New Dawn Fades


Theresa may but she may not.  Her penchant for wearing heels is appropriate given how good she is at dragging them.  Since the referendum we have now had Six Months and Sweet FA.  Theresa desperately wants to be Maggie, but doesn’t have the electoral mandate; and she can’t be Maggie, because Maggie only stayed in power by convincing just enough people in the constituencies where it mattered, to vote Tory and share the spoils of purchasing the stolen goods that constituted our national infrastructure.  The family silver has been sold and now the cupboard is bare, our ‘sterling’ currency being anything but that, its market value based only on what investment return can be gained from it (next to bugger all with interest rates so pitifully low).  Under Tory then Labour then Tory we have had a ‘brick’ standard for our economy over the past few decades.  Little wonder then that for a large minority of voters in Britain, the EU is either better or no worse; and as the EU has ruled against Theresa’s Snoopers’ Charter, they have a valid point.

Many of these ‘Remainers’ believe that the EU needs to be reformed and that this is still achievable.  Their intentions may be sincere, but not a single one of them can elaborate how this reform can come about, given the EU’s track record of ignoring any attempts to do so and its contempt for any referendum result which goes against the deterministic European Project to create a continental superstate.  Theresa is, like Maggie was, a ‘Remainer’ at heart.  A true Tory, a whore to big business and its desires for anything that will reduce the costs of labour.  (It was Maggie after all who signed the Single European Act to encourage mass migration to drive down labour costs).  Theresa talks a lot of tough guff about immigration but without any sincerity.  Her track record as Home Secretary, by making cuts to the UK Border Agency, shows that she is anything but sincere on the matter.  Theresa realises that ‘Brexit’ is the only chance that she will ever have to make her mark on the world as a Leader.  With Hillary out of the way and Angela on the skids, Theresa could become the most powerful female Head of Government in the world; and a genuine ‘Brexit’, a clean break, would mean no more subordination to the EU.  But she won’t go that far, she is still trying for a fudge which will please no-one.

I made my departure, my ‘Leave’ vote, as I recognise that the EU has got beyond the point where it can be reformed, not something which I would have thought a decade and a half ago.  But to me, ‘Brexit’ is only worth having if it leads to greater reforms of the United Kingdom, such as it is, possibly away from being a Kingdom or Queendom.  An unelected Head of State, an unelected Upper Chamber (Lords rather than Commissioners) and the lack of a written constitution are issues which genuine progressives should be addressing, instead of clinging to the EU.  We Britons cannot change the EU, we are outsiders and always have been.  The EU will not adopt the common sense solution to its lack of moral authority, of a demerger into a Common Market for the trade in goods and services and nothing more than that.  So we must Leave the EU and build a better Britain, better than the Tories can ever offer us and take back the infrastructure which they plundered from us.  All this sounds very Old Labour, but that is what I am deep down.  The Tories’ procrastination over ‘Brexit’ is because only a minority of them genuinely support it, so the majority are hoping that the longer they can drag it out (with the backing of fraudulent ‘progressives’), the more fed up ‘Leave’ voters will become and say fuck it, why bother?

Finally, one should try to be optimistic and wish good tidings at this time of year; and in keeping with that, the journalist whom I mentioned in an earlier post on this blog must be expecting a single malt from Santa, so merry is he.  However, I cannot share his merriment.  The contrived ‘migrant crisis’ and the terrorist attacks that have come in its wake do not bode well for a peaceful New Year, as both will continue indefinitely.  The globalist enterprise known as the so-called British Broadcasting Corporation, the voice of the political establishment, will accuse those who voted ‘Leave’ of turning their backs on Europe, hence being on the same side as the so-called Islamic State.  Just wait.


Winter Warmer

As my last post showed a half-naked man, then in the interests of balance, I’ve decided to write a post about Brigitte Bardot, the woman who made the bikini fashionable.


Bardot is a ‘Marianne’, an icon of the French Republic, someone unafraid to speak her mind; a woman who abandoned her acting career to live with her menagerie of animals in Saint-Tropez, devoting her life to the causes of vegetarianism and animal rights, long before these became fashionable causes célèbres for the Hollywood Set.  It is easy to criticise Bardot and many may see her as just a wealthy elderly woman living near the Côte d’Azur, with its tan-to-cancer beaches and locals who look like they have been bred for their leather, speaking controversially in the safe knowledge that she can afford lawyers to fight any prosecutions against her for her views; also knowing that her iconic status affords her a certain degree of impunity.

Bardot’s objection to the barbarity of Halal and Kosher slaughter methods has drawn criticism from the Regressive Left to whom she is ‘racist’, when her views on this matter are in reality ‘culturalist’; and praise from the whiter-than-white snowflakes of the Alt-Right, a large proportion of whom are gun-toting, pro-hunting rednecks, hostile to her support for vegetarianism and animal rights.  If Bardot’s views on religious slaughter are ‘xenophobic’, then her opposition to the inherent cruelty of force-feeding ducks and geese for the production of foie gras; and her opposition to bullfighting, which is still practised in Languedoc, must be similarly ‘prejudiced’ against French culture, given that France is not exactly renowned for its adherence to animal welfare standards, let alone animal rights.  Bardot’s views on these matters are consistent (just like those of Morrissey, one of our most famous old curmudgeons, who has also in the past been accused of ‘racism’).

It is Bardot’s support for Marine Le Pen, whom she compared to Jeanne d’Arc, which is where she has drawn the most criticism.  If Bardot’s support is unconditional, then that criticism is deserved, as it is unlikely that Marine Le Pen would pay anything more than lip service to the causes to which Bardot has dedicated her life, as it would damage Le Pen’s electoral campaign among conservatives to do so.  That Bardot is willing to speak out, when feminists are unwilling to do so, against Islam, a religion which subordinates women, is itself a good thing, but that doesn’t mean that she should compromise her other views by allying herself with pro-hunting conservatives.  As an aside, a couple of years ago, French politician Nadine Morano used the above photograph on her Facebook page to campaign against women wearing burkas at the beach (this was slightly before the advent of the ‘burkini’ and the ‘controversy’ about that).  As Bardot is now an octogenarian, presumably Morano wouldn’t expect her to wear a bikini in order to prove her secular, patriotic credentials in the service of the republic.

Novius is my Neighbour

I first read J. G. Ballard’s novel High Rise more than twenty years ago.  In common with most of Ballard’s ‘dystopian’ fiction, his ideas were good but his characters always struck me as being one-dimensional, without a past and a future, not people whom you would meet in any context.  With High Rise, the synopsis is of tribal warfare breaking out in a luxury apartment block in London’s docklands, the book having been published in 1975 when any such developments were still a long-way off.  Each floor of the apartment block was inhabited by a different social stratum, with the wealthiest at the top; the inverse of the Roman insulae and the tenements in the posher parts of Edinburgh (eg Marchmont), where a ground floor (main door) flat with its own garden carries greater status.  Reading the book, I couldn’t help wondering why the less wealthy who lived on the bottom floors didn’t just block access and egress to those living further up when the warfare broke out, depriving them of food, water and all services.


And so on to last year’s film adaptation, released this year on DVD.  With its supposedly stellar cast it was disappointing to me, though presumably not to those who enjoyed the eye candy of Tom Hiddleston; one for the ladies.  The problem with the film is that no-one really looks or acts the part, they either go over the top as Luke Evans did with his character, or just seem bored, dressing up for the sake of getting paid.  A hairy chest, sideburns and collar-length hair were not mandatory for any 70’s man, but in the case of Hiddleston, he appears just like a modern man of the present era and can’t escape from looking that way.  The kids don’t look like they (we, my generation) looked back then either.  I couldn’t relate to them as I could do with kids in programmes or films that were made during the 1970’s.  Such films and programmes are widely available on DVD for anyone who wants an authentic taste of the era.

So instead of trying and failing, in my opinion, to mimic the mid-1970’s, it would have been better to set the film in the present, as David Cronenberg did with his adaptation, now twenty years ago, of Crash, where he also changed the setting.  Granted, that film was absurd (and I even went into Brum to watch it at a now defunct multiplex), but at least he tried to inject some originality into it, rather then making a 70’s pastiche.

High Rise ends with a speech by Margaret Thatcher, placed presumably to try and give a ‘historical’ context to a younger audience, but the problem of course that she only became leader of the Conservative Party in 1975.  She had not yet then become the ‘Iron Lady’ and was four years away from becoming Prime Minister.  As to what she looked like in 1975:





From Fred Goodwin to another of Alex Salmond’s former pals – he knows how to pick ’em – I found this interesting article from last year on the Guardian website (which, granted you would expect to run an anti-Trump story), about the Donald’s golf course and related development in Alex’s constituency.  It’s interesting that Salmond, who would like to see Scotland divorced from the rest of the UK (and hence the end of the UK itself), supported the UK supreme court’s decision to reject Trump’s opposition to a local wind farm.  It should also be evident that Trump will only play on his Scottish roots when it benefits his business empire and if that means running roughshod over local people then so be it.  Trump is a ruthless businessman above all else and if he weren’t, he wouldn’t be the billionaire that he is.  Any British people who think that his jumping on the ‘Brexit’ bandwagon was for anything more than short-term electoral gain should think again.  None of us should expect any favours from President Trump.  He may not put the UK to the back of the queue for trade deals, but no British person, most of all those of us who voted for the UK to leave the EU, should be under any illusions that the incoming Trump Administration will pander to the so-called ‘special relationship’ (a British invention that few Americans will ever have heard of, let alone care about).

Trump successfully marketed himself as a ‘man of the people’ knowing that his principal opponent was backed by the evil triumvirate of George Soros, Goldman Sachs and the Saudi monarchy.  Trump is, like Bill Clinton, allegedly a sexual predator, but the problem with any ‘revelations’ during the election campaign about his character is that they were nothing new, which is why they bounced off him.  In trying to find out more about his links to the Clintons, earlier this year I purchased a copy of the March 1990 edition of Playboy to read the interview with him (pp 55 – 72, excluding ads).  Unfortunately, the article doesn’t really reveal much except the size of Trump’s ego and his belief that countries which have US military bases should pay for them, his view being that the USA was ‘being ripped off so badly by our so-called allies; ie Japan, West Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Korea etc’.  Trump believed that if he ever ran for office he’d do better as a Democrat than as a Republican and when asked by Playboy, ‘What’s the first thing President Trump would do upon entering the Oval Office?’, he replied that he’d ‘throw a tax on every Mercedes-Benz rolling into the country and on all Japanese products, and we’d have wonderful allies again’.  Although he was most scathing towards Japan, he didn’t show any empathy for his German roots on his father’s side.


I can empathise with Americans who feel that they were left with trying to decide between the lesser of two evils in the election.  At least Americans have the right to elect their head of state, which is more than British people have ever had; and they fought Britain for that right.  So we Britons have no right to lecture them on whom they should choose.  From this side of the Atlantic pond it looks like the decision to vote was less for Trump or Clinton then a preference of which one not to vote for.  I’ll admit that I did not expect Trump to win because I thought that he had alienated too many people; and no-one who represents either Republicans or Democrats can claim to be ‘anti-establishment’.  Trump won I guess because he is willing to talk bluntly, even if he causes offence.  Now that he has been elected, he can follow the tradition of all elected heads of government in ditching a lot of his election promises (including the wall across the border with Mexico).  I am not a fan of Trump, I don’t believe for one moment that he has any moral scruples about employing cheap disposable migrant labour, from Mexico or elsewhere; and I have never understood the obsession which many Americans have with gun ownership, other than it seems to be driven by paranoia.  But then I am not a fan of the Clintons either; and it is precisely because the couple come as a package deal that Hillary alienated so many female voters so it seems; that and her belief that women should vote for her solely because of her gender, as if she were a ‘self-made’ career woman, which she isn’t.  Add to that, the pair of them are mired in corruption.  Anyway, it looks like the riots which have taken place in Trumptonshire against his election will only play into the Donald’s hands.  We can look forward to the official presidential residence becoming the Trump House (with a Trump Hotel and Trump Casino?)

The Age of Consent

On 7th February 1992 John Major signed the Treaty on European Union, having refused to allow a public referendum on the issue.  If he’d had an ounce of integrity as Prime Minister then one would have been held at least a few months earlier; but then it was his predecessor Margaret Thatcher who signed the Single European Act on 19th February 1986 and Edward Heath, her predecessor as Tory Leader who signed the Treaty of Accession to the European Economic Community on 22nd January 1972.  Neither of them was willing to allow a referendum.  The record of the Conservative Party is of the continual erosion of British sovereignty, whilst wrapping themselves in the Union Flag and selling off our national infrastructure cut-price.

I was not of voting age back in 1972; but by 1986 I was and had a referendum been offered on either the Single European Act or the Treaty on European Union I don’t now how I would have voted, which is why I feel that it is unfair to condemn the millennials who didn’t know which way to vote in this year’s referendum (though I have no sympathy for those who protested at the result).  I was unaware back in 1992 that the Tories’ property-driven boom and bust was caused not only by the deregulation of ‘The City’ leading to a credit boom, but by Nigel Lawson’s fixation on keeping the pound within the European Exchange Rate Mechanism; hence Lawson refused to raise the Bank of England base rate when it needed to be and allowed a housing bubble to develop.  George Soros knew better with consequences which have become well-known.

I remember reading various ‘Europe of the Regions’ guff back in 1992 about which I was and still am sceptical because these ‘regions’ are inventions dreamed up by the Eurocracy; examples being that Oxfordshire (where I am from), the neighbouring county of Warwickshire (where I live) and two neighbouring counties, Gloucestershire and Northamptonshire fall within four different ‘Euro-regions’ by the partition of England.  Scotland and Wales are not partitioned as such by the Eurocrats.  Given the that EU back then consisted of only twelve members, all Western European (bar the economic basket case that is Greece), then I might well have voted in favour of the EU.  I really don’t know.  I couldn’t get motivated by listening to those Tories who opposed it when their own leaders had imposed it on Britain.

For me, ‘Eurosceptism’ is a more recent thing than it is among other people whose politics deep down are also Old Labour.  Probably up until a decade ago I used to support the principle of a ‘European Union’, but as it has continued to expand, it is trying to bind together countries with no common culture, history or economic interest, as well as no common language; and the huge economic disparities between the former Soviet Bloc and the developed economies of Western Europe have led to economically and environmentally unsustainable levels of migration.  It is a when and how, rather then if, the whole shebang falls apart.  Britain could be ahead of the game by getting out before it implodes.

Why I have entitled this ‘The Age of Consent’ is with reference to those millennials, including many who didn’t bother to vote, protesting that older generations should not be allowed a say; or that some ‘weighting’ should be placed on votes based on life expectancy.  The arrogance of these millennials is breathtaking.  Most weren’t even of voting age when Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty on 13th December 2007, having refused to offer a public referendum.  These millennials genuinely believe that they are more important then the millions of people older then themselves who were continually denied a vote on all the significant changes to the European Project since the one and only referendum held on the ‘Common Market’ on 5th June 1975.

These millennials may think that the older generations have now denied them to chance to live and work in other countries, which allegedly have a better standard of living and quality of life.  But they need to ask themselves why exactly does Britain have such a high level of inward migration if those other EU countries are better off.  They need to examine how this high level of immigration has led to slumlords buying up what ought to be the cheap first-time buyer properties; they need to examine the levels of youth unemployment in the Eurozone; they need to examine how the Single European Market has allowed unscrupulous employers to get away with zero-hours contracts.  Mostly they need to upskill themselves with a STEM degree not a useless one; and they need to stop sulking.

In 1968 many students protested against the Establishment before later joining it.  In 2016, a lesser number of students, but with an inflated sense of their own self-importance, protested in favour of the Establishment, showing themselves to be useful tools to all those corporate globalists who would like to see democracy eradicated and living standards continually eroded through the mass migration of labour.  What kind of ‘Brexit’ we get is yet to be decided owing to the lack of the government’s having a clear plan on the issue.  It could be a ‘Brexit’ in name only, but even if that is all it is, the referendum result still represents a rejection of the European Project as it stands; and at the risk of stating the obvious, yes I voted Leave.

The Silence of the Fems

This month some adult male economic migrants, claiming to be ‘refugee children’, but who are neither, have been allowed to settle in the UK, having fled the ‘repression’ of France, a secular democracy.  If any of these ‘refugees’ were fleeing persecution then they could have claimed political asylum in France, or whichever European country or countries that they used to gain access to France.  Largely thanks to Angela Merkel’s policy of inviting anyone into the European Union – with her grandstanding as ‘Leader of Europe’ – in order to provide German businesses with an unlimited supply of cheap disposable labour, over the past year numerous women have fallen victim to sexual assaults by such migrants.

In so far as feminists have tackled this issue, they have descended into whataboutery, either squealing ‘racist’ at anyone who condemns the rapists, or blaming our ‘decadent’ culture for encouraging them; the excuse, feeble that it is, being that the migrants don’t understand that when a woman is dressed ‘immodestly’, ie showing more than her face, she is not encouraging their attention.  The truth is that these migrants are possessed with a sense of entitlement, which is not just materialistic but sexual; that is why so many rapes have been carried out by them.

Men of similar cultural background to these migrants, but who have spent their whole lives in the developed ‘decadent’ societies of Western Europe should know better; many however claim that they don’t.  These men are not necessarily Muslim by upbringing but their backgrounds are in those pre-industrial cultures where a girl is considered to be sexually mature when she reaches puberty, whence she must become fully covered to avoid the attention of men; and where she will be married off at an early age to become the possession of a man.

In Britain, there have been several cases of ‘grooming’ gangs of Pakistani and / or Somali background targeting underage girls, treating them as ‘white meat’ to be raped and traded.  The most infamous of these cases was in Rotherham and media attention outside of Britain on this issue has tended to focus on the post-industrial towns of Northern England.  But it is more widespread than this and it may surprise people outside Britain, that Oxford, that famous university city, has also become infamously associated with this ‘culture’ of rape.

In Oxford, a ‘grooming’ gang of Pakistani and Somali men raped more than three hundred girls who were in the care of Oxfordshire County Council’s Social Services Department.  This was finally uncovered by the Operation Bullfinch investigation.  A more recent report details that these offences went on as far back as 1999.  It is a difficult issue to approach without the risk of being accused of ‘virtue signalling’, something which two well-known feminists with Oxford connections have made a career out of, though they have avoided the subject mentioned above.  As I am a native of Oxfordshire then I am going to tackle it, ‘virtue signalling’ or not.

The first of these feminists is actress Emma Watson, who was educated at two Oxford private schools, the Dragon School and Headington School, before going to on to Oxford University (something which very few pupils from local state schools do).   Her privileged background is far removed from that of the rape victims failed by Social Services.  Earlier this year Emma Watson was challenged to spend a week with the migrants, for whom she campaigns, to prove how safe it would be for a young woman to do so.  Not surprisingly she has yet to take up the offer.

The second of the two is Caroline Lucas (pictured above), the Green Party’s one and only Member of Parliament (for Brighton Pavilion, about a hundred miles from Oxford).  Caroline Lucas is one of the most prominent members of Britain’s Feminist Establishment, which she reinforced by her support for the ‘No More Page 3’ campaign to stop the sexual objectification, as she would see it, of young women by the evil Dirty Digger (Rupert Murdoch) to sell his smutty gossip rag (The Sun).  That the women who pose for such pictures do so of their own volition is presumably because they have been brainwashed by the patriarchy and are therefore unable to think for themselves.  It is a matter of conjecture whether such pictures influence men who due to their cultural backgrounds already believe that any woman or girl dressed ‘immodestly’ (ie showing more than her face) is a ‘slut’, or whether an 18 year-old dressed in nothing more than a pair of bikini bottoms will influence such men to rape a 13-year old.  Their cultural backgrounds mean that such men are conditioned to believe that when a girl reaches puberty she is sexually mature and sexually available to them.

You might think that Caroline Lucas would be willing to tackle this issue.  You might think that, not least because she started her political career on Oxfordshire County Council as the representative for the St Clements Ward in Oxford; so the ‘multicultural’ / ‘bohemian’ part of Oxford where the rapes took place is familiar to her (as it is to me, but I’m not a politician, let alone a feminist one).  Also, the Green Party supports the globalist agenda of unrestricted immigration, environmentally unsustainable though it is, so it deliberately turns a blind eye to the subordination of women and girls by an immigrant culture.  Caroline Lucas is not personally responsible for the failings of Oxfordshire County Council.  She had already left to get on the gravy train to Brussels before 1999, so it was no wonder she cried after the referendum result in June, but her silence is telling.  If she had an ounce of integrity she would address the issue of the cultural disposition of men from Pakistani and / or Somali backgrounds for raping underage girls; but she won’t.


A note about the ‘No More Page 3’ campaign is that feminists as a rule do not object to female nudity in the media, rather they object to the context, the working-class ‘white van man’ target audience.  If a woman appears naked in an arty-farty foreign language film or an elitist art house magazine targeted at a bourgeois audience, then that is ‘empowering’.  Ditto with all the narcissistic selfie queens that the internet has spawned; and with the idiotic ‘slutwalkers’, who never march through an area where women are expected, for cultural reasons, to be always fully covered.  Go figure.

From Darien to Gogarburn


To kick off this blog properly I thought I’d try a review of sorts of Iain Martin’s superb book Making It Happen: Fred Goodwin, RBS and the Men Who Blew up the British Economy.  The author, the bank and the principal villains in the story are all Scottish, including former Labour MP and Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling, who agreed, eight years ago, that all UK taxpayers should have to bail out the huge amount of debt accrued by Fred The Shred and his pals at Gogarburn.  Martin sets the scene by recounting the Darien scheme, which led directly the Act of Union and the creation of Royal Bank of Scotland, as an example of how the Scottish reputation for fiscal prudence has always been tempered by recklessness.  Scotland’s First Minister and former RBS employee Alex Salmond urged Goodwin that RBS should take over Dutch bank ABN Amro – an event that was to lead to RBS’ collapse – ‘for Scotland’.  If only it had been, then the rest of us wouldn’t have been left picking up the tab.  It was Salmond, without any reference to the bail out of RBS, who suggested that an ‘independent’ Scotland should walk away from the UK’s national debt.  But I shan’t ruin a good story for you; if you don’t wish to purchase the book I’d recommend doing an RBS: borrow it or let someone else pay.

Related to the above, another book recommendation is an older one: Britons: Forging the Nation 1707 – 1837, by Linda Colley; originally published by Yale University Press in 1992, with the first British edition by Pimlico Press in 1994.  In her Conclusions, pp 374-5, Colley states: The Scots, in particular, who became British after 1707 in part because it paid such enormous commercial and imperial dividends, are now increasingly inclined to see partial or complete independence plus membership of a federal Europe as the most profitable strategy for the future.  ‘Federal Europe’ propaganda was quite commonplace in 1992 and based on the assumption that small nations such as Scotland could have some influence in how it was run; but what we have had for the past 24 years is an increasingly centralised superstate in which small nations have had diminishing levels of influence.  Britishness, as Colley tells it, pp 117-132, ‘A Scottish Empire’, was formed by the intermarriage of the Scottish and English landed gentries (our recently departed Prime Minister David Cameron being an English offspring of one such family); as well as the partnership of the English and Scottish political and mercantile classes, with these Scots enjoying a disproportionately high level of influence in running both the United Kingdom and the British Empire.  Some Scots – those of SNP inclinations – are suffering delusions of grandeur if they think that they will ever have that level of influence in running the European Union.

The above all has a bearing on Scotland’s status within the UK, hence the future of the UK itself.  The electorate of Scotland need to decide between the UK, EU or genuine independence and if the last of these options, how they could afford it.  As it is, in the context of the limited sovereignty that the UK has within the EU, the electorate of Scotland have a greater degree of devolved home rule than those of Wales, Northern Ireland and suffice to say England, which has none.  Scottish separation from the UK could and should mean that the subsidy which Scotland receives via the Barnett Formula be redirected towards the economically depressed post-industrial areas of the North and Midlands of England; the ‘Brexit’ heartlands, whose electorates are subject to the condescension of the worse-than-useless Labour Party.  With Nicola Sturgeon ‘threatening’ another ‘indyref’, the electorate of the rest of the UK must insist that Scotland inherit all of the debt bequeathed by Royal Bank of Scotland, if Scotland is to separate from the rest of the UK.  Whilst the SNP’s oxymoronic policy of ‘independence within the EU’, ie subservience to a centralised authoritarian superstate based in Brussels, looks ludicrous on the surface, perhaps the SNP’s tactic is that Royal Bank of Scotland’s debt should be socialised onto hundreds of millions of taxpayers in continental Europe, to let the Greeks, Spanish, Italians and Portuguese amongst others inherit the debt from one of the world’s biggest banking failures.