in life.  No way to balance out your bad deeds by performing a few good ones - those celestial scales don't exist.  It's just a cop out to try and salve your conscience.  Hell, I've done plenty of discreditable things in my life, things of which I am deeply ashamed, things which have caused hurt to others.  But experience has told me that there is no way to take it all back, no way to truly repair the hurt and damage - I have to find a way to live with the fact that I've done these things, that I've caused this hurt, accept my flaws and wrong doing and learn from them, learn to behave better in future.  But I've digressed somewhat from my original point, which is simply that if we fail to act, if we are too complacent and think that voting alone is the only way to oppose extremism, then we allow them to triumph.

The Craziness That Keeps on Giving

Donald Trump undoubtedly is the crazy who just keeps on giving - as his latest lunatic ramblings confirm.  This time he's claiming that the triumphal arch he wants to erect in his own honour in Washington DC will actually be some kind of military defence installation, housing drones, sniper positions and lots of sniper ammunition.  The obvious question, obviously, is just who or what this installation is meant to be defending DC against?  Is Trump expecting Canada to invade some time soon?  (Actually, with so much of the US military tied up in his vanity war in Iran, that might not be a bad idea - Mark Carney really needs to give the idea of seizing the US Eastern seaboard serious consideration).  Or maybe he's expecting an attack from further afield - perhaps he's somehow pissed off some aliens who are now poised to land their flying saucers in DC.  But, in truth, we all know what this is really about: let's face it, snipers and drones aren't going to repel any kind of invading army, but they could be deployed against large scale civilian protests.  And that's what Trump is afraid of - a popular uprising against him.  Probably when he refuses to leave office in 2028.  This time, of course, it wouldn't be a case of refusing to accept an election result, as he can't stand again, but of refusing to accept the Constitution.  Which he already has form for.

Sure, we also know that this nonsense about drones and snipers is pure fantasy - at best, another spurious attempt to justify the expense of building that monstrous edifice to his vanity - but it provides a valuable insight into the workings of his fevered mind.  He's running scared - the end of his presidency and the power and protection it gives him is in sight, with the likelihood that Congress will soon be controlled by his opponents even sooner. All of which makes him far more dangerous, more likely to start not just saying, but actually doing, even crazier stuff than he already is.  Let's face it, he's just itching to declare a state of emergency within the US and impose martial law and by all accounts is obsessed with the idea of deploying a nuclear against one of the US' enemies, (with Iran being the most likely target right now).  The recent poll which suggests that the majority of Americans would support his removal from office via either impeachment or the 25th Amendment, (they were slightly less keen on a military coup but pretty ambivalent about him dying in office of natural causes), probably isn't going to help Trump's mindset much, either.  (Interestingly, despite the number of alleged attempts against him, assassination wasn't an option, so we just don't know how Americans feel about the idea of a modern day Lee Harvey Oswald offing the fat bastard).  Heartening though it is to see US citizens finally grasping what the rest of us have known for years - that they have elected a dangerous madman to the highest office in the land - the trouble with all of these scenarios (including assassination), barring, possibly, the military coup - is that they would simply deliver a J D Vance presidency.  Which isn't necessarily an improvement - at least with Trump you know he's simply a demented and dangerous old man, but a snide, two-faced, slippery God-botherer like Vance is a potentially far more difficult prospect to deal with.

Twenty Five Years of Hate?

It's the twenty fifth anniversary of 9/11.  Or, if you are one of those crazy conspiracy theorists, the twenty fifth anniversary of either a 'false flag' operation by the US government, or a colossal hoax that fooled the world.  But, assuming that what we all saw on TV that day actually did happen and actually was a terror attack, what does it all mean a quarter of a century on?  Well, for one thing, it heralded twenty five years of global de-stabilisation, as the US thrashed around, blindly trying to strike back at nebulous enemies and gain some kind of 'revenge'.  Having never experienced large scale terror attacks on its territory, they had no idea how to respond and instead acted as if nobody had ever suffered this sort of thing before and that therefore nobody else had any advice to give.  Which meant that the measured sorts of response to terrorist attacks that the UK and Europe had employed up until then weren't even considered and instead we had ill advised and illogical invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.  Neither of which achieved much in the short term and in the long term have proven disastrous, both for the citizens of those countries and for global stability.  9/11 also ushered in a new age of xenophobia, the mistrust, hatred even, of 'the other' - be that 'otherness' cultural or simply having a different to skin tone to 'us'.   

It is this fear of 'the other' which lies at the heart of so many consequent disasters, from Brexit to the US' current literal war on immigrants.  It has fuelled the rise of the extreme right in the US and across Europe - if not for 9/11, I'm pretty sure that we wouldn't have had last weekend's disturbing scenes of black clad, masked, neo-Nazi thugs on our streets trying to harass and intimidate both immigrants and asylum seekers and branding the RNLI 'traitors' for simply doing their jobs.  The Twin Towers were the catalyst for legitimising this sort of hatred.  Or, if you prefer, it represented the lighting of a very long fuse that eventually led to normalisation of extremists like Farage and 'Tommy Robinson'.   Not to mention, in the US, Trump, in Germany the AfD, in France Le Pen and so on.  One could even argue that the US' actions in invading Afghanistan and Iraq of very flimsy 'self defence' pretexts, provided Russia with inspiration for its war in Ukraine, justified on similar grounds.  So, the bastards who flew those planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon have a lot to answer for, except, of course, that by ensuring that theirs was a suicide mission, they've evaded any responsibility, with US instead wildly striking out at various proxy targets.  They're still at it today, pushing fuel prices to the point where I'm being forced to consider taking my car off of the road until sanity returns, with their continuing senseless war against 'the other', in thise, Iran.  Ironically, Saudi Arabia remains (just) a US ally, despite the fact that those 9/11cguys were, actually, Saudis, backed by Saudi money... 

Legitimising the Fascist Thugs

It's amazing the number of right-wing arseholes who suddenly seem to legitimise violent protesters because they have a 'legitimate cause'.   Make no mistake, they are very careful in the way they word their statements, opening with a cursory 'condemnation' of violence, but then following it up by effectively saying that they can understand the frustrations that have lead to the use of violence (which of course they don't condone) because the underlying cause is legitimate.  Which, despite their attempts at weasel wording, actually does legitimise the violence.  In the wake of bunches of black clad thugs causing disruption, intimidating locals and clashing violently with the police in Dover and Portsmouth over the weekend, I was more than a little disturbed to hear my local (Tory) Police and Crime Commissioner taking this non-condemnation condemnation approach today.  Because, you know, it was all about those immigrants, wasn't it?  Which apparently justifies protesting against the RNLI landing them in Portsmouth, having rescued several from drowning in the Channel.  Then we had the Tory Shadow Home Secretary taking a similar but, in the bits I heard at least, failing completely to actually condemn the 'protesters' violent conduct.  Look, even that racist scumbag Nigel Farage managed to put out a statement which actually condemned violence and objected to these fascists wearing masks.  

Of course, these were all the self same people who had happily condemned Just Stop Oil and pro Palestinian protesters - even when their protests weren't violent - for causing disruption and inconveniencing the public.  'Lock 'em up!' seemed to be the gist of their reactions to those protests and, indeed, the police and courts obliged by doing just that, often on trumped up charges that wouldn't stand up in court.  By contrast, the lack of arrests as a result of the Dover and Portsmouth incidents are notable, despite these being violent protest carries out by people who are clearly trying to pass themselves off as some kind of 'militia'.  Two tier justice, anyone?  Quite frankly, it is these pieces of shit that we should be coming down hard on - the police need to be handing out the kind of beatings they usually reserve for left-wing protesters to these bastards.  In fact, I'd go further - the time for kid gloves and pussy footing around the extreme right has surely long passed.  We need to start shooting the bastards, if necessary.  I mean, if you've got sinister black clad and  masked shit heads thinking they can go out onto British streets and intimidate people and take the  law into their own hands, then we are entering very dangerous territory - the road to lawlessness, in fact.  This sort of thing needs to be nipped in the bud.  The extremists need to be shown, in no uncertain terms, that this sort of shit won't be tolerated.  Which makes the slowness and weakness of the government's reactions to these events deeply disturbing - do they really not see the danger here?  For God's sake, we need to stop the fascists by any means necessary - the alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

Dear Sir, I'd Like to Complain About Democracy...

Don't you just love it?  One day we have Nigel Farage whining about how we live in a 'complainant society', where an elected representative can suddenly find themselves under investigation just  because someone has unreasonably complained that you, I don't know, received an undeclared five million quid from some shady crypto bloke, say.  Outrageous.  Then a few days later, we have the self same Farage caught in an undercover investigation apparently endorsing his party taking donations from a foreign national, (which is illegal under UK electoral law).  You see, they're out to get him, those complaining bastards in the 'establishment'.  In fact, he's being harassed with meritless accusations, just the way his hero, convicted felon and adjudicated rapist Donald Trump, has been.  First up, trying to compare yourself to Trump is treading on thin ice if you are a UK politician - Trump has never been popular here and the 'Trump Premium' we find ourselves paying for petrol, diesel etc thanks to his war against Iran, hasn't done anything for his popularity.  Yet more evidence that our Nige is losing it, if he thinks that this an analogy that will resonate with the UK electorate?  Of course, the real issue here is his equation of being held to account, as all elected representatives must be in a democracy, to a 'complainant' culture.  In essence, he's saying that just because he's an MP and aspires to lead the country, he shouldn't be subject to scrutiny.

This should be yet another alarm bell for the idiots inclined to vote for Reform: their leadership clearly has either no understanding of how a democratic, pluralist system works or, more likely, they do know and don't care.  If it isn't obvious to everyone by now that they don't believe that they should be accountable to anyone, least of all the electorate, then I'm not quite sure what else they have to do - slip on the swastika armbands, perhaps?  I mean, they've already started banning journalist that they feel are too critical of them from their party conference.  Indeed, this policy goes right the way down to local level, where some local journalists have found themselves being denied access to meetings and press conferences in Reform controlled councils.   Yet still there are idiots out there prepared to support them.  Do they not take note of all of Reform's opposition to concepts like accountability and oversight?  Or do they not care?  Just so long as they deport all those darkies, I don't care if they suppress democratic debate and human rights, it's a small price to pay for making Britain white again, eh?  The latter is probably the attitude that Farage and co are banking on - that people are sufficiently discontent with the status quo that they'll be prepared to overlook his and his party's dubious activities and downright dangerous attitudes.  After all, he probably reasons, those American idiots re-elected Trump, despite his criminal convictions and the fact that he instigated an attempted insurrection when he'd lost the previous election.

Electoral Dissonance

It's pretty much cognitive dissonance - the ability to hold two conflicting, mutually exclusive even, beliefs simultaneously - isn't it?  The way in which our ill-informed electorate appears to think, I mean.  Or at least, the way the right-wing press seems to believe that they think, judging by their headlines.  As ever, with the arrival of a new Labour Prime Minister, the press have gone into overdrive with stories about crippling taxes to pay for his policies, etc.  They are clearly relying upon what they assume are voters' reluctance to pay taxes, to which there is an element of truth: nobody likes paying out money.  But at the same time, those self same voters are guaranteed to be in favour of cutting NHS waiting lists, building new hospitals, schools and the like.  Not to forget better mental health care provisions to keep all those dangerous nutters off of the streets that the press are always on about, more policemen to deal with those terrorists and immigrant criminals they like to try and scare their readers with, more tanks, planes and ships to see off that Russian invasion they are always scaremongering about.  Between them, the press and the public want it all.  But how do they think all of this is paid for?  The reality is that any government's main source of revenue is general taxation.  That's right, those taxes that the people who want all these services don't want to pay. 

The problem is that for decades the press and successive governments have been trying to sell us the lie that you can have both high quality public services and low taxation.  New Labour told us the shortfall could be met through Private-Public Finance Initiatives, while the Tories, once they got past their bogus 'austerity' agenda, told us it was all about simply cutting the 'unpopular' bits of public spending, (ie that targeted at the poor and minorities), to focus public finances on the 'important' stuff instead.  (A manifest lie, of course, as they also cut policing, the justice system and defence to the bone, in order to finance ever bigger tax cuts to their rich buddies).  But this 'cognitive dissonance' isn't just confined to economics.  UK voters, for instance, have consistently indicated their disdain, repugnance even, for Trump, yet, at the same time, many of them simultaneously seem prepared to vote for Nigel Fartage and his band of Reform brigands - a man who has revelled in his alleged friendship with Trump and has frequently endorsed the fat bastard's policies.  (I know he's been trying to walk this back since the disaster of Trump's war against Iran, his threatening to seize Greenland and his various disparaging anti-UK comments, but some of us don't forget).  Again, mutually exclusive positions, surely?  It's as if they have no idea what Fartage actually stands for and proposes.  Which they might well not, the British electorate seems so ill-informed (and the press seems determined to keep them that way).  Ah well, there you have it - this week's political rant

Holy Dementia, Fatman!

That Trump is an utterly unhinged psychopath is pretty much beyond question, (and the US electorate equally unhinged psychos for having re-elected him), but  exactly where are his delusions leading him?  Increasingly, I'm beginning to suspect that he sees himself as some kind of super-villain.  In his own head he probably sees himself as Blofeld, Thanos or Lex Luthor, but in reality, I feel that he's closer to The Penguin.  Not any of those more recent revisionist versions of the 'Batman' villain, but rather the version played by Burgess Meredith in the sixties TV series.  It sort of fits with his increasingly insane speeches and pronouncements.  I mean, when reading or listening to them, just imagine him wearing a purple top hat, monocle, clutching an umbrella and smoking a cigarette in a long holder - the image fits perfectly.  It's the same when you see him on TV, embarrassing himself and his country at some international event or other: as he waddles in front of the cameras, just imagine him in that outfit.  Again, it fits perfectly.  He even does that super-villain thing of telling us all his dastardly plans, in detail, before he tries to enact them.  Then wonders why they inevitably seem to fall flat or get foiled by NATO, Canada, the EU or even Iran.  Soon, I'm sure, he'll be sneering, just like Penguin used to do to Adam West's Batman, as he delivers his speeches.

Then there's his apparent with Barack Obama, sorry, Barack Hussein Obama as Trump insists on calling him.  Obama's been out of the White House for at least ten years, yet Trump still seems to see him as some kind of threat.  Could it be that he suspects that Barack Hussein Obama is really Batman, out to foil him at every turn?  Maybe he thinks that Joe Biden is Alfred the Butler, Bruce Wayne/Barack Hussein Obama's aged retainer?  Perhaps Obama should start dressing up as Batman and appearing, unannounced, at events Trump is hosting, just to freak him out.  I have a strong suspicion that, some day soon, Trump will appear at a press conference dressed as The Penguin and, if he doesn't like the questions he's being asked, point his umbrella at the press and release poison gas into the crowd, killing them all.  After that, it'll only be a short step to a live TV broadcast in which he has Obama dressed as Batman strapped to some infernal device and starts ranting about his latest dastardly scheme  -suitably peppered with bird puns - before sneering and departing by telling Obama how the device he's strapped to will kill him.  Even though he's left a ludicrously easy way for Batman to escape with a single bound.  We can only hope then that Obama/Batman catches up with Trump and beats him up in the style of the TV series, with words like 'Ka-pow!', 'Wham!' and 'Ooof!' appearing on the screen.

The Big Balls of Courage?

Apparently, to be a true 'warrior' you have to have big balls.  Literally, it seems.  Self styled US Secretary of 'War' Pete Hegseth's latest obsession is apparently the testosterone levels of US servicemen - he thinks they have to be sky high if they are to be effective killing machines, sorry, 'warriors'.  It seems that there are to be compulsory tests of testosterone levels for US servicemen, with booster shots on offer if they are too low.  No, I'm not making this up, it's the latest policy announced by Hegseth.  Bearing in mind this buffoon's intelligence levels, he probably really does think that you can measure male testosterone levels by the size of someone's balls.  So his compulsory tests will probably involve lines of soldiers dropping their pants and having their knackers sized up.  You can just see it, some Master Sergeant taking a tape measure or steel rule to soldiers' testicles, weighing them up on a set of scales in order to decide whether they 'make the grade'.  Of course, this obsession with testosterone levels might end up conflicting with one of Hegseth's other obsessions, that of beards.  Having declared war on facial hair in the military, (and very upset at the fact that it is being ignored in many quarters), it seems somewhat perverse to propose injecting servicemen with testosterone, which could well promote facial hair growth.

Yes, we all should be worried - the idiocracy truly has arrived and the self-styled 'world's most powerful nation' is currently in the hands of the sort of morons who take everything literally:  they really do think that when someone is described as having cojones, it means, quite literally, that they have big balls which account for their supposed bravery.  It's the sort of simplistic world view that equates testosterone-driven aggression and thuggery with the idea of a 'warrior class'.  The likes of Hegseth have clearly seen far too many ludicrous Hollywood action films and read far too many war comics.  Next thing, they'll be promoting military guys on the size of their dicks - nothing under ten inches if you want to be a general.  It is perhaps appropriate to reiterate here that the Ancient Greeks, considered the progenitors of western thought and civilisation, were of the opinion that, far from being a sign of prowess, large genitalia were an indication of a bestial, unintelligent and uncivilised nature.  Which why most male sculptures from the era are modestly endowed - that was considered a sign of civilised values.  Something for Hegseth and his buddies to ponder on, I think.

One of Us?

God help me, I think I'm beginning to become acclimatised to these plus thirty temperatures.  I've found this latest bout far easier to live with than the previous two.  Of course, the wider question is just how acclimatised to Nigel Farage's grift the voters of Clacton have become.  Because that seems to be the main plank of his campaign for re-election in a self-inflicted and entirely unnecessary by-election: 'What's the world coming to when a man can't accept the odd five million quid here and there without having to account for it?  It's bloody outrageous!'  A bold platform to campaign on - I mean, I'm sure that many, many people in Clacton can identify with his dilemma.  But while the whole business seems to be sliding into farce - with the main parties refusing to play Fartage's game and not running candidates, it looks like he'll be spending the campaign debating a man with a bin on his head - there is, obviously, a fundamental principle at stake here: the accountability of elected representatives.  It's clear that Reform UK doesn't subscribe to the idea that if you are elected to office, then you are held to a higher standard and that all of your conduct, particularly your financial affairs, are up for scrutiny.  At least, they don't accept that such standards apply to them - they seem more than happy, though, to try and call members of other parties to account for alleged transgressions. 

Farage can wriggle around at claim that, technically, he wasn't an MP when he accepted that five million so it didn't have to be declared, but the fact is that he is an MP now and bearing in mind his interest in promoting dodgy crypto-schemes, (lobbying the Bank of England not to impose restrictions on transactions, even), the fact that he accepted this sum from a crypto-currency billionaire is a matter of legitimate public interest.  Trying to avoid accountability in the matter by resigning and forcing a by-election so that he can try and turn the whole issue into one of 'The Establishment vs The Little Guy', is so transparently dishonest that surely nobody is fooled.  But then again, part of his success has been based around selling himself to voters as 'one of them' - despite the fact that, even before that five million quid - he was a very wealthy individual from a privileged background - he's a public school boy - with a prior career in the city.  But this time, he may have overstepped in this regard: 'ordinary' people don't get cash gifts of that kind.  Moreover, he won't be up against 'The Establishment' in this by-election - he'll be up against Count Binface, who could be heading for a record share of the vote in a by-election.  It'll certainly be more than the ninety five votes he got at the Makerfield by-election.   It's all pointless, anyway.  If Farage wins and resumes his position as MP for Clacton, then the Standards Committee investigation into the five million will simply resume and could result in another by-election being forced upon the voters of Clacton.

Get a Sense of Humour...

OK, so last week I was on about how my ideal outcome for this latest FIFA World Cup of corruption would be an England-USA final, with the US getting thrashed in front of Trump in their 250th anniversary year, followed by rejoicing England fans burning down the White House in celebration.  Well, since then, I've though of something better: an Iran-USA final.  Maybe Trump could base the whole outcome of his 'peace talks' with Iran on it - if they win, they retain full control of the Straits of Hormuz, if they lose, the US can bomb them 'into the stone age'.  Even better, though, the Iranian players and fans could all turn out to be suicide bombers and blow themselves, the stadium and Trump to bits, win or lose.  Of course, if I were to try and run this gag past any US acquaintances, then there'd be much pearl clutching and hand wringing as they expressed shock and horror over the idea of joking about political violence.  Their sensitivity on this subject is a phenomenon that never ceases to amaze me - one of the most violent societies on earth, where the ownership of lethal weapons is constitutionally enshrined as a right and actively encouraged, where they allow their children to be slaughtered by crazed bastards exercising such rights on a regular basis, but they can't take a joke about political assassinations.  I mean, it isn't as if they haven't assassinated enough of their own presidents and political leaders to assume that this simply wasn't a sensitive subject any more.

But no, you can't joke about blowing up even a deadbeat senile sex offender like Trump, without finding yourself subjected to much finger-wagging and admonishments over 'encouraging' or 'condoning' political violence.  Oh, for fuck's sake!  Get a sense of humour!  There's a version of this sanctimonious shit this side of the Atlantic, as well, in those people - usually on the right - who bellow about how Nigel Farage having milkshakes thrown at him somehow constitutes assault.  Because, you know, next time it might not be a milkshake - it might be battery acid!  Which begs the question, of course, if the hurlers of milkshakes really wanted to harm Farage, why didn't they throw battery acid at him in the first place?  (Mind you, these self-same hand-wringers would always applaud loudly when eggs were thrown at Jeremy Corbyn or water poured over John Prescott because that so obviously wasn't assault, was it?).   It's all bollocks, obviously.  The throwing of stuff at politicians goes back to at least Roman times, when it was considered perfectly legitimate to hurl rotten fruit and vegetables at public speakers if you didn't like what they were saying.  Indeed, I recall that when I was a kid people were always throwing tomatoes at Ted Heath when he was Prime Minister and nobody batted an eyelid - there was nobody going on about 'assault' or claiming that it might encourage or condone actual political violence.  I guess it all comes down to how robust one's sense of humour is - I mean, these right wingers are always banging on about how the left are over-sensitive to stuff intended as a joke and are a bunch of snowflakes, yet throw a milkshake at Farage, which I think is hilarious, and the cry-babies start whining.  If you can't take a joke...

Whitewashing the Racists

In view of today's political developments in the UK, your regular reminder that we don't elect prime ministers.  Parliament, in effect, does that, in that whoever can command a majority there can form a government.  We get to elect the parliament.  That's why it is called a parliamentary democracy.   Hence, there is no requirement to have a general election every time the prime minister changes.  Which also means that if you are one of those people who bangs on about 'unelected prime ministers' every time the ruling party changes leader, then you are politically and constitutionally illiterate and thus too ignorant to be commenting on UK politics.

Back to business.  Still politics, though.  I read an article from the Daily Telegraph recently that noted with shock and horror that Rupert Lowe's Restore party was being financed by white supremacists.  Well, golly gosh, who would have thought it, eh?  An extreme right-wing party that advocates the forced removal of immigrants and allegedly doesn't want non-white people standing for it as candidates, regardless of whether or not they are UK citizens, is being supported by a bunch of Nazis?  I found the Telegraph's apparent naivety somewhat perplexing, bearing in mind that they, along with the rest of the right-wing press have been busy turning out the sort of hateful rhetoric and right-wing propaganda which has helped create the sort of discourse in which these extremist parties can be nurtured.  There is, of course, a catch to all this: the story goes on to claim that Restore are so extreme that even Stephen 'Tommy Robinson' Yaxley-Lennon, convicted mortgage fraudster and violent football thug, thinks that are just too, well, Nazi.  Yes indeed, this is really another media attempt to normalise Robinson and his thugs, with the article going on to tell us how uneasy Restore's attitude to race makes him.  Because Tommy, after all, is now peddling his brand of hate under the 'Unite the Kingdom' banner, claiming that it is a movement unifying all true British citizens, regardless of race, in a patriotic campaign to save British values.  Yeah, and pigs might fly.

Apart from whitewashing Robinson, there's another underlying theme to this and similar articles in the right-wing press - that Restore, by attracting the hardcore Nazi nutter vote, is weakening Reform UK at the polls.  Reform UK and more specifically Nigel Farage, being the current darling of the billionaires who currently own most of the UK's press.  Despite them not living in the UK or paying taxes here, these guys see him as their best hope to lead Britain into becoming a low tax (or no tax for billionaires), low regulation, (especially any of those pesky workers' rights), playground for them.  So, anything that threatens his ascendancy has to be discredited.  The thing is, though, that it isn't just the Restore vote which is eroding Reform's support, as the Makerfield by-election result shows. (See that folks? See how I've brought us back to the first, apparently unrelated, paragraph?  Neat, huh?)  As it turned out, Andy Burnham was able to win the seat easily with a majority far more than the combined votes cast for Reform and Restore.  This despite the right-wing press' constant parroting of Reform propaganda claiming that it was going to be a 'close contest'.  (Just like they were salivating over that referendum in Switzerland about reducing immigration by capping the country's population - that, too was going to be a 'too close to call', but the proposal was actually decisively rejected by the Swiss electorate, 55% to 45%).  The reality highlighted at Makerfield is that there is a strong progressive, decent or whatever you want to call it, vote out there who simply don't want Reform, Restore, Tommy Robinson and their ilk - it is notable that the Greens and Lib Dems offered only token campaigns to avoid splitting this vote too much, giving Burnham a clear run.  So, there you go - if you want to keep theses neo Nazi nutters out, then be prepared to vote tactically in order to ensure the least worst outcome.

Bring Back British Breeders

As it is all down to declining birth rates and an ageing population that we in the UK - and Europe, generally - need to have so many immigrant workers, you'd think that Nigel Farage would capitalise on this to try and propose a new policy that might be popular.  'Bring Back British Breeders' could be the new slogan as he and his merry crew of maladjusted pound shop fascists at Reform UK urge Britons to shag more.  Yes, indeed, that could be the new policy: 'Bonk for Britain' with Farage advocating more sex, perhaps even introducing weekly quotas for making love, accompanied by severe restrictions on the availability of contraceptives.  Because, obviously, this sex drive isn't about pleasure, but rather producing more babies - British babies.  Of course, if such a policy was to have any chance of succeeding in replenishing the ranks of true Brits, then there would also have to be measures introduced to ensure that the right people were having more sex.  For one thing, there could be compulsory contraception introduced for immigrants, Brits in mixed race relationships and non-white people in general - maybe there could be a 'colour chart' introduced for retailers of contraceptives to check the eligibility of those having them dispensed: the darker you are, the more you get.  

Of course, for such a policy to have maximum effect, heterosexual intercourse would have to be made compulsory and any form of same sex relationship outlawed - you can't have all that effort and semen being wasted on sexual activities that aren't going to produce babies.  Similarly, male masturbation will have to be closely monitored - if you want to knock one out then you'll have to do it into a test tube, which will then be sent off to a sperm bank.  Now, you ask, why would you need sperm banks if sex was made compulsory?  Well, let's not forget those lesbians who can no longer have sex with other women - well, if they refuse to 'convert', then you could have compulsory insemination.  Which would also be the case for chronically ugly women unable to attract a man.  Yes, I know this all sounds offensive, but that's Reform's trademark - normalising what initially seems unacceptable and turning it into policy.  Anyway, getting back to the policy proposal, to ensure maximum productivity, perhaps Farage might consider legalising polygamy.  Or maybe just encouraging everyone to do what hypocritical extreme right politicians do and simply have a dozen or so mistresses on shagging terms.  Maybe single women could be rounded up and put in 'Love camps', where they can be 'serviced' by members of the Reform UK youth wing.  You see, the possibilities are endless and I'll certainly be sending this policy initiative to Nigel Farage himself - I mean, a man prepared to exploit a murder in order to whip up racial hatred, division and social unrest would surely jump at the chance to embrace something that combines misogyny, racism, homophobia and ignorance in one package, would he?

It's a Mad, Bad, Hateful, Corrupt World

Just lately, for the first time in my life, I've found myself serious considering moving overseas in the face of the rising tide of hate and fascism in this country.  The key question, of course, is whether there actually is anywhere else in the world where these fucking right-wing extremist bastards aren't trying to seize power and would be anywhere I'd actually want to live?  I'm still pondering that one.  In the meantime, I've got the World Cup coming up to distract me.  Or not, probably.  I avoided the last one, that fake World cup they played in December, disrupting domestic football seasons, because corrupt FIFA had given it to a country too hot to stage it at the correct time.  The upcoming one is, at least, taking place, as it should, in the Summer, but it is partly being held in the world's current Global Fascism Central - the US.  Which, of course, means that FIFA is having a field day in corruption terms.  With Trump in the White House, everything and everyone can and will be bought - which suits FIFA down to the ground.  They've already had a dry run with the ridiculous and irrelevant Club World Cup, (which FIFA shouldn't have been organising, anyway, because it is not meant to be directly involved in club football), which they made a mint from by ruthlessly exploiting fans and blowing smoke up Trump's arse.  FIFA is the only organisation I can think of that actually became more corrupt after going through a supposed corruption crack down, which saw the departure of Sepp Blatter.

But we currently live in a world where corruption is no longer something to be ashamed of - it's no longer about brown paper envelopes stuffed full of cash being furtively exchanged in deserted car parks in dead of night.  No, nowadays it is all about lucrative contracts being awarded to friends and relatives of the powerful, who have all made generous 'no obligation donations' to politicians, or have donated them aircraft, vehicles, fake awards and the like.  It's all done in the light of day, right in front of us, usually live on TV.  There's no shame involved on the part of those participating in it all because, hey, it's all just the art of the deal, isn't it?  Everything's transactional.  Everyone and everything has a price.  Whilst, obviously, I hold Trump (and the American electorate for being so fucking stupid to elect him not once but twice) for this new era of blatant corruption, he isn't alone and the US, whilst the epicentre of this corruption, isn't the only country infected by it.  Let's not forget our own Boris Johnson, utterly venal and determined to leverage any public office he held to his own financial advantage, but even he wasn't the first, with the groundwork being laid by Cameron's Tory government, with its 'pay-for-access-to-ministers'fund-raising events.  Then there's Nigel Farage and his ever changing, but actually all the same, political vehicles, who'll take 'donations' from anyone - Russia, ex-pat tech billionaires, etc - he'll even record birthday greetings for the likes of 'Hugh Janus' for eighty quid.  The most disturbing thing about this new wave of public corruption is just how quickly it seems to have been normalised - obvious backhanders are flying about and politicians nakedly being bought, yet it raises barely a shrug from the public.  Damn it, I'm going to have to look harder for an overseas haven...

Summer of Idiocy?

Well, Summer's here at last. Meteorologically speaking, that is, yesterday being the start of meteorological Summer.  If you go by astronomical seasons, though, you'll have to wait until the 21st.  Personally, I prefer to follow the meteorological calendar so, as far as I'm concerned, it's Summer.  Typically for the UK, though, as soon as Summer officially begins, the sun vanishes and the heavens open.  I got drenched on my way to and from the pub last night.  It's become very fashionable, I know, to complain about the heat whenever we get a run of consecutive days of sunshine, as we did here at the end of May, but personally, I love the heat.  It wasn't always so - when I was much younger I suffered badly from hay fever, so associated summer heat and the sun with raised pollen counts and me suffering excessive congestion and coughing and wheezing miserably.  But I eventually outgrew these allergies, (I still suffer some reactions to high pollen counts, but they are usually very mild these days), so nowadays I welcome the sun and warmth and embrace summer wholeheartedly - even when it kicks off with torrential rain and thunderstorms.  Apparently global warming means that we'll have to get used to living in a warmer climate.  Yeah, well bring on those post thirty degree temperatures that we had last week - they help compensate for the damp and freezing Winter months we're forced to endure.  

Of course, the climate change deniers would tell you that it's all bollocks, that the increasingly early occurrences of very hot weather we've been experiencing in the UK for the past many years isn't evidence of global warming, but rather some kind of 'natural cycle' which they can't actually explain because they are talking bollocks.  But they're generally all extreme right-wing loonies who nobody in their right mind would pat any attention to, would they?  Would they?  Would they?  Well, with Reform UK allegedly polling highly in the UK, (I say 'allegedly' because a lot of these polls are becoming increasingly suspect with regard to their methodology - take that one claiming that Farage is more popular than Labour amongst trade union members: as union membership lists are confidential, how exactly do they know that they are polling actual members?), which indicates that a lot of British people are fucking idiots.  Certainly, anybody who actually votes for Reform UK is a fucking idiot.  Especially if they say they are doing it as some kind of 'protest' against mainstream politics - all you are doing is enabling a bunch of fascist thugs led by an oafish grifter.  If you really want to register a protest, then simply spoil your ballot paper or vote 'Monster Raving Loony Party', or maybe even Liberal Democrat.  But then, personal experience has taught me that most people are fucking idiots.  Uneducated idiots who revel in their own ignorance.  There really should be some kind of restrictions put on who is allowed to vote - an intelligence and/or morality test, perhaps.  Because, as Winston Churchill once opined, 'the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.'  Still, at least Summer's here, so can at least look forward to some nice weather before the idiots vote the fascists into power, then wonder where all their rights have gone and why we don't have elections any more....

Splitting the Hate Vote

It's becoming increasingly clear that Andy Burnham must have something in terms of ideas, policies, appeal or whatever, that might just halt the rise of the UK's rather pathetic extreme right in its tracks.  How do I know this?  Not from anything he's said, that's for sure, but rather from the way in which the likes of the Mail, Express and Telegraph have gone on the offensive against him since he became Labour's candidate in the forthcoming by-election.  Starmer seems forgotten about already as, day in, day out, they pump out spurious headlines trying to discredit Burnham: he's a U-turner because he's prepared to seek compromise on his position with regard to some issues, he's anti-woman because he doesn't hate trans people, he probably eats babies and he was really shit as 'Mayor of the North'.  All highly questionable in terms of veracity and reeking of desperation.  He's clearly got them spooked.  I find it interesting that Burnham is now seen as some kind of centre-left, progressive, leadership candidate, whereas, the last time contested for the leadership he was rejected as some kind of Blairite right-winger in favour of Jeremy Corbyn. (Possibly Labour's greatest ever act of self-harm, at least since Foot's leadership, or the split with Ramsay McDonald's National Labour faction back in the twenties).  It's a measure, though, of how far to the right the political discourse has been pushed in recent years, that Burnham, of all people, should be characterised by the right-wing media as some kind of 'left-wing firebrand'.

Still, it seems for once that Elon 'Never Met a Nazi I Didn't Like' Musk's attempts to interfere in UK politics might actually turn out to be beneficial.  He's allegedly been backing Rupert Lowe's band of extremists in the by-election, resulting in Farage bleating on about how he's thereby splitting the Nazi vote and calling for a 'United Extreme Right' front.  Which is ironic, as he doesn't seem to like it when parties on the left do such things.  But hey, hypocrisy and Farage are pretty much synonymous.  But it all throws up the strange question of which fascist-lite is worse: Farage or Lowe?  I mean, they are both  utterly repugnant individuals, with their hectoring, bullying approaches and loud-mouthed bottom-of-the-barrel, rabble rousing, rhetoric.  I remember when Lowe was chairman of Southampton Football Club, (maybe that was when Portsmouth fans started calling them 'scummers'), and he was an utterly hateful character then - an arrogant and ignorant snob who alienate fans and foes alike.  So it was no surprise when he started dabbling in extreme right-wing politics, first with Reform UK, then setting up his own, one man, party after his inevitable falling out with Farage.  Not that any of this makes Farage any less repulsive in comparison. He's a hateful grifter and bigot, too.  The fact that he enabled the likes of Lowe in the first place possibly, though, makes him slightly worse, just edging Lowe out in the 'most repulsive extremist bastard' stakes.

It's the Narrative...

It feels like it is becoming increasingly difficult to disentangle what's really happening in the world from the narratives being propelled by the media.  Take this whole circus surrounding the Labour leadership.  I make no claims of having any inside knowledge or insight into the situation, but what is clear is that the media has decided upon a narrative which has only one conclusion: that Keir Starmer either steps down or is forced out.  It is built upon all those opinion polls showing support the government being eclipsed by other parties and the recent unfavourable local election results.  Added to this edifice is the right-wing press's current obsession with the state of the UK's armed forces, (which conveniently ignores the fact that the present situation is the result of fourteen years of swingeing cuts in defence spending by a series of Tory governments that these self same newspapers supported, endorsed and helped sustain in power), the usual nonsense about immigration and the ever present cost of living crisis (also a product of the economic mismanagement of those same previous governments).   The problem with this narrative is that it doesn't necessarily conform to reality - those local election results weren't great, but sitting governments often receive such setbacks mid-term. Plus, they have to be taken with the usual provisos that local results are not necessarily directly translatable into national politics - people frequently vote on different issues locally than they do at national level - and that they actually have no bearing upon how the national government operates.  

In reality, Reform UK's momentum at national level is stalling and the government are beginning to regain some ground.  Moreover, the government has sufficient majority that it doesn't have to go the polls until 2028/29, when the situation could be very different.  Furthermore, it remains to be seen how many Labour MPs actually will be willing to translate their dissatisfaction with Starmer's leadership into concrete action to try and force a leadership contest, bearing in mind how difficult it is to remove a sitting Labour Prime Minister under party rules.  (Notably, all the figures given by various media outlets as to how many Labour MPs who have supposedly called for his resignation is caveated by the fact that these figures are merely based upon MP's having made some sort of public utterance that could be taken as dissatisfaction with the leadership, rather than reflecting actual actions to trigger a leadership challenge).  So it isn't as clear cut as the media would have us believe.  But the media loves a story.  In fact, it demands that real world events neatly arrange themselves into some kind of narrative with a predictable outcome.  But as we all know, real life simply refuses to conform to such artificial forms.  Just look at the way in which the Iran-Us war refuses to adhere to the constructed narrative that the US has tried to impose upon it, with Iran stubbornly refusing to capitulate and give Trump the victory he so craves.  Much the same can be said of the war in Ukraine, which has likewise refused to follow the Russian narrative which culminates in their swift victory.  Of course, these are state driven narratives, not necessarily supported by the media, but all too often, as in the case of the current Labour leadership problems, political narratives are driven by the press, who persist in trying to impose them upon the public, regardless of the actual facts, buoyed up by their feverish speculation.  You don't just see it in politics.  Here in the UK, the press like nothing better than trying to construct narratives concerning outcomes in the premier league and don't like it when clubs refuse to conform to them, by winning matches they aren't 'supposed' to.  

Ultimately, I'm not trying to deny Starmer's problems, or the fact that the local election results are, to say the least, challenging, for the government.  In truth, this government has done itself no favours, missing opportunity after opportunity to actually do something radical to galvanise its electoral base.  Because that's their biggest problem: a failure to deliver on their manifesto promises.  It's no good Starmer announcing yet more policies today in an attempt to shore up his position - he has to start delivering on the policies the government promised in its election pitch.  Just pick a handful of policies which would be popular and are achievable and use that parliamentary majority to push then through, regardless of whether the right-wing press like them or not.  Because that's what will attract voters - the idea of a government that might actually make decisions and do something beneficial to them.  It doesn't matter who the Labour leader is, it matters whether or not they can actually deliver on their promises, regardless of the media's narratives. Which, in spite of what they would have you believe, are not set in stone.

Local Election Madness

I can see that it's going to be one of 'those' weeks.  Much as I enjoy bank holidays. (although, as noted elsewhere, they are technically meaningless to me, as I'm no longer part of the regular workforce, so can take off any day I damn well please), they are disruptive to my normal schedules.  As, per most bank holidays, I spent Monday mainly on the sofa watching old films and eating peanuts, my normal Monday activities had to be deferred until today, making today feel like a Monday.  It won't get any better as the week goes on - with local elections on Thursday, my routines will be disrupted again, as I'll have to find time to vote.  But the elections will cause wider disruption - the BBC, along with most of the rest of the media, have decided that, this year, the local elections will be VERY IMPORTANT.  Which means that on Friday, most of BBC1's viewing time is to be given over to various so called 'experts' poring over the results as they trickle in and telling us how, if these voting patterns were repeated in a general election, would lead to Nigel Farage being PM.  The problem with all such analyses being that voting patterns at local level aren't necessarily indicative of voting intentions nationally.  Particularly when it is highly unlikely that there will be a general election before 2028/29.  Moreover, turnout at local elections is, traditionally, far lower than at general elections.  Not to forget, also, that not the entire country votes in local elections, meaning that results can't be perfectly be mapped to possible national trends.  

Of course, having said all that, we might actually have a high turnout this year, just to prove me (partially) wrong.  While, obviously, I hope that the expectations for these elections of the media are frustrated, not just because I'd like to see their attempts to propel Farage into Number Ten suffer a setback, but also because I'd like to see their overblown coverage fall flat on its face.  But even if this doesn't happen, I still expect the reaction of the viewing public to be 'where the fuck is today's edition of 'Bridge of Lies'?', or 'why the fuck was 'Pointless' on BBC2?  I bloody missed it because its BBC1 slot was full of boring bastards talking shit about politics!'.  The BBC even seem deluded enough to believe that primetime audiences will share their local election obsession, scheduling an edition of 'Question Time' - ignorant berks asking ignorant questions of a bunch of third string politicians - in the evening.  Even 'Have I got News For You' gets shunted to BBC2 - although not because of the local elections, but instead because the Beeb think that a Friday evening, after hour upon hour of local election bollocks which will have driven off most of the audience - is the right time to schedule a celebration of David Attenborough's hundredth birthday.  Madness, sheer madness!  Not to mention a severe disruption to my regular routines, (although, to be honest, I don't actually watch much of BBC1's Friday evening schedule on a regular Friday - but it's the principle that counts).  

American Amateurism

'Washington in shock after Trump press gala shooting' blare the headlines today.  Shock at what, exactly?  The fact that this is the third (alleged) attempt on Trump's life?  Or that the US, a nation renowned for its gun nuts, who have been brought up to shoot from the moment they can walk, has produced so many bad shots and just downright incompetent would-be assassins?  It's like a metaphor for the whole Trump administration: professionalism is constantly side-lined in favour of amateurism.  I mean, just look at the state of their diplomacy: where once they had an entire State Department full of trained diplomats and negotiators to resolve international crises, the US now relies upon sending out inept real estate dealer Steve Witless and Trump's creepy son-in-law, Jared Kushner.  With a marked lack of success.  In fact, Witless is so intent upon living up to his name that I'm amazed that during recent negotiations with Iran, he didn't turn up in, say, Tajikistan rather than Pakistan, because both countries have names ending in '-stan' and are therefore easily confused.  Which brings us back to these (alleged) assassination attempts which all seem to be carried out by utter and complete amateurs.  In the latest case, the idiot is so amateur that he couldn't even get past reception.  You'd really think that a nation of psychopaths like the US could come up with at least one efficient crazed killer?  

It's clearly the influence of the Trump regime, dumbing down even would-be assassins.  After all, just look to history - John Wilkes Boothe and Lee Harvey Oswald both took out their presidential targets.  Even John Hinkley managed to actually hit and seriously wound Ronald Reagan, even though he was so dumb that he was infatuated with a lesbian.  But nowadays - the best we get is some dude supposedly shooting Trump in the ear, (a wound which has, astoundingly, left no apparent scar).  I've said it before and I'll say it again: what we need are professionals on the job.  The rest of the world needs to club together and put a bounty on Trump's head, thereby ensuring that every professional assassin mercenary and bounty hunter in the world will be trying to get the fat bastard in their sights, (which shouldn't be difficult, bearing in mind that we're talking about a giant ambulatory tub of lard here - the failure to hit him where it hurts is another testament to the amateurism of these clowns).  The only alternative to the idea that the US can no longer muster anything but incompetent amateurs to try and assassinate the president is simply that all of the so-called attempts on his life have been staged.  Whilst I'm not a conspiracy theorist (quite the opposite, in fact), just looking at these incidents, it is tempting to think that they are all publicity stunts, designed to bolster Trump's standing, or enable his extremist policies, with those killed or injured in the process seen as collateral damage.  This latest attempt though, was the most pathetic yet - the alleged would be assassin wasn't even on the same floor of the building as Trump when he started shooting. Yet the incident is being used as an argument as to just why Trump needs that secure White House ballroom to ensure his safety at such events.  Utter bullshit.  Anyway, right now I'm pinning my hopes on the idea that King Charles has been set up as human bomb during his state visit to the US and is prepared to sacrifice himself for the good of the world by exploding while addressing that joint session of Congress.  He could take out the whole bloody lot of 'em in one go, that way.  God Save the King!

Off His Trolley...

Look, the media really do have to stop 'sane washing' Donald Trump.  Lately, I've come across even otherwise sober outlets like The Guardian and the BBC discussing how Trump's erratic behaviour in terms of his foreign policy are down to him employing the 'Madman Strategy'.  The thinking goes that this approach -  which supposedly originated with Richard Nixon - involves deliberately coming out with crazy, sometimes contradictory statements, in order to keep your opponents on the wrong foot, never knowing what you will do next.  The idea is that this uncertainty can be used as leverage by negotiators and diplomats to get the other side to agree to their proposals as if they don't, the President might do something really crazy.  All of which seems to me to be a tortuous way of trying to give legitimacy to the chaos which surrounds Trump - it's really all deliberate, just you wait and you'll see it is all part of a cunning plan.  But the simpler explanation is that Trump behaves like a madman because he's off his fucking trolley.  He's completely unhinged and, thanks to the fact that he has packed his cabinet and inner circle full of yes-men (and women), all of whom are busy pursuing their own agendas under cover of his chaos, nobody is acting as a restraint upon the worst excesses of his madness.  I mean, just look at this last weekend, which saw him picking a fight with the Pope and depicting himself as Jesus in social media posts.  That's just not normal, now is it?

Trump's tirade against Pope Leo gives a clear indication of his mental derangement - he criticises the Pontiff for being 'soft on crime' and lambasts his 'foreign policy' as being 'weak on nuclear weapons'.  The first point seems to imply that Trump thinks that the Pope is Batman and personally goes out and beats up individual sinners by night.  The latter point implies that Trump thinks that the Vatican is some kind of nuclear armed superpower which should be using its nuke-backed spiritual superiority to impose some kind of Christian world order by force, rather than preaching peace and understanding.   All of which speaks of an entirely demented world view.  Which the media really should stop trying to cover up or, worse, trying to gaslight us over: there is no plan, no strategy, no grand scheme behind it all - he's just crazy.  Something which would have been plainly apparent to the US electorate if the US media hadn't spent the last presidential election campaign focusing on Biden's supposed mental decline and not sanitised Trump's speeches and public appearances, which were characterised by rambling, gibberish and irrationality, in their reporting.  But hey, the US press, (even more than the UK press), is owned by billionaires who had decided that Trump was 'their guy', the best vehicle for their ambitions and economic imperatives.  Well, they got their tax cuts, but everything else is shit - not just for the US, but for the rest of the world as well, (I recently nearly bankrupted myself putting fuel in the car, thanks to the out-of-control oil prices caused by Trump's insane war on Iran).  Perhaps the US electorate should consider this come the revolution and ensure that they string up those billionaires from lampposts, alongside Trump and his cronies.

Devils From Space?

So, JD Vance thinks that aliens are actually demons, rather than beings from other worlds.  Really?  I mean, is that the best you've got, JD?  With all the shit going down in the world today, (most of it perpetrated by a US administration of which he is part), that's what he spends his time worrying about?  Now, at this point, I could go off into a diatribe about how terrifying it is that a nation in possession of the most advanced technology the world has ever seen (and which it uses, primarily, to wage war on poorer nations), is being run people with an essentially mediaeval world view, which still believes in the existence of angels and demons, but I'm sure that someone far 'cooler' than me (who is doubtless 'working on their book'), has already done that on Bluesky or wherever.  What intrigues me is what this means for the US's policies with regard to contacting alien life - after all, right now there are radio telescopes scanning the heavens for possible signals from aliens, those old Voyager probes heading out of the solar system with contact details for earth and schematics of humanity on them, not to mention signals being blasted out into space by us.  All of these assume that these hypotheticals aliens are intelligent and peaceful, but in view of Vance's belief that they are devils, will future contact attempts switch emphasis to trying to convert them to JD's brand of Christianity?  Will NASA be forced to send out into deep space broadcasts of those crazy American preachers who rant on about 'salvation', redemption' and the 'fires of Hell'?  Will future deep space probes be packed full of crucifixes and Holy water, just in case they encounter these 'space devils'?

Will there also be a change in the protocols for alien contact if and when they land on earth?  (Because, you can guarantee that most major nations have such protocols in place, no matter how much they might deny it - it is the nature of bureaucracies that they try to come up with plans for every possible contingency, no matter how unlikely they might seem - I speak as a former civil servant).  Right now, I suspect, they are all about containment, attempts at communication by teams of top civilian experts and intense observation, all backed up by overwhelming military strength held at a discreet distance.  I'm guessing, however, that JD would probably favour a first response of sending in hordes of priests waving crucifixes and quoting passages from the Bible via loud speakers.  Maybe followed by showers of Holy water dropped from those planes they use to fight forest fires by dousing them in water.  If that doesn't work then, no doubt, we'll see a full on exorcism carried out by specially trained cardinals, all clad in NBC suits (in the appropriate shade of crimson, obviously), designed to try and cast these demons back to Hell, (or Mars).  Of course, this also has a knock on effect with regard to space exploration in general.  I wouldn't be surprised if the current Artemis II moon mission didn't have crucifixes stitched into the crew's spacesuits, just in case they encounter any demons out there.  In future, can we expect every mission to include some fire-and-brimstone preacher and for a large wooden cross to be implanted in each newly visited planet's soil alongside the American flag?  This is the face of the future, folks - and you heard it here first!