Yes I am a rabid Brexiteer. I want the country where, regrettably, I spend most of the year to be free to make its own laws, set its own taxes, control its own waters and chart its own destiny. I have faith that Britain can do that. Yet for sneering metropolitan elitists like the twit who tweeted me last night, as you can see below, that is incompatible with liking your fellow Europeans. Au contraire..
The battle we deplorables, we the 17.4 million, fight is not with other plebs, others outside the rich elites, elsewhere in Europe. The Maillot Jaunes in France, those who voted overwhelmingly Oxi in Greece are those we agree with. Our common enemy are the autocratic elites, the political and media classes, across Europe who take our proud individual nations in a direction which we reject.
I live for part of the year, not enough, in the Mani, a poor but proud region of Greece. My friends and neighbours here know my views on Brexit, for I do not hide them. This was the part of Greece that was the first to raise the flag of revolt 197 years ago against another oppressive empire, that of Turkey. On March 17 1821 the Bishop of Tripoli called for Greeks to rise up and expel the Turks. Four days later the men of the Mani stormed the Turkish garrison at Kalamata and slaughtered every man there. That was the first action of a war for freedom.
The EU has brought misery and poverty to this part of the world. Folks here have a lot more time for someone with my views than with some millionaire ponce from the London liberal elite who insists that everyone who wants freedom for his country must hate folks from other countries.
Such folks should not sneer at me but should try coming to my home village of Kambos and explaining to my hard working, God fearing, gun owning neighbours just why the EU has made their lives better and why anyone who wants out must be a xenophobe. Go on Mr Metropolitan elitist… I dare you.
In the fury of the recent affair Kavanaugh time and time again we were told “she must be believed”. After years of – undoubted – injustice the woman must be assumed to be telling the truth unless proven otherwise when it came to sexual harassment and rape. Thankfully this distortion of justice was not allowed to win the day and Brett Kavanaugh starts work today on the Supreme Court. Among those making the case of a presumption of guilt was, without irony, Hillary Clinton.
Hillary repeated disparaged those women such as Paula Jones ( trailer park trash), Monica Lewinsky (slut), Juanita Broaddrick, and the list goes on and on, who accused her husband of assault or rape. They were not heard. More double standards for tea Mrs First Lady?
Now the alleged rapist and his enabler are doing yet another tour. No longer able to earn millions via "pay to play", the Clintons are instead offering folks the chance to hear their wisdom in a 16 City tour where folks can pay up to $745 for a ticket. I guess the poor folks from the ghettos are not invited, after all Bill & the wicked witch only ever go see them to show they care at Election time.
Yet thousands of liberals who just last week were screeching for the blood of Kavanaugh and insisting that he face a minimum of career ruin despite the lack of any tangible evidence, are now booking in to see the Bill and Hillary show. The greed of the Clintons is legendary. It is matched by the hypocrisy of the well heeled affluent liberal elite in America today.
Today's bleating member of the liberal elite is Sarah Montague who until last year had to struggle to survive on just under £150,000. Now she gets more having switched from Today to The World at One. Please #MeToo
Montague bleats that she was "furious" when she discovered she earned less than men at the BBC. Also less than the other female presenter on Today but that is an aside. We poor saps the taxpayer might feel furious that we get sent to jail if we don't pay the license fee to pay such gargantuan wages to both men and women at the BBC, sums most of of us can only ever dream of earning.
That thought does not occur to the ridiculous Montague bleating to the Sunday Times who states:
Before the list (of staff pay) was published I had thought there might be some moral high ground from taking less of the licence fee than others. What a fool I was. I felt nothing of the sort. Instead I felt a sap. For years I had been subsidising other people’s lifestyles.
Think about that for a second, the use of the word subsidy. If Ms Montague had indeed been subsidising even more grossly overpaid men like fake news specialist Jon Sopel she would have been paying them money. But she was not. There is a subsidy here. BBC news as a whole pays way over market rates for a commodity business with no shortage of applicants. And thus it is subsidised by a poll tax levied on all of us, the license fee. We - who earn a fraction of what Ms Montague or the loathsome Sopel earn - must subsidise them both.
Montague's sense of entitlement means that she just does not appreciate that.
Worse still her journalism is lazy and unthinking - regurgitated group think. She starts her bleating thus:
Finally we are talking about pay. You can criticise the gender pay gap figures for being too crude a measure of potential discrimination and for diverting attention away from equal pay but at least it has prompted us to open up about our earnings.
But lazy journalists and virtue signalling politicians used it none the less to suggest that women earned far less than men for doing the same jobs as a result of discrimination. The conclusion and indeed the underlying premise are both utterly false but the meaningless data was used - notably by BBC journalists - to argue otherwise.
If Montague is not intelligent enough to realise that then my resentment, as a license fee payer, for having to subsidise her salary grows that bit more intense.
There is no doubt in my mind that the appalling way that the evil apartheid regime treated the late Winnie Mandela and her children is a very legitimate mitigating factor for Winnie as she trudges her way on the long march towards a meeting with St Peter. Indeed the evil of apartheid and the way it treated all dissenters and all black Africans is another factor St Pete will take into account. But I very much doubt that he will be utterly forgiving and, I am sure, that Mrs Mandela will show no sense of repentance. Natch the Guardian, the newspaper of the liberal elite, thinks she did nothing wrong and it goes further, in its usual poisonous way, as it tries to silence debate on this matter. .
Its case put by, among others, Owen Jones & Afua Hirsch is that Apartheid was so evil that whatever happened in the struggle was legitimate. And the columnist below goes a step further in suggesting that anyone challenging that narrative is a racist. Of course. With its usual poison the Guardian wishes to stifle any debate by cowing dissenters into silence for fear of being branded a racist.
To be clear, Mrs Mandela was, during the years when Nelson Mandela was in jail a beacon of hope and her heroism and bravery should be recognised. She was a heroine. However as apartheid was visibly crumbling, not because - as young Mr Jones insists -- of bombs and violence but because of concerted international pressure, both moral and economic, some bad things went on.
Mr Mandela recognised that South Africa could only avoid the appalling bloodshed and chaos that had happened in so many places in post colonial Africa is a rainbow nation worked together. He found it in his heart to genuinely forgive. Mrs Mandela did not, her anger turned to hatred and her vision was of vengeance and was driven by hatred. And that saw her thugs in Mandela United kill other black folks, men and boys, with machete and "necklace" on, often, the most spurious of grounds.
Those murders which Winnie Mandela must be held to account for did not hasten the demise of apartheid. And her agenda of hatred and vengeance is still alive in some circles today. That is why being a white farmer in South Africa is now the most dangerous profession on earth in terms of murder rate. Winnie Mandela's calls to action after her husband's release legitimised hatred and vengeance.
One of the great things about Nelson Mandela was that he was the first to admit his sins and his failings as a man although his actions ahead of and after release showed a level of forgiveness which marks him out as a superior being to almost all of us. With Mrs Mandela there was no such humility, no such acceptance of her failings. Yes she was a hero but she also did some very bad things. To refuse to accept that balanced appraisal as the Guardian writers like Mr Jones and Afua Hirsch do is just dishonest. To smear those offering a more balanced perspective is simply poisonous.
The man dubbed America's pastor has passed away aged 99. It did not take the Guardian more than a few hours to accuse Billy Graham of the most heinous crimes "In his early years as a preacher, Graham expressed racist and antisemitic views" and also attacking him for his unswerving hostility to communism. In the eyes of the liberal elite, opposing a Godless faith which cased the death of tens of millions of folks is a bad thing, being a spy for the Czech secret police is a minor issue. Whatever
The fact that Billy Graham was an early campaigner against segregation, an active anti- Apartheid campaigner and a friend and strong ally of Martin Luther King is neither here nor there. The Guardian would rather judge a man not by decades of good deeds of hard, brave and principled acts to make the world a better place but by a few quotes from what was another era.
I was taken by some evangelical friends of my family to see Billy Graham as a teenager at, I think, Villa Park. I have long struggled with the issue of faith. as a teen I certainly found him charismatic and what he said had great appeal. Unlike some of the quack preachers one sees, Graham left you in no doubt that he meant every word he said. A few years ago he said that he was looking forward to meeting God face to face. if that meeting is happening right now I doubt that God will be swayed by the opinions of the Godless folk round at the Guardian, and instead will be giving a good man a warm embrace.
I still struggle with the idea that such a meeting will be taking place. And that is not because I am in denial about how the meeting would go for me for I accept all too many of my failings. If there is such a meet on my own day of judgement I would just have to hope that God finds my repentance sincere and is indeed truly merciful. Surely God must be merciful? But if he is, how can he allow all the miseries of the human condition, the iniquities that hand some an early and painful death and others all life's treats?
On balance, I still can't bring myself to believe that ones next meeting after death is not with the worms. Even Billy Graham could not convince me otherwise. But I remain open to persuasion and am trying to keep an open mind. Unlike folks round at the Guardian.
The narrative of the liberal elitists is always the same. We plebs may vote for Brexit or Donald Trump but the smart folks vote the "right way". They just know better than we do. Meet Elham Khatami.
As you can see she edits "Thing Progress" which, as you can seem says it "moves news forward". That is to say it spews out a diet of liberal claptrap, fake news about Donald Trump etc.
What you cannot see - as she has removed it - is her tweet on the New York terror attack and the Las Vegas shootings whch suggesst that POTUS is a racist for his double standards on his desired treatment of the two murderers. She has deleted that tweet but luckily not before some right thinking folks did a screen grab and pointed out the critical flaw in her thesis as you can see below.
Sure Elham you are so much smarter than me, please tell me what I should be thinking next.
Having failed to lay a glove on Trump senior for getting help from the Russians during hos election triumph, the Democrats and their allies in the liberal media fake news departments tried to show he was blocking their futile investigations. That failed too. Now the Dems really are clutching at straws.
Given that Trump's popularity is improving as folks rather like his policies on immigration and the economy, liberal America is in trouble. It lost what they called " a Referendum on Trump" in the Georgia 6th as their policy ideas of the east and West coast metropolitan elites who dominate the Dems just do not resonate on main Street America. The Russian issue is a non issue but since Trump & the GOP are winning on policy and winning on personality what other card do the elitists who run the Dems have to play?
Okay no-body cares any more outside the Beltway, Broadway or Hollywood but that is not going to stop the Fake News outlets going for it anyway. Thus the latest "scandal" is that Donald Trump junior ( son of POTUS) met with a Russian connected lawyer during the campaign who promised to have some filth on how Crooked Hillary's campaign was being supported by the evil Russians. As it was the lawyer had no filth, tried to raise another issue, got nowhere and everyone moved on. This is a total non story.
Had, in June 2016, someone approached one of crooked Hillary's aides or one of the Dems from the Beltway who spend their entire life these days banging on about Donald and the Russians, to say that they had some filth on how the Russians were helping Donald what would they have done? Would they have said:
1. The Clintons always fight really clean campaigns, we are above such matters and we decline the meeting?
2. When can we meet? Dirt to sink the Donald, bring it on. We can get our pals at CNN/The Washington Post/ the NY Times to splash so our fingerprints are not on it and we get to win the election.
Of course it is 2. In any election folks are always keen to get dirt on their opponent. And when it comes to fighting firty the Clintons do not pull any punches.
The BBC commented that this "scandal" has "not damaged President Trump directly" since he knew nothing about it. FF. It has not and will not damage President Trump at all since it is obviously not a scandal at all and everyone outside the beltway and liberal media bubble can see that.
The fake news media junkies are so obviously clutching at straws now. One almost feels sorry for these pathetic creatures.
The BBC's flagship News programme Newsnight is staffed by the grossly overpaid liberal elite who care about the sort of issues we in the 99% don't give a stuff about and who show an open hostility to Brexit. Impartiality is not the name of the game here. Last night's main feature was on that silly woman who claimed to be a black rights campaigner before - after many years on the liberal civil rights gravy train - she was outed as being er...`100% white.
All that time banging on about how being black had left her victimised and oppressed started to ring a bit hollow. At that point, she claimed that she "identified" as being black. Anyhow she has now got a big wonga book deal so maybe that will go some way to make up for all the hurt she was caused by slavery.
Then it was onto the thrice weekly Brexit bash with a report on farming. Naturally most of the farmers interviewed were those operating the sort of economically unviable farm in places such as the Lake District or Exmoor which cannot exist without mass subsidy. The government has said that it will replace the handouts with UK handouts until 2020 at least. Remember that as we send a NET £350 million a week to the Evil Empire those EU handouts are actually our taxes in the first place.
Natch these folks are worried that the meal ticket for life may be threatened so farmers - Newsnight opined - are demanding many things out of Brexit. Farmers in the Lakes, miners, banksters all demand that profitable industries and those working in them pay more in tax to subsidise unprofitable industries. The blessed Maggie was right about the mines, Brown was wrong about the banks - for capitalism to work, subsidies for unviable enterprises must go. Only one chap at the end was given far too short a time to explain that.
The landscape of the Lakes is an artificial one created by farming. But if the farms are unviable why not let it return to its natural state and let 31 million taxpayers keep a bit more of the money they earn without their employer needing subsidy?
The bias of the reporter was made clear with her throwaway remark about "many a myth" about EU regulations banning bent bananas and other matters. That is a standard line of the pro EU forces: we wicked Brexiteers make up all these myths. And so the BBC reports that charge as fact as part of its fake news service.
In fact the EU did ban bent bananas in the early naughties. In the end the ban was overturned but that the Evil Empire felt that EC Commission Regulation No 2257/94, which stated that bananas must be "free of abnormal curvature" and at least 14 cm in length was a good idea in the first place is worthy of note. Yet the BBC on a regular basis insists that this is all a myth dreamt up by lunatics like Chris Booker and Richard Littlejohn. And so to report bent banana banning as a myth is just common or garden fake news.
And it is fake news from an organisation which is able to pay its staff mouthwatering sums not because it is economically viable but because of a vast taxpayer subsidy. Does that sound familiar in any way?
This is a delight. Millionaire liberal media elitist Evan was wetting himself on the BBC's fake news flagship Newsnight as he got to interview two delightful ladies who are black and voted for Donald Trump. Evan started by saying that since black folks did not vote for Trump so he was puzzled by these ladies.
The sanctimonious husband of the late Labour MP Jo Cox, murdered by an obvious loon last June, has decreed that we should all hold street parties this June to mark her death and celebrate bringing communities together with love not dividing them with hate blah, blah, blah, we all reject UKIP as they steal our bicycles and hate immingrants yadda, yadda, yadda. The media luvvies of the liberal elite live in the same fantasy world as Mr Cox and dare not tell him the truth.
Until she was murdered 99% of us had never heard of Jo Cox. She suported a range of causes held as evident truths my the metroplitan elite, such as global warming and the benefits of mass immigration and multiculturalism, which most folks in the UK either do not care about or actively disagree with.
She was killed by a madman and Brendan reckons that as an MP - normally someone who like most folks in the top 3% of wage earners enjoys a cossetted existence - her death means more than all the other murders that happen in the UK each year. Most of those other victims are poor folk. Violent crime so rarely effects the elite that when it does they really are shocked.
I hope Mr Cox grieves with his kids on that bad anniversary. There might be the odd street party in Islington. But generally those who endeavoured to make political points or capital from Ms Cox's death, like the loathsome former drug dealer, hereditary politician and son of a war criminal, Will Straw, were viewed by we, the great unwashed, with unbridled contempt.
Im sure that Jo Cox was a caring and well meaninhg woman albeit one misguided on a wide range of issues. I am sure she was a great mother. I am also sure that Brendan was a loving and faithful husband. But sorry pal you live in cloud cuckoo land if you think that I or 99% of the folks in Britain will be holding a street party to remember her death.
I have to pay a TV license, a poll tax, irrespective of my income and that cash goes to the BBC to pay the, hugely inflated, wages of preening liberal poltroons like Sopel. If I do not pay, even if I elect NEVER to watch the BBC, I am threatened with jail. To describe the BBC's service as free is thus a lie.
As for fair and impartial, that is even more of a monstrous lie. On every great issue of the past year the BBC has a partisan stance. There is no debate on global warming or climate change or whatever it is called these days - it is a given. All the economic good news in the UK since June 23 has been reported as "Despite Brexit" and ahead og June 23 the Beeb went out of its way to report as fact the laughable claims made by Remainers such as Carney and Osborbe warning of economic doom if we voted to quit the EU.
As for its coverage of the Trump campaign there were so many low points of bias and fale news that it is hard to pick out one crowning moment where the BBC showed it was neither fair or impartial. But my favourite remains a Newsnight with Emily Maitlis where she seized on two polls in tiny states which showed that Trump was not only going to lose rock solid GOP states (Alaska and Utah) but that mean he was such a liability that he'd ensure the Dems swept the House and Senate too. Emily thus suggested that the GOP had to think about dumping Trump. That was the BBC line in October as the liberal media tried to derail the Trump campaign. If course it was utter bollocks at the time as I demonstrated HERE
This was one of many times that the BBC showed itself to be neither impartial or fair. It is an organisation staffed by very well paid members of the liberal elite pushing a clear agenda. The tosser Sopel is part of that elite.
His statement yesterday is patently untrue and as the BBC aired it surely it classified as 100% fake news.
I do not normally pay much attention to what folks on neighbouring tables say when watching the world go by in the Kourounis taverna in Kambos, the village closest to the Greek Hovel where I hope to spend most of the rest of my life. I just tap away at my keyboard or think about olives. But today I exploded as a fat and smug German explained to a couple of timorous Brits why hard Brexit would screw England and thus why we should "obey orders" and fall into line with what Germany, sorry the EU, wanted. I exploded.
Seventy years ago folks like him were shooting villagers around here, raping the women and setting fire to the houses. They too were just doing what Germany ordered. They too just thought that there was no other way to behave and that it was all part of creating a united Europe under German leadership. This guy had already opined on all the good stuff the EU had done for Greece to make it the happy place it is today and then he started on Brexit.
If we have a hard Brexit, this man said that the first thing that would happen would be that Scotland would vote for independence and that would really mess up England. Already riled by his comments about Greece I turned round and said " Since the Act of Union in only one year has Scotland subsidised England not the other way round. Do you not know that 88% of Scots are net takers from the State - if the welfare junkies wish to leave England good riddance. Maybe Germany can pay their benefits?"
There was a bit of a stoney silence before the Kraut started blathering on about how Germany was putting Trump in his place, etc, etc ,etc. On every issue he stated opinion as fact. He was always right. Smug bastard.
My friend George the Architect, who was sitting opposite me, was a little surprised as - even when dealing with delay after delay on our planning permit - he had not seen me this angry. But like most Greeks he is not wild about the krauts either and this man's comments on Greece had not impressed him much.
My twitter feed is set to the USA and what is trending right now is #TrumpImpeachmentParty - ok so what has the Donald done that merits such an action?
Well that is the problem. Scroll down and there is absolutely nothing mentioned that warrants an impeachment at all. Has he shagged interns in the Oval office and stood accused of rape and cover up? No, that was Bill Clinton silly. Did he hand over confidential State Department briefings on the Greek crisis to his son in law who traded Greek bonds? No that was Crooked Hillary. And that was far from the worst of her crimes.
Instead there is all the usual stuff about how the Donald hates gays, women, immigrants, muslims, Mexicans, global warming loons and the list goes on and on. So what if he is bringing jobs back to America as he promised or talking to the Russians to make the world a safer place? Damn, I forgot, talking to the Russians about peace is - to the liberal elite - a war crime and who cares about getting the flyover states back to work again, let's talk about Meryl Streep's latest speech instead.
Anyhow thousands of dipstick liberals and whinging snowflake millennials are having a party and telling us all about it on twitter. Meanwhile most Americans have got jobs to go to and, thanks to President Trump, that number is growing.
The twitter loons seem to think that their new media whinging will see Trump out on his ear soon. Au contraire folks. Your woman lost, The Donald won. He has at least four more years to drain the swamp and let's hope that he starts with the nasty Clinton elite. His actions as President in terms of jobs, making America safer and much else are - according to the polls - widely approved of by the electorate as a whole whatever New York liberals and the Hollywood Millionaires think.
So perhaps that should not be four more years but eight more years. The more the elite protest against hugely popular measures the more this looks like a two term Presidency.Bring it on!
Eleven rich and privileged members of the establishment, that is to say the Supreme Court, today backed a millionaire bankster, Gina Miller, in delaying what the British people voted for in our largest ever exercise in democracy. I voted for Brexit but still regard this as great news.
More privileged members of the elite, that is to say MPs who are amongst the highest 3% of earners in Britain, will now have to approve a bill to allow Britain to trigger article 50. They will clearly do just that, in many cases to avoid an electoral backlash rather than out of principle. But some members of the elite will drag their heels, display unbearable pomposity and delay the process for as long as they can.
The British people were offered a clear choice on June 23 2016. Do we wish to stay in the EU or not. We voted to leave. We the great unwashed voted heavily to leave. The establishment, the rich liberal metropolitan elites that dominate the media and the law were dismayed and have been remoaning ever since.
So the process is delayed by a few months. Some of us have been waiting 41 years for this and so we can wait that little bit longer. Meanwhile the unedifying spectacle of the establishment and the elites showing open contempt for those less fortunate in life and for democracy will just heighten the growing sense of anger that so many folks feel about the way British society is heading. Let's us see how that anger plays out.
One is not allowed, as an employer, to discriminate against one's staff because of their race, sex, sexuality or indeed their political views. Well actually that is not quite true. Sacking someone for being a Nazi is easy. Firing a commie is rather harder. About once a week my colleague Darren Atwater lets his inner Canadian burst out and spouts some lefty shite which should see him fired but I can't under UK law get rid of the deluded fool.
The treatment of customers is a bit different. I note that in New York a bunch of utterly precious liberal fashion folks are "fighting back against Trump" by considering refusing to allow the lovely Melania to be a client any more. That is not because of anything the poor woman has done herself but because they do not like the fact that her husband is going to be President.
If they want to do that, it is fair enough. A businessperson who wishes to turn away business should be allowed to do so. Anyone doing so is an idiot but no entrepreneur should be forced by the state to accept anyone's cash. However, how do the precious fashion designers feel about bakers or hoteliers who because of their Christian beliefs do not wish to accept the custom of same sex couples?
I imagine that they view such folk as bigots and, for what it is worth, I do too. But what is sauce for the goose.... Surely the luvvie designers must accept that no capitalist has to serve anyone and that should be a universal principle?
Naturally there will be no such acceptance from the liberal elite. It is fine to discriminate against poor Melania who has done nothing wrong but the liberal double standard demands that Christian bakers & hoteliers must accept all comers. Except perhaps the charming and utterly blameless Melania Trump.
I am not a UKIP voter although I am 100% eurosceptic. I have explained many times why I don't vote for the party but listening to taxpayer funded Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 today I almost stareted to feel sympathetic to the fruitcakes.
UKIP has a new leader in Paul Nuttall who is obviously scaring the Labour Party senseless in that he is working class and talks the language of core "old Labour voters". Their own leader talks the language of rich, middle class, tossers in Islington and is a big turn off and his MPs and the liberal media, often rich Islington tossers themselves, know it.
On one line Vine had a UKIP activist and on another a UKIP hater. The hater started by comparing UKIP leaders to Hitler. Just like Trump was dubbed the new Hitler. In fact the left has found so many new Hitler's it is almost as if the Boys from Brazil was a true story but the Nazis actually got away with it. As Mark Steyn noted the other day, if you call everybody Hitler, Hitler ceases to have any meaning.
The UKIP lady objected. Like Donald Trump, no-one in UKIP has started a major European war or murdered 6 million Jews but Vine taunted her by saying "oh we can't mention Hitler". You can Jeremy, you arsehole, it just makes you look dumb.
Then Vine turned to ridiculing the UKIP 2010 manifesto. Even Nigel Farage ridicules that document as a joke but Vine was asked why not discuss the 2015 manifesto. That is not a document I'd sign up to buit it is not a barking mad comic either. And it is surely far more relevant than the six years old manifesto. But Vine returned to 2010 document again and again and again.
Then the UKIP hater said that UKIP leaders were all rich City boys. That is - as it happens - not true but the UKIP lady valiantly said "what is wrong with the City anyway?" and made the point that UKIP leaders all seem to have had real jobs whereas the other parties were stuffed with career politicians. A very valid point.
But Vine butted in "okay we can't mention the City then. Or Hitler" as he laughed with open contempt at the UKIP lady who was not drawn fr5om the cosey Westminster political and media bubble but appears to have worked in a real job.
The more Vine and his ilk sneer and ridicule ordinary, decent folk like that lady from UKIP the more I detest the liberal elite. I suspect I am not alone in feeling that way...
In this week's postcard I look at how the liberal elite of the 1% behave like fascists at a performance of the crap uber-PC musical Hamilton in New York while in Ohio Trump voters get snowed on heavily. Oh the global warming irony. But those without jobs will not be laughing at the folly of the liberal elite on this matter.
Bristol is the sort of left leaning City where the patronising middle classes agree with Matt Frei that ALL Trump supporterrs are racists. They agree with Hillary Clinton that anyone voting for the GOP is a "deplorable". Naturally we Brexit voters were also termed ignorant racists by the bien pensants of the South West. Put it this way: I really don't feel as if I am in my ideologocal home here.
I want to stand shoulder to shoulder with my Brexit supporting comrades in Gateshead who do not think that loving your country and wanting it to be free is something to be ashamed of. I want to link arms with God fearing, hard working, tax paying, gun owning patriots in the flyeover states as they seek to take back their country from the coastal liberal elites who have presided over a mass trabnsfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1%. And so I want to wear my Hillary for Prison T-shirt with pride.
Until today, doing so here in Bristol risked a lynching because, if the effete Bristolians looked up from their organic latte's as they read the Guardian, and saw a Trump supporter they could not hide their contempt for a "deplorable."
But as someone who wears the tag deplorable with pride I wonder if on this day, as it now seems just possible that, thanks to the heroic FBI, Hillary will indeed go to prison, is it right to "come out" as a Trumpster? Perhaps the bien pensants will accept that we deplorables were right all along and now join me in a choris of "lock her up! lock her up!"
I doubt it. So distorted are the values of the liberal elite that they would rather vote for a criminal than a conservative.
So Scott uses the BBC as his primary news source. Why does that not surprise me.
In Scott's view the great unwashed just don't know what is good for them. Of course they don't Scott. Their hard work without 15 weeks leave per annum and with no gold plated pension, pays your bloody salary but that does not mean that plebs driving white vans should have a say in public policy.
Only those folks in the top 10% of wage earners (like senior lecturers once you add in the pension benefit), folks who read the Guardian and who do not need to be told about eating five a day know what is best for society. The working classes are just fucking stupid. They just let emotions like racism, or not wanting to forgive mass murderers, or resentment of widespread de-industrialisation get in the way of making the "right choice". Right on Scott, pass the Focaccia and lets sneer at common people again.
Here is another patronising bastard from academia telling 17 million Britons that they did not understand what they needed to do to make a rational choice on June 23 and so allowed silly thoughts to get in the way. Why didn't the great unwashed read Polly Toynbee and Owen Jones in the Guardian and so vote the right way?
How Scott views the Republican primaries is even more telling. You will note that he makes no judgement about how Democrats voted in their primaries but it is only Trump (who secured 60% of the GOP vote) who is where he is as the result of emotion not logic. Most folks in the West think that selecting candidates via primaries ( that is among all supporters of a party in a given area) is a good thing. Party activists tend to be more extreme (left wing for Labour & the Dems, right wing for the Tories and the GOP) than party voters. So a primary rather than a caucus gets more mainstream candidates. The third alternative, party leaders picking a crony candidate in a smoke filled room is surely the least desirable selection method on offer.
Yet such is Scott's contempt for the ordinary voter now that he or she is voting the "wrong way", that he or she is prepared to tell the establishment where to stick it, that our comrade from Durham views a primary as a plebiscite and wants to move away from such a system. Scott wants to take power from the many ( who he despises) and give it to the few, to folks like him.
I am afraid that Donald and Caroline hold views that are far from isolated in academia today. My wife is an academic in a social studies discipline and when I listen to her friends I hear the same views. "How can the Tories have won the election, I don't know anyone who votes for them" said one in 2015. My wife, a woman of colour, has not dared say how she voted on June 23rd given the slew of facebook posts from her friends branding all Brexit supporters as racist or stupid or both. It does not cross their closed minds for a second that my wife might have voted for Brexit, as indeed she did.
Academia has no tolerance for those outside a narrow Group Think. Worse still, there is now no pretence that it does not openly despise those of us who dare to think differently. We must, by definition, be stupid to disagree with a consensus which is enforced with Stalinist brutality.
Out in Colombia a referendum on whether a peace treaty between the State and the loathsome murderers of the Maoist terror group FARC should be ratified has just seen the great unwashed vote the wrong way. It seems that the oiks were not so keen on an amnesty for the butchers and so voted in a way that the liberal intelligentsia across the world do not understand. it is Brexit all over again, why can't the lower classes do what is good for them, wails the elite. Meet academic Caroline Dodds Pennock from Sheffield University. She won't like me posting her photo but since you, the taxpayer, have been paying her wages since she graduated from Oxford you have a right to know how she thinks.
Caroline who is a historian but is a whizz at Women's studies as well caught my eye with the tweet below. Why I am not surprised that she reads the Guardian?
This is outrageous. Caroline really appears to think that the stupid peasants should only be allowed a direct democratic voice on things that do not matter. They simply cannot be trusted with important issues. I countered this with a comment about what a patronising remark that was to which she countered Of course I believe in democracy, but I see nothing wrong with really big issues going to the whole electorate. I am happy to accept the collective wisdom of my peers. And irrespective of where we were educated or what job we do, when it comes to democracy, everyone is your peer - all mankind stands equal.
Ideally all folks would vote on everything, in the spirit of true democracy, that is to say rule by the people. I would love to cut out the wastrels and expenses fiddlers who sit in Parliament, as often as not thwarting the desires of those that they are meant to represent while costing an arm and a leg. Cut out the middle man and you cut out the politics of pork belly as well as the porkers themselves. I accept that sometimes the people would vote in a way I'd disagree with but I think my fellow man has a right to decide his own future.
Caroline's assertion that because I support referenda means I don't support representative democracy is just silly. In the absence of a move to use modern technology to cut out the middle man I am happy to leave most decisions to the expenses fiddlers but big ones must be decided by the people directly. The left used to think this way too. It was Labour that pushed through plebiscites on the EU and Scotland in the 1970s. It is only now that the left is losing such votes that some of the comrades are forced to dismiss the views of the "lower orders"in such a patronising fashion.
De Toqueville and, later, Mill were right to warn of the tyranny of the majority and there needs to be institutional safeguards to prevent that. But ultimately I believe in the rights of my fellow man (and woman) to decide his or her future. But Caroline and her ilk have been bruised by Brexit and are thus now terrified of the popular will and so want to emasculate it via parliamentary democracy unless the issue is one that does not really matter. The liberal elite will pretend they are democrats and offer a sop to the masses by allowing them to decide on trivial matters such as whether their district should have a directly elected Mayor, but things that matter must be left to the "grown ups".
I am outraged at how patronising those with comfortable, well paid jobs such as academics who do some moonlighting with the BBC seek to lecture those whose existences are far more challenging about how we should all live our lives on the basis that the top few percent really "do know best". With Brexit, with the rise of Trump and in Colombia we "little people" are saying that "enough is enough". Caroline and I had a heated twitter exchange. She tweeted that I was a "former journalist" and disparaged me professionally. As a, very much, current journalist after 24 years, one month and two days in the game I said I would write an article and wanting to put in a bit of colour on this establishment figure asked which school she went to before attending Corpus Christi Oxford.
Of course I went to Oxford too. I accept that I am from a reasonably privileged background but I do not lecture those less privileged with an insistence that they are not smart enough to decide their own future, I leave that to Caroline. With her career smears against me Caroline gave as good as she got even if she had to resort to made up facts. It is a free world and she does seem to believe in free speech. But the reaction of her pals was instructive. Not only do the liberal left not like "the little people" having a democratic voice, they do not like those they disagree with enjoying free speech. Free speech is only for those who think the "right way"
Meet Fern Riddell who teaches history at Kings College London and has also appeared regularly on TV. Her thesis was on Vice and Virtue: Pleasure, Morality and Sin in London's Music Halls 1850-1939. In precis:
Using the theatrical space of the music halls as a prism for social investigation, this thesis explores how the stage was used to transmit and negotiate ideas of sexuality and social control from 1850-1939. Beginning with the development of urban understanding in the acts and songs of the male comic singers, to the militant feminist expressions of the suffragette stars, Fern is exploring how the music halls existed in a state of constant flux: as a place of radical political expression, and also conservative reinforcement. The main case study of the thesis is the incredible life of Kitty Marion, Militant Suffragette and Music Hall Star.
More of my taxes well spent I see. Anyhow Fern does not reckon that I should be publishing articles giving my viewpoint on the remarks made on twitter by her friend. If I had said this on her campus I would be censored as all the millennials rushed to the safe room for save haven. But I am not an academic, I am a journalist. So, on trumped up charges she wants twitter to ban me instead.
Every time there is a shooting in the US the liberal elite demands a ban on guns. That is even when a good guy with a gun shoots the bad guy to prevent deaths. But the terror attacks in New York and New Jersey at the weekend did not involve guns: the most lethal weapon used by Ahmad Khan Rahami was a pressure cooker. Hell's teeth the US must ban pressure cookers now. Surely liberals can show logical consistency on this issue?
Or perhaps they are still flip flopping from the weekend. The Mayor of New York insisted it was not a terror attack, until it was agreed that it was. Then the experts told us all that it was another lone wolf incident. Until it was clear it was not. For a while we stupid ignorant folks outside the elites were told by the bien pensants that it was lone wolves acting together. Whatever.
Meanwhile Donald Trump was lanbasted for suggestintg that it was a bombing. Becuase it was in fact a bombing. Some truths really are inconvenient.
Now finally a co-ordinated series of attacks in one area is agreed to be a terrorist act carried out by a Muslim guy working for an organisation abroad. Jeepers what odds could I have got on that one 36 hours ago?
Now that we have cleared that up can we get back to banning pressure cookers to make America safe again?
Every time another case emerges showing that the welfare state is a bottomless pit for taxpayers cash that solves nothing, the liberal media and political elite say "this is just an exception". But it seems to be dawning on some folks that there are so many "exceptions" that the exception is now the norm. The system is broken. Have you met Shanique?
Born in the UK she moved to Jamaica with her parents as a baby. The she came back here. She got pregnant so has a 4 year old son by a dad who she says is abusive and who seems unwilling to pay a cent towards his upkeep. She has the right to stay in the UK but no right to state help or social housing.
And so she is appealing that natch (did anyone say legal aid?) and pro tem that means her local council must put her up but not in social housing but in a hotel which is costing the grateful taxpayer £50 a night plus £72 a week for food, essentials and whatever.
Shanique says the hotel room is not big enough and is making life hard as she is forced to eat junk food which is making her son ill and it is also a bad base from which she can go out and get a job. She fails to explain who will look after her kid if she does get a job. There is no evidence that she has done a day's work in her life, that she has not contributed a cent to the coffers of the UK Treasury and each week £422 is being spent by the UK Treasury supporting her and her son and heir. There is no evidence that she has tried to look for a job.
Shanique says there is not enough room for her son to play as his toys have cluttered up the hotel room? So how come he has so many toys if this woman is living on welfare? Is having lots of toys now regarded as a basic human right?
Shanique fails to explain why she feels obliged to spend her £72 at eateries such as MacDonalds on expensive unhealthy food which she says is making her son ill, rather than at Sainsbury on cheaper healthier food. It is her choice to feed her kid on crap but it is the fault of everyone else that he is fat and unhealthy. Naturally.
Ms Vickerman also told reporters “I have thought about packing my bags and leaving but then they will say I have made myself intentionally homeless." She knows how to play the system.
Shanique believes she has rights and entitlements from a Society without any obligation to ever contribute something to that Society. The father of her child clearly takes the same view. And the welfare state accomodates the whims of both these folks at our expense.
In order to have £422 a week to spend after tax in the current tax year you would have to be earning just over £27,600 per annum. That means that 66% of workers in the UK earn less than Ms Vickerman earns. It is actually worse given her age - 26. 79% of those of her age earn less than she does.
Ms Vickerman sends out an appalling message to those folks who do actually work hard for low wages in search of a better life. And also to taxpayers who have to fund the welfare merry go round. At every level this case shows yet again that the welfare state does not work and also that it encourages a cluture based on assumed rights and dependency.
But to the liberal elite it is just a one off allowing the right wing press to smear an entire system. After so many one-offs that really does not wash any more.
Obviously the coolest folks are libertarians. And so am I. Amanda Van Dyke has a few dangerous neocon tendancies (foreign policy) and some odd views on the EU but for a Canadian is a pretty libertarian - her fellow countrymen tend to be lefties. Charlotte Argyle, the daughter of Thatcher pictured above, is crystal pure. But you only know something is really cool when folks with no claim to be one of us, start trying to claim to be part of the crowd. That brings me to a total tosser called Nick Curtis, a columnist in the London Evening Standard.
I stress that I am not a regular Standard reader. But on the train back to Bristol last week I happened upon a copy and being bored started to read it. As ever I was struck how folks inside zone 1 of London are a completely alien speciies to the rest of the UK. They have different concerns, interests and views to the rest of us. They are the political, media and corporate elite and they just live on another planet.
Mr Curtis writes on the 10th June about how the busy body sheep shaggers at the Welsh Assembly wish to ban vaping ( "smoking e-cigarettes" in public places). And in the piece he proclaims "I'm a libertarian who believes in personal choice." Great news... a kindred spirit. er....
Elsewhere in his pot puri of drivel Mr Curtis says that he is a lifelong Labour voter who has just joined the Labour party. That would be the party that supports a bigger public sector paid for via higher taxes/Government borrowing. Mr Curtis voted for Gordon Brown. Might I suggest that on economic matters he perhaps misunderstood the works of Ayn Rand and Mr Hayek? The Road to Serfdom is not an essay on the desirability of a a peasants revolution. It is hard to see how one can reconcile the economic libertarianism of er...libertarians with the party that Mr Curtis has voted for all his life.
But perhaps he is a social libertarian so is going to put the sheep shaggers in their place over vaping? Er no. Smoking is an evil and allowing folks to vape in public -though it is clearly doing no harm to anyone other than perhaps the vaper - encourages folks to think that anything related to smoking is socially acceptable. Cripes. And there was I thinking that we libertarians believed that as long as we did not directly affect others what we chose to do with our own bodies was entirely our own concern.
In short, Mr Curtis supports a political party which wants to take away from me more of the money I have earned becuase it thinks the State knows how to spend it better than I do. And he also wants to decide how I get to treat my body even though it has no bearing on others. He is about as much of a libertarian as I am a participating member of the Royal Ballet.
A few years ago the metropolitan liberal elite used to snear that we libertarians were all about legalising heroin, supporting under-age sex and economic anarchy. Of course they were right on the first count at least but, at that point they were too lazy to debate why prohibition did not work and simply regarded it as a smear. But now instead of attacking us they claim to be one of us. It is sort of gratifying, if just a bit silly when they admit to the range of authoritarian views tossers like Nick Curtis actually hold.
It is clear that Scotland now thinks totally differently to England in social, economic and political terms. It is another country and it must be given independence now – more on that later. But there is another country within England – London.
As a resident of the boonies and someone born and raised a small town boy I have always thought Londoners odd. As they wander around buying properties on a sub 1% yield and thinking that is a bargain, paying £100 for underwater yoga sessions and more for regular colonic irrigation the middle classes of London just seem peculiar to me.
And in political terms the whole City is also out of step with the rest of England. In the capital UKIP has almost no support. London did serve up surprise Labour gains. Sitting Labour MPs enjoyed increased majorities. It was just not like the rest of Britain.
London’s middle classes are more multicultural than the rest of England and more relaxed about immigration and socially tolerant. All of those things I welcome. The white London working class has moved in large swathes to Essex and Hertfordshire leaving an urban poor which is far less white than in the rest of England.
And that means that London’s voters voters and – consequently - the politicians who live there, notably all of the Labour and Tory elite, have a rather different mindset to mainstream England. I suspect that is partially why Labour remains so unelectable in vast swathes of England. It is why the Tories can only win the Mayoral election by putting up someone above politics, the buffoon Boris. And it is perhaps why the Londoncentric liberal BBC found what happened on Thursday night so hard to understand. With minimal experience of life in the rest of England it was as if they were staring at the actions of aliens for the first time.
Like Lazarus, rising from the dead, Page 3 birds have returned to The Sun. Good. A small minority of the liberal elite who never read the paper anyway attempted to dictate a change of editorial policy. They have failed.
The liberal elite do not like Page three birds. They would not like their daughters showing their tits. But then their daughters go to nice private schools in North London, a good university and have nice respectable careers. A check-out position at Tesco is not their career choice.
The liberal elite are happy to deny the poor the opportunity for financial freedom because the poor are the client state of the liberal left. And while they mouth platitudes about freedom of speech or expression that is only until something is said which they find distasteful.
I find The Guardian objectionable and distasteful. So I do not buy it. But I have no right to stop it publishing opinions on a daily basis which I find loathsome. But then I do not pretend to be part of the liberal left: I actually DO believe in freedom and in allowing those less privileged than I the chance of a better life.
Vive Le Sun. Vive les Page Three Birds. I shall continue not to buy it as it is generally an intolerant rag full of rubbish but I am delighted that it will continue to stay that way.
My weekly video postcard this week is born out of conversations with deluded lefty pals of the Mrs this weekend – why is it that the Left wants the State to take more control over our lives?
The issue is the failure of secondary education & our ludicrous, unfunded and unsustainable higher education system. One deluded lefty reckons that the answer is to bring back some form of National Service.
This says everything about the left. A problem that is fixable is to be addressed by the State spending more money and restricting more liberties and still won’t fix the problem.
I also cover two walls - one in Berlin and one in Israel and what both say about the mendacity and failings of the liberal left elite in the West.