Democracy Misunderstood

Yesterday I read an extraordinary piece on the Austrian elections, from one of the UK's right-wing rags - I really can't recall whether it was the Mail or the Express.  It doesn't really matter, they are equally despicable.  Anyway, the piece itself was effectively implying that Austria is undemocratic because its new government is being formed from a coalition of the parties that came 'second' and 'third' in the recent general elections, excluding the right-wing extremists who won the most seats.  This, apparently, just went to prove the idiot J D Vance's point that Europe is inherently undemocratic because its mainstream politicians refuse to engage with neo Nazis.  Which, of course, is to misunderstand how democratic systems actually work.  The fact is that the Austrian crypto-fascists might have won the most seats, but they were still far short of the parliamentary majority required to form a government.  Moreover, they couldn't put together a coalition with other parties sufficient to form a majority.  The other, more moderate, parties could, so are able to form a government.  A government that therefore represents the electoral wishes of a majority of voters.  Which is how democracy works.  It's about the representation of the will of the people and if the will of the Austrian people was to be ruled by fascists then they surely would have given the fascists an outright majority, or at least voted for enough similarly minded extremist parties to form a coalition.  But they didn't.  Likewise, in the German elections, despite getting around 20% of the vote, the AfD won't be part of the new government, because they don't have a majority and can't form a coalition to get one.  After all, looked at another way, 80% of the German electorate didn't vote AfD, but the proposed CDU/SPD coalition will at least represent a majority of the electorate.  

But it isn't the right-wing press (or the alleged Vice President of the US) who seem to have difficulty with this fundamental concept that democracy, ultimately, means government by a consensus of those representing a majority of the electorate.  Every day, in the press, on social media, in the pub even, I am bombarded by people representing minority interests bewailing the fact that the current government isn't immediately addressing their particular interest, to the exclusion of others.  Just this week, we've had those championing the cause of overseas aid remonstrating with Keir Starmer over his cutting the budget for such aid in order to finance increases in defence spending.  None of them seem able to grasp the fact that making these kind of tough decisions, which will inevitably upset someone, is what governing is about.  In the face of the limited resources the government has at its disposal (courtesy, largely, of fourteen years of Tory misgovernment), choices have to be made.  The government has constantly to walk a tightrope between doing what is morally right, and what is right by the majority of voters.  It's a balancing act between protecting the rights of minorities, defending the UK's interests internationally, not bankrupting the economy, acting within the ruling party's philosophy, acting legally and trying to satisfy the well being of the whole population, whether they voted for you or not.  Obviously, no government, regardless of political complexion, is going to get it right all of the time.  This one certainly doesn't, but that doesn't invalidate all of its efforts.  Just because a government can't satisfy tour particular, minority, interest, doesn't mean that it is failing overall.

But many people simply don't seem to grasp that, in political terms, it is addressing the general, rather than the minority, interests is what gets votes and wins power.  Just recently, for instance, I saw someone on social media berating Democratic politicians in the US for focusing on things like the price of eggs and the cost of living generally, when trans people were already having their rights restricted.  Well, I'm afraid that the unpalatable truth here is that the majority of voters aren't LGBTQ+, don't know anyone who is LGBTQ+ and probably rarely thinks about LGBTQ+ rights.  But they undoubtedly do buy eggs and other groceries, so their prices might well affect how they vote in future (particularly as Trump, indeed, won many votes on the cost of living issue, only to shrug his shoulders over rising prices once in power).  It's the same reason why, much to the annoyance of the 'Cult of Corbyn', that the public turned against Boris Johnson not over restrictions on civil liberties such as the right to demonstrate, but instead because he had been partying during lockdown.  Most people never invoke their civil liberties or go on demos, but the majority of people did observe lockdown during the pandemic and resented the fact that Johnson, by contrast, had ignored his own rules.  Something to bear in mind next time you are getting self-righteous about the government's (or opposition's) failure to address your particular interest in a way that satisfies your Olympian moral standards.  

Yeah, I'm looking at you, US voters who wouldn't vote Democrat because Biden wouldn't bomb Israel over their invasion of Gaza, (even dismissing him as 'Genocide Joe'), thereby paving the way for a Trump victory - which is really helping Gaza, isn't it?  You see, that's the thing, if you don't want to be ruled by a fascist then simply not voting for one isn't enough - you also have to vote for the strongest non-fascist candidate.  Even if you don't like them.  Because they are probably the least worst option (and definitely preferable to a fascist).  Not voting or voting those joke minor candidates or parties (unless you have a system of proportional representation, where the latter scenario might have an impact) aren't real options - they are simply virtue signalling which denies the anti-fascists vote that could keep the fascists out.  Rant over.

Another Day, Another Sex Scandal

So, what's next in terms of Tory sex scandals?  This latest one, with Tory MP William Wragge's use of Grindr apparently ending up with blackmail attempts on lots of other MPs and others who worked in Westminster.  But hey, it could happen to anyone, couldn't it?  I mean, the natural reaction to getting contacted by a complete stranger online is to send them pictures of your genitals, isn't it?  The whole thing really does read like the sort of shit I make up over on The Sleaze.  Still, I suppose that we should think ourselves lucky that he was only using Grindr.  I hate to think of the consequences if he had been using a similar app devoted to matching up S&M enthusiasts, (are there such apps?): "One minute I was responding to a message from a complete stranger, the next thing I knew, I was having my scrotum nailed to a Welsh dresser."  Bearing in mind the number of public school educated MPs sitting on the Tory benches that, I fear, would be a scandal that could have engulfed the party.  There would inevitably be pictures of naked Tory MPs strapped to racks, being whipped, having clamps put on their bollocks - all with their faces discreetly pixellated - leaked to the tabloids.  You can just imagine the Mail and Express salivating over such things while simultaneously decrying how sick and depraved it all is and blaming it on the permissive society and 'wokeness'.  I'm sure lefty councils and the BBC would be in there somewhere, as well.  

But I'm sure that the public reaction to such a scandal would be muted - a collective shrug of the shoulders - much as it has been to the Wragge business.  It's got to the stage where we've had so many appalling scandals, sexual or otherwise, that we seem to have become desensitised to them.  On a daily basis, it seems, we have incidents of naked corruption, of public money being diverted to private interests under the guise of 'government policy', outright lies and more policies designed to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor, yet nobody seems to bat an eyelid.  Damn it, we have water companies, enabled by the government, dumping shit into our rivers!  (That's one of the 'Benefits of Brexit' apparently - the ability to swim in our own shit).  Where are the riots?  Why aren't mobs of angry villagers waving blazing torches not bearing down on water company facilities?  As if, quite literally, dumping in our rivers wasn't bad enough, these foreign owned bastards then turn around and tell us we'll have to pay higher water bills in order to clean up their mess, because all the massive profits they've made off of us and the subsidies they've received have been paid out to shareholders rather than invested in repairs and infrastructure upgrades!  Jesus Christ!  When are people going to get angry?  It's no good sitting around waiting for an election - the Tories will delay it as long as possible then do their best to rig it in their favour.  Take up your cudgels and storm Downing Street - or the nearest S&M parlour as that's probably where you are most likely to find the bastards hanging out.

Royal Death Cult

Are we all tired of the Queen Elizabeth II death cult yet?  Because that's what it increasingly feels like, with endless reports on TV and in the papers of exactly where her coffin is at any given time, not to mention who is standing by it, following or polishing it.  Not to mention the people queueing to walk past it, first in Edinburgh, now in London - people are spending all night on the pavement to try and make sure that they are at the front of the queue.  I don't know about you, but I'm finding it all rather creepy and morbid.  Then there's the obsession with the details of the funeral itself.  With all the adulation of the late Queen going on in the media, I'm half expecting to hear that, like an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh, she's going to be interred in a gold sarcophagus in a huge pyramid built on the South Bank by slave labour, well, universal credit claimants, it's much the same thing.  Of course, they'll all be slaughtered, along with her servants and corgis (and possibly her favourite horses), in order to keep her company through all eternity.  Perhaps they'll wall up one of the Royal Daimlers in there as well, its mummified chauffeur behind the wheel, so that she can go for a spin in the afterlife.  

As I've said before, I actually have no wish to be disrespectful to Her Majesty, in spite of my personal opinions on the monarchy, but it is this whole media circus surrounding her death which is really pissing me off.  Especially all the bloody media parasites who crawl out of the woodwork at this time to try and prove that they are more sycophantic and more of a loyal Royalist than anyone else.  Worst of all are all of those Royal 'experts' they wheel out who pretend to have some kind of sources 'inside the palace' in order to justify the poisonous gossip, tittle tattle and fantasies they peddle as supposed truth.  We're reaching the point now that all this hysteria - because that's the only one can rationally describe what's going on the UK right now with regard to the Queen's death - is beginning to seriously impinge upon everyday life.  Apparently, on the day of the funeral, the entire country is going to shut down.  Supermarkets will close, DIY chains will do likewise, as will clothing stores.  Today, even Center Parcs tried to tell its customers that its sites were closing on Monday and that anyone staying there would have to leave their accommodation for the day and come back on Tuesday.  not surprisingly, by the end of the day they had been forced to do a U-turn on this.  But more seriously, operations in hospitals and doctors' appointments are being cancelled on the day of the funeral, which is bloody outrageous.  Oh and if you had a wedding or funeral booked for the day of the funeral, tough.  It's off and you'll have to reschedule.   These are not the actions of a normal society.

Before leaving the subject, obviously, I have to mention the repression of anti-monarchy protests by the police.  Apparently, holding a placard saying 'Not My King' can get you arrested, although, last time I checked, republicanism wasn't a crime in the UK.  Funnily enough, most of those right-wingers who like to bleat on about 'free speech' when they are prevented from saying anything racist, crying 'cancel culture' at the tops of their voices, have been silent on this issue.  As predicted, the Tory bastards' repressive anti-protest legislation is already being put into effect to suppress any dissident opinion using tactics that, when deployed in Moscow by Putin's thugs, we all condemn.  While I might agree that making these protests as the Queen's coffin passes by, or outside venues where she is lying in state, is probably ill-advised and possibly inappropriate, nonetheless, people do have a right to protest and express their opinions.  Personally, my problem is with the institution of monarchy rather than any individual members of it - directing our anger against them personally will be perceived as peevish and petty, most importantly, it is ineffective.  Constitutional change will ultimately come via the ballot box - so if you don't want the monarchy, as a first step, stop voting Tory. 

Come the Revolution, Brothers and Sisters...

What we need is to hold a lottery.  After the revolution, that is, when we can finally start holding these right-wing bastards to account.  Because, while we could simply put them all up against a wall and shoot them, I just don't feel that would give us any real sense of satisfaction.  Not with regard to the likes of Boris Johnson, at least.  So, what we need to do is hold a lottery among every UK adult in order to select maybe fifty people, all of whom will get the chance to kick the fat bastard in the arse.  Just the one kick, that's all that each winner will be allowed, so they'll have to make it a good one - if they want to take a run up, that's OK, but it will still just be the one kick apiece. If they like, they could imagine they were taking a penalty kick for England, which will win the World Cup if it goes in.   But one should be all you need, if you put all of the hate you feel for the morally degenerate, utterly corrupt, contemptuous hypocrite.  Obviously, we'll need at least fifty kickers to ensure that he feels any of it through those fat wobbling buttocks of his.  You can tell that I've thought a lot about this, how best to deal with the unspeakable slob when we finally have a chance at retribution.  I considered that perhaps we should draw lots to see who should hit him in the face with a shovel, or smack him around the back of the head with a plank, but the kicking up the arse just seemed the most fitting way to deal with someone who is, well, such an arse.

Of course, we'd have to make a ceremony of it - put Boris in stocks in the middle of Whitehall and have it televised live as the chosen kickers make their run up.  As he'll have his back to them and will be unable to look round because of the stocks, he won't know when each kick is going to land.  But Johnson won't be the only 'war criminal' we'll have to deal with post-revolution.  Personally, while Johnson is taking his kicking, Live on TV, I'd like to see a few of them swinging from lampposts in the background.  I mean, that Michael Gove, he fancies himself a bit of a disco diva, so let's see what kind of merry little jig he dances at the end of a rope.  Then there's 'true blue' Jacob Rees Mogg - let's see just how blue he can go as the noose tightens around his neck.  But it isn't just this lot currently in government we need to hold to account - let's not forget that smug bastard David Cameron and his part in austerity and Brexit.  Again, we need to draw lots or hold a lottery to chose thirty or so people and give them each a baseball bat, then make Cameron run a gauntlet of them - each of them would be allowed one good swing at the arsehole.  I'd imagine that a lot of these creeps will try to flee the country in disguise, like the top Nazis did at the end of the war.  Nigel Farage, for sure, will be caught at Dover, wearing a false moustache and waving his German passport, claiming to be Kurt Crutchwarmer or some such.  In his case, we should just put him up against a wall for summary execution - it is what he'd want, as he doesn't seem to believe in any of that human rights nonsense and thinks the courts are undemocratic.  At the last minute, he should be told that the firing squad have run out of bullets, so they'll have to fix bayonets, instead.

Mind you, before we can do any of this, we'll have to have that revolution, but a man can dream.  Obviously, I'm too old to be fermenting revolutions myself, but I'll hold your coats while you storm Tory Party HQ...

Trump Island

Has 'President' Trump unwittingly given us the solution for how Britain is to survive post-Brexit?  Having been rebuffed in his attempts to buy Greenland, would it be possible to persuade the ambulatory tub of lard to buy Britain?  I know that we don't have the mineral resources of Greenland, just some exhausted coal mines and a knackered steel industry, but we are well placed in strategic terms.  The British Isles could provide the fat boy with the ideal front-line in his trade wars with the EU - and when he withdraws US military forces from NATO, it will give him somewhere convenient to park all those planes, soldiers and ships.  Then there's all that prime real estate he'll be able to redevelop into golf courses, giant towers, hotels, casinos and the like.  After all, if he owns the place then he won't have all that trouble he had in Scotland when he built that golf course - no pesky local councils to deal with and any uppity local residents can be summarily evicted.  Speaking of which, there's an entire indigenous population to be exploited.  Out would go the NHS, in would come 'Trump Health Insurance', along with 'Trump Food Banks', (subsistence-level provisions for a modest fee), 'Trump Unemployment Insurance' and the like.  Not to mention an overhaul of the education system, with 'Trump Universities' and schools sponsored by various non-tax paying US commercial giants, with special curriculums geared to preparing students for employment on zero hours contracts and fast food joints, coffee shops and mail order warehouses.

That's if the population aren't just shipped off to other parts of the Trump 'empire' in order to provide cheap labour.  They could probably provide an acceptable alternative to all those Hispanics and East Europeans who clean his properties and resorts in the US.  They'd be far less offensive to his clients - they speak a form of English and don't have those horrible accents.  So there you are, selling the UK to Trump would solve all of our post-Brexit problems: new financing for education, health and social security, provision of jobs and even defence, with all those surplus planes and ships stationed here.  From his point of view - no need to try passing tricky new UK-US trade deals through Congress: if he owns the UK, it will all come down to private business arrangements.  I'm sure that the pro-Brexit population of the UK would welcome such an outcome.  After all, it would eliminate completely our entire political class, whom they supposedly hate, as Parliament would, overnight, become an anachronism.  They'd at last have that 'strong governance' from a 'strong leader'.  Not to mention all that money that will come into the UK as a result of the sale price.  Except that I don't see that being shared out amongst us all.  I'm pretty sure that the likes of Boris Johnson and his cronies would succeed in trousering that.  But it would represent a decisive break from Europe, not to mention civilisation and that, apparently, if we are to believe our leaders, is all that matters.

Out of the Mouths of Islamaphobes

So, the appeasement of the fat fascist by those who would be our next Prime Minister continues.  Once again, we have Foreign Secretary Jeremy Cunt, (yeah, I know it's childish, but it apparently really pisses him off), toadying to Trump over the tub of lard's latest Tweet disparaging London Mayor Sadiq Khan, telling us that he agrees with it 'one hundred and fifty per cent'.  Now, quite apart from the sickening sight of a senior British politician joining with a foreign politician in insulting the elected mayor of our capital city, this statement is problematic for other reasons.  Namely that Trump's tweet was quoting the despicable Katie Hopkins, generally considered a right wing extremist who will say just about anything in the name of self-publicity, and included clearly anti-Islamic bigotry.  We hear a lot from the right (not to mention those self-righteous Tory lick spittles and right wing extremist enablers the so called 'Liberals') about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, will we now hear them condemning the Tories, and most specifically Cunt, for their naked Islamaphobia?  Fat chance.  (On a related note, just why are so many people trying to paint Cunt as some kind of Tory moderate?  Have we forgotten already his dismal and disgraceful record as Health Secretary?)

But let's look more closely at what Trump seemed to be trying to say about Sadiq Khan, namely that he is personally responsible for the spate of murders in London over the weekend.  Which is a rather curious implication.  After all, being some kind of vigilante, fighting street crime across the metropolis isn't actually an elected official's job - it's the police's job.  And the size and scope of activities undertaken by the Metropolitan Police is dictated by its budget - which isn't dictated by the Mayor of London, but rather the Home Secretary, (currently Cunt's fellow Tory leadership hopeful, Sajid Javid).  So surely, to follow the 'logic', the Home Secretary should be held personally responsible for every crime committed, not just in London, but across the whole UK, shouldn't he?  In fact, if you think about it, then the sack of shit currently occupying the White House must be personally responsible for all those school massacres and other shootings they've been having in the US since he seized power, mustn't he?  I'm well aware that, of late, I've become ever angrier and abusive when talking of these bastards, but I'm afraid that I've run out of patience - we're lurching toward a very dangerous political situation indeed.  Damn it, we've got candidates to become leader of a minority government talking about suspending parliament to force Brexit because, God forbid, Parliament disagrees with them and they don't have a majority to counteract it!  This isn't just unconstitutional and demonstrative of a willful refusal to understand how a parliamentary democracy works, but it is the kind of talk one would expect from the tinpot dictators of banana republics.  Dangerous days - it is time to stand up and be counted and to start calling these fascists out for what they are.

Fascists Galore

So, its Summer at last - June marking the start of meteorological Summer.  Which is good enough for me - I have no truck with those who try to claim that the early part of June is still Spring.  I'm afraid that, when it comes to seasons, I'm old school: Summer is  June to August, Autumn starts in September and ends with the end of November, while Winter runs from December to February, with Spring occupying March, April and May.  In the northern hemisphere, at least.  But it has been an inauspicious start to Summer, with Trump arriving in the UK on has state visit.  Which means several days of me shouting and swearing at the TV every time the news come on and I have to see that arrogant fat fascist and his crooked family swanning around London and schmoozing with Royalty.  I've already bellowed 'Nazi!' at the screen.  It really isn't good for my blood pressure.  But I don't know what's worse: Trump and his entourage lording it in the UK or the various UK right-wing politicians fawning over them.  Damn it, we've already seen Jeremy Cunt, who is apparently the Foreign Secretary, although you'd never know it, refusing to condemn Trump's comments about Sadiq Khan.  Is this what we've come to, government ministers effectively joining in with a foreign fascist in calling the elected Mayor of London a 'stone cold loser', amongst other things?

But really, here in the UK we seem to be Hell bent on following a political trajectory that can lead to only one destination: fascism.  I'm beginning to despair, as people blindly idolise bone fide fascists like Nigel Farage and Boris 'The Fat Fucker' Johnson.  That the latter is somehow seriously considered the potential saviour of the Tory party - which has withered from being a broad based right of centre political party with mass membership to an increasingly reactionary and insular extreme right clique - and next Prime Minister is, to be frank, terrifying.  Johnson is entirely self serving, an arrogant egotist and opportunist who thinks that it is his 'manifest destiny' to be PM - never mind the fact that he has demonstrated over and over that he hasn't either the intellect or ability to do the job, let alone a coherent political philosophy.  His lack of any kind of morality, as demonstrated by his private life and his involvement in a plot to beat up a journalist who had exposed the criminal activities of an associate, should also raise question marks with regard to his suitability to hold any public office. Oh yes, then there's the small matter of that upcoming court case, where he faces charges of malfeasance in public office with regard to the lies he told during the EU referendum.  But you know the worst thing about Boris fucking Johnson?  He's been endorsed by Trump, in yet of another of his attempts to interfere in UK domestic politics.  Bearing in mind Trump's public unpopularity in the UK, that surely should destroy Johnson's prospects.  But oh no, the idiots still all fawn over him - 'Oh, he's Boris, he's so comical, isn't he? '  No, he's a fascist thug and if you support him you are an idiot.

I Just Don't Care...

I don't care.  About the 'Royal engagement' and subsequent 'Royal wedding', obviously.  All day I've been listening to or watching news broadcasts shouting:  "There must be some real news for Fuck's sake - tell us abut it!"  If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd be noting how convenient the timing of this announcement has been, pushing the ongoing chaos of the government's Brexit negotiations, rows within the Tory party over yet more defence cuts and yet another crisis in the NHS out of the headlines all day.  I might also argue this is a blatant attempt to create a 'feel good' factor with which to distract the populace from ongoing austerity and the government's economic incompetence.  But obviously, that would just be paranoid nonsense, wouldn't it?  But to get back to the point, regardless of timings, motivations and news agendas, I simply have no interest in this 'story' whatsoever.  Damn it, I don't like regular weddings, so why would I be interested in a Royal one?  Ditto for the forthcoming 'Royal birth'. 

Nevertheless, despite my lack of interest, as a tax payer I'll inevitably end up footing the bill for both of these 'events'.  And, apparently, I won't even get a day off for the bloody wedding.  I'm sure that's the only reason there wasn't a revolution last time there was one of these events - it was declared a bank holiday.  Now, I don't know whether the upcoming Royal wedding will be mounted with the usual pomp and circumstance (not to mention expense), but assuming it is, I surely can't be the only person who feels that staging such a thing at the same time that we're all being urged to 'tighten our belts' again and facing even more cuts in public service is pretty perverse.  Then again, the continuing existence of an hereditary monarchy funded by public money is pretty perverse.  I've never been able to understand the grovelling devotion of so many people toward a bunch of parasites whose only qualification for holding their position is that their parents held it before them.

Repossess the Palaces

So, either Prince William or Harry, (it's no good expecting me to tell which one is which, to me they are like Ant and Dec in that respect: they seem entirely interchangeable and I fail to understand their appeal), has been saying that no member of the Royal Family actually wants to be King or Queen.  Good, you can all fuck off then.  It's no good playing the 'we do out of a sense of duty for the greater good' card with me - it cuts no ice.  They are utterly irrelevant, serving only to legitimise an outmoded class system.  They are the living embodiment of the kind of privilege and entitlement which continues to blight this country.  So, while there's still the whiff of revolution in the air, let's get rid of the bastards.  Repossess the palaces - they could use them to house all those ordinary people who can't afford to live in London any more.  Or maybe they could use them to rehouse the survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire.

I go through these phases of republicanism.  Most of the time I'm quite indifferent toward the Royal Family.  I tolerate them as an irrelevant anachronism because, I reason, they have no real power.  But every so often I see some nonsense like the Trooping of the Colour or the State Opening of Parliament, and my blood starts to boil over what they represent.  Then there are these puff pieces in the press, which try to convince us that the younger Royals aren't a bunch of profligate playboys and wastrels, but, in fact, are just like 'us'.  Except that they aren't and can't ever be like us.  They are born into a world of privilege and can never truly grasp what life is like for us peasants.  which brings me to the point which emphasises the sheer ludicrousness of their very existence in twenty first century Britain: the fact that their only qualification for the job is birthright.  How on earth can any rational person accept the concept, let alone the reality, of a hereditary ruling class?  It is, quite literally, a medieval concept.  I know that they are only a constitutional monarchy nowadays, but the amount of deference they are accorded, when they only hold their positions because they were born to them, is astounding.  And now it turns out that none of them even want the job (has anyone told Prince Charles that?).  So what's the point of them?  Get rid of the idle bastards.

Legitimate Revolutions

You know, I'm not sure that I can add anything meaningful to the furore currently surrounding Trump and his executive order effectively banning many Muslims from entering the US.  What is there to say?  I mean, it isn't as if he didn't tell everyone that he was going to do this in his election campaign, is it?  So, this should stand as a warning to the complacent: you can't keep dismissing all of the extreme stuff he came out with during the campaign as simply 'electioneering'.  He's really going to try and do all those things, no matter how dangerous and damaging to the US and the wider world they might be.  Frustratingly, there is very little anyone can do about it for another four years, when the US will get a chance to deny him a second term n the White House.  But as we found here in the UK, at the last general election, no matter how bad a job a government does and no matter how unpopular they seem to be, they can returned with a majority and start enacting extreme right-wing policies nobody mandated them to do.  Of course, US voters will get a chance to do something about Trump sooner than the next presidential election: Congressional elections will give them the opportunity to change the political complexion of the House and Senate, which might, provided that the Democrats have the political will and backbone, result in some of Trump's excesses being curbed.

Whilst it is good that people are prepared to go out on the streets, both here and in the US, to protest about  Trump's policies, I'm afraid that experience has taught me that this will do little, if anything, to change the situation.  That's the thing about democracies, once they've gained power through the legitimate electoral process, our political leaders can simply dismiss criticism expressed via protests as being unrepresentative, reiterating that they rule by virtue of winning an election, which implies that the majority of voters agree with their policies.  Moreover, they have the full panoply of legitimate law enforcement agencies at their disposal with which to deal with protesters, their use justified by the fact that they are acting to protect the legitimate, elected, government.  As protesters, we have no choice but to play by their rules, otherwise risking our protests being ruled unlawful and illegitimate.  Basically, the authorities hold all the cards.  The reality is that unless you are prepared to step outside of the rules, then mass public protest will ultimately be ineffective against the likes of Trump and our own Tory bastards.  Ultimately, we all have to ask ourselves, at what point do we consider the actions of our political leaders to be so illegitimate that it justifies us stepping outside of normal legal constraints to try and change their policies or even force them from power?  I'm not talking about armed insurrections (although, there must also come a point when we ask ourselves if and when such action might be justified), but mass civil disobedience, of the kind used by Gandhi and his followers in India, for instance.

The fact is that the only time in recent memory that I can recall civil protests forcing a change in the policies of a UK government were those against Thatcher's poll tax.  Even then, it took protests boiling over into mass riots in Central London to effect any change.  You have to scare the bastards into thinking that they are in danger of losing control - which isn't easy, bearing in mind that they have both the civil and military authorities at their disposal to try and restore 'order'.  So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that we all have some careful thinking to do about this situation and some difficult and uncomfortable decisions to make.  It's also important to remember that, even if we are able to rid ourselves of Trump and our own Tory bastards, by whatever means, then we'll still have the problem of preventing future extremists from being able to seize power through the legitimate political system. Whilst it would be damn near impossible to design any democratic system immune from extremists, reforming our electoral system, in the UK at least, would be a good start.  Let's not forget that it is our 'first-past-the-post' system which allows the Tories to enjoy a parliamentary majority which their actual share of the vote in 2015 in no way justifies.  But hey, the last time we had a referendum on electoral reform, our electorate (which continually moans about politicians, our political institutions and how unrepresentative they are) rejected it.  Draw your own conclusions.   

Coup or Cobblers?

So, I was reading this article in The Guardian the other day about how the UK military might react if a Corbyn-led Labour government was elected and went through with abolishing the UK's so called independent nuclear deterrent.  There was all the usual speculation about military coups and the like, (believe me, there are a scary number of military types who have little regard for the democratic process they supposedly serve and protect, particularly when they think that their interests are under threat from elected governments), if the government concerned had only a narrow majority and therefore not a proper (in the military's eyes) mandate.  As in all such articles, there was also the usual arguments as to how the military top brass might try to justify such a coup: the main 'justification' being that their oath of allegience is to the Crown not the government.  (Although, as, constitutionally, the Crown delegates most of its powers to Parliament and therefore the elected government of the day, this is utter nonsense and offers no credible defence for subverting the 'will of the people' as expressed via parliamentary elections).

What always perplexes me about such speculations is that they all centre around the idea of a hypothetical future Labour government threatening the interests (ie budget) of the military, because the left always cuts defence spending, don't they?  Actually, the reality is very different.  This Tory government, for instance, has slashed defence spending by unprecedented levels.  Military manpower is at an all time low, the Royal Navy's 'fleet' is a joke - less than twenty major surface ships - and the RAF appears to consist of the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight.  Joking aside, the UK's military capabilities have been severely compromised by the Tories.  Indeed, some essential capabilities, such as long range maritime reconnassaince (essential to the protection of the Navy's Trident SSBNs), no longer exist and we instead have to rely upon the French and Canadians to track Russian submarines making incursions in UK territorial waters.  Compare all of that to the last Labour government, which commissioned all manner of major military projects from aircraft carriers to renewing the Nimrod fleet.  It's a pattern repeated over and over historically, with Tory governments frequently making far bigger cuts to military budgets than Labour administrations.  So, why isn't there talk of military coups to unseat Cameron in order to protect the nation's defences?  Could it be because all such talk of military coups bollocks?   Could it be that no matter how much some top brass might itch to seize power, they know that there would be no popular support for deposing an elected government?

Besides, with the military now a shadow of its former self thanks to the Tories, they just don't have the resources to mount a coup.  Maybe that's why Cameron and his cohorts have made these cuts: in order to protect themselves from a coup - they realised early on that they were so shit that there was every possibility that the electorate might just support a military coup to depose them.  On a brighter note, the Tory cuts also mean that the military as so weakened that they probably couldn't resist any kind of popular uprising against the government.  So, it looks like the revolution is back on! 

Hearts, Minds and Bombs

Before we get back to the schlocky movies and other usual business of this blog, I feel I must digress to more serious business.  I've decided that I have to address the whole business of the recent terror attacks in Paris.  The knee jerk reactionary furore which has followed this appalling business has itself been almost as appalling.  Particularly the conviction of our political leaders that the best way to respond to acts of extreme violence is to commit even more extreme acts of violence yourself.  As I've grown older, it has become ever clearer to me that violence simply begets more violence, it becomes a vicious circle which becomes ever wider and destroys more and more lives.  When it comes to combatting amorophous terror groups like ISIS, it is highly questionable whether conventional military tactics will be effective.  It's all very well bombing ISIS-held parts of Syria and Iraq, but what exactly is this achieving?  The likes of ISIS don't have conventional military or civil infrastructures to denude and disrupt.  Ordinarily, bombing would be expected to reduce the enemy's military capability, reducing their ability to attack us.  But the problem with ISIS is that they don't have a conventional military capability - as Paris has shown, they only require a handful of operatives to cause widespread chaos and fatalities. You can bomb Syria and Iraq as much as you like and it won't reduce that sort of capability.

The problem with things like ISIS are that they represent an idea or philosophy which, for one reason or another, appeals to a particular group of people at a particular time in history.  Conventional military action can only 'treat' the symptoms, to truly defeat terror organisations of this size, you need to deploy other tactics to try and undercut their support.  You have to try and understand why all those disaffected young Muslims are prepared to blow themselves up and gun down innocent civilians in the name of ISIS, rather than pursue other avenues of protest.  In order to do that, we have to do the unthinkable: ask ourselves what we, as a society, are doing to so alienate the people who become suicide bombers and terrorist gunmen, that they feel that violence is their only recourse?  I know that people don't want to here this sort of thing, insisting that we're the victims and this makes it sound as if we were 'asking for it'.  But the sad fact is that terrorist organisations prey upon young and disaffected individuals, offering them something which these individuals clearly feel that society doesn't: a sense of belonging, of worth and comradeship.  They give them the belief that they have the power to change society, despite being made to feel insignificant by the community.  To take an example, the Provisional IRA typically appealed to Catholic youths in Northern Ireland who had no jobs, no hope of a job in the foreseeable future and saw all the instruments of government dominated by the protestants, consequently perceiving them to be entirely oppressive.  By joining the IRA  they became 'someone', they had the power that a gun gives you and felt they could now strike back at their oppressors.

It's no different with the current Muslim extremists - the people they recruit to do their dirty work feel that they have no investment in the societies they attack.  Bombing towns and cities in the Middle East will only serve to reinforce this feeling and strengthen their sense of grievance. It's their hearts and minds we need to battle for if we want to 'win' this war.  Sure, I know the government likes to talk about combatting the 'radicalisation' of young Muslims, but other than harassing anyone they deem a 'radical', this doesn't seem to be achieving much.  Which isn't surprising, as it doesn't address he fundamental issues: why do they feel so disaffected, what is it about modern society which so alienates them?  I'm not saying that we need to radically change our way of life to appease potential terrorists, but perhaps a bit more accommodation and tolerance, so as to make all UK citizens feel that they belong and are valued, might help.  Ultimately, we'll have to come back to this issue, like it or not.  Unless we can totally destroy ISIS, as the Romans did to Carthage in order to end the Punic Wars, razing the city to the ground, killing the men folk and selling the women and children into slavery, then the bombing won't work.  In fact, it will just deepen their resolve, as the Blitz did with UK in World War Two.  But even then, that lesson went unlearned - what was our response to the Blitz?  That's right, bombing the shit out of Germany's cities.         

Democracy is Dead

Before returning to our usual business here of smutty films and the like, I think that we have to pause for a minute and mourn the death of democracy.  For that is what events in Greece amount to - in spite of electing a government on a clear anti-austerity programme and in spite of a referendum vote against draconian bail out terms, the rest of the Eurozone have still imposed humiliating terms on Greece in order to keep it afloat financially.  They have effectively usurped a democratically elected government of its economic sovereignty.  If this isn't a conclusive demonstration that the democratic process has been rendered irrelevant by the financial elites, then I don't know what is.  It pains me to admit it, but this is the sort of thing, (along with the UK election result where 36% of the vote gave the Tories a whacking great parliamentary majority, not to mention FIFA, where a president who has presided over unprecedented corruption keeps getting re-elected), which makes it seem as if Russell Brand has a point: voting doesn't change anything.

But you don't have to be in Greece to be witnessing, close up, the dying throes of democracy.  Just this week has witnessed our own government assaulting the BBC, trying to sneak fox hunting back in through the back door and announcing yet more restrictions on Trade Union activities.  These latter moves are particularly worrying as, whether you like it or note, Trade Unions are a vital part of any healthy democracy, allowing workers to 'level the playing field' when it comes to negotiating with employers and safeguarding workers' hard won rights in the workplace.   But that doesn't bother this government.  As if all the proposed thresholds on turnouts and percentages needed in strike ballots, not to mention the suggested restrictions on picketing weren't bad enough, they are also proposing to restrict Unions' use of social media during strikes, requiring all their tweets and posts to be  'approved'.  Really, this is the sort of thing you'd expect in extreme right-wing authoritarian regimes, oh wait, that's what we've got here in UK these days...

But seriously, both here in the UK and across Europe, our leaders are becoming ever more brazen in their contempt for the democratic process.  Sure, they play lip service to it, but have no intention of actually subjecting themselves to it.  If you still think that our democratic institutions are the only legitimate way to effect change, then you are deluded.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: revolution is clearly the only way to wrest back control.  Believe me, both our political elites and their puppet masters in the worlds of finance and banking are only going to start showing us some respect when we start putting them up against walls and shooting them.

Simple Choices

Is it any wonder that the Greeks voted the 'wrong' way (at least, as far as the right-wing press and European establishment are concerned) in their referendum - apparently it wasn't clear to them what they were voting for or against.  At least, that's what various commentators would have had us believe in the run up to the vote.  Quite what they thought was 'difficult' or 'confusing' about what Greek voters were being asked to deliberate on is beyond me: 'No we don't accept the terms of the latest bail out' or Yes, we do accept them'.  Pretty straightforward, I'd say.  But then, these same commentators would have you believe, Greek voters didn't understand the possible consequences of what they were voting for or against or, indeed, why the referendum was being held.  Which is just about as patronising as you'd expect from the knee-jerk reactionaries of the right.  The Greeks were well aware of what they were voting for - just as they were well aware of what they were voting for when they elected the Syriza-led coalition government on an anti-austerity platform. 

As for the 'why', well, I think that was pretty clear to everyone involved, too.  On the most basic level, as the bail out terms are of momentous importance for Greece, it was essential the government knew clearly what position it should take with its creditors - it was only right that the Greek people should have a say in this.  Moreover, if a 'No' vote was secured (as it has been) it would reinforce the Greek government's position that it had a clear anti-austerity mandate from its own people.  Most crucially, the referendum wasn't just about the bail out terms, or the legitimacy of the whole austerity nonsense - it was about national sovereignty and the principle that democratically elected governments have the right to pursue the platform on which they have been elected, rather than having their policies dictated to them by external, unaccountable and undemocratic financial institutions.  Thanks to the Greek electorate, democracy in Europe isn't quite dead yet.  Because, without being melodramatic, that was what was at stake in the Greek referendum.  Although, bizarrely, we had EU technocrats trying to tell us that allowing people to decide on a crucial issue via the ballot box was somehow 'undemocratic'.  That's the kind of crazy world we live in, where 'democracy' can be redefined as not having a say in political decisions.  Increasingly, the EU is resembling the declining days of the Roman Empire, desperately trying to pull conquered provinces into line and suppress their bids to reassert their independence.  Which is sad, as it was once - and should again be - a force for institutionalising and expanding concepts like democracy, the rule of law and human rights throughout the continent.  Now it seems to be just another tool of the corrupt financial institutions and capitalism which are apparently hell-bent upon subjugating us all. 

Law Abiding Subversion

Apparently it's not enough just to obey the law anymore.  Whilst you might have thought that being a law-abiding citizen was enough to make you safe from the state and its agents from curbing your liberties, Dave has decided - on the back of his 37% of the popular vote landslide election victory - that the British state faces such severe, yet vaguely defined, threats that it is necessary to restrict freedom in order to protect freedom.  Don't say I didn't warn you that we were on a downward slide to repression under these Tory bastards.  So complain to me - you voted for them.  Well, at least 37% of you did.  With every day which goes by, the need for revolution becomes ever more urgent - it's clear that the violent overthrow of this right-wing dictatorship is the only way to preserve our freedoms.  Now, having said that, will I find myself arrested and banned from the web?  Because, as I understand it, one of the legal things you can do now which won't be tolerated is expressing an opinion.  An opinion that Dave or Theresa May or some other fascist doesn't like.  More specifically, they want to ban people from expressing views that might be 'anti-democracy'.  So, as I've just called for the overthrow of a 'democratically' elected government, can I expect to get the 'knock on the door in the night?'

But to be slightly more serious, this country has been sleep walking toward repression for decades now.  Not just under the Tories, but under Blair's New Labour as well, there has been a progressive erosion of our liberties in the name of 'protecting' us from various supposed 'threats'.  But the real threat lies with our own governments who seek ever greater levels of control over all aspects of our lives.  I find it bizarre that this Tory government wants to scrap the Human Rights Act because it sees it as an obstacle to restricting our liberties - the Blair government introduced the Act, yet still increased surveillance levels and tried to bring in things like ID cards.  All in the name of saving us from those terrorists.  But what really disturbs is the quiescence of the British public in the face of these onslaughts on their liberties.  Nobody seems to care.  Can people really have been so brainwashed by the right-wing press that they actually now believe that that human rights aren't essential to their continued liberty?  It seems to me that people these days are more interested in  materialism than liberty.  Just look at that the civil unrest which accompanied the Blair government's increases in fuel duty - people were blockading oil refineries whilst the police stood by and did nothing.  Yet, when, around the same time, the government introduced the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which increased the scope of official surveillance of individuals, not to mention the number of bodies which could covertly spy on you, nobody went out onto the streets and rioted.  Really, what's wrong with people?  Well, I've got to go now and warm up the tank ready for the assault on Downing Street...

And So it Begins

Only a couple of days into the next five years of the new dark ages and already there are anti-Tory riots going on in London.  Not that you'd know anything about them if you were solely reliant upon the UK's mainstream media, who seem to be maintaining some kind of media black out with regard to the protests.  Thank God for the internet - no wonder the Tory bastards want to censor it.  Trust me, today it's internet porn, tomorrow it will be independent news sources.  Which is why I urge everyone to protest by looking at even more internet pornography than they do already - it's the only way we can safeguard our freedoms.  I know it will be hell, but we've got to do it.  If that doesn't have all those knee-jerk reactionaries out there harrumphing with displeasure, nothing will.  Actually, while I remember, there's a question I'd like to ask all those bastards who voted Tory out there:  did Dave 'Swinging Dick' Cameron keep his top hat on when he took you up the arse in the polling booth?  Because that's what it all amounts to: the political equivalent a quick knee trembler.  You might well have been flattered by the posh git's attentions at the time, but trust me, now that you've dropped your pants and he's got what he wants, he won't call you for another five years.

Jesus, you can see how much this election result has pissed me off: I'm still posting rants about it on a Saturday.  I can't remember the last time I posted anything on a Saturday!  Personally, I blame the SNP.  Well, today I do, at least.  Trust me on this, but a Tory majority in Westminster was exactly what they wanted - what will be perceived as an English Tory government will be used to further inflame anti-Union sentiments North of the border.  All that SNP talk of coaltions with Labour, or even just supporting a minority Labour government were cynically designed by the SNP leadership to whip up anti-Scots nationalist feeling in England and scare people into voting Tory.  But to return to the original point of this post: good luck to the protesters in London. Clearly they've heeded my long-standing counsel that it will need a revolution to change anything in this country.  Until we start putting some of the bastards up against the wall and shooting them, the city fat cats and their ilk will never take us seriously.  But to be slightly more serious - it was the failure of Labour to connect with the protesters who hit the streets five years ago and harness their energies, which played a large part in the party's poor showing last Thursday.  These people have perfectly legitimate grievances, but feel they have no option but to resort to street protests because they aren't being adequately addressed by mainstream politicians.  Whoever succeeds Ed Miliband needs to pay heed.

Electoral Apocalypse

I can only spare you a few minutes today - I'm too busy packing as I prepare to flee the country after that election.  Look, I know that I said things would be back to normal here today, post-election.  But I lied.  Just like an opinion poll.  But what can I say about that disastrous result?  Other than it left me despairing as to the stupidity of the British electorate. (To give you some idea of how traumatised I was after coming home from the pub and seeing those exit polls, I switched channels and ended up watching two episodes of The Walking Dead back-to-back rather than endure the closet Tory triumphalism of the TV pundits as the results rolled in.  To be frank, the zombie apocalypse seemed like a fitting analogy for what was unfolding electorally).  To be fair, our first-past-the post system has skewed the results so that number of seats held by the Tories, for instance, doesn't reflect their percentage share (around 37%).  Indeed, if I'm not much mistaken, Labour actually registered a slight increase in percentage share of the vote, yet lost a significant number of seats.  Even UKIP have a right to feel aggrieved, as they actually polled a higher percentage of the popular vote than the Lib Dems, yet have only 1 MP to the Lib Dem's 8 to show for it.  But how do we explain what appears to be a travesty of a result in the face of all those pre-election polls telling us it was neck-and-neck between Labour and the Tories?  Personally, I think that I'm going to become one of those internet cranks who spends his time pouring out ream after ream of blog posts which somehow 'prove' that the election was rigged.

That said, it is notable that I haven't met anybody today who admits to have voted Tory.  Whilst that probably reflects the circles I move in more than anything else, the fact that I live in a constituency which the sitting Tory MP retained with an 11,000 majority, despite being involved in widely publicised expenses scandal, makes me wonder who did vote for her?  That's the funny thing about many Tory voters - casting their vote for the bastards seems to make them feel so dirty that they don't want to admit to having done the deed.  Still, we have to look at the positives: the likes of Danny Alexander and Vince Cable have rightly been thrown out on their ears - and Ed Balls is gone from the Labour front bench.  That can only be good news - I remain convinced that his inability to articulate a coherent and viable alternative economic policy to the Tories' austerity con lies at the root of Labour's poor showing.  To be fair, it reflected their wider unwillingness to defend their traditional core values or to counter the Tories' pro-austerity propaganda.  Frankly, what we need now as Labour leader is some kind of passionate street-fighting firebrand who isn't ashamed to embrace the party's traditional values and electoral base.  Even if they still lose, at least it will be on their own terms, rather than because they simply tried to be more Tory than the Tories.

But in the more immediate future, what do we do?  How can we recover from this trauma?     Well, there's always the option of leaving the country.  I mean, it doesn't even have to be somewhere with a left wing government, just so long as the weather is better - if I have to live under a right-wing dictatorship it might as well be somewhere sunny.  But if we choose to stay, can we start the regrouping and rebuilding by getting all those fringe 'supporters' on Twitter and the like, who so love to be outraged by the slightest thing and are vociferous out of all proportion to their numbers, to shut the fuck up?  Their constant shrill bleatings really don't help, alienating normal, rational human beings who might otherwise be inclined to support whatever cause they've latched onto this week.  Anyway, I've rambled enough.  It's time to try and snap out of this post-election haze.  I'll leave you with this thought, though:  haven't I been telling you for the last five years that we'd need a revolution to effect change, eh?  Now will you fucking listen to me? 

Kicking Cameron Up the Arse

When the dust has finally settled on that revolution I keep hoping for and our tanks are parked on Downing Street, I'd like to imagine that we'd finally be able to give David Cameron his just desserts.  I have no doubt that, under these circumstances, he'd be found cowering under the table in the cabinet room of Number Ten, or hiding behind his wife and children, begging for mercy.  But mercy is the one thing we must not show him.  Now, whilst one's first instinct would undoubtedly be to put the snivelling little Old Etonian git in front of a wall and shoot him, but this would be wrong.  Not just because I don't believe in the death penalty, either. No, I believe that, once the little despot is deposed, (and believe me, he'll have to be deposed s he's already shown that he'll try to rig the electoral process any way he can in order to stay in power), the best punishment for him will be public humiliation.  It's only just, as he and his government continue to humiliate tens of thousands of working class people every day, forcing them to jump through hoops in order to claim the benefits they are entitled to, then branding them fraudsters and layabouts because they have the misfortune to be unemployed.

Of course, the bastards argue, there are jobs out there, but these lazy benefit cheats have to be forced to take them.  Obviously they have to be forced, as these so-called 'jobs' are, in the main, zero hours, minimum wage indentured labour.  A modern serfdom, in effect.  These are 'jobs' which pay so poorly that those doing them are frequently forced to resort to using food banks.  Mind you, at least they pay something.  Unlike the 'work experience' many are sent on with well-known High Street firms, under threat of having their benefits stopped if they don't.  This really is slave labour.  A slave labour that we, as tax payers, subsidise, as, instead of having to pay wages, pension contributions, National Insurance and the like to actual employees, companies that already make millions of pounds worth of profits off of us consumers get workers whose benefits are paid by us.  Not that you'd know that any of this was going on if you'd watched the recent triumphalist Tory Party conference where, despite having failed to meet any of their economic targets, the likes of Cameron crowed about their 'success' and promised more spending cuts, more freezes on benefits and more tax cuts.  They clearly need to be taken down a peg or two.

Which brings us back to the humiliation of David Cameron when our brave revolutionary boys finally have him in their hands, post revolution.  Now, I'm not a violent man, but there are some people who make me so angry that I feel I could happily punch them in the face.  The thought of feeling their nose break beneath my knuckles, or of knocking out their teeth, gives me a momentary flash of satisfaction.  But a punch in the face just doesn't seem humiliating enough for the victim.  Besides, it is too crude, the action of a drunken street brawler rather than a calculated act of revenge.  Which is why I can't help but feel that what we will need to do is drag him out into the street and invite anyone who felt humiliated by the actions of Cameron's government, to give Dave a a good hard kick up the arse.  Just the one.  But all the kicks up the arse will be in public and televised live to the world.  Being kicked up the arse from one end of Downing Street to the other by what I'm sure Cameron would consider 'horrible oiks' would, I can't help but feel, be the most humiliating ting we could do to him.  So, if  the opportunity to kick Cameron up the arse isn't sufficient incentive to start a revolution, I don't know what is.       

Vote, Vote, Vote

Well, I've performed my democratic duty and cast my votes in the local and Euro elections.  Shockingly, for the first time I can recall, there were voters other than myself in the polling station when I went to vote.  Could it be that that Crapchester has finally decided that it might actually be interested the elections which affect its future?  Hopefully, it is a sign that voter apathy might have been halted, or at lest slowed, and that people haven't heeded all those calls to 'register their dissatisfaction with the political process' by not voting.  Because simply not voting is just about the worst thing you can do if you don't like the current political situation,  Far from 'registering a protest', it doesn't register anything, anywhere.  Non-votes aren't counted.  You'd be better off spoiling your ballot paper if you want to make some kind of statement.  At least spoiled ballots are counted.  Most importantly, by not voting, all you are doing is disenfranchising yourself.

The problem with not voting is that the political process doesn't stop just because you choose to boycott the ballot box.  Elections will take place regardless.  Sure, you can argue that if sufficient numbers of people don't vote, the legitimacy of the outcome can be called into question.  But that doesn't change the fact that there is a result and councils and parliaments have been elected as a result.  Moreover, as you can guarantee that the extremists and nutters will vote, the outcome is increasingly skewed toward the extremes.  So get out and vote, (there's just under half an hour until the polls close as I type this).  Don't try telling me there's no point because all the parties are the same.  That's bollocks.  I know there's still too much consensus on the need for 'austerity' amongst the main parties, but the cracks are beginning to show.  Besides, if you really believe that, you always have the option of joining a party and trying to influence it from within.  Or you could always stand for election yourself, on your own platform. 

Sinister Foreigners

For a political party that claims to hate the EU and rails against immigration, UKIP seems to have a strange liking for foreigners and their money.  I don't just mean all that money its MEPs get from the EU for not actually representing their constituents in the European Parliament, (despite being elected to do so), or the fact that UKIP leader Nigel Farage is not only facilitating immigration, but giving British jobs to foreigners by marrying a German woman and paying her to be his PA.  No, I'm talking about those foreigners who happily bang the drum for UKIP and even help finance this loathsome band of bigots.  Step forward Greek businessman Demetri Marchessini, a major UKIP donor.  OK, he's US educated and London-based these days, but Hell, he was born in Greece and has a Greek name, so he's a foreigner. Sorry, did that sound a bit bigoted?  Well, I'm just following the UKIP line.  And the Marchessini line, for that matter.  This delightful 'gentleman' is the individual who is happy to publicly declare that there is no such thing as marital rape and that women shouldn't be allowed to wear trousers.  He's written a whole book on the latter subject, apparently his aversion to women in trousers has something to do with it being unflattering to their 'big bottoms'.  Some of us appreciate the broader behind, of course, whereas this lunatic clearly doesn't like women at all.  Remember, he's helping to fund UKIP.

But it isn't just foreign donors like Marchessini who should give us all cause for concern.  Even if they aren't giving money, there are plenty more of these foreign nutters out there cheer leading for them.  Take, for instance, one Alexander Nekrassov, prolific tweeter and frequent media whore, (you can find him airing his views on a variety of TV and radio outlets at any one time), who describes himself as a former Russian government and presidential advisor.  Believe me, once you've sampled his crackpot rantings you will no longer have any doubts as to why Russia is in such a shitty state.  I first encountered him as the owner of an alleged satire site called 'Stirring Trouble Internationally', which, in common with most right-wing 'satire' sites, simply purveyed the usual bile and reactionary garbage you'd hear at the average UKIP meeting.  Despite his attempts to convince everyone that the site was a 'big player', it was eventually forced to try and become subscription only, before vanishing completely.  Presumably because nobody was reading it.  Anyway, reading his Twitter feed, you'll find that all that crazy crap on his now defunct site wasn't satire - he really believes it.  Nekrassov is, without doubt, one of the most ignorant people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.  According to him, the reason for the decline of the UK is because we're in thrall to atheistic, politically correct socialists with no sense of humour.  Oh, and Darwin was wrong so they should stop teaching evolution in schools.  You see, if only we believed in God, everything would be OK.   Oh, and he bangs the drum for UKIP a lot.

His every utterance reveals that he is even more ignorant than you at first feared.  Personally, I find it terrifying that such an ignorant person was ever employed as an advisor to any government and that the BBC (an organisation he regularly denigrates) allows him to put forth his uninformed views on Question Time, BBC News 24 and Radio Five Live (just a few of his recent appearances).   But the wider question is one of why we allow these expatriates to come here and try to influence our political process?  Isn't that the sort of thing that UKIP, for instance, is meant to be against?  After all, if you don't want the EU 'dictating' to the UK, then surely having wealthy Greek and Russian reactionaries trying to influence voters is just as bad?  I mean, if they don't like it here, they can always bugger off back to where they came from, can't they?  Or is it only poor Muslims, Poles and black people that we want sent back to 'bongo bongo land'?