The Lawless World

Pat Nurse was right: the pub smoking room proposal has been removed from UKIP’s manifesto. I suppose that it’s no surprise that this happened as soon as Nigel Farage stepped down as UKIP leader: it was probably only his personal intervention as a smoker and drinker that ensured it was in their manifesto in the first place. But it means that there’s now no UK party that speaks for me, who is also a smoker and a drinker.

But why should UKIP’s members vote for something they themselves don’t want? Isn’t the law whatever people want it to be? And so, if the city councillors of Laguna Beach want smoking to be banned everywhere, why shouldn’t it be banned, if that’s what they want?

The Laguna Beach City Council approved a ban Tuesday on smoking and vaping in all public spaces, making it the city with the strictest smoking laws in Orange County.

The new ordinance bans smoking throughout the city including sidewalks, alleys and common areas of apartment complexes.

A fine of $100 would be given for the first violation and up to $500 for the third.

The city already prohibits smoking at beaches and parks.

And if they want to ban drinking anywhere in Laguna Beach, or the colour yellow, or mini-skirts, or books, or the word “bananas”, why shouldn’t they ban them? And slap $100 fines on the first violation? Isn’t the law just the enforcement of people’s personal preferences?

I’ve got my own personal preferences about lots of things. And if I were to make my own personal preferences into law, I’d ban celery. I’d ban celery because I can’t stand celery. I can’t even stand the sight of other people eating it. And I’d ban fruitcake too. I like fruit, and I like cake, but I don’t like fruit – raisins or sultanas – inside cakes. I think it’s unnatural. So I’d ban that too. And I’d ban Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen. In fact, I’d hunt down every vinyl disc or CD of it, and have them burned. It’s a stupid song that keeps turning into another stupid song. And I’d also ban Slade’s Merry Christmas Everybody. We seem to have endured this piece of music in Britain for about the last 200 years. And I think I’d ban Christmas as well, or at least the commercial spending-binge Christmas season that now seems to start in October and go on until December 25. I wouldn’t ban the religious Christmas, with all the cribs and Virgin Marys and angels and Wise Men. I’d just ban all the santas and Christmas trees and Yule Logs and snowmen and reindeer.

And why shouldn’t I just make my own personal preferences into law? Why shouldn’t I make people do what I want? After all, isn’t what I want the only thing that really matters? Isn’t it all about me, me, me, and then again – after a short pause – me? Isn’t this increasingly how laws are actually made anyway? The councillors of Laguna Beach don’t like smoking, and so they ban it. Good for them.

But if laws are to simply be people’s personal preferences, that would mean that the laws would be continually changing, as different people made their own personal preferences into law. One day smoking would be banned, the next day bubblegum, and then trousers, and then spinning tops. And as one new ban came into force, the previous bans would probably be lifted. So when the spinning top ban came into force, the trouser ban would be lifted, because whoever didn’t like spinning tops actually quite liked trousers.

And so if the law is to simply reflect personal preferences, it will become chaotic. And it will become unpredictable. People will not know what the ever-changing laws currently actually are. And if nobody knows what the laws are, it has become a lawless world.

Or what about Wildwood’s upcoming smoking ban.

What I find most obnoxious about what Wildwood is doing is while the law doesn’t start until January 1st, officials say they’ll be asking people to put out their cigarettes this summer. Really? You’re going to send your police officers up to people who aren’t yet breaking any law and ask them to stop what they’re doing? “Hey, it’s not illegal yet, I can’t do anything yet, but can you just do us this small favor and put out the cigarette anyway?”

Why bother to make your own personal preferences into law, if you can just send in the police to tell people to stop smoking (or anything else you don’t like), regardless of whether there is or isn’t any law currently in force? Why not entirely dispense with the silly business of making laws, and just get your own goon squads to enforce whatever you happen to dislike that day?

And doesn’t making lots and lots of laws, about everything and anything, also serve to debase the law? One good thing about the Ten Commandments is that there are only ten of them, and most people might (once have been) reasonably be expected to know what they are. It also helps that they are written in stone, and so can be expected to not change from time to time. But if there were Ten Thousand Commandments, who could possibly be expected to know what they all were? And when nobody knows what the law is, has not law become valueless?

A society in which laws multiply, and in which the laws represent the personal preferences of the legislators, is one which has become lawless. It could not be one in which people could possibly be law-abiding. How can people be law-abiding if they don’t know what the law is?

And what would a lawless world be like? Most likely it would be one in which brute force ruled. In London and other cities, some years ago, street gangs would mark out their territories with graffiti that read “Our Gang Rules OK” or similar. We are approaching the point where the next piece of legislation to be enacted in parliament will be appear on a small piece of paper on which is written “Tory Gang Rules OK” or “Labour Gang Rules OK.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 46 Comments

The Internet, Government Hyper-regulation, and 0% Interest Rates

I was thinking this morning about all the large changes I’ve seen over the past 10 years or so. And there were three main differences I could discern.

  1. Technological: The rise of the internet.
  2. Legal: Government hyper-regulation (e.g. smoking bans)
  3. Economic: Zero interest rates.

Might these events be connected? If so, what connects them?

I’ll start with economics and zero interest rates. And I’ll use Idle Theory as the connecting idea.

Most people think of economies as making and distributing physical stuff: cars, houses, carpets, clothes, food, music, etc, with economic growth meaning Having More Stuff. But in Idle Theory an economy is seen primarily as something that reduces human work, and increases human idleness. All the technological innovations throughout history, starting with the flint axe and the wheel and the candle, and continuing with steam engines and aircraft and satellites and computers, have really only ever served to reduce human labour, and increase human idleness. Economic growth isn’t really growth in the amount of stuff we’ve got, but growth in idleness. Economic growth means life gets easier. But it also means that there’s a maximum degree of idleness that can be attained: 100% or perfect idleness, when nobody has to do anything in order to survive, and further growth is impossible.

In normal historical times (i.e. the past 10,000 years) economic growth has been painfully slow, but with the great burst of technological innovation that began with the industrial revolution of the last few centuries, economic growth has accelerated. And interest rates very roughly measure the economic growth rate, the rate of increase in idleness. If bank interest rates are high, depositors will keep their cash in banks. And if they’re low, they’ll invest their money in profitable, idleness-increasing enterprises – cars, computers, roads, etc – where they can get a better return. So interest rates reflect underlying growth rates.

But for the last 10 years we’ve had bank interest rates at 0%, which ought to have stimulated new enterprises, but seems not to have done so. Why’s that? And one possibility is that we’ve begun to approach 100% idleness, and it’s getting more and more difficult to increase idleness further. The real underlying economic growth rate is approaching zero. And that’s why we’ve got zero interest rates.

Now onto the internet.

Economic growth is driven by technological innovation – flint axes, wheels, steam engines, satellites, etc. And what has been the latest big human technological innovation? The internet.

The internet has brought about a communications revolution. 30 years ago, if I’d wanted to speak for an hour with somebody in Boston from my home in England, I could have done it, but it would have been very expensive. I can’t remember what international call rates were back then, but I’d guess that an hour long phone call to Boston would have cost several hundred pounds.

But now I can not only talk to Emily in Boston for hours, but I can also see her, and it costs me nothing at all. Or next to nothing at all. And I can also store videos of these conversations on YouTube for nothing at all as well. Furthermore I can buy stuff online on the internet. Just yesterday I bought a meerschaum pipe, which will arrive in a few days time. The internet is changing the way trade is conducted. Do we need shops and stores any more? It’s changing international relations (or at least Anglo-Bostonian international relations). And it’s changing the way news media operate, as more and more news is disseminated instantly all over the world, making local news organisations like the New York Times or the London Times redundant. Do we need newspapers any more? And it’s changing the way education is being done: I can now watch Richard Feynman lecturing on Quantum Mechanics. Do we need schools and universities any more?

We’ve now got free global instant communication. And so at least in respect of communication technology we’ve achieved near-perfect idleness, in ways we haven’t yet managed with transportation and most other industries. So the internet has brought (and is still bringing) a very large step increase in idleness. And no further increase is possible.

And now onto government hyper-regulation.

Why are governments everywhere getting bigger and bigger? One possible explanation is that as social idleness rises, and fewer and fewer people are engaged in productive work (making stuff), more and more people become engaged in unproductive work in government (which makes next to nothing). As the economic engine becomes more efficient at freeing people from work, it can be taxed more and more heavily by government, and these government taxes are used to grow the government, as new departments of this and departments of that and ministries of X and Y and Z are added. I’m not sure, but I suspect that the British MI5 and MI6 are named after rooms 5 and 6 in the the Ministry of Information. A hundred years ago, room 5 of the Ministry of Information was probably occupied by a man called Carruthers who spent his days filling out the Times crossword. But now it’s got its own headquarters and even its own flashy website (which almost certainly means it needs its own web designers as part of its IT department). I can well imagine that it has thousands of employees. And the same is true of every other government department, both at national and local government level.

And what does government spend its time doing? It spends its time governing. And governing means watching and controlling and regulating. And so as government expands, there is more and more surveillance, and more and more rules and regulations. Five hundred years ago there was probably fewer than 1 person in 100 who worked in government. Now we seem to be heading towards a circumstance where 99 people in every 100 are working in government, and all of  them regulating the conduct of the one remaining person doing any useful, productive work.

And as government grows it always needs to find new things to regulate that nobody ever tried to regulate before. And so we have bans on smoking in pubs, and regulations on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

But all these multiplying rules and regulations don’t make life easier for people: they invariably make life harder for them. And as they make life harder for everyone, they stifle innovation. And as they stifle innovation, they slow and stall economic growth. In fact, they may even produce negative economic growth, and decreasing idleness. Just imagine what would happen if you had an idea for a new means of transportation that used a metal frame with a wheel at each end, and pedals to turn the back wheel via a chain. Do you think you’d get that one past Health and Safety regulations? Not a chance.

So here’s how it all ties together: The technological innovation of (among other things) the internet has resulted in a step increase in human idleness, and a corresponding step increase in the size of government and the scale of government regulation. The step increase in restrictive government legislation has actually exceeded the step increase in idleness (and freedom) brought by technological innovation. So that’s why we’re enjoying 0% interest rates, and will most likely soon be seeing negative interest rates.

What’s probably needed is technological innovation in government. At present the British people get one chance every 5 years or so to elect a new government (we’ve got one in two weeks time). So they effectively have no say in their government at all. But if, thanks to the internet, we no longer need shops, newspapers, schools or universities, why do we still need parliaments and congresses and senates? Why not have have e-parliaments and e-parties in which everyone can e-vote, and which is conducted as efficiently and minimally as online shopping? That way we might begin to reduce the size of government, and halt and reverse the tide of hyper-regulation, restore economic growth,and start to see positive interest rates again.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 18 Comments


I bought a couple of expensive wine glasses last week. I wanted them for the transgressive videos I was planning to make with Emily, which were to feature us both (and other people as well) ostentatiously smoking and drinking and talking. I’m thinking of including eating in the list of transgressive acts. Particularly eating ‘forbidden’ foods like chocolates, cream cakes, or cheeseburgers.

Anyway, I thought that drinking from a large, shapely wine glass was probably more transgressive than drinking from a simple glass or tumbler. It had me thinking that smoking cigars and pipes is more transgressively in-your-face than smoking cigarettes.

What, for example, could be more transgressive than smoking a meerschaum pipe like this?

Particularly when this particular pipe is even smoking its own little pipe. One might imagine an infinity of meerschaum pipes that are each one smoking their own meerschaum pipes, with faint plumes of smoke arising from each and every one

Cigarettes are very discreet, and almost invisible in comparison with such a huge work of art as the pipe above. Imagine lighting up that fucker in a crowded room, with a mushroom cloud of smoke ascending from its bowl with each puff.

So why was it that it was against cigarettes that the war on smoking was first launched, with cigars and pipes initially exempted from the onslaught? Shouldn’t it have been the other way round?

Cigars and pipes are slow and heavy and relatively expensive ways of smoking tobacco. Cigarettes are quick and cheap and light. The cigarette, I often think, is the military way of smoking. Cigarettes come in minimalist packs just like bullets come in clips. And both bullets and cigarettes get fired. The chain-smoker almost mimics the machine gun, with one tab following another into the firing chamber. Which suggests that true chain-smokers should keep their cigarettes in belts or bandoliers, the cigarette butts from which would be sprayed out sideways like spent bullet cases from machine guns.

Maybe cigarettes were reviled because they were quick and cheap and light, and made smoking an ubiquitous popular pastime. Much like vinyl records made music into an ubiquitous popular product, freed from the concert halls where it had classically been consumed. Hasn’t cheap pop music always been regarded as inferior to expensive classical music?

And I smoke the cheapest of cheap cigarettes: roll-ups. And I even use the cheapest of cheap filters in my cheap roll-ups: I use bits of scrunched-up paper. How cheap can you get? How low can you go?

And maybe hookers are reviled because they’re cheap women who can be bought for a few dollars on a street corner. And respectable married women are respected because they sell themselves dear with elaborate marriage contracts. And nuns are respected most highly of all, because they are priceless. Each is valued according to the price that is placed upon them, just like cigarettes and pipes and cigars. Or wine glasses. Or anything else.

And yet, if I were to arrive in some city somewhere, I wouldn’t go looking for the company of nuns. Nor that of respectable married women. I like the company of girls who smoke cigarettes, drink beer, cuss loudly and profanely, and wear lipstick and mascara and mini-skirts and high heels. In short, I prefer the company of hookers to that of nuns. And, above all, I like the company of those cheapest of cheap hookers: the ones who will give out for a couple of beers and a bag of chips and an evening of music and conversation.

One might say that the sexual revolution of the sixties was the result of a catastrophic collapse in the price of sex. And if there were no longer many hookers on the streets of London in the 1960s (I never saw any at all) as there had been in the 1940s or before, it was because they were being undercut by an army of hot mini-skirted chicks who would have sex for next to nothing.

And if, when visiting Paris in the mid-1970s, I saw lots of elegant prostitutes as I walked through Pigalle, it was because the same thing had yet to happen in Paris as it had in London.

And if migrants from Morocco and Tunisia become rapists in Paris or Brussels or Berlin, it’s perhaps because they find themselves surrounded by cheap hookers, and they can’t be bothered to pay even the lowest of prices for them, and so steal them instead. For rapists, the price of sex is zero. And if they have complete contempt for the women they rape, it’s because they value them according to their price.

All of which will most likely serve to drive up the price of sex, and cause hemlines to fall, high heels to vanish, and parents to lock up their daughters – and prostitutes to re-appear on the streets.

Which is probably exactly what the pinch-faced puritans in Lifestyle Control want to see happen, just like the pinch-faced puritans in Tobacco Control want to drive the price of tobacco through the stratosphere.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 31 Comments

Another Day, Another Bomb

Another day, another bomb.

In the Guardian report on it today, there was no mention of either the words “islam” or “muslim”. Although the Telegraph did include a mention:

​Islamic State supporters celebrate Manchester attack online

It has all the hallmarks of islamic terrorism, but the mainstream media will bend over backwards not to mention it, all in the name of “multiculturalism”. And if anyone is arrested in connection with it, no mention will be made that he’s called “Mohammed”, or that he came from Syria or Tunisia.

All of which makes the state and the mainstream media more or less complicit in these crimes. Much as they are complicit in failing to report the accompanying multiple rapes throughout Europe by the migrant muslims that have been invited in their millions by the likes of Angela Merkel.

The bombing took place at a pop concert, and so, like the Bataclan massacre, was an act of cultural war. It was directed at young people having a good time. But what isn’t cultural war these days? ZeroHedge happens to have a piece about exactly that.

It should be clear to all reasoning people with the ability for critical thinking that a pattern of cultural warfare has been unfolding against the Western world since at least the end of World War Two. The contrast between what was then and what is now is stark and frightening. It should serve as all the evidence we require to make the final determination about what has been happening.

The complete destruction of the traditional family unit has taken place through a process of indirect and direct attacks against the proven characteristics of Western civilization. It should be obvious that media and art have orchestrated a well-thought out strategy of cultural warfare against the masculine and feminine ideals and support columns of culture.

This strategy has attacked the natural and instinctual strengths of both men and women while promoting the weakness from within each of us as individuals. The battles of this cultural attack have been orchestrated and waged from inside the once great structures of Western thought.

Our educational buildings and curriculums have been used to erode and shatter all the ideals of natural and instinctual existence which have developed within the Western mind. The more we remember and rediscover, the more we realize that almost everything which is taught in our schools is either a corrupt twisted version of truth, or is an outright lie and fabrication.

And of course smoking bans are another form of cultural warfare. They set out, on the flimsiest of excuses – “health” -, to destroy a convivial culture. And this is being done with the full approval of the government, the medical profession, the mainstream media, and all the Tobacco Control departments in the universities.

The global warming scare is another form of cultural war, this time being waged against industry and transport, the economic backbones of Western civilisation. Once again it’s governments, the mainstream media, and the universities that are conducting this war.

The idea, as far as I can see, is that if you can comprehensively demolish a culture in every possible respect – economic, industrial, political, social, religious, national, sexual – you will then be able to construct a new society from the rubble. And of course the demolition of the old culture is an essential prelude to building any new society.

The whole scheme is barmy cultural Marxism, of course, and is doomed to failure. If nothing else, the social and political and economic disintegration that this cultural war creates will undermine the very institutions that are conducting this war: the government, the universities, the professions, and the mainstream media, all of which are dependent, partly or wholly, on tax revenues which will be vanishing as the disintegration progresses. That is to say that the parasitical cultural Marxists in governments and universities and professions ae busily sawing off the branch on which they’re sitting.

And the peoples on which they are waging their multi-pronged cultural wars will be becoming ever more united, more determined, and more angry, at the vandalism being inflicted on them. And that’s why populism and nationalism are on the rise, and will continue to rise, and will eventually result in revolutions in which the madcap Marxists in the cultural institutions are evicted, and all the institutions radically reformed, in what will amount to a restoration of traditional cultural values, and a new renaissance.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 19 Comments

Half a Bottle of Pinot Grigio

I spent a long time talking to Emily on Skype yesterday, and I recorded quite a lot of our conversation. This morning I woke up thinking about our brief discussion of veganism (and slavery). So I looked through the video recording, and found the passage, and snipped it out, and uploaded it to YouTube in side-by-side portrait format.

At first I thought that it would probably take too long to edit and upload this fragment (less than 10 minutes in duration) in time for me to write something in my blog about it, because my video editing skills are pretty minimal still.

But in fact I managed it fairly easily, so here’s the clip, in which both Emily and I are fairly ostentatiously smoking and drinking (Pinot Grigio from a newly bought wine glass for me, a bottle of beer for Emily). It begins with me discovering her first ever comment on my blog, in which she tells me that she’s a vegan:

At one point, when I ask why it’s not OK for vegans to eat animals, but OK to eat plants, I ask what the difference is, and Emily says (3:42 mins) that animals have central nervous systems, and so can feel pain. Plants don’t, so can’t.

I’ve heard this argument before, and it was what I woke up thinking about.

What is a central nervous system? It’s a communication system between the cells in an animal body and its brain. So if I stub my left little toe, my toe sends a message to my brain which says “Ouch!”, and my brain responds by sending a message to my left leg to lift my left foot, and to my right leg to take all my weight, and to my vocal chords to yell “Ouch!!”

But aren’t the cells in my left toe sending this message because they’ve been squeezed or knocked or broken? The pain must start in several cells, and they send a message along nerves to my brain. The central nervous system is a message carrier, much like the internet. Messages – like “ouch!” – are sent from one place in the nervous system to another. The central nervous system does not itself initiate the “ouch” messages, but only communicates them from one place to another, just like the internet communicates messages from one person to another.

And so in what sense are animals only able to feel pain because they have central nervous systems which are able to communicate the pain felt in their toes to their brains? The pain is felt in the toes, and communicated to the brain. And the pain messages are caused by the toes being knocked, squeezed, heated, frozen, or whatever.

And so mustn’t the cells in potatoes also experience the same painful knocking, squeezing, heating and freezing. It’s simply that they have no way to communicate their pain elsewhere, because there isn’t a nervous system in plants to communicate it elsewhere, and there is nothing to communicate it to.

Or, to shift from discussing animals and their nervous systems to discussing human societies and their communication media, does the failure or inability of smokers to communicate the pain they feel about smoking bans mean that they’re not feeling any pain? No, it doesn’t. They feel a lot of pain. But they’re unable to communicate it. Being a smoker is like being a cell inside a potato. We can’t get our pain communicated to our social ‘brain’ – the government. So they think everything’s hunky dory, when it isn’t.

Or, to go back to potatoes, just because potatoes can’t communicate their pain, and can’t say “ouch!” out loud, doesn’t mean that the cells in a potato don’t feel pain any less than animal cells feel pain.

But we happily boil potatoes and carrots and apples alive. At least with our animals we make sure they’re dead (central nervous system no longer functioning) before we boil them.

So as I see it, cooking and eating plants is just as barbaric as cooking and eating animals. But we have no choice but to do this. Much as, in antiquity, if you wanted to live an idle life – a life of leisure – you had no choice but to get slaves to do your work for you. If we no longer have slaves, it’s because we get machines to do our work for us. But for that fact, we’d still have slaves.

Anyway, it’s interesting to be able to publish a fragment of a conversation I had yesterday, and discuss it further today.

I ended up drinking half a bottle of Pinot Grigio yesterday. And that may have been what was doing most of the talking.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 39 Comments

Smokers Will Unite The World

These days it’s the common, shared experience of smokers to have been “exiled to the outdoors.” And it’s the same experience whether it happened to them in Moscow or Manchester or Melbourne. They’re all outcasts. They’ve all been tarred with the same brush.

But this shared experience is also what binds them together. It has to be a strong bond between these outcast smokers if they can feel connected to fellow smokers who live 100 miles or 3,000 miles away, whom they’ve never actually met in person, face to face.

It’s perhaps the same sort of shared experience that binds together army battalions, whose recruits all joined up more or less at the same time, and fought in the same battles against the same shared enemy over a period of years. They all used once to be bakers or bank managers or builders or something in some forgotten former life, but then they were exiled to fight on distant foreign fields.

It’s the same with school friends. The pupils in a school have the shared experience of being exiled by their parents to the same school, and being taught the same lessons by the same teachers in the same classrooms for same period of years.

I was chatting on Skype with Brigitte yesterday. She lives 100 miles away. I’ve never met her in person, face to face. But we were chattering away like old friends. And yet the only bond between us is that we’re both smokers, and both outcasts. The same thing happened to us both, on the exact same day.  We have something in common, in the same way that soldiers in an army or pupils in a school or citizens from some city have something in common.

I put up a little memorial to Harley in my right hand margin today. It felt like using the butt of a rifle to hammer a little crude wooden cross into the ground on some battlefield, and hanging his helmet on top of it, and scrawling his name on it. He was one of us. And I never met him in person either. I used the last photo of himself that he posted on his Facebook page. He was holding a rifle. US soldiers (like him) would know what kind of rifle it was. And it was how I always imagined him, even before he posted it up: an old soldier holding a rifle. Maybe sometime the memorial will link to something. Maybe it’ll link to a few of his many comments here on this blog. Maybe it’ll link to a few of his videos. But for now it just says R.I.P. HARLEY. It’s the best I can manage with a couple of sticks and a muddy rifle butt. Tomorrow our unit moves out. I’ve still got battles to fight, even if he doesn’t. I still can’t believe he’s dead.

Tobacco Control is going to find that, when it expelled smokers from society, it didn’t scatter them to oblivion as intended, but instead united them in a shared experience. And the longer and harder that experience has been for them, the more tightly they’ll be bound together. However far apart they might be, they’ll still be together. And they’ll form an invisible community around the world. And an invincible army. It’s slowly going to get stronger and stronger and stronger. And it will destroy Tobacco Control.

And the larger the army becomes, the less force it will need to win victories. We won’t need rifles. We won’t even need to march in formation. It will need just one spoken word to take down Tobacco Control, when the time for it comes. And maybe just a nod.

And one surprising effect of this, I realised this morning, will be that smokers will unite the world. Because we’re not English and German and American and Russian smokers: we’re all just smokers with the shared experience of smokers everywhere in the world. It’s not just the shared experience of smoking cigarettes or pipes or cigars, but also the shared experience, courtesy of Tobacco Control, of being reviled and rejected and robbed.

There’s been nothing like it before in the whole of human history. Fully a quarter of humanity, maybe more, is now being reviled and rejected and robbed. And when these smokers finally capture Washington and London and Tokyo, they’ll probably number over half of all humanity. Because – another prediction – there are going to be more smokers in future, not fewer. Pretty much everyone is going to smoke. And they’ll be smoking all sorts of different things.

And here’s me in England talking with Gary K in Illinois:

Posted in Uncategorized | 28 Comments

Call Judge Jeanine Pirro

I’ve been getting a bit gloomy about the presidency of Donald Trump recently. The media coverage of him seems to be nothing but Russia, Russia, Russia, Impeach, Russia. And even people outside the MSM are saying that the presidency has been taken over by Goldman Sachs and the US General Staff. They say he’s become isolated in the White House, unable to do things the way he used to before he became president, and was now surrounded by aides who leaked everything to the media the minute he left the room. Trump had been completely neutralised. The Deep State was in command. Yes, Trump was still in the White House, and he still thought he was president, but really he had been pretty much reduced  to sitting on the floor playing with bricks while the adults got on with the job of screwing the American people and starting the next war.

The low point came when I read Ann Coulter, author of In Trump We Trust, in the Daily Mail:

Ann Coulter has admitted that, four months into the Trump presidency, she’s worried that her favorite candidate’s administration is a bust.

Coulter – who last year published the book In Trump We Trust – has told The Daily Caller that she is beginning to doubt Trump’s ability to pull off his promised changes.

Likening his presidency to a man who promised to drive to LA, but then started heading to New York, she says there is still a chance for him to ‘turn the car around’.

It had all looked so good for a month or two, but now it was over. And the same gloomy message was coming from Alex Jones and Michael Savage. Trump had set out to Drain The Swamp, but instead he’d been sucked into it.

But then last night I watched Judge Jeanine Pirro interviewing Trump in the White House about five days ago:

And a different picture emerged. Here was a president who looked and sounded assured, in command, presidential, talking face-to-face with someone who was clearly a personal friend of his.

They talked about Russia, and about Comey, and lots of other stuff, but two things stuck out for me.

Firstly, Trump is contemplating stopping having White House press conferences in which his press secretary Sean Spicer “gets beat up”, and which get high TV ratings. Instead he’s thinking of putting out a daily printed statement.

I’ve seen one or two of these press conferences, and it’s a bear pit, with almost all the questions being about Russia. I think it’s a great idea to simply stop having them, and take the ratings away from the TV channels, and control what comes out of the White House. So I hope he does that.

And secondly I heard (25:30 minutes in), for the very first time, that Trump had, “within one minute”, got Egypt’s general Al-Sisi to agree to release young Aya Hijazi (and 8 other prisoners) from 30 or 40 year prison sentences – something that Obama administration had been trying unsuccessfully to do for 3½ years. There was even footage of her (right) with Trump in the White house. I had heard of Aya on and off over the past few years, and now she’d been released, and I’d heard nothing about it. When did that happen? A bit of investigation told me that it happened on or about 16 Aprilover a month ago. Why hadn’t I heard? Because the media go on about Russia, Russia, Russia, the whole time, and don’t report these stories. How did Trump manage it? He probably managed it because he knows how to make deals, and make them very quickly. It’s what he’s been doing all his life, and what Obama has never done.

Anyway, I learned much more in the few minutes that Trump talked to Judge Jeanine Pirro than I had in the past month about what Trump had been doing. Because all I’ve been hearing is Russia, Russia, Russia. Not because I spend any time at all watching or reading the MSM, but because the alt-right online media that I do watch and read have spent their whole time responding to the MSM, so they didn’t report Aya either.

In the interview Judge Jeanine Pirro was asking Trump how they were going to get their message out in the face of a hostile media. But she was showing how to do it while she was asking the question. Because through her I’d learned about not just Aya, but also the natural gas and cattle deal that had been done with China, the visit of the Ukrainian foreign minister, price cuts on airplanes, the detention of “thousands” of MS-13 gangsters, and the signing of 32 Bills (all of it news to me).

So as far as I’m concerned, the very best thing Donald Trump could do would be to stop having MSM-dominated press conferences, and thereby crash the ratings of the hostile TV companies, and instead just call in Judge Jeanine Pirro every couple of weeks to talk face to face with him in the cabinet room of the White House.

And I’m feeling optimistic about Trump again.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 25 Comments