Saturday, 3 November 2007


One of the reasons I really hate Windows is because of all the stupid crap that's installed by default because three users thought it might be useful. One of the most annoying is the stupid dialog box which comes up if you hold the shift key down for a few seconds.

Finally, I discovered how to permanently disable the stupid thing thanks to this web site:

Stupid Windows Features

Monday, 13 August 2007


I've just moved out of Europe and across the Atlantic, so won't be around much for a while until I have my life set up over here!

Wednesday, 18 July 2007

Elephants In The Living Room #1

In modern Western culture, we have a herd of elephants in our living rooms; problems that are obvious to anyone who looks for them, but which the majority are trying desperately to avoid noticing.

One of the largest is this simple fact: most people today are economically worthless. Morally, perhaps, they're all God's children and that, but economically they're a drain on society rather than a benefit.

Britain has around a million unemployed, many of them long-term, and millions more who are 'permanently disabled', many of them for life, and many of them disabled in the last few years. The reality, of course, is that the last Tory government began a policy of reducing unemployment figures by shifting long-term unemployed onto disability benefit, and the Labour government since have continued and extended that policy. 'Permanently disabled' is now just a more politically correct term for 'permanently unemployed'.

But it's worse than that. In addition to permanently disabling millions of people, the Labour government have hired many more into worthless government jobs as 'diversity monitors', administrators, police performance evaluation, or whatever.

But it's even worse than that. In addition to the welfare scum and the government bureaucrats, there are vast numbers of private sector workers whose jobs only exist to enforce various laws; collecting taxes or advising people on how to avoid paying tax through our horrendously complex tax exemption laws, for example.

But it's even worse than that. In addition to the welfare scum and the government bureaucrats and the private sector 'law enforcers' there's also a huge financial system which exists primarily to compensate for the inflation that government deliberately creates. If we had stable money, we could simply stick it under the mattress... but since the government is printing more than 10% more money every single year in the UK, we have to give the money to the banks in the hope that they'll manage to sustain its value.

So I don't think it's hard to see that perhaps two thirds of the population of the UK are little but consumption machines who do nothing else to help the productive minority, and many who actively harm the productive minority.

Of course this is hardly new. Rome had a huge mob of worthless people fed bread and circuses whose only role was to suck dry the productive members of Roman society; this is why the productive Romans came to welcome the prospect of barbarians destroying the Roman Empire and freeing them from slavery. A competent Emperor could have turned the situation around, but not only were they increasingly inept through Rome's decline but they had no stomach for facing the mob.

The question is, what do we do about it? As Western societies grow poorer, there will be less and less money available to fund millions of worthless people. Either welfare to the worthless will have to be cut back further and further, or taxes will have to rise until they cripple productive activity; the former will cause chaos through rioting, the latter will cause collapse as the productive emigrate or go on strike.

Fixing the problem would take decades and require major political changes. Unfortunately we neither have the time or the politicians with balls who would push through unpopular changes, so it won't happen. Most likely the problem will be allowed to fester and grow worse with ever-increasing taxes until we see a revolution or total social collapse.

Sunday, 1 July 2007

'Who Is Alan Greenspan?'

Alan Greenspan was the man who could create or destroy markets with a well-worded sentence. As the most powerful central banker the world has ever seen -- probably the most powerful central banker the world ever will see before the whole idea is totally discredited in the upcoming economic collapse -- it's only fitting that he's given us the largest credit bubble that the world has ever seen.

A few years ago we listened to his every word and to many people he looked like the world's best economist. Now, as the credit bubble falls apart around us and looks like it may take down the entire post-WWII global economic and political system, he looks like the world's biggest dumb-ass.

But is that right?

I'm not so sure. Greenspan was a Randite, and a supporter of the gold standard, long before he became a central banker; that's about the greatest possible transition in economics. But did he ever really change?

In 'Atlas Shrugged', one of Rand's ideas was that the productive people of the world could destroy the looters by giving them exactly what they wanted. What most people want today is free money for doing nothing, and with his credit bubble Greenspan has given that to them good and hard. If that leads to the collapse of the US economy, the end of the American Empire and the demise of the paper dollar, hey, he was just doing his job, right?

Dumb as a rock or a brilliant Randian strategist who's laughing at the chaos he's caused just by giving people what they wanted? Who is Alan Greenspan?

'Car Bombs' in Glasgow and London

Another day, another bomb attack on the British people. Fortunately the Islamic nutters demonstrate again that they're utterly inept, and no-one but the terrorists got hurt. In a way it's almost funny that they think they can defeat Western culture with the Keystone Jihad.

Some have suggested that these may be the British suicide bombers that al Qaeda was muttering about recently, but I doubt that myself. Building a working car bomb out of household materials isn't easy, and they apparently hadn't even tested theirs to ensure they would work; even in the UK, PC Plod might raise an eyebrow if someone reported a car exploding in a remote area packed with petrol, nails and gas cylinders. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, have plenty of places around the world where they could safely test these things out before trying an attack; who's going to notice another exploding car in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Unfortunately I suspect we can't rely on the ineptitude of our multicultural guests forever; will this actually make the British government stand up and take some action before they do manage to blow up hundreds of people in a crowded area? Or will Brown just bend over and compromise away yet more of our culture in favor of Islam instead?

Friday, 22 June 2007

Helping Africa Starve

Yet another government screwup in Africa.

More than 33,500 tonnes of food aid has been delivered to Somalia by the UN's World Food Programme (WFP) since the start of the year. But in Marere district in the lower Juba valley, farmers and elders said the food distribution had brought chaos and driven down the price of maize by 60 per cent.

So we supposedly have a problem of not enough food being grown to feed the people of Somalia, and the Western lefties decide 'something must be done'. What do they do?

Musa Yusuf Ahmed, 44, was a policeman before the Somali government collapsed in 1991. Now, he tries to make a living from farming, growing maize, beans and watermelons. He normally sells a 50kg bag of maize for 100,000 Somali shillings (about £3.10), but Mr Ahmed said it had dropped to 40,000 (£1.25). "For we farmers it is a big problem," he said. "The food will benefit the people with no money but it will hurt the farmers."

Yes, ship over food that massively undercuts the local farmers as they try to sell what they did produce, and makes farming a far less viable business. So more farmers will go out of business and the food supply will drop.

No wonder Africans are starving. With 'friends' like the Western left, they don't need enemies.

Tuesday, 19 June 2007

Why Government Fails #2

Tony Blair has reportedly left Britain with over 3,000 new laws since he was elected ten years ago, interfering in pretty much every area of British life from banning fox hunting to imposing ID cards.

This is another reason why government fails; every year more laws are passed than are repealed.

Now, if you believe that government has a right to interfere in every area of everyday life, then you could justify some of that due to technological changes. As new technology develops there are new areas where laws would be required; not much point having laws about car insurance before cars were invented, for example.

But even if you accept that, if the government passes more new laws every year than are required by technological changes, then inevitably after some time everything not compulsory will be prohibited, and then they'll start prohibiting compulsory things too.

Simple maths makes this very obvious. If government doesn't collapse, then it has to progressively take more and more power until society can no longer function unless the majority of people are breaking laws all the time.

Since politicians love few things more than passing new laws, this means that any political-based culture needs to be 'rebooted' now and again to return to a state where laws are minimal and actually make some kind of sense.

I don't think Western culture has long to go before either collapse or civil war gives it that kind of a reboot.

Saturday, 9 June 2007

Twilight Of The Left

The main reason why the world has gone so crazy in the last forty years is that the left have infested the mass media and every institution run by the government; newspapers, movies, schools, universities, police, courts, whatever... if there were easy jobs where you can push your leftist views, they were lining up.

So now they control pretty much all of those things, and they're sitting there thinking 'yeah, look at me, ain't I smart for taking over Western society'.

Trouble is, they've missed something. All those institutions are outdated, antiquated and dying. We don't need to go through them all replacing the left-wingers with rational people, we just need to eliminate those institutions.

Which is increasingly easy; schools are failing, universities are turning out illiterate graduates, policing is failing, courts are hopeless, newspapers can't compete with the Internet. The mass media is dying because people are finding better things to do than watch TV, while more and more find they get the same information faster online than through words printed on dead trees. Anyone with more than two brain-cells must see that they're doomed.

Now what are the left going to do? The reason why everything they touch turns to crap is that they're wrong about pretty much everything, so they can't compete on ideas; big organisations and force combined with censorship of the opposition are the only ways they can spread their ideology. Worse than that, because they've buried legitimate right-wing opposition in the media and government for so long, a huge backlash has been growing against their idiot policies and that's now just starting to appear in earnest.

The left are going down, and it's going to be fun to watch.

Tuesday, 5 June 2007

Fixing Things

So on the Planet Neptune blog, I was asked what to do about solving the current lousy state of gender relations. As I said there, I don't think it can be solved, but with some more thought, here's a list of how we could start:

1. An end to the pedophile hysteria which primarily serves to separate men from children because no man can risk going anywhere near them when he can be marked for life by a lie. Of course despite the number of women abusing or outright murdering their kids and female teachers abusing their pupils, we all know that kids are safe in womens' hands, right?

2. An end to the feminisation of schools. In fact, an end to schooling beyond the teaching of the most basic skills required to function, as any kid with curiousity and a decent library and Internet connection can teach themselves beyond that. Schools have become youth concentration camps where kids are indocrinated with political correctness and kept out of the way while their mothers go out to work so their parents can live the same lifestyle their own parents did on a single salary decades ago.

3. An end to easy non-consensual divorce, and men will keep the house, their money and their kids when divorced; if your wife wants to run off with that 'bad boy' biker, she can go ahead, but he can pay for her. Automatic grant of cost-free divorce for any man or woman if their spouse refuses to have sex or children; that's part of the marriage deal, if you don't like it, don't get married.

4. No welfare for single mothers, unless they've been given the kids in a divorce settlement because the father was incapable of looking after them. No more glorification of sluts; men like screwing them, but don't want to marry them. Encouragement for women to marry young, rather than wait to their late thirties and discover that even if they can find a husband, it's too late for kids.

5. No more special treatment for women in the workplace, no more reduction of hiring standards so they can qualify for jobs they can't do. People should be hired on merit and not gender.

6. No more special treatment for women in rape cases. It's absurd that a woman can falsely accuse a man of rape, scar him for life in public perception even if he's found not guilty, all while no-one can tell anyone her identity. Long jail sentences for false accusations.

7. For that matter, equality of sentencing between men and women. If you murder your kids I don't care whether you're a man or a woman, you're an evil sleazeball who should be in jail for the rest of your life.

8. Massive rollback of the 'sexual harassment' industry. Abusing male or female workers in the course of their job should be punished, but sacking men for making jokes or complimenting a female co-worker is utterly absurd.

9. An end to nanny state laws, which mostly serve to penalise men. Any man who isn't mentally retarded is quite capable of deciding whether he wants to drink or smoke and doesn't need a cop to tell him otherwise, thank you very much. Nor do we need to be disarmed so that we become easy prey to criminals, who, by definition, don't obey anti-gun laws.

10. An end in general to the worship of safety over freedom. Women mostly want safety, men mostly want freedom; woman's heaven is men's hell. If you think someone else can make you safe rather than your own actions, you'll have to look to your family for it, not the state.

11. An end to the denigration of house-wives. Working in 'human resources' at Widgets, Inc is nowhere near as important as bringing up the next generation to be decent people.

12. An end to the 'sexism' industry. Men make jokes about women, women make jokes about men. It's a natural and healthy way to eliminate bad feelings with humor rather than argument and violence. Deal with it.

13. An end to zoning laws which push up house prices and prevent a couple from living decently on a single income.

14. Property and literacy tests for voting. No-one should be able to vote unless they have a vested interest in maintaining a stable society. Better yet, as democracy has proven such a failure, let's have a monarchy again.

Now, can you imagine all that happening? Any of it? No, of course not, that would take leaders with balls, and there's slightly less chance of that than of a flying pig becoming Prime Minister.

Instead, feminism will have to be proven an absolute disaster before it can be eliminated, so that the women of the world come begging for the remaining decent men to save them... and by then it will be too late to change anything; frankly, we're probably too late already.

But if we have to let Western society burn, so be it. We can rebuild a new society in its place, much better than the old. Feminists can't.

Sunday, 3 June 2007

Health and Safety at School

A few weeks ago I was reading an article about 'Health and Safety' in British schools and how teachers can't even have a school outing to a museum without filling in a ton of forms to cover their ass.

Which got me thinking back to my days at school in the 80s. The school had this tradition for boys in their first or second year, which was one of the big things among the pupils, and, in a way, separated the 'men' from the 'boys'. It also created a mass of rumors fed from the older boys to the new starters about the horrors we would face.

For two days that year we had to... go camping with the teachers.

Which would scare you a lot more if you understood that most of the teachers had done at least a couple of compulsory years in the military, some had fought in WWII, and others in the jungles of Malaysia (heck, one part-time teacher in his 90s had fought in WWI). Only the youngest had avoided military service altogether and grown up as liberal wimps... and, well, no-one had much fear of them.

So at nine in the morning we were lined up outside the school with the teachers. A motley collection of eleven/twelve year old boys with backpacks and flasks of tea and sandwiches made by our mothers; surprisingly, every boy I knew actually had a mother who considered raising their kids more important than working in 'human resources' at Widgets, Inc.

The teachers gave out maps and compasses, showed us where the school was and where the wood we would be camping in was, and told us they'd see us there in the evening. And they meant it; if we'd had a helicopter the direct route would have been about twelve miles, but any real-world route was more like fifteen to twenty. And we had to get there ourselves.

Oh, and we weren't allowed to cheat, call up our parents and get a lift out there, we had to walk.

Now, just imagine that; about forty boys in groups of two/three/four, many of them not yet in their teens, tramping around the country with maps and compasses, not a cell-phone among them, no-one to look after them, just trying to find a spot on the map.

Oh, did I mention the clouds? The rain started not long after we left in a group of three, and continued on and off during the day. We had lunch late because found a barn in the middle of nowhere that we could stop in to at least get our wet coats and sweaters off for a bit while we ate and drank. But by the time we actually reached the camp-site we were soaked.

Now, all of us arrived safely; not one was kidnapped by the hordes of pedophiles who apparently scour the countryside looking for young boys who are out of sight of an adult for more than ten seconds. The teachers, of course, were smart and had driven up in the school mini-bus with all the tents and other heavy equipment.

Of course that meant that after walking the best part of twenty miles we now had to put up a tent to sleep in, and then cook our supper, over gas camping stoves that could have burnt down the entire forest in those days before 'Health and Safety'. Then we went to bed, where the 'hard men' smoked cigarettes in their sleeping bags so the smoke wouldn't get out where the patrolling teachers would smell it; they didn't want to get pulled out of the tent by their ear and paraded in front of the other boys as a law-breaker the next day.

At midnight the teachers woke us all up. Well, the few who'd actually got to sleep and hadn't been discussing girls or smoking cigarettes or telling each other scary stories, anyway. They then led us away into the woods in the dark, and every few minutes they'd let one boy go, telling him to find his own way back to the camp; by some strange coincidence all the boys they particularly disliked were let go at the end of especially wet and muddy tracks where they were sure to slip over a few times before they got back.

Again, despite being on our own in the dark in a wood which, if today's newspapers are to be believed, was probably filled with hundreds of pedophiles, we all got back safely. To be honest, only the stupidest of boys could have failed to find the camp eventually; the smart ones had been looking out for landmarks we recognised to lead us there, but anyone who hadn't could just walk in a straight line to the edge of the wood and then follow it around until they reached the track we'd walked on to the camp site in the evening.

The next day we had various games, then got to ride back in the mini-bus.

Now, no-one was forced to go on that trip; anyone could have asked their parents to excuse them, though they'd have been considered a terminal wuss by every other boy for the rest of their years in the school. Similarly, no parents had to allow their kids to go, but every boy I knew actually had, you know, a _father_, who actually lived with his mother, and would have considered him a terminal wuss if he hadn't gone. Even if the mother didn't, he realised that it was precisely the kind of character-building exercise that young boys need, where we'd beaten the fear that previous generations had built up in us and proven we were far more capable than most adults would have given us credit for.

Today, of course, there's a pedophile behind every lamp-post, you can't change a light bulb without making a Health and Safety report first, and the country is infested with single mothers who'd never let their son go out walking twenty miles on his own with just a map and compass to guide him. I do wonder whether the school still runs it, but I can't see it myself; odds are they get bussed to the woods, teachers put up the tents and they get a worry-free night of smoking in their sleeping bags.

But, hey, kids have to be kept safe away from anything that might harm them, right?

Tuesday, 29 May 2007

The important things in life

You're probably thinking that I'm going to talk about kids and family and all that kind of thing, but I'm not.

Right now the most important thing for the human race is to get off this planet, very soon. With fossil fuels running out and resource wars on the horizon, we really don't have much time left. If we're not living in space by 2100, then we'll probably be living in caves.

Until we have self-sustaining colonies in space, a single major disaster can wipe out the entire human race, or at least throw us back thousands of years to a point where we may well never reach this level again. That doesn't need to be a physical disaster, even a general withdrawal from the real world into virtual worlds could eliminate any further desire to expand into the universe until something comes along to destroy us (be it an asteroid on a collision course, or an aggressive alien race).

Beyond that, we need to spread out across at least a thousand light years to avoid being wiped out by a nearby supernova, which could happen in short order with little warning. The radiation emissions alone could wipe out human life within tens of light years of the supernova.

On the plus side, without venturing into 'Star Trek' and using only believable future engineering, we can manage that in 10-20,000 years and go on to spread across the entire galaxy in a million years. At that point the biggest threat will be the potential future collision between our galaxy and Andromeda a few billion years from now, which will mean a need to expand into other galaxies; a trip which itself could take millions of years. Beyond that... who knows?

Another benefit of expansion out beyond the solar system is that space is vast and the speed of light is low, so anyone who wants to be free is unlikely to be found unless they choose to be. Pick a random direction and head off at 10% of the speed of light and detecting you will be extremely difficult; perhaps at some point in the distant future someone will fill the galaxy with nanotech probes that can cover every single cubic mile, but that itself would be a vast undertaking.

The race to get off Earth before it's too late is going to be tight, and I just hope we win. I can't think of anything more important than ensuring our descendants are still around a million years from now and spread across the galaxy.

Monday, 28 May 2007

Feminism will lose

In the long run, feminism is toast, for one simple reason: they need our brains, we don't need theirs. That's not to say that men don't like intelligent women, but if they all disappeared tomorrow life would continue and many men would be better off... if all the smart men disappeared, we'd be back in the caves by tea-time.

If the men of the world get fed up with feminists, we can simply move to male communes, create an army of Natalie Portman clones with artifically restricted brains so they won't get any stupid ideas about feminism, and continue the human race. More than that, we can accelerate the development of new technology without women getting in the way; even when cavemen were busy inventing the wheel, I'm sure women were watching and tutting about 'boys and their toys'.

On the other hand, feminists who move to female communes will be continually knocking on our doors asking for a man to change the oil in their car or remove a spider from the bath. Sure, they could genetically engineer brain-dead men, but how will that help? It's the brains they need, not the bodies.

If feminists want a 'gender war', hey, bring it on; as a group men are more intelligent, tough, realistic, creative, logical, single-minded, and determined than women, and in anything resembling a fair fight, the feminists will lose. The only reason we live in a feminised society right now is because many men have been seduced to the 'Dark Side' in the hope of getting laid. When enough of those men learn to say 'no' to the women in their lives and mean it, the whole feminist scam will come falling down.

The funny part is that Western men don't really need to do anything, as any feminised culture is prey for the first predatory masculine culture that comes along. The same politically correct viewpoint which brought about feminism is also devoted to multiculturalism, which will hand much of the West over to Islam in the next few decades; Islamic states in the West will hardly pay much heed to feminists.

Even if nothing else changes, feminism will be destroyed by its own internal contradictions, and we could even accelerate that trend by a mass conversion of Western men to Islam; immediately changing our status to an official persecuted minority.

The downside, of course, is that an Islamic takeover in the West would lead to a dark age that would last centuries. So let's hope we don't have to take that route.

Sunday, 27 May 2007

Tolerance is not a virtue

One of the strangest elements of modern Western life is the worship of 'tolerance', as though tolerating any kind of behavior without complaint is somehow a virtue. So you want to rob me? Sure, I'm tolerant, have my money. You want to rape my dog? Hey, it takes all sorts, go ahead. You want to burn my house down? Why not, it's part of your cultural traditions.

The whole idea of glorifying tolerance is obviously absurd, but that hasn't stopped it becoming part of politically correct life. Of course when the politically correct talk about 'tolerance', they don't really mean what they say... it means we're supposed to tolerate anything they or their favorite victim groups do, but they don't have to tolerate us.

Fortunately the Cult of Tolerance seems to be vanishing up its own asshole. On the one hand we're told we must tolerate gay marriage and single mothers with feral kids, on the other we're told we must tolerate Muslim extremists who would stone the single mothers and gay men to death. Such a fundamentally schizophrenic belief system can't survive for long, and if Westerners don't destroy it then those who are using our tolerance to spread intolerance will.

The real reason for 'tolerance' is nothing to do with kindness and virtue; it's simply a result of the feminisation of Western culture over the last few decades. The West no longer has any sense of its own culture or the balls to stand up for its superiority over other cultures that have barely left the stone age. Westerners created the computer, the aircraft, the internal combustion engine and put men on the Moon... yet we're supposed to believe that we're no better than cultures that still live in mud huts.

Note that I'm not denying that some who live in mud huts might be perfectly nice people who I'd like to have around for lunch one day. But the idea that their culture is superior to the one that's given us almost every important invention in the modern world is an absurdity and should be treated as such.

Tolerance is a virtue in limited circumstances. If your culture has a basic, agreed set of beliefs, then you certainly should tolerate your neighbor's foibles so long as they are within those limits. But tolerating people who refuse to accept those beliefs, or, worse, are actively acting to destroy your culture, is a flaw, not a virtue.

The bad news is that Western culture has gone so far in worshiping tolerance that when it returns to intolerance of bad behavior there's likely to be a civil war against the large minority of sociopaths who have grown up in 'tolerant' Western nations over the last few decades. This is precisely why we should never have gone down this path in the first place.

Wednesday, 23 May 2007

Congressional Retards


Decrying near-record high gasoline prices, the House voted Tuesday to allow the government to sue OPEC over oil production quotas.

There's modern government for you. When there's a problem, the solution is to call in the lawyers.

Gee, you don't think that high prices could be something to do with the world's oil supplies running out and production peaking? Or the lack of refinery building in the last couple of decades to please the idiot greenies? Or the vast array of different gasoline blends that American politicians demand across the country meaning that you can't just ship gasoline from one state to another to even out prices? Or the US military devastating one of the Middle East oil producers and threatening to attack another? Or the collapse of the US dollar thanks to the massive deficits the government has been running for years and the artificially low interest rates causing a credit explosion?

No, it's got to be the EVIL oil producers refusing to sell their limited and declining resource to Americans who are invading oil producing nations, for small green pieces of paper whose value is sinking through the floor.

How did we get to the point where Americans are electing 345 retards to Congress? Is there really no-one at all in America who could do their job better?

Friday, 4 May 2007

Why Government Fails

If you've ever wondered why almost everything government does is a total screwup, the answer is actually very simple.

If a business satisfies its customers, it gets more customers and more money. If a business fails to satisfy its customers, the customers go elsewhere and it loses money.

If a government agency satisfies its 'customers', it gets less money as funds are diverted elsewhere. If a government agency fails to satisfy its 'customers', it whines about how it's underfunded and gets more money.

Put quite simply, government agencies have a strong incentive to fail, while business has a strong incentive to succeed. Business rewards success, whereas government rewards failure. Government's motivation is totally backwards.

Imagine you ran a business where you adjusted employees' pay each year based on a performance appraisal. Those employees who did better than expected would have their pay cut because they clearly didn't need an incentive to work hard. Those employees who did worse than expected would have their pay increased to give them an incentive to work harder.

The whole idea is clearly absurd; anyone can see that if you paid people more for doing a bad job, that pretty soon all the employees would be doing as little work as possible in order to increase their pay. Doing a good job is difficult, but any fool can do a bad job.

So next time a failing school, police force or whatever is demanding more money to solve its problems, remember: if you reward failure... you just get more failure.

Tuesday, 24 April 2007

9/11 Nonsense

Is there nowhere on the Internet these days where you can get away from '9/11 Truthers' making stupid claims about George Bush blowing up the World Trade Center with nuclear bombs and lasers? I'm getting sick of them infesting every forum on the Web regardless of what the subject of the forum is supposed to be.

Their 'evidence' is laughable, often destroyed in seconds by someone who understands physics and engineering, yet no matter how many times they're debunked, they'll either come back with yet another stupid claim to be debunked, or simply repeat the same claim louder. They've never seriously studied physics or engineering, haven't even bothered to read the NIST reports which explain in detail how and why the WTC buildings collapsed, yet believe themselves to be experts because they've watched a few videos.

Just to give one example, they repeatedly talk about how the towers fell 'at free fall speed'. Yet as someone who does understand physics, two seconds of the collapse video was enough for me to think 'hang on'... and ten seconds enough to demonstrate the assertion was simply absurd. The videos clearly show debris from the towers falling faster than the towers themselves; so how can the towers be 'falling at free fall speed'? How can anyone with any degree of intelligence fail to notice this?

They claim that the buildings were brought down by explosives, yet photographs show the walls around the impact sites bending before the collapse and photographs and videos clearly show that the tops of the towers were tilting several degrees before they fell. Videos and photos also show that the collapse began around the impact point. Are we supposed to believe that the government put explosives into the buildings that none of the thousands of people working there happened to notice, merely in order to make the buildings collapse just as though they'd been brought down by terrorists flying airliners into them? It's crazy.

As with so many conspiracy theorists, the 'theory' isn't supported by any real evidence, it's just a collection of 'inconsistencies' which they don't understand. They're like cockroaches, destroy one 'inconsistency' and there'll be another one along a few minutes later. None of them actually prove anything, and no serious investigator would give them more than a few seconds thought, but the '9/11 Truthers' can spend years passing the same nonsense around as though it's received wisdom from Bob.

Now, I'm not surprised that so many people are ignorant and easily-led, but I am surprised that so many people are happy to advertise their ignorance so blatantly.

If 'inconsistencies' make an argument, then think for a moment about a couple of inconsistencies with the '9/11 Truth' world-view:

If George Bush is so evil that he would arrange a plot to kill thousands of Americans so he can invade Iraq, and the '9/11 Truthers' have proof of this... why hasn't he had them killed too? Who's going to miss a couple of dozen dead wackos?

Why hasn't Bush planted WMDs in Iraq? It would be trivial to do, it would make him a hero... yet he hasn't. I myself am amazed that the US government didn't simply plant some, yet they've clearly not even been willing or able to sink to that level. And we're supposed to believe they'd blow up the WTC and kill thousands?

Now, I'm willing to accept that some people in the government may have had information that might have allowed them to stop the attack and failed to act; note that I'm not saying they did so deliberately, they might have missed the significance of the information they had, or they might just have been overworked and considered it a lower priority than other potential attacks. Regardless of the reasons, a serious investigation into why the US government didn't stop the attack despite vast billions of dollars going into 'intelligence' seems essential.

But the idea that a government that can't even fake some WMDs could create a plot that would require the involvement of thousands of people to murder thousands of Americans and destroy two iconic buildings and keep it secret to anyone other than a few wackos is just absurd.

Worse than that, if anyone in the government did have advance warning of the 9/11 attacks and deliberately sat on it to allow the attacks to go ahead, the '9/11 Truthers' are distracting from any investigation into such events by making those who might question the government's actions look like fruitcakes.

Or is that the point? Is Bush paying these people to distract from the real unanswered questions about 9/11?

Now there's a conspiracy for you.

Monday, 23 April 2007

Islamic Nukes

Am I the only one fed up with the scare stories about how Iran might one day have nukes?

Pakistan is an Islamic nation with nukes, and is one coup away from putting them in the hands of Islamic extremists. Britain and France both have nukes, and both are likely to become Islamic states within two generations; in fact, if the American government had any clue they would refuse to sell missiles to Britain to replace the current Trident fleet. Even Russia is heading towards becoming an Islamic state as Russians find better things to do than have kids, and they still have about a bazillion gigatons of nukes; the only good news is that half of their missiles probably won't work due to lack of maintenance.

Half the nukes on the planet may be in the hands of Islamic extremists soon, and we're supposed to be crapping our pants because Iran might get a low-grade nuke or two some years from now?

Get real.

Sunday, 22 April 2007

Freedom and Democracy

Democracy is the idea that the opinion of two morons is worth more than the opinion of one genius, that robbing, killing and eating your neighbour is fine so long as 51% of people agree, and that sheep should be allowed to vote on which wolf gets to eat them.

I've never understood the repeated use of the term 'freedom and democracy'. How can you have freedom when 51% of the population can vote to take it away at any time? Sure, you can impose limits on the power of the mob to preserve freedom, but if the limits actually work and aren't ignored by elected psychopaths, they could equally well be imposed on any form of government. Surely the whole concept of limiting democracy is a clear admission that it doesn't work?

People often claim that democracy has lead to more freedom, but that's not because the free countries are democratic, it's precisely because their democracy was deliberately limited to prevent mob rule. America, for example, allowed the Federal government only a small number of powers and restricted the vote to a small fraction of the population. As the voting base increased and the government stole more powers than it was given, that freedom has been vanishing at an ever-increasing rate.

Think about it for a moment. 51% of the population are of average intelligence or lower, and 51% are of average income or lower. That means the stupid can always out-vote the intelligent, and the poor can always out-vote the rich. So even in the best case, democracy without voting restrictions becomes dumbocracy, rule by the poor and stupid.

The poor, of course, will generally vote to steal money from their richer neighbours. And since the very rich can always move to a lower-tax nation, that means that the middle class end up working to pay for welfare and services to the poor. Thus democracy sets out to destroy the very people who make a stable society possible. And this is 'freedom'?

Thanks to mass voting and mass media, democracy now selects for charismatic psychopaths who can lie well and look good while doing so. Other forms of government may raise such people to positions of power, but only in democracy is psychopathy almost a requirement. In addition, other forms of government often have methods of quickly eliminating such leaders; a psychopathic monarch, for example, is likely to be removed from power by his own family rather than risk the entire family being deposed by the people.

Monarchs also know that they will be handing the country to their descendants when they die, which gives them a strong incentive to preserve it as a viable nation so they have something worthwhile to hand over. Democratic leaders know they will only serve a short time and they will pass on nothing; this gives them a strong incentive to loot everything they can and leave only a shell to the party that replaces them. Why should they care what happens after they've moved abroad and are relegated to the lecture circuit?

Another of the problems of democracy is that any group can eventually take control by the simple expedient of out-breeding the competition. This is being demonstrated right now in many Western nations where the feminised native population is growing slowly or actually declining, while Muslim immigrants are breeding rapidly. The Labour party won a majority of seats in the British government at the last election with the votes of 22% of the population; so if a group chooses to vote on ethnic or religious lines, even a large minority can take power.

Similarly, democratic governments have a vested interest in increasing their voting base. If a government is losing voting share, it has a strong incentive to bring in large numbers of immigrants who will vote for it. If a government relies on the votes of the poor and deprived to gain power, then it has a strong incentive to increase the amount of poverty and deprivation, rather than to reduce it!

Now, this is not to say that democracy is all bad. Among small groups trying to make a decision that will have little negative impact on the losers, a simple vote may be the best option; but when one group can vote to steal the income of others, democracy rapidly degenerates into a war of all against all as every group tries to steal the most from the rest. Surely freedom should be more important than democracy?

Think about it for a moment. If you go on vacation and stay in a hotel, do you choose to stay in a hotel where the other guests can vote on how much you will pay for your room and what you can do during your stay, or do you choose to stay where the owner sets the rates and conditions and you either agree or go elsewhere?

If you wouldn't accept democracy for a hotel stay on vacation, why do you accept it every day in the country where you live? Why should countries be run less competently than hotels?

Saturday, 21 April 2007

I am woman, hear me whine

"IT managers fear growing technical gender gap"

one example of what some attendees said could become a major problem for organizations – the alarming number of women who are currently abandoning IT jobs like storage administration that require workers to be on-call at virtually all hours.

I bet a lot of men aren't exactly thrilled at the prospect of being on call at all hours either, but plenty will do the jobs that these women refuse to do. So what's the problem?

“IT is very much a culture and it consumes a lot of time,” said Brunette. ”I think women in that regard are at a real disadvantage.” She noted that companies can fail to attract female workers, or see them leave key IT jobs because they fail “to provide day care at work, or work-at-home options for someone who leaves to have a child.”

Yes dear, that's why IT pays better than jobs which don't 'consume a lot of time'. The question is, so what? If women aren't willing to do the same job as men, why should companies want to 'attract' them to the jobs? Why should companies care about 'losing' these women from these jobs, if they're not actually willing to do the job they're hired to do?

Lisa Johnson, manager of systems at Irvine, Calif.-based media company Freedom Communications Inc., and an IT administrator for the past 15 years, said that she believes women in IT can provide a crucial balance within groups. “Men are usually fascinated by technology, where women take it as a tool to enhance what they’re doing,” Johnson said. “Women are definitely more communicative.”

Now, let's see. If you're an IT company and you want to hire someone to keep your servers running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, which would you prefer? Someone who's 'fascinated by technology', or someone who 'takes it as a tool to enhance what they're doing' and refuses to be on call outside office hours?

I think the answer is obvious, don't you? This is precisely the reason why there is a 'gender gap' in IT, because men are far more interested in the technology than women. So why should we care that there are less women working in IT than men? What 'crucial balance' are they supposed to be providing?

How can women complain that they're not treated equally, and then complain when they are treated equally? It's no wonder American IT companies are outsourcing so much work to countries where the field hasn't been infested with women who expect to be paid the same as men for doing less work. I'm sure there are plenty of men in India willing to keep servers running 24/7 for a fraction of the amount that American women demand for doing a lesser job.

Friday, 20 April 2007

Foolish War in Iraq

Martin van Creveld, one of the most respected contemporary military historians, has called the invasion of Iraq "the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them." For those who aren't military scholars, he was referring to a Roman expedition into Germany which was ambushed by 'barbarians' and essentially wiped out. Fighting continued for a few years afterwards, but the barbarians beat off the Roman 'superpower' and this was the end of Roman expansion east across Europe... a few centuries later, those barbarians were in charge of Rome.

In the next couple of years something similar will happen to America as its troops are withdrawn from Iraq, the 'World's Last Superpower' defeated by 'barbarians' with AK-47s, RPGs and cell phones. This is inevitable for a very simple reason; the occupation of Iraq is a vanity war for Americans, but a matter of life and death for Iraqis. America gains nothing from the continual occupation, Americans are already tired of it and Bush will be lucky to hold off the withdrawal until after the next election so he can blame his successor.

There was never any serious American interest in Iraq, which is precisely why the US government had to lie to justify the invasion. There were no nuclear weapons ready to be used at short notice, and there was no al Qaeda presence worth noting. Sure, Saddam Hussein was a thug, but only a thug could hold Iraq together, and he was no worse than many leaders America supports (just as it previously supported him). Yes, maybe he provided some money to terrorist groups, but most of the radical Islamic groups in the UK appear to be funded by Saudi Arabia, supposedly our ally.

When the Americans do pull out, with thousands of American troops dead and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, what will anyone have gained? The only real winners will be the American corporations who suck at the Pentagon's tax-funded teats, the Shi'ite leaders, who are largely backed by Iran, which is supposed to be our enemy, and the radical Islamic insurgents who will gain a huge amount of prestige by defeating a Superpower. Encouraged by that success, what will stop them from taking their battle to other nations in the region, which we currently rely on for oil?

Some have claimed that the war was fought to steal Iraq's oil, but we'd have saved a lot of money by just buying it. Others have claimed it was fought for Israel, but van Creveld is an Israeli and he's called for Bush to be impeached for invading Iraq. Others that it was intended to 'shock and awe' America's enemies into surrender, but it's merely proven that America's incredibly expensive military is a paper tiger that can't even defeat a third-rate opponent. Others believe that Bush deliberately wants to start WWIII in the Middle East to fulfil Biblical prophecies and bring about Armageddon.

Unfortunately, the reality is probably far worse; Bush is a cheerleader with nukes. Just as Rome in decline was run by lunatics and fourth-rate leaders who could never have managed to build up such an Empire, so is modern America. As the country goes into deep decline, Iraq will be the furthest that the American Empire spreads into the Middle East before the Empire itself falls apart.

Military historians of the future will probably have even less flattering opinions of the invasion of Iraq than van Creveld.

Wednesday, 18 April 2007

Marrying losers

Another unusual thing I've noticed among my thirty-something female friends is the number who've ended up marrying losers who can't hold down a job, take out big debts in their wife's name, father a kid or two and then get divorced; the male equivalent of the female gold-digger. The 'successful' women haven't sunk that low, but several of the normal women in normal jobs have.

I can only presume that this is a further consequence of the destruction of marriage. 'Good men' who make a decent living and won't rip off their wives can no longer afford to get married because divorce has become enslavement, whereas male losers will benefit from having their wife buy them a new car and a big TV and pay to raise their kids... with no morals and little income, the fathers aren't going to be paying. These women are so desperate for kids that they'll settle for any man who can get them pregnant, even if it means huge long-term financial costs.

It's sad really, but just another way in which feminism has hurt women far more than men.

Friday, 30 March 2007

The Knowledge Economy

Academics call time on 'illiterate' students

Britain, we're told, is going to replace its manufacturing economy with finance (moving money from one account to another and skimming a percentage off the top) and our glorious new 'knowledge economy' where 50% of kids go to university and get a degree.

But there's a problem.

Lecturers at some of the new universities are calling for a public debate on standards because they say functionally illiterate students are being passed so they do not drop out of courses.

Now, let's get this right. They've spent nearly fifteen years in school, but at the end they're functionally illiterate. If schools can't teach people to be literate in more than a decade of schooling, what the hell are they doing?

But it gets worse. These aren't just any students, these are among the 50% of students whose grades are high enough to get a place at a university.

And they're functionally illiterate.

What does that say about the 50% whose grades are too low?

But it gets worse.

Lecturers at Bournemouth and Teesside universities have complained that their fail grades were reversed to enable students to stay on.

So these students are functionally illiterate, and their work is being marked accordingly. But instead of failing the course, their grades are being increased so they pass!

At least if they failed they might have an incentive to learn how to read and write. Passing them merely serves to further devalue the university's degrees as they graduate illiterate students who will have no hope in the real world.

But this is where the real world conflicts with the government's policy of pushing 50% of kids into university and making them pay for it. These kids have paid thousands of pounds for their course... what are they going to do if they don't get a degree at the end of it?

Thanks to Labour, the whole British schooling system is a failure from top to bottom. Kids are coming out of school with decent grades even though they're illiterate. That is bad enough in itself, but now illiteracy is no longer considered to disqualify them from receiving their degree.

The end result of grade inflation and 'everyone must pass' grading is that many recent graduates are dumb as rocks. And this is the basis for a 'knowledge economy'?

Thursday, 29 March 2007

The Demise of Western Government

The two most important tasks of a government are to protect the borders from invaders and to protect the people from criminals inside those borders.

But is there a single Western government which can be said to do either of those things effectively, despite the massive taxes they now take from us? They keep demanding more power, and more money, yet do less and less with it.

Crime is exploding around the Western world because the decent people have been disarmed and are prosecuted if they try to defend themselves. The borders are undefended, because 'multiculturalism' and 'anti-racism' has made illegal immigration seem a minor misdemeanour.

America, for example, claims to be fighting a 'War on Terror', yet the border with Mexico is porous and the government refuses to take effective action to protect it or to throw out the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country. How can anyone take them seriously when they spend more money on 'Defence' than any nation in the history of the world, yet allow millions of invaders into their country?

Britain is 'fighting crime' with a rapidly growing high-tech police state of cameras, databases and -- soon -- ID cards, yet crime rates continue to rise. The police concentrate their high-tech powers on such dangerous crimes as speeding or driving without paying road tax, while the streets become ever less safe and property crimes like burglary are ignored.

The only kind of crime that modern governments seem to care about is tax evasion by the middle class, and the only kind of defence they seem to care about is defending the politicians from the people. How long can a nation survive when the borders are open, crime is ever increasing, and the politicians no longer trust the people they supposedly represent?

Wednesday, 28 March 2007

Patriachal Empowerment

Feminists like to talk about how feminism has empowered them.

Viewed on a global scale and relative to its competition, the single most powerful society in the history of the world was the British Empire of the 19th century. It controlled 25% of the land and most of the oceans, making it far more powerful even than modern America.

And it was run by?

Queen Victoria.

Who, I should add for the benefit of dumb feminists, was a woman, and no fan of feminism:

"Were woman to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection"

I think history has proven her correct, don't you?

So, 'patriachal' society empowered Queen Victoria to run most of the world in the most powerful Empire the Earth has ever seen. Now feminism empowers women to be predatory divorce lawyers and third-rate firefighters.

Bit of a come-down, don't you think?

Tuesday, 27 March 2007

Buy Cat Food

I've been friends with several supposedly successful women in the last decade or so; at least as friendly as you can be with a species who'll use you for whatever they can get and then turn on you for the slightest imagined insult.

One thing I've noticed is that as they've grown older and more successful, most have ended up living alone with cats; either giving up on men or complaining that they can't find a 'good man' who wants to marry them.

Now, I've nothing against successful women so long as they're successful on their own merits and not because they were promoted over a more talented man. But doesn't it seem odd that their idea of success excludes the single biggest thing that a woman can do and a man can't: having babies?

The problem, I believe, is that feminist women simply don't understand men, and I admit that's hardly a surprise when they're mostly parroting an ideology created by raving lesbians. They have some understanding of their own female nature, because that's all they think about most of the time, and they imagine that lets them understand men too: after all, differences between sexes are purely cultural, aren't they?

What most women seem to want is casual, uncommitted relationships with 'bad boys' in their twenties and then marriage to a rich and successful man in their thirties who'll pay for their kids and a maid to look after them... typically followed by a fat divorce settlement from the same man in their forties.

Now, don't get me wrong. Men love sluts, and particularly rich sluts. But they sure don't want to marry one. A woman typically picks a man to marry because he's more successful than her and will provide for her and her kids. A man, on the other hand, typically wants a good mother for his kids, since in a world full of sluts he no longer has any other reason to marry. He wants someone who is faithful, looks after herself, will bring the kids up well and do what she can to make him happy as a small recompense for his acceptances of slaving away to support her and her progeny... and, last of all, someone who isn't going to divorce him on a whim, stealing most of his money and his kids. If he wanted to marry a second-rate man, he could just go gay.

A female lawyer might have a one-night stand with the twenty-year old mechanic who fixes her car, but she'd almost never consider marrying him. A male lawyer, on the other hand, would certainly consider marrying the attractive and bubbly twenty-year old waitress who flirts with him and provides service well beyond the call of duty every time he visits her restaurant.

The result is that a successful woman either gets really lucky, has one-night stands with 'bad boys' until she becomes a single mother and quite possibly loses her successful job, abandons her dream of 'the right one' and lives unhappily with some poor guy who'll she'll always inwardly despise... or settles for the cats.

I remember one of my successful women friends who'd been hitting on me then boasting about how she'd been asked to go on a trip with a rich guy on his yacht... needless to say, she wasn't hitting on me anymore. Then a few days later she was complaining that he'd stood her up. Most likely, I imagine, because he'd found some twenty year old who looked much better in a bikini than a thirty-ish career woman and would be much more fun to have around.

So as women become more successful in law, politics, academia, finance, 'human resources' and similar areas -- and note how much they grativate towards jobs that are parasitic on the real economy, not actual productive jobs like engineering or mining -- there are going to be a lot of single women in their thirties and older living alone with their cats as surrogate children.

The logical female response would be to forget 'success' and concentrate on giving men something they want. Instead, most will continue to be 'empowered' until they're empowered into childless and lonely old age, whining to any young girls still dumb enough to listen about the evils of men and telling them they should be 'empowered' and 'successful' themselves.

The logical male response, of course, is to invest in cat food companies, to live free and well off the earnings of rich feminists with surrogate kids to feed.

Monday, 26 March 2007

Marriage Enslaves Men

A few weeks ago I was reading a thread on a forum totally unconnected with feminism, where one of the female posters made a snide comment in one of her posts about how 'marriage enslaved and oppressed women... but let's not go off topic here'.

Now, we'll ignore the typical way that a feminist felt the right to make such a claim and then imply that no-one else should have any right to respond to it because that would take the thread 'off-topic'; so she could have her say without having to get into any kind of discussion. Instead, let's just look at the absurdity of such a claim.

Feminists such as the poster mentioned believe that men only married women so that those EVIL men could enslave their wife and oppress her. Isn't that just about the dumbest thing anyone has ever spouted to the world?

Imagine for a moment that you're a man and you like enslaving and oppressing women, so you create an institution that's intended solely to allow you do to so, and call it 'marriage'.

Does anyone in their right mind think that a man would willingly choose to tie himself to just one woman for life in order to enslave and oppress her, while having to turn down every other woman in the world? And does even someone who could believe that absurdity believe that he would enslave that woman but not allow himself to replace her when he got bored?

This is typical self-centered feminist thinking. Only a feminist could believe that she is so important that a man would sacrifice access to every other woman in the world _solely in order to enslave her_. To anyone who thinks about the situation seriously, the whole claim is crazy.

Instead, let's think about traditional marriage for a moment. The man and women marry. The woman then stays at home, has kids, raises them, cooks dinner, cleans the house, and spends the rest of the time chatting to her friends. The man goes out, spends his day digging coal down a mine, assembling cars, or clearing shit blockages in the sewers, and comes home worn out but with money to keep his family alive.

Who is the slave here? Who is being oppressed? The woman who's paid to stay at home and raise her kids, or the man who's having to spend his life doing things that not only would he not willingly choose to do, but which actively put his life at risk?

Hopefully the answer is obvious.

Now, that's not to say that men and women didn't both benefit from marriage. Women got to have kids and had a husband who'd support her while she did so. Men got to have kids with a good chance that they were his own, and his wife did the house-work so he didn't have to when he slumped down in his arm-chair covered in coal-dust or knocked back the first martini of the night after a day travelling door-to-door trying to sell brushes to house-wives. Marriage worked, which is why it was the norm for thousands of years before feminists decided to destroy it... but let's not have any illusions about who was being enslaved.

So please, cut the crap. When a woman claims that marriage enslaved and oppressed women, the only sensible solution is to laugh at them for believing such an absurd notion.

Sunday, 25 March 2007

Feminists hate women

There's something I've never understood about feminism. You'd imagine that 'feminism' would be an ideology aiming to produce better women. Yet what feminists actually appear to want is to turn women into second-rate men.

Think about that for a moment. If there was a 'masculinism' movement, it would be about men wanting to be smarter, tougher and more masculine, not about men wanting to become second-rate women. We'd be demanding free porn and beer, compulsory football, and hookers on the National Health Service, not our right to be Victoria's Secret bikini models.

So why is that feminists spend most of their time whining about how EVIL men won't let them do traditionally male jobs just because they're less able? That, for example, a hundred pound woman can't get a job as a firefighter, where she may be expected to carry a three-hundred pound woman out of a burning house? Or that she can't join the Army and go to the front lines to be shot at and killed?

Now, I realise this is a rhetorical question and that the more vocal feminists are probably raving, predatory lesbians with penis envy, but what I don't understand is why so few people find this strange? How did we ever get into a state where hatred of women by women is 'politically correct'?

Saturday, 24 March 2007

EUSSR is getting old

So apparently the EU is fifty, and apparently it's something worth celebrating:

Actually, they're probably right. It's hard to see how the EU will survive to be sixty, and that would certainly be something worth celebrating. Far from being beneficial to the people of Europe, the EU is just another bloated socialist scam attempting to rebuild the Soviet Union in Western Europe. It's a colossal intrusive bureaucracy that adds vast amounts of new regulation while sucking up vast amounts of taxpayers' money to keep vast numbers of worthless bureaucrats in cushy jobs.

That in itself wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't determined to destroy local cultures. We're told that 'diversity is strength', and yet the EU plan is to eliminate diversity by filling every country with immigrants from every other, creating some bland Europeanism instead. Even that wouldn't be so bad if criminals and welfare-seekers from the poor countries weren't flocking to the rich countries to take advantage of their 'rights' to rob the natives, either directly by mugging them or indirectly by claiming welfare.

Then we have the Euro with interest rates set for Germany's weak economy which cause massive credit-fuelled inflation in countries where those rates are way too low. Irish house prices have exploded over the last few years thanks to cheap credit, and now that rates are rising to suit Germany, that cheap credit is suddenly becoming a bankrupting liability. Either a large fraction of the Irish population will be stuck with debts they can't repay, or a generation of kids will be unable to ever think of buying a house. Neither is a good choice.

How much longer can it be before the people of Europe say 'enough!' and mean it? The USSR didn't quite last seventy years... something tells me that the EUSSR won't even last that long.

Sunday, 18 March 2007

Where did it all go wrong?

I don't know quite when it happened, but somewhere in the last twenty years I must have fallen through a wormhole from the real world to an absurdist parody of it. Growing up all those years ago the world seemed like it made at least some sense, and anyone who had predicted many of the political and economic changes to come would have been looking at a career as a comedian.

I still hope that one day I'll wake up and discover that the past decade or more has been just an extended dream. But until that time, I can only hope to chronicle some of the absurdity that we're facing until enough others wake up to start to bring some sanity back to a world that's been turned into comedy by 'political correctness', 'feminism', 'multiculturalism' and all the other ills that have been visited on us in that time.