FergusWorld

Oh, the irony...

2010-05-11T20:41:00.002+01:00

I have to laugh. The UK's failed, unelected and now deposed ex Prime Minister, Wee Gordy McBroon, has shambled off into the sunset muttering to himself that at least he managed the economy for his ungrateful citizenry. So what was the financial markets' response to his grudging and overdue departure? The pound immediately jumped against the dollar. I think, as an epitaph on the spendthrift bastard's economic "prudence," that says it all.

Why Proportional Representation is a really bad idea

2010-05-11T16:44:00.003+01:00

Imagine: the scene is the day after the next general election, and we're all waiting to learn the outcome of the back-door horse trading, broken manifesto pledges and underhand deals that will decide who forms the government. Eventually a pair of press conferences give a deeply unsatisfactory answer. With 326 seats required for an overall majority, David Cameron has managed to bring the UKIP, Democratic Unionists (Ian Paisley's nutjob party, remember) and Plaid Cymru on side, but only has 320 seats. Ed Balls, David Millipede or some other identikit leftie clone has assembled a motley crew of Lib Dems, Greens, rebellious IRA-loving scum and Wee Eck Salmond's SNP; as the sounds of a barrel being desperately scraped die away it becomes clear that this coalition, too, has only 320 seats. The hung Parliament continues to dangle. Meanwhile, in the lounge bar of the Boot and Paki, Nick Griffin and his nine MPs sit patiently, waiting for the phone to ring...

They'd do it, wouldn't they? Oh yes, I know what they SAY; they'd never work with the BNP, extremists, affront to British values, blah blah blah. But given the choice between five more years in opposition or quietly agreeing to send some of them back... yes, I think they'd do it.

Classy...

2009-02-18T16:43:00.002+01:00

Well, young "father" Alfie Patten has given another excellent illustration of why he should be stripped down for donor organs. The little charmer appeared yesterday in a custom-printed hoodie (of course) with the slogan "I'm the daddy, if not f**k you all I'll still be there" across the back, and a hand making a predictable gesture on the back of the hood itself.

Never mind the fact that some member of the revolting little bastard's family has paid for this pitiful garment with taxpayer's money; what does this say about the mindsets of these scum-sucking vermin? They are actually BOASTING about this whole sorry episode! All I can say is that for years now there have been ripples of discontent from the decent working- and middle-class people who have been forced to subsidise the huge and loathsome chav circus that so much of the UK has become. Those ripples are now growing with frightening speed into a large and powerful wave. We can only hope that when that wave breaks it will smash the appalling Alfie and all those around him, and sweep the shattered debris into oblivion.

Chantelle: A good time that was had by all?

2009-02-17T01:40:00.008+01:00

Well, I've stayed away from blogging for a while, but finally I've seen something vile enough to bring me back, and in a towering rage at that. The politest thing I could say about Alfie Patten, Chantelle Steadman and their parents is that they disgust me. However, I have no intention of being polite.

Let's start with the parents. There are, as is usually the case, four of them. Of the four, only one is employed; Alfie's father is a part-time Satan impersonator and moonlights for a recovery firm. This minor point in his favour was completely wiped out when I discovered that the feckless bastard has a total of NINE children (by multiple sluts, naturally) and that he left Alfie's shiftless whore of a mother for a 19 year old girl. Am I too harsh in calling the mother a shiftless whore? I think not. Since her husband departed, her house has become notorious for loud music and unruly parties, and she is facing court for collusion in a FIVE MONTH period of truancy by sweet little Alfie.

Chantelle's parents, meanwhile, are classic dole scum. Both are unemployed, but they still manage to pull in roughly GBP30,000 a year in handouts extorted from the luckless taxpayers. Clearly they have no shame, as they have popped out a total of six future parasites without bothering their fat arses to try financing their spawn themselves. Chantelle's mother, who is clearly so far from being the sharpest knife in the drawer that I wouldn't use her to cut soup, saw nothing wrong in letting her 14 YEAR OLD daughter share a bed with her 12 YEAR OLD boyfriend. She denies knowledge of the 14 and 16 year old boyfriends, but the testimony of her disgusted neighbours suggests that she is lying. I'm sure the bitch was NOT lying when she said that her misbegotten new granddaughter will want for nothing (except for adult role models and, oh for fuck's sake, adult PARENTS!) but it won't all be provided by the "loving family" the more sickly tabloids are on about; once again, the taxpayer will be shaken by the heels to extort the readies for little Maisie Roxanne's first piercings.

Now. Chantelle. I must admit that when I heard of this whole sordid tale I wasn't surprised that the teenage slag in question was called Chantelle rather than, say, Annabel or Susan, but there you go. I AM somewhat surprised that she hasn't been arrested for child sex abuse, with her disgusting parents in the next cell for conspiracy, but perhaps the local plod are too busy running Road Equality Compliance Community Camera Integration Initiative Partnership Awareness workgroups to actually bang up some criminal scum. Anyway, never mind; she's as free as a rather pasty-faced bird, revolting as that fact may be to decent people, and by all accounts she's free to all comers as well. So far, two local toerags have confessed to having explored Chantelle's dubious charms; no doubt many more, aware that the promise of tabloid cash will evaporate as soon as the angelic-faced Alfie falls out of the paternity frame, are quietly keeping their heads down and their hoods up. I imagine they'll be safe; after all, I doubt a girl as classy as Chantelle would have done anything so crass as ask their names before dropping her Primark knickers in exchange for a bottle of 20/20.

And Alfie, the fresh-faced little darling at the centre of all this (until it turns out that he's not the father at all, just a product of his own vile background and his "girlfriend's" deviousness)? Well, to me he looks like a real charmer. Here's a photo of him communicating with the media (Photo credit to Mark Large). Well, that's not quite the image we got in the first pictures of him playing with his(?) daughter, is it? The bemused, childish face; the sickening naivety (What's "financial"?), the anecdotes of him abandoning his PlayStation to feed the baby. No, Alfie is, at heart, just as despicable as any of the other characters in this squalid saga. He was TWELVE, for fuck's sake! He should have been building a treehouse or playing cowboys and indians with his friends, not riding a bike. And all his comments about how he means to be a good father? Yeah right. Is he going to support his new family financially? Is he bollocks. Is he going to provide a solid role model for his offspring? Not a chance. Is he going to work hard at school to overcome that 5-month truancy and try to salvage some vestige of education? Dream on. Is he going to do a runner when Chantelle's ecstatic squeals from the locked bedroom ("'E's just 'elping me wiv my 'omework Alfie, don't be so boooring!") get loud enough to interfere with his enjoyment of Grand Theft Auto: Slut City? Almost certainly.

In a just world, these things would happen: Maisie Roxanne would be immediately removed from her despicable environment, renamed Louise and placed with decent adopters, at least one of whom is gainfully employed. Those responsible for the upbringings of Alfie and Chantelle would be sentenced to long prison terms on the grounds of child abuse. And the young lovers themselves would be surgically dismantled for spare parts before either of them has the opportunity to spawn again.

Storm warning...

2007-07-19T03:37:00.000+02:00

I was two years old when this picture was taken. It shows a Soviet Tu-95 BEAR strategic bomber being intercepted and turned away from UK airspace by an RAF FGR Mk 1 Phantom. Once, this was a regular occurrence; Soviet bombers probed our airspace, and our fighters sought to detect them and drive them off. Pictures such as this showed up often in the newspapers and on TV. The fighter and bomber pilots played it as a game, taking photos of each other and exchanging waves high above the North Sea.

But we all knew that it was no game; that some day those bombers might come blazing in at low level behind a cloud of jamming and fighter escorts, racing to get within missile launch range before the RAF could scramble to shoot them down. There was nothing funny about it; the pilots on both sides were practicing for a war that could have erupted at any moment. That war wouldn't have prompted irate letters in the Telegraph or sanctimonious carping from the Mirror; it would have shattered Europe, east and west alike, and killed millions of her people. It was a huge relief to everyone when, in 1989, the Bears stopped their probes and the RAF fighters stood down. After 45 years, the shadow of World War III had lifted from us.

"Two Tu95 “Bear” bombers were dispatched from their base on the Kola Peninsula in the Arctic Circle and headed towards British airspace.

Russian military aircraft based near the northern port city of Murmansk fly patrols off the Norwegian coast regularly, but the RAF said that it was highly unusual for them to stray as far south as Scotland.

Two Tornado fighters, part of the RAF’s Quick Reaction Alert, took off from RAF Leeming, in Yorkshire, to confront the Russian aircraft, after they were shadowed by two F16s from the Royal Norwegian Air Force, The Times has learnt."

The quote above, unlike the photo, is not from the depths of the Cold War. It's from The Times, on 18 July 2007. The Bear, the iconic animal of Russia, is once more prowling off our shores.

Why? Is it because we've expelled Russian diplomats? Is it because we insist that Russia violates its constitution and hands over to us the alleged killer of a man condemned for treason by his own country - a man who converted to islam out of solidarity with the Chechen murderers? Is it because our NuLabour government insists on sheltering the enemies of a fellow European nation which, like us, has suffered terribly from the evil of islamist terrorism?

Russia is a splendid nation. It and its people have much in common with the UK. They are not our natural enemies unless we choose to make them so. Given the state of the world today we have much to offer each other, and it would be a shame to lose that for the sake of protecting a corrupt oligarch and an islamist terrorist.

Mr Brown, I lived under the threat of a Russian attack for the first half of my life. I was bloody happy when that threat lifted. I know what I said in my previous essay, Red Storm Rising, but this is becoming worryingly real now. I simply do not want to see the Soviet menace rise from the ashes like a huge, malevolent red Phoenix because of some warped obsession with the death of a traitorous terrorist-loving liar.

Forget Litvinenko; extradite Berezovsky; let Russia sort out their own internal security in Chechnya, as they let us do in Northern Ireland.

Stop seeking differences to squabble over when Britain and Russia have so much in common.

They don't like it up 'em!

2007-07-18T03:49:00.000+02:00

I've been asked about my law and order polices. Well, here they are.

This essay is likely to offend. My heart pumps purple piss.

Britain currently has thousands of crimes on the statute books. We actually need three. Yes, only three. Here they are:

1. Theft. Defined as depriving another person of their personal property by taking or damaging it without consent. Second degree theft (i.e. unintentional theft, for example destroying a garden wall through careless driving) will be punished as a Class 2 crime.

2. Assault. Defined as causing bodily harm to another person except in defence of one's self or one's property. This includes rape, murder and the supply of dangerous substances such as drugs. Second degree assault (i.e. unintentional assault, for example injuring a person by building a sub-standard house extension which collapses into the street) will be punished as a Class 2 crime.

3. Treason. This includes spying for a foreign country and belonging to, or giving any form of support to, an organisation which is engaged in declared or undeclared war against British interests. Treason will always be a Class 1 crime.

Only three crimes. Dead simple, eh? Well, what's even simpler is the new sentencing policy. There will only be two sentences; Class 2 and Class 1.

Class 2 (unintentional) crimes will be punished by a fixed sentence of 15 years in prison. Reduction of this sentence will only be granted for actions which demonstrably prevent further crimes by other people.

Class 1 (deliberate) crimes will be punished by execution. The sentence will be carried out by a single pistol bullet fired into the nape of the neck. This is an entirely fitting punishment for those who deliberately harm others; I really have to wonder at the motivations of those who stand up for the "rights" of convicted rapists, murderers or thieves.

My policies will result in the deaths of thousands of criminals. They will also cut crime so much you wouldn't believe it.

Your call....

What would John Smeaton do?

2007-07-08T19:14:00.000+02:00

Apparently we're not allowed to refer to "muslim terrorists" or "islamic terrorists" any more. The reason behind this is that British muslims feel alienated when terrorists are described as exclusively muslim, and are therefore less willing to assist anti-terror efforts by, for example, providing information to the security forces.

Am I the only one that finds this absurd? There is a perfectly good reason why terrorists are described as muslim; it's because that's what they are. They are muslims and it is the muslim religion which morivates them to carry out their crimes. There is a clear link between the current plague of terrorism and islam.

Now, maybe it's true that islam is opposed to the killing of innocents (although a read of the koran would suggest otherwise) but British muslims have to wake up and smell the coffee.

It's not enough any more to mutter a half-hearted condemnation of the latest atrocity then shift the blame to British/American/Israeli foreign policy. Quite bluntly, there are two legitimate positions that anyone who lives in Britain can have on UK foreign policy. These are:

1. Support Britain's foreign policy and oppose, condemn and fight against islamist terrorism.

2. Oppose Britain's foreign policy but oppose, condemn and fight against islamist terrorism.

Living in Britain but supporting al Qaida, the Taliban and the bastards who bomb British cities is NOT an option. If all these fuckers in their squalid little extremist groups feel so strongly about British troops in Iraq then they should fuck off to Iraq and do something about it there, on the clear understanding that if they are captured and identified as a British passport holder they will be shot out of hand as a traitor to their country.

I also suggest that anyone resident in the UK who fights against British troops anywhere in the world should have their passport revoked, and all right of entry to the UK permanently removed, as soon as their relatives report to the police that young Kafeel or whatever has run off to join the jihad. Any of their friends or relatives who know this and fail to report it should be permanently deported from the UK, and all their assets seized as compensation for the families of soldiers killed in action. Any British resident involved in a terrorist act in the UK should be hanged as a traitor and their assets likewise seized. Any friends or relatives who were aware of their involvement and did not report it should be permanently deported and have their assets seized.

Western culture is under sustained attack. Anyone who cites the Iraq debacle as justification has their head up their arse; bin Laden started his crazed jihad long before the 2003 invasion. This terrorist campaign by islamists is not about foreign policy or anything like that; it is an attempt to destroy and subjugate our society. All moderate British muslims have to realise that in the battle against islamist terrorism, if they are not with us they are against us.

There is no contradiction between being a devout muslim and living in the UK, and it is possible to do so productively and happily - as long as you realise that in Britain secular, not religious, law is what counts; that Britain has its own, long-established culture which you must respect and which yours must not interfere with; that your fellow Britons expect, rightfully, that your loyalty will be to Britain and not her enemies; that islam does not and should not occupy a central place in British society and it would be arrogant and unwelcome to argue otherwise; and that Britain is not an islamic country and that at least 98% of the population are implacably imposed to it ever becoming one.

On a personal level, I really have to wonder why someone who supports sharia law and the wrapping of women in bin bags would choose to live in a secular Western democracy.

In conclusion then, I would suggest that if you hear anyone, from deranged radical imam to politically correct Nu-Tory spokesman, say that islamist terrorism is a response to poverty, racism, Iraq or anything else apart from islamism itself, do what John Smeaton did:

"So I ran straight towards the guy, we're all trying to get a kick-in at him, take a boot to subdue the guy."

Another poem...

2007-07-08T19:09:00.000+02:00

Twas doon by Glasgae airport
Oor Johnny walked one day
When he saw a sicht that troubled him
Far more than he could say.

"I'm no ha'en that," wur Johnny cried
And sallied tae the fray
A left hook and a heid butt
Required tae save the day.

Now listen up Bin Laden
Yir sort's nae wanted here
Frae al Qaida bastards
Us Scoatsman huv nae fear

Religious tolerance

2007-07-05T23:48:00.000+02:00

Maybe we should try to be more understanding of what these guys did though.

After all, they were just celebrating Ramavan.

Paradise awaits...

2007-07-05T23:29:00.001+02:00

Did you ram my pint?

2007-07-05T23:29:00.000+02:00

I just found a wonderful poem about the terrorist attack on Glasgow Airport.

Och Firey, Flaming Jeep Cherokee
What in he'en went wrong with thee?
Petrol poured I over me,
Three score and twelve virgins to see

But a passer by who saw my stunt
Said 'Te'ek tha' ya wee Jihadist Cunt!'
And with his forearm, quite distinguished
Ma bid for martyrdom extinguished.

Kafeel Ahmed, I hope that you are currently screaming in hideous and unceasing agony from your burns; I hope that someone has added pig fat to your IV line; I hope that you die surrounded by Scottish medics who hate and despise you; and I hope that as you draw your last pain-filled breath you realise that there is no god, you will never see paradise and that you have wasted your life on a Dark Age fairy tale. I hope that the last sound you ever hear is sadistic laughter.

I'm glad you burned, you Jihadist bastard.

Red Storm Rising

2007-06-30T05:36:00.000+02:00

The USA is determined to build an anti-ballistic missile system in Poland. Russian defence spending is doubling every year. The British government is trying to extradite a "former" member of the Committee for State Security over the assassination of a Russian dissident in London. Vladimir Putin has told the Russian people not to listen to Western lies about how bad Stalin was. The G8 is "gravely" concerned about the state of democracy in Russia. Russia is using arms exports and energy embargoes to kick the West in the nuts at every opportunity. Francis Fukuyama's End of History is looking increasingly like a tea break, and I am looking for my winter jacket to ward off the first chills of the returning Cold War. The Big Bad Bear is, if not quite back on its feet, definitely emitting irate growls from the back of its cave. The bad old days of East-West confrontation, that we thought had ended for ever in 1990, might just be making a comeback.

And I love it.

Why, you ask. Why am I ecstatic at the thought of a return to that military-political knife-edge that terrified us all for 45 years? Well, it's really quite simple.

When NATO declares that a resurgent Russia is once more the #1 threat, and Russia announces that the evil West is again bent on trying to rob the Motherland, then the game goes back to big boys' rules.

When the ICBMs get reactivated and retargeted, and the Challengers and T-90s and Typhoons and Flankers start lining up on opposite sides of a fortified border in central Europe, when the power-bloc rhetoric starts getting heated, when both sides start looking for reliable third-world proxies... then we'll have peace!

And there is a simple reason why we'll have peace. Because when both sides are manouevering desperately for any slight advantage against a huge, modern adversary capable of blasting all of human civilisation back to the stone age, there's no place in the game for a bunch of religious nutcases who only want to go back to the seventh century. About ten minutes into a new Cold War, al Qaida and all their hangers-on will be relegated to a page in the history books and a pile of oozing body bags. No human rights lawyers will be involved; it will just happen, because with the world poised on the brink of the nuclear abyss, the future of mankind hanging in the balance, only one chance to give our children a future etc etc (insert preferred cliche here), there just isn't any time or effort to be wasted on fuckwits like that. And frankly, I'm happy to live with the threat of nuclear oblivion if it means I never have to see another towel-wrapped, ZZ Top-bearded fundamentalist face ranting at me in a shaky, amateurish al Jazeera video clip.

Let's meet the new boss, same as the old boss. You know it makes sense.

...and don't bloody forget it!

2007-06-27T23:27:00.000+02:00

"This will be a new Government with new priorities and I have been privileged to have been granted the great opportunity to serve my country."

Yes, Mr Brown, you have been given the great privilege of serving your country. Note that word "serving." That means that instead of forcing us all to take part in some doomed Socialist experiment, YOU do what WE want. After ten years of your predecessor (Blair's gone! Hooray!!!) there are a LOT of things we want.

The first of these, I do believe, is a referendum on the slightly warmed over EU Constitution that Blair signed at the weekend in a last act of pointless spite directed at the nation that paid him to represent it.

Secondly, a tax cut would be rather nice. I don't really like Britain's underclass very much, and I'm buggered if I can see why I should pay for their Findus crispy pancakes and alcopops any more. Just starve the bastards until they find a job.

Lastly (for now at least) I'm sure that most of the British people, like me, would love to see a law that will prevent Cherie Blair's hideous gargoyle grin ever appearing in the papers again.

Well Mr Brown, you might be unelected and therefore as illegitimate as a sink-estate teenager, but regrettably you seem to be Prime Minister. That means you work for us now. So off you go and get started; let me know when you've finished, I'll have thought of some more work for you by then.

I'm getting really Sikh of the CRE

2007-06-27T16:04:00.000+02:00

"The creation of a Sikh Regiment has been considered by the Army policy staff responsible for both equality and diversity issues, who went on to consult with the Commission for Racial Equality," a Ministry of Defence spokesman said.

"Both agreed that grouping ethnic minorities runs counter to the Armed Forces philosophy that seeks to include, not exclude, and extend opportunities," he said.

A CRE spokesman said, "We would not support any policy that seeks to isolate specific groups in the Armed Forces or wider society. The creation of a separate regiment according to ethnicity would be segregation, which amounts to discrimination under the Race Relations Act.

"Anything that creates separation between regiments can only have a detrimental effect upon our Armed Forces' operational effectiveness," he added.

How long has this CRE spokesman spent in the Army, then?

I can't even begin to work out on how many levels this man is an absolute cock. Regiments actively strive to create separation between themselves. That separation is what gives them their unique identity. The Rifles march faster and do different drill. The Scottish Regiments wear kilts and Tam O'Shanters. The Guards use different ranks and tend to be very tall. The Gurkhas are all Nepali and carry Kukhris. And the Royal Irish wear Caubeens and vote for Ian Paisley.

A Sikh Regiment would revel in its exclusivity. They would glory in being apart and different. They would not want to integrate with the other Regiments; they would work their backsides off to prove that they were better soldiers because they were segregated. They would despise the other Regiments, make cruel jokes about their wives and fight with them in pubs.

In short, they would have immense Regimental pride and would be, I am 100% sure, a bloody good unit; after all, our previous Sikh Regiments certainly gave a good account of themselves in Afghanistan.

One of the things that would make a Sikh Regiment so great is the fact that it would be exclusive, divisive and non-integrated - all the things that the CRE hates. Sikh soldiers would see themselves as an elite among the Infantry, and would set out to prove that on a daily basis. They would not need to worry that their culture and traditions might offend other ethnic groups within the Regiment, because there wouldn't be any (although I could see a need for many officers to initially be non-Sikh, until sufficient Sikh officers had worked their way up the ranks.)

Sure, it wouldn't promote multiculturalism. It would be an article of faith amongst the Sikh squaddies that their Regiment was so good because it was made up entirely of Sikhs. They would know, surely and instinctively, that Sikhs are better soldiers than anyone else - just as the Royal Gurkha Rifles know that Nepali mountain men make the best soldiers, the Black Watch know that nobody can match a Highlander in battle and the Household Cavalry know that the height of martial prowess is an upper-class twit in a tank.

I can only commend the Sikh leaders who gave us such a splendid demonstration of what Britain should be about; an ethnic minority that doesn't want to abandon its own culture, doesn't attack anyone else's, doesn't whine when other people take a Piglet tissue box to work and are so loyal to their adopted country that, in an age of constant war and defence overstretch, they actually clamour to be allowed to form a new Regiment. Good on them, is all that I can say.

As a "senior Army officer" said in yesterday's Telegraph, since when did the CRE make British defence policy? I urge the MoD to ignore these repugnant, carping do-gooders and start recruiting for the 1st Battalion, Her Majesty's Sikh Rifles as soon as possible; I am sure that they will make us all proud.

Their first mission should be to storm the offices of the CRE and destroy them utterly, along with every living thing that skulks within. The pointless multi-culti bastards would be "Singh"ing a different tune then.

A Question Of Priorities

2007-06-23T16:21:00.000+02:00

Labour peer Lord Ahmad, Iranian ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, Pakistani prime minister Shaukat Aziz, MCB secretary-general Muhammad Abdul Bari and professional grievance-holder Anjem Choudary are among millions of muslims complaining about the award of a knighthood to Salman Rushdie because of his offence against islam.

So what has Sir Salman done? There's plenty to choose from. Did he start the civil wars that are tearing Iraq and Afghanistan to pieces and slaughtering their people? Did he spark the Hamas uprising that is destroying the hopes for a Palestinian state? Did he encourage the disastrous policies that are crippling the Iranian economy? Did he devise the education system that stunts the intellect of so many children in islamic countries? Was he responsible for the headscarf bans in France, Germany and Turkey? Was he the driving force behind the burning of mosques in Holland?

No.

A fictional character, in one of his novels, thought something bad about the prophet Muhammad in a dream.

Shaukat, Muhammad, Anjem and both Ahmads: Islam has problems far more serious than a couple of lines in a not very good book; one of these is the widespread perception of it as an intolerant and violent religion. Get a grip on reality, you pig-ignorant, spiteful, bigoted, superstitious medieval bastards.

Sanctimonious bloody hypocrites

2007-06-14T23:10:00.000+02:00

I keep reading condemnations of secular moral relativism in the media. Child abuse: It's because of secular moral relativism. Teenage delinquency: All down to secular moral relativism. Fast-breeding welfare sluts: Permitted by secular moral relativism. Drug addiction: Secular moral relativism.

I'll tell you about moral relativism.

I am an evangelical atheist; I know that there is no god and I try to spread that message of reason and optimism to others. That makes me about as secular as you can get. At the same time, I am pretty much a moral absolutist. For example, it is always wrong to steal the property of another person. It is always wrong to initiate violence against someone who has done nothing to harm you. It is always wrong to compel people, by force or the threat of force, to adhere to your beliefs. These are some of my morals. The source of them is not the ramblings of a tribe of bronze-age goat herders or a seventh-century bandit with a very young wife; they are moral standards which I worked out myself based on how I would like others to treat me. They are in no way relative; it doesn't become OK to steal from someone because he is richer than me. It's not justifiable to assault someone because his beliefs don't agree with mine (although it is OK if I catch him stealing my car.) I can't justify executing someone for deciding that from now on he wants to drink alcohol, use condoms, shave his beard or work on Saturdays. There is no moral relativism there.

On the other hand, it's moral relativism to say that Afghan women shouldn't be forced to wear the burqa but American ones can't have an abortion. It's moral relativism to say that schoolchildren mustn't be corrupted by learning that AIDS can kill you, but should be wilfully misled into believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old. It's moral relativism to say that the Madrassahs in Pakistan are indoctrinating children with religious extremism but the creationist Emmanuel School in Gateshead is performing well and adding valuable diversity to the education system.

Every one of these issues is a clear case of moral relativism, not to say bare-faced hypocrisy, and not one of them has a secular motivation. Every one, in fact, has a religious motivation.

Forcing women to hide themselves inside a sack with eyeholes and denying them control of their own bodies are both examples of religious edicts, but one is OK because it's practiced by christians and the other is wrong because it's practiced by the Taliban; both are, in fact, equally disgusting. Giving sex education in schools is wrong because children might then one day have sex, but it's OK to fill their heads with myths that mean they will never be able to understand the world we live in unless subsequently deprogrammed; in reality of course, sex education is valuable while creationist lies do nothing but harm. Fundamentalist schools of all sorts teach children scripture rather than reality, but one is OK because it's supported by Tony Blair and the other isn't because it's supported by Jalaluddin Haqqani; in a just world, both would be emptied of their children before the buildings and faculty were obliterated with cluster bombs and napalm.

Ironically, only the madrassahs are being bombed. This is because Blair and Bush, a pair of god-addled morons who both promote religious education in their own countries, can't see that the policies of Reg Vardey's Emmanuel School and the former school board of Dover, Pennsylvania, differ only in detail from the martyr mills of Quetta.

"22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.

24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing."

Judges 19: 22-24

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Steven Weinberg

Sanction of the victim

2007-05-28T02:07:00.000+02:00

Are you reading this on a PC which you stole or bought with benefits? If you are, fuck off now.

This is for the rest of you, who worked to earn money and bought your PC with it. I just want to ask you to think about a few things. Well, I shouldn't say "things" really, because I'm talking about people. Broadly speaking.

I want you to think about the shiftless sponger who leaves school and never tries to find a job, but instead manages to get by quite comfortably on invalidity benefit for an unproveable lower back problem.

I want you to think about the sink-estate slut, mother to five children by five fathers, who keeps her Housing Benefit-funded flat well stocked with Lambert & Butler, Buckfast, frozen pizza and microwave chips courtesy of a huge wad of child benefit.

I want you to think about the unemployed couple who occasionally smile at you from the fifth page of The Sun, surrounded by their 15 children in front of the three knocked-together council houses they refer to as "their" home.

I want you to think about the arrogant "asylum seeker" who gets given a free furnished house and a pocketful of cash every week, so he can hang about on street corners continuing Somali clan feuds with a machete while being too damn idle to bother his useless arse learning English.

I want you to think about the exiled Imam who spews Jihadist filth from his pulpit, while living high on the charity of the country that he daily abuses even while it shelters him from the consequences of the crimes he committed in his own land.

I want you to think about the NuLabour jobsworth who trousers forty grand a year in his worthless capacity as a Multicultural Tolerance Outreach Facilitator, befouling our lives with useless regulations and politically correct claptrap which bear no relation to the world outside of the Guardian jobs section.

I want you to think about the fact that every one of these pieces of canine excrement only survives because we allow them to. This is what Ayn Rand memorably described as the "Sanction of the victim." These people, these scrapings of the human barrel, are not the victims of society. We are. They are the parasites, and the money in their pockets is extorted from ours. We work; they don't. We produce; they sponge. We owe them nothing. Instead, they owe us something. They owe us respect. They owe us gratitude. They owe us the recognition that they live by our sufferance, and that our patience is not infinite.

So if we want something from these people, we should get it. If we tell them to stop malingering and find a job, keep their knickers on and their knees together, support their own offspring instead of asking us to do it, integrate with our culture pretty damn quick, shut their foul ranting theocratic gobs or stop bothering us with their viciously intolerant Left-liberal social engineering, they should do so promptly and uncomplainingly. They should remember that they survive by our sanction; that sanction is the money that we pay to keep them alive. In Britain today, far too many of our laws, taxes and governmental impositions are aimed at helping the "disadvantaged." The truth is, though, that 99% of the "disadvantaged" were disadvantaged by their own actions or lack thereof. I say, frankly and simply, fuck them.

Why don't we withdraw our sanction from these people? Why don't we refuse to let them wax fat on the proceeds of our industry? Why don't we elect a government that will trim the Welfare State back to a bare, subsistence-level skeleton? Why don't we re-establish the idea that to support yourself you have to earn money, and to have children you have to earn more?

If the sanction of the victim is withdrawn, I predict that the vast majority of the "disadvantaged" will either manage to find work fairly quickly or depart for sunnier climes. For the unregenerate few who whine about "entitlement" or turn to crime, there are always other solutions. Sell them as slaves to Omani Bedouin. Render them down for pig feed. Augment our woefully over-stretched Army by the creation of penal battalions. Stage gladiatorial games in Wembley Stadium. Let's be imaginative.

I freely admit that this post has been prompted by the expropriation of a third of my last pay packet to support other people who have, quite unaccountably, failed to turn up and do a third of my work for me. The hundreds of pounds of my money that other people spent on Lottery scratchcards, al Qaida DVDs and Vegetarian Respect Awareness leaflets last month would have made quite a significant difference to my lifestyle. I do not feel compassionate about this. I do not feel that I have helped those less fortunate than myself. I feel angry that other, frankly inferior, people have been given my money as the end product of a process of State-sponsored theft.

I want you to think about that.

Ejamakashun, ejamakashun, ejamakashun

2007-05-21T00:33:00.000+02:00

I have a plan.

It is a plan that will instantly reverse the fortunes of Britain's failing education system and save a damn big pile of money in the process. It is a plan that is simple in concept, visionary in scope and too obvious for the cretins who currently rule Britain (or Dozy Dave who wants to replace them) to think up in a million years. It is, in short, the sort of plan that only a genius like myself could come up with.

Firstly, we need schools. Yes, I know we already have some, but I mean proper schools that teach useful things. Let's plan them, shall we?

We need two types of schools. We need Grammar Schools, for the academically inclined who intend to go to university, and we need High Schools for everyone else. (Note that we ONLY need two types of schools; schools which teach that the infidel crusaders must be destroyed or that the Virgin Mary ascended to heaven on a magic moonbeam are not required.) Grammar Schools will teach a curriculum based on maths, English, foreign and classical languages, geography, history and the arts and sciences. They will aim to give their pupils a solid grounding in these subjects, illustrated by A-Level or Higher passes. High Schools will teach their pupils a similar range of subjects (maths, English, a science, a foreign language and either history or geography will be compulsory at least to the standard of the new exam which will replace GCSEs and Standard Grades - I suggest it could be usefully called the O-Level/O-Grade.) They will also teach vocational subjects such as wood and metal working, business IT skills, administration skills and mechanics; their pupils will leave school prepared to start a career or an apprenticeship.

Religious Studies, Citizenship, Child Development, Media Studies, Health and Social Care, Leisure and Tourism and Dance will be abolished as subjects and their teachers sent to re-education camps to be indoctrinated in common sense.

There will be a national curriculum based on sensible concepts such as; that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, the Holocaust was a terrible thing but it's time we stopped banging on about it, evolution is a fact as well as a theory, all beliefs are not equally true or worthy of respect and 2+2=4. You get the picture there.

Fine. Now we've got schools. Not much good if the pupils would rather stay at home with their PS3 though, are they? Truancy rates in the UK are sky-high and rising.

Dead easy. Link school attendance to eligibility for benefits. Every pupil's attendance will be monitored throughout secondary school. On completion of secondary school (and nobody will be allowed to leave until they have attempted O-Grades) their attendance will be checked and anyone who has more than 1% unauthorised absences (that's about two days truant per school year - two days too bloody many!) will not be issued the new Benefit Card. Did I explain about the Benefit Card? No? That's what you'll need to present to be eligible for ANY State handout. Including invalidity benefit, council housing, health care and pensions. For life.

What about fake authorised absences, ie. parents who write a fake sick-note because little Dwayne and Sharleena can't stand the stress of going to school? Also dead easy. Any parent caught doing that has their Benefit Card confiscated. Permanently. Do you think that's a bit harsh? So do I. Which is exactly what the bastards deserve for thinking they can live off the stolen wealth of taxpayers while raising a litter of dysfunctional brats.

The upshot of this is that all children of school age either attend school or face a short and miserable life of abject poverty, slaving away at menial jobs until they expire in a shop doorway some winter's night with a can of Special Brew, still clutched weakly in one stiffening hand, spilling its dregs into the cardboard box that was their home. Now, I know all you bleeding heart liberals out there are saying, "but denied the compassion and support of the State they'll turn to a life of crime." Here's the news: I'll be writing about my law and order policies soon and believe me, no they bloody won't.

The kids are all in school, then; so far, so good. But will they study?

Yes.

Every child will be given the opportunity to sit a minimum of ten O-Grades/O-Levels or vocational equivalents. Each pass they achieve will result in one level being added to their initially blank Benefit Card, up to a maximum of twelve. The same will apply for subsequent passes at A-Level or Higher. When that person, in the future, claims a State benefit of any kind the level of the Benefit Card will be checked and 10% of the benefit will be awarded for each level. This means that someone who goes to school and gets eight O-Grades, a couple of IT certificates, metalwork and vehicle maintenance will get 120% of the benefit, while someone who sends text messages under the desk, ignores the teacher and distracts the other pupils will get exactly what he deserves - jack shit.

Extra levels- again up to an overall maximum of twelve - will be awarded for each three years spent working in the emergency services, teaching profession, health industry (that's right; not service, INDUSTRY!) and Armed Forces. Levels will be removed at a rate of one for each year spent in prison plus one for each criminal conviction.

There you are; that's my plan. If you disagree with it you are wrong, but hey, I'm fair; you can have your say on my forum. Just remember, you heard it here first.

Rejoice, rejoice!

2007-05-10T22:07:00.001+02:00

So Tony Blair, the grinning jackass of Downing Street, is finally going to slip into obscurity after ten years of witless destruction directed against the British nation. Typically for this self-obsessed buffoon, his concern for the last year or so has been his "legacy." Well, I'd just like to say that he wasn't elected to leave a personal legacy, but to look after the interests of the British people - something he has singularly failed to do.

Blair's "legacy" consists of a burgeoning police state; an unrepentant terrorist and a religious maniac in power in Northern Ireland; the degredation of British culture into something reminiscent of a reality TV show in south central Los Angeles; Prime Ministerial endorsement of the teaching, in British schools, of creationist lies more suited to some hick town in the American bible belt; the establishment of a new internet (and Tube) phenomenon, taliban.co.uk; rabid persecution of motorists; the annihalation of British agriculture; the fastest-growing tax burden in the civilised world; and John Prescott. At least I can safely say that Blair's rule will not be soon forgotten.

In his place we will be governed by a dour, puritanical ball of Socialist lard with no mandate to make policy for England. Gordon Brown is well known for his redistributionist approach to economics. Now, I fully realise that some degree of wealth redistribution is desirable in a modern society, ie. subsistence-level payments to those who are, through no fault of their own, unable to earn a living for a few weeks or so. Similar payments would be made to the disabled and pensioners. That's wealth distribution, and it's perfectly OK.

However, Mr Brown, I would like to make one rather forceful suggestion to you. Should you wish to continue redistributing wealth to: Asylum seekers, drug addicts, unmarried parents of five children by five fathers; those who are unemployed because they played truant from school; the terminally workshy; multi-culti Thought Policemen; speed camera partnerships; or any other group for whom I feel nothing but deep loathing and utter contempt - please take that wealth out of your own pocket, and leave mine alone!

Taking other people's earned wealth and giving it to the undeserving is theft. Don't do it, Mr Brown.

Welcome back!

2007-05-06T19:14:00.000+02:00

As you may have noticed, I have been absent from the world of blogging for a while. I'm not going to go into the reasons for that, although I'm sure most of you could take a pretty good guess anyway. Enough said.

Whatever, I am now back. While I have been informed that a whole new world of trouble awaits me if I make any more comments about the age at which certain historical religious figures felt girls are sexually mature (nine, apparently) the world remains full of interesting things to talk about. I intend to do so.

Check back soon, and we'll see what's happening first...