Tuesday, 15 March 2016

Obama - Comedian Or Golfer?

President Barack Obama of the United States of America is an interesting sort. I get that many black people felt that electing a black person to the office of President would be a great idea. Very symbolic, possibly even showing it to 'the Man'. Proof that America is moving on etc etc.

Some of this is understandable and some deeply offensive to the independent minds of black people, but really Obama? You had to be voting for the skin, because you couldn't possibly want the man? And don't bother with the Democrat or Republican thing, he aint no politician.

No, achievement wise the choice is between comedian or golfer. He does a lot of both. Presidenting gets in the way a bit but you know, he is up for the sponsors getting a bit of his time. So the odd bit on lectern leaning, with careful pauses and looks to the side is OK with him. Earnest and sincere, even without the slightest idea. Man for the people.

Did he study Blair, the consummate professional in this arena or is he a natural? No idea, but he does seem an empty vessel so it could be natural. And now he is seeking to stamp his legacy mark. He could publish a book. It would have quite a lot of pages, all blank that you could draw or colour on.

He thinks he has waged war on Global Warming, but that is just tilting at windmills. No, if someone named a golf tournament after him, he could be smug and it would accurately reflect his time in office.

To racialists everywhere I say, America has had a black President and he is an idiot. But this is because he is an idiot, not because he is black. Stupidity is colour blind.


Starburst Original says the bag. No it isn't, they were originally Opal Fruits, but if they mean original flavours, well OK. I'll agree with that. What I want to know though is, who the hell is responsible for wrapping these fruit chews?

It is nigh on impossible to just unwrap and pop one in. It takes concerted effort to break the bond the paper has with itself. Sort it out. What is the matter with people?

Monday, 14 March 2016

The EU Debate

We are told there is great debate over the EU. I doubt that. Most people in my experience don't understand very much about the EU and assume it is just more politicians, pretty much like we have here.

You can see this mindset with Britons on holiday. They not only want fish and chips and Watney's Red Barrel wherever they go, but also come unstuck with laws they didn't know existed. Some people would say this is precisely because we don't involve ourselves in Europe, don't pay attention to other cultures.

To which I answer, fish and chips is from Jewish immigrants, tea, curry and the Chinese takeaway.

No, our problem is that the EU never gets debated and deliberately so. I would guess you think it was invented after WW2 to stop European wars, which is certainly something that is parroted out these days. That it is a group of countries working together for mutual benefit and to be a real player in a globalized world.

Well, it was invented in the 1920's and is basically aimed at forming a single country called Europe with no nation states. It would have a single, unelected government of bureaucrats with control over its armed forces, tax, immigration and well, everything. It was realised from the outset that the people of Europe would never support such an idea, or allow it, so it had to be developed in secret. Hence the absence of debate.

'Ever closer Union', the abiding tenet of the organisation, means the end goal is a single superstate. (Making a farce of Scottish 'independence'; neither 'Scotland' nor independence is planned for them).

Cameron of course says that he will have nothing to do with such an idea, whilst at the same time clinging to a club with that motto. But to take him at his word, he also says we don't want to be part of the Euro, we don't want the City to lose its influence and we are happy to part of an outer group of countries, but within the EU.

So basically we want to remain the United Kingdom, but with trade and treaty agreements with 'Europe'. Sounds a fantastic idea, it just needs us to formally leave the EU.

Of course, this club that is designed for politicians to exercise power and has no actual utility, rather enjoys the money we give it and it keeps us neutered and not able to step in and save them from themselves, as we have done so many times before. In short, an empire without having to have a war and without Britain 'standing alone' to fight tyranny.

And as for globalisation, most regulation comes from the International level, down to the EU. So as a proper sovereign nation we could sit at those tables rather than have the EU represent us and get the best deal for France/Germany. A participant or 1/28th participant?

The UK politicians squealing for us to stay in and issuing scare stories and naked lies to support their 'case' (because they don't have one) are more likely terrified that, were we to leave, they would actually have to work for a living. You know, turn up in parliament, understand issues, make real laws. And be accountable. So you can understand their terror.

EU: In Or Out?

Notable person, Jeremy Clarkson has written in his Sunday Times column that he thinks we should stay in the EU. Clarkson is someone who generally challenges orthodoxies and infuriates those who think they are the only people allowed opinions.

He always struck me as someone it would be great to discuss the world, the universe and everything with, over a meal. Most convivial I would have thought. I know he is a bit of a simpleton where the EU is concerned, as previously he said we should join the Euro because he hates changing money to travel. Solid.

But even so, his juvenile reasoning on Sunday as to why Britain should stay in the EU was a surprise. He likes Europe he says, and when there, feels European. Feels he fits in more than in America, where they at least speak a version of English. And has strong links with the UK both in legal infrastructure terms and historically.

Yes, Europe is the cradle of civilisation and has an immense amount to commend it in art and architecture. Then of course, the wealthy Clarkson enjoys the food and wine it produces and the quality of restaurants.

And then there is modern European politics. The French revolution, Napoleon, the 1848 revolutions, the Franco-Prussian war, the bombast of Bismarck, De Gaulle and his plan to take over Britain when he and his countrymen surrendered their own country as soon as possible, French Communists, Mussolini, Italian Communists, Hitler. The First World War, the Second World War and Jean Monnet.

Truly 'the Europeans', of which we clearly are not and have never been a part, do not see themselves as European and are very keen on fighting each other. Particularly the French and Germans. But Clarkson thinks these two, specifically, run a super club that we should be part of. Sure he recognises that it isn't democratic, is corrupt and incompetent at every level, but that he says is why we should stay in.

So we can cure these ills from within. Just like Cameron did when he asked for some minor changes and was told no. (Although he seems to be suggesting that no means yes). There is a reason, Clarkson, that when Blenheim and Wellington and numerous others, helped sort out the latest bout of bickering in Europe, they went back home and left them to it.

We didn't take over territory in Europe (well, beyond Gibraltar I suppose) precisely because we are not like them and don't want to be. It is said that in Italy the bureaucracy is appalling and to get anything done it can only be speeded up by bribing the corrupt officials. And in Britain the bureaucracy is appalling and you can't get anything done, because the officials aren't corrupt!

The rule of law here generally works for and is designed to work for, the people. Europe consists of states where the law keeps the people in check.

Regarding the EU itself, it is a Marxist construct that has no democratic core and is designed to be the fun house of an elite, paid for by the masses, a power trip for the careless class. Clarkson thinks we could make it a United States, but it is designed to be a Soviet Union. The naivety in believing it could be changed from within is immense and no more realistic than thinking you could change it standing on the moon.

The United States of America absorbed all kinds of people, of many nations, but in building their life in this new country they became Americans first, with a shared belief in country. Some time later they adopted a single currency. The EU has no demos and forced an inappropriate single currency on its members, the result of which we are seeing now.

There is a continent called Europe but no country called Europe. The nation states have noble histories with much to be proud of (though for France and Germany, much to be ashamed of). They don't need an all-powerful elite to end their histories.