Face Value or Down The Rabbit hole or Minority Report or Yes We Khan!



A couple of weeks ago the Fed announced that Harriet Tubman, a slaved African ‘black’ woman would replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill.


The arguments for and against this volte face are running more or less as you would expect.


The pro-Tubman side claim that introducing Tubman is more than just substituting one historical personality for another. It represents the inclusion of a whole kind of person that has been omitted from mainstream establishment American history.


On the other hand the ‘anti’s are obviously wary of falling into the trap of outright opposition, so they suggest that slavery and its most significant protagonists should be celebrated and included in some other way. Keep the money for ‘dead presidents’ they conclude.


On the face of it, (pun intended), it seems peculiar that Germanic capitalism- a form of society that lays claim to the inheritance of the Enlightenment and Reason, should be putting anyone’s face on money. Surely this is uncomfortably close to the sort of feudalistic impulse that Capitalism claims to have superseded.


The truth is that the ‘primitive’ roots of having the face of king or emperor on a coin legitimises the modern money we have today just as it did in times past. It lays bare Capitalism’s dirty little secret- it is parasitical upon the social forms created by ‘feudalism’ and always has been.


Capitalism cannot generate the social traditions necessary to enlist the loyalty of the ordinary people it claims to represent! It needs ‘feudalism’ to do that. For instance, why do you think soldiers dress up in fancy uniforms?


Why don’t capitalist armies dress up for their parades in business suits?! Surely the suit and tie is the ‘folk costume’ of the capitalist nation and its armies!


But experience has shown that people won’t fight and die for Capitalism and capitalists know this better than anyone. Capitalism needs feudalism to survive.


The face on money controversy proves that the past is alive and well and not just in the matter of money.. Donald Trump has achieved the Republican nomination in all but name. There may be sour grapes and carping but for the moment his enemies in the Republican elite dare not attack him outright.


Trump is a prime example of feudal capitalist king and outstanding expression of the ever increasing importance of cultural constituency in the politics of the west. In Obama and now Trump we are witnessing the end of representative democracy and beginning of Constitutional Embodiment.


As I have explained in previous writing on cultural constituencies, politicians like Trump are Cultural Specifics as opposed to ideological representatives. They are not there to represent an idea held in common. These politicians are not old style REPRESENTATIVES of a political ideology, they are the new style EMBODIMENT of a CULTURAL IDENTITY.


A Cultural Specific does not reflect and represent an idea that his constituency wishes to endorse. A cultural specific reflects the way that the members of his constituency wishes to be seen by the world. A representative represents an idea. An embodiment represents you (or not!)


They have no meaningful political perspective based on economics- that is not what they are there to do. They are there to VALIDATE the identity of their CONSTITUENCY. No-one understands this better than Trump himself.


Showing one of the startling flashes of prescience that have made him so successful despite his limitations, Trump has decided to go after Elizabeth Warren -supposed ‘left wing’ scourge of Wall Street and self described native American who,Trump says, is ‘as native American as I am’. Which means of course, not at all.




It is fundamental to classic Germanic Land Democracy, that national and cultural identities are social commodities, available to anyone born in a particular time and place.


Rachel Dalziel may have taken it to an extreme, but she was only doing what ‘Americans’ feel is their right and due. To dip into ‘black’ ( or other) culture for a ready to wear drip dry identity.


Ms Warren feels able to take her own personal journey down the rabbit hole with her proclamation of Nativeness (is that a word?). Surely a look in the mirror would help her to understand the truth of the matter.


Here Trump shows a clear instinctive understanding of Whiteism. Since it is about identity, unlike economic rationale no compromise is possible. You can’t split the difference- you either are a Native American or you aren’t.


Elizabeth Warrens firestorm Twitter response to Trumps IDAttack tells the whole story. She is clearly fighting for her political life. If Trump wins, politicians like Warren and the people she represents will be in imminent danger of becoming politically extinct.


The key to understanding Trump and his supporters is to realise that they now identify and act as a minority; the VolkAmerika cultural constituency, and are no longer interested in being the majority with no benefits and loads of associated social political and economic costs.


Trump doesn’t see himself as being part of the majority tasked with keeping the edifice standing against the minorities. He no longer sees why his supporters should be willing to make sacrifices to keep the system going. He is as ready to kick at the foundations of modern America as any other minority…


Closer to home the election of Sadiq Khan in London as the first Muslim mayor of a major European city extends the advance of cultural constituencies


Khan ran as ‘the son of a Pakistani bus driver’ against the offspring of a Jewish billionaire Zac Goldsmith and accordingly the papers in this part of the Saxon Axis resound to claims of ‘Anti Semitism!’ and corresponding counter charges of ‘Islamophobia!’


But the game is more nuanced that that. Khan was the Muslim who goes on day trips to his local Synagogue (EuroSlam) and Goldsmith a multi-millionaire who cares ‘passionately’. about the environment. (‘Green’back capitalist a la Richard Branson)


So which would you rather be personally identified with:


‘EuroSlam’ Pakistani or ‘GreenBack’ Jew?


Welcome to the post economic rationale world…


And North of the English border comes the starling news that the Tories who have been rank outsiders for decades have returned to centre stage.

For around half a century the Conservatives, traditionally seen in Scotland as quintessentially English, have been a fringe party in Scottish politics.


They were tarnished with Thatcherism which promoted a form of politics centered on the Saxon heartlands of ‘Middle England’. Most famously Thatcherism is associated with the poll tax whose purpose was to make local taxation entirely regressive and removed from ability to pay.


So how did they come back? Or more importantly, where did they come back?


The answer to this is; all along the East coast, the area of Scotland whose population is by majority Lowland Saxon Germans.


The Scottish Nationalist Party maintained its share of vote among the West Coast population. The sea change is that the Saxon East coast population has abandoned Labour, an English ‘left wing’ party no longer seen as providing adequate cover for their interests. Now they openly vote for Tories as an East coast Saxon opposition to West coast Gaelic SNP!!


I have long argued that ‘left wing’ and ‘right wing’ are redundant in the modern world,(if they ever really meant anything) and especially in the case of the Saxon Axis. There has never been a significant ‘Socialist’ party in any part of the Saxon world and there never will be. This is not an historical co-incidence.


The left/right divide was always only a political tool for the promotion of Germanic political culture, Germanic Land Democracy and the Germanic Cult of capitalism.


Now that it no longers serves any practical purpose for the Germanic population of Scotland, they are abandoning it.


And this is happening all around the world- The Great Unravelling

Whiteism: Get The Picture? Or Exit Pursued By A Bear Or A Sea Of Troubles Or Full On Ultra Primitive Cultural Constituency Or I Yam What I Yam


Although perhaps not widely recognised for such, over the years Leonardo DiCaprio has quietly developed a talent for personifying some of the most significant developments in capitalism through the medium of film.


In ‘Titanic’, DiCaprio takes the role of a romantic Irish artist who, along with so many others of his class and ethnicity ended up dumped in the freezing cold water of the Atlantic Ocean.


Many pundits have used the Titanic disaster as a metaphor for financial catastrophe suddenly looming out of the dark to scupper a supposedly unsinkable vessel. I have described lifeboats reserved for the privileged few as the way democratised money acts as an escape for the financial elite.


Funnily enough, recently Titanic co-star Kate Winslett pointed out there was actually enough room on the door she lay on to save the DiCaprio character at the end; he really didn’t need to die next to her in the freezing water after all. A fitting description of austerity if ever there was one.




In ‘The Aviator’, DiCaprio portrays Howard Hughes; famous and reclusive multi millionaire entrepreneur. Throughout the film Hughes spends his time either publicly engaging in theatrical argument with Congress or trying to get his massive and impractical seaplane, the ‘Spruce Goose’, off the ground.


At the climax of the film, the Spruce Goose does actually take off for a single flight, proving that Howard Hughes was right, at least in theory. Its all reminiscent of the Feds quarter point interest rate rise…. Just enough to prove its possible and then no more. And the film ends just as Hughes starts to go REALLY crazy. How apt…


DiCaprio ‘s latest offering, The Revenant, features our hero suffering an attack, reputed to be possibly sexual in nature, at the hands of a wild bear.

Again, this is an excellent dramatic metaphor for the ‘bear’ markets in the aftermath of the present cycle of dislocation that has caused wild fluctuations and devaluation in the global equities market.


Throughout the course of ‘The Revenant’ we see various European colonisers treating the natives and each other with unremitting cruelty and treachery. This cruelty is in turn mirrored by, or even exceeded by the brutal terrain which they inhabit.


Just like Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness’, the central theme of The Revenant is that Europeans revert to a savage state if circumstances warrant it. Sounds a bit like my discussion of The Great Unravelling..


There is a sense in which the achievements of the past decades are increasingly   lost in the New World we find ourselves in. It has become a commonplace that the children of this generation, (at least in the developed world), will find themselves in greatly reduced circumstances compared with those who have gone before them.


And furthermore these reduced circumstances will inevitably lead to an increase in competition and savagery. Traditional optimistic capitalism is leaving the stage, as Shakes pears famous phrase has it: ‘pursued by a bear (market)’.The only question remaining seems to be whether the character exits stage ‘left’ or stage ‘right’.


Stage Right


Should our hero decide to exit the stage on the right, waiting in the wings he will find someone, or something, like Donald Trump waiting for him. Trump is most famous for The Apprentice television series; a sometimes diverting comedic parody of the capitalist process.


The characters who regularly appear in ‘The Apprentice’ obviously have little or nothing to do with a serious political and economic system. They are more like a group of suburban revenants, survivors of a collapsing America, gradually having their absurd rhetoric of self worth stripped away by being asked (and failing), to perform even simple capitalist tasks.


The Ultimate Zero Hours Contract


Contestants end each episode in a kind of ‘Judasfest’ where they condemn each other before a magisterial Trump who finally informs one of the team: ‘You’re Fired!’. As I have mentioned before, since no-one is actually employed yet, this has to be the ultimate zero hours contract…


The Wild Bunch


The underling idea of ‘The Apprentice’ is to rescue something (represented by the winner) from an ever increasing set of adverse circumstances the ‘Best of A Bad Bunch’ might be a good alternative title for the program. (just as ‘The Wild Bunch’ might be a good alternative title for America).


In other words ‘The Apprentice’ illustrates a process of attrition -A Zero Sum Game. The irony is that since this is entirely a kind of abstract competition that   in itself represents the end of capitalism.


In neither TV programme or Presidential campaign, is Trump even slightly concerned with trying to maintain some kind of relevance to the logic and exigencies of capitalism or indeed any economic rationale whatsoever..


Trump makes proclamations that are simply broad generalisations along the lines of ‘We Will Make America Great Again’ or ‘We Will Make The Army Great Again’ that are in no way constrained by any practical considerations.


In essence Trump is running a salvage operation. His central claim to competence is that he can pick whatever diamonds there still are out of the dunghill. Trump is popular precisely because he does NOT bow down to the shibboleths of capitalism. In fact, Trump represents a yearning to adapt to the new set of post capitalist circumstances.


Stage Left


On the other side we have Bernie Sanders offering equally vague prognosis and solutions. But where Trump perspective is avowedly Anglo Saxon, Bernie is advocating ScandiSax – the Anglo Saxon version of a Scandinavian style integrated ‘socialist’ society. Except post WWII Scandinavian society is definitely an idea whose time has come- and gone. I have discussed on numerous occasions the tension between a welfare state and a mass immigration state. It seems like the decision has been made in favour of mass immigration in Scandinavia.


Sanders suggests a return to primitivism in the form of an idealised Eco world which is just like Trump, but from a different perspective and with different rhetoric. The central thrust is how to save what can be saved from an ending political and economic system.


And then again we have to consider Frau Clinton. Who is a whole another thing. Because while Bernie and Donald are all about what they are going to do, Hillary is already totally there-in the zone.


Hilary can be described as Full On Ultra Primitive Cultural Constituency. Donald and Bernie have some sort of idea why they want the Presidency, other than that she just wants it Hilary has none whatsoever.


Hilary does not argue, I WANT x, y or z. She ‘argues’ I AM a woman. Of course, this is not an argument, it is a statement. This is the essence of Cultural Constituency. If there is no argument, there can be no logic- there is no basis for logic if there is no argument. If there is no logic, there is no rationale. If there is no rationale there is no basis for agreement or compromise. Politics as we have understood it is over. This is the Great Unravelling.


In Titanic DiCaprio faced the consequences of his identity and embraced it at the point of his death in the sea. He agreed to Give It All Up for his Protestant Germanic love.


In The Aviator DiCaprio as Hughes came to terms with isolation,separation and finally disintegration (see ‘Vector History’), from everyone else and faced the terrible consequences of this. He embraced his identity, madness and death.


In The Revenant DiCaprio is estranged from his own coloniser people and the native Americans. In the end he sees his Native American wife heading into a dark forest without him and- you guessed it, he embraces his separate identity and death..


Get the picture?


So that leaves the question, given this strange ability to prefigure the life of the Germanic Cult of Capitalism what will DiCaprios next role?


I think I know.


GOODBYE, GOOD LUCK Or The Wrong Trousers Or Naming Subversion

‘The tartan truis or trousers date back to 1538 as a medieval style of woven tartan cloth trousers[1] as a garment preferably used during the Highland winter where the kilt would be impractical in such cold weather.[2] The word is triubhas in Scottish Gaelic. Truis or trews are anglicised spellings meaning trousers

 Tartan trews shared the fate of other items of Highland dress, including proscription under the Dress Act of 1746 that banned men and boys from wearing the truis (“Trowse”) outside of military service. The Dress Act lasted until 1782 when it was repealed under the reign of King George III.’


It seems that Russell Brand is hanging up his multimedia ‘Trews’- at least for the foreseeable future. Russell informed followers that the time has come to devote himself to sequestered learning in order to deepen his understanding of the profound changes that are taking place in the world.


In other words, Russell has realised that it might be helpful to actually study in depth what he has been talking about for the past couple of years.


Russell ended the last episode of ‘The Trews’ by assuring the world that he will be back at some point in time to continue the battle, but to tell the truth, his assurances seem a little forlorn.


I suspect that recently Russell has come to at least partially, recognise the true significance of the media onslaught that he has faced over a couple of years of battling the neo liberal corporate press. Primarily that he is one voice against many and that the enemy will come at him again and again, not as ‘single spies but in battalions’. So long as things go on this way he can’t win.


And surely this is part of a much bigger picture. We have seen endless round after round of systematic corporate media attacks on Tsipiras in Greece, Jeremy Corbyn in England and even Donald Trump in the race for the Presidential nomination in USA.


It doesn’t matter if you agree with what Brand, Tsipiras, Corbyn or Trump says, you understand that the corporate media is making concerted efforts to control the narrative and political outcome of each of these political conflicts.


The fundamental characteristic of this system is that these battles are permanent and unwinnable. No-one will ever be allowed to make a point against the order advocated by corporate media and then move on. The corporations simply wait out any insurgent offensive and then return to the attack. It is a matter of principle to make sure that opponents will not be seen to win even a minor point.


If you ever do manage to take a point against the elite you better be prepared to defend it from now until the end of time.


This is not about dialogue and it is not about give and take. And never will be. Because at a fundamental level the battle is not about what you think or even what you do- it is about who you are and who they are.


Now that we know a little more about why the elite does what it does we can have a look at how exactly it does what it does.


Name and Shame


“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

R. Buckminster Fuller


The power to name is the power to determine the terms of reference, and the terms of reference, more than any other factor, determines the outcome of the debate.


‘Financial instruments’,‘ quantitive easing’ and ‘austerity’ are not just random words picked out of the ether. They are specifically designed tools created to control the way that debate is structured.


If you accept these tools you have accepted fundamental building blocks of the discussion that are neither impartial or offer insight, but that serve the interests of one particular side of the argument.


With this in mind we can see that such familiar terms as:


‘The west’

‘the left’ and

‘the right’ and

‘the free market’


are not neutral technical ways of describing the world, they are constructed embedded mechanisms to control the way that politics and economics is discussed. ‘Austerity’, ‘derivatives’ ‘financial instruments’ have worked very well in ensuring that the way that the credit crunch is discussed conforms to the purposes of the elite.


As well as a monopoly on violence and a monopoly on creating money, the establishment elite has tried to establish and defend a monopoly on creating new word concepts. They don’t take well to anyone challenging that monopoly.


Once you understand this it gets really interesting.


Because a couple of decades ago group of people emerged in the ‘west’ who really began to understand the importance of naming. These disparate groups began to challenge the elite monopoly on naming. And their challenge to the naming monopoly, since it was introduced into a monopoly, almost immediately had a significant effect.


The naming elite initially had no effective response to this emergent challenge and in fact after two or three decades still have not managed to conclusively deal with it!


This Naming Subversion has mounted the single most effective challenge to elite methodology in nearly a century.




So are they and their achievements celebrated and emulated by all those who wish to challenge the elite power structure?


Of course not, they are vilified and hated. Probably, even by you.


Say what?


Who are these people then?


You know them as the ‘Political Correct’; you know them as ‘Cultural Marxists’.


‘Racism’ ‘sexism’ and ‘LBGT’ etc. are all relatively recent creations in the social discourse. And they have entered completely into the mainstream. They are components of a conceptual framework that has been completely absorbed by the Germanic world.


As a consequence of this absorption, the mainstream is continually forced to try to incorporate these terms and the conceptual framework they represent, into its rhetoric. And this process of forced response has changed the elite from what it was to what it is now. This is the technical reason that the post war Protestant consensus collapsed.


All of this achieved simply by employing the power of naming.


Of course there is a terrible ongoing danger for the elite here, since they can only adapt so far. As time goes on the cumulative effects of adapting to naming subversion are that the elite loses the prerogative of ruling. In other words if you stop acting like the elite, you stop being the elite. And you stop acting like the elite when you stop exercising your monopoly on naming.


An elite response to subversive naming had to be found. And the response was inevitably an attempt to control the debate by- elite naming. The elite response was to call Subversive Naming ‘Political Correctness’ and to call Subversive Namers ‘Cultural Marxists’ and to call all this type of politics ‘Identity Politics’!


And of course we all know how terrible these things are. And we all know how we instinctively recoil when we hear these terms. So now the elite have programmed an almost endless army of wind up toy soldiers to attack not only ‘PC’ but more importantly the principle behind PC.


Just like they produce an endless army of soldiers to attack Brand, Corbyn, Trump etc.


So it worked didn’t it?


(if you doubt the power that the elite naming monopoly has, try coming up with an original new name for a political phenomenon yourself)


Next time: Marketplace of Ideas

‘Saxism’ or If It Bleeds It Leads or Beyond The Pale or The Sorcerers Apprentice or ‘Duck, Donald!’ or Or Crazy Like A Fox

The consensus in the press was that remarks made by Donald Trump in the Presidential debate would more or less be the end as far as his political ambitions went. The basic MSM line was that ‘blood out of her eyes and wherever‘ comments wildly overstepped the mark in civilised discourse.

Journalist Megyn Kellys challenge was clearly designed to put Trump on the wrong side of women voters in the Presidential debate and mark him as Beyond the Pale in civilised society. However, instead of offering some kind of lame mea culpa for past transgressions, Donald chose to adopt a combatitive tone himself, forcefully attacking Political Correctness and by extension Megyn Kelly for adopting it..


And so far, the popular backlash against Trumps ‘caveman’ attitude hasn’t happened. Instead Trump seems to be holding his own in the court of public opinion. If anything the tide has turned somewhat and the question become: ‘Was Megyn Kelly put up by Fox news to take Trump down?’


Corporate conspiracy theory probably has some substance to it but the whole story is somewhat more subtle and interesting than mere corporate infighting.


The first thing to understand is the Trump shtick. The innovation lies not really what Trump is seeking to do but his method in going about it. Trump offers a variation on the well worn and well known:


‘I buy direct, in volume, and pass the savings on to YOU, the customer!’


spiel familiar from a thousand adverts and infomercials.


It is standard knowledge that Oligarchs buy politicians through donations and influence public opinion directly through investments in the media.


General wisdom is that Oligarchs use this method because they are essentially unattractive to the public. Rubbing the public nose in the methods of the Oligarch system won’t go down well in the long run so national politicians and national media operate respectively the HR and PR departments of American Oligarchy Inc.


Donald Trump represents a challenge to this way of thinking essentially saying:


I can do media as well as anyone; I have my own reality show- ‘The Apprentice’. I am at least as an attractive a public proposition as Jeb Bush et al. And I have got the money so I don’t need to beg anyone for funding. Lets do Direct Oligarch rule and cut out the middleman passing on the savings onto YOU, the customer!’.


It is not surprising that this approach resonates with a lot of people In the home of the Infomercial. But you don’t have to think very hard to see it is pretty deadly for media and politicians in general if this kind of thing were to catch on. This is the main motivation for the establishment to go after him. On an instinctive level it’s all about protecting livelihoods.


But what is really interesting is how designated driver Megan Kelly decided to go for Trump. The key to Trump is that he says he is the ‘whole package’, but Megyn is here to tell him he isn’t. Because he isn’t a woman. He doesn’t get women. He doesn’t get the post-post war settlement. He doesn’t get Whiteism. Of course it could have been a black or Hispanic journalist telling Trump this stuff on prime time TV, but that might have been just a little too much….


In other words, the whole ideological structure- expressing post war Germanic ideas of sexual and racial identity, family life, personal relations and morality that exists alongside basic capitalist economics has to be taken account of. And the priesthood (not in the exclusively male sense of course..) of this religion has to be taken account of and Donald has to bow down.

And this is where we come to the comedy and the tragedy of the matter:


Even if Trump wins he loses. Even if he isn’t cowed by Megyn Kelly or any one of ten thousand media/politician types that stand between him and his goal;




Because actual plain vanilla capitalism, based on Economic Rationale, just won’t cut it anymore. Because capitalism is over. That is what Donald Trump and his campaign means.


The essence of the Trump campaign is the final triumph of cultural constituencies. Because under Trump capitalism itself is now just another cultural constituency in the United States of Everywhere.


Trump can no more apply for the real job of CEO of Americorp Inc than he can run a real recruitment process on his ‘Apprentice’ TV show. It’s not real if Trump is in it. Trump wouldn’t be interested if it was real.


Like Mickey Mouse in the Sorcerers Apprentice, Donald Trump is seeking to usurp the magic of the Germanic Cult of Capitalism.


He seeks the keys to the Magic Kingdom so that he can bring the savings direct to YOU, the consumer. But just like Mickey he is more likely to bring the whole thing crashing down around your collective heads.


Currency Wars or
Bet Your Bottom Dollar


For the third day the Peoples Bank Of China is lowering the exchange rate for the Yuan/Renminbi and nobody is sure what exactly it means.


It could be that currency wars involving competitive devaluation of national currencies to gain a trading advantage are finally here. After all they have been predicted for long enough. This is the negative interpretation.


Or it could be that China is trying to integrate itself into the global system by doing whatever it takes to make the Yuan a free floating potential SDR reserve currency. This is the positive interpretation.


But most people seem to agree that nobody knows what the Chinese are up to exactly.


Which is frankly, a load of bollocks.


The idea that the PBOC is screwing around with the exchange rate without talking to the Fed is ridiculous. And if the exchange rate alteration is such a big shock why no big brouhaha from America over the move?


So what is the deal?


Well first of all you can bet your bottom dollar that the PBOC has already let the Fed know that it will be devaluing the Yuan on international markets. And in plenty of good time. You can also bet that the PBOC has let the Fed know what the new target value is and what the time frame for achieving this target exchange rate is.


It would be hard to explain why China was doing this if its purpose is to gain an advantage in supposed currency wars.


So why is China doing this?


Well it could be that China is seeking to fully integrate the Yuan into the global system in the near future.


But I suspect the fundamental reason for this movement is because China no longer wants to use up large amounts of dollar and dollar denominated reserves in preserving the exchange Yuan/Dollar rate at the previous exchange rate.


Especially as it knows that preserving this exchange rate will become increasingly difficult.


Why would this be?

Because the Yuan is going come under increasing exchange rate pressure vis-a-vis the Dollar.


And why would this be?


Because the dollar exchange rate is going up .


And why would this be?


Because American interest rates are going to rise sometime soon.




There’s No Business Or Year Of Culture and Month of Oxymorons Or Let the Dead Or The Great Divergence Or The Killers Or The White Kochasians Or YOU’RE FRIED!!

On impulse one evening I decided to visit the circus. The show was over and as the audience was leaving, I remained in my seat so as to avoid the crowds bunching at the exit. As I sat and looked around, I noticed a small man near the rear of the tent with a shovel and a large battered bucket. I could see that he was busy removing a steaming mound of elephant dung. After observing for a while, I became curious and made my way over to speak to him.

 ‘That looks like hard work’ I said

 He nodded but said nothing

 I persisted:

 ‘How long have you been at this old timer?’

 He paused from his work:

 ‘Must be nearly thirty years now’

 ‘So you must like it?’ I asked

 He turned and looked at me

 ‘Its absolutely awful’ he said.

 ‘I have to work seven days a week and not a holiday since I can last remember. The pay is lousy and there are no medical benefits’

‘What about the living conditions?,’ I asked

 ‘They are disgusting; I sleep in a small bunk behind the elephant stalls. The smell of elephant farts is overwhelming’

 ‘At least you have the camaraderie of the circus family’ I offered

 ‘Not at all’ he said, ‘I am despised and treated despicably. I have been here thirty years and not three people know me by name’

 ‘Wow that sounds really bad’ I said, -‘Why don’t you give it up and try to find something else?’


 He turned to face me;

 ‘And leave show business?’


We can only stand and stare in bewildered horror at developing conditions in Greece. In the face of ongoing and intensifying abuse, with no prospect of relief in the foreseeable future, why do Greeks seem determined carry on down this path? Why don’t Greeks seem to be able to see their own best interests?


Except of course this is all wrong, because there aren’t any Greeks. Because the majority of people living in the Greek territory have repeatedly voted to be part of Europe- which means they have voted not to be Greek- by definition.


To become a modem Germanic nation state (as Greece would need to be), means to be able to create and control your own finance, to make the laws and regulations that decide the way your society is run. Greeks have made it clear they do not want that. They do not want to be organised along Germanic lines- they want to be organised by Germans. I trust you can see the difference.


That a group should abandon the concept of modern Germanic independent nationhood is beyond comprehension to many people, especially of the left. Because this nationhood is central to the concept of economic rationale and the ‘left’. Without modern Germanic nationhood there can be no economic rationale and no ‘left’.


This stunned refusal to admit that a people can reject MG nationhood has given birth to the Oxymorons; a Greek chorus, that chants over and over: ‘SYRIZA has betrayed the Greek people!’

But you can’t betray the Greek people because there is no longer a Greek people to betray.


So why do the people living on the Greek territory want so badly to be European?

Because they distrust each other more than they distrust virtually anyone else. That is what a society made up of cultural constituencies is.


It is a failed state.


Both sides of the referendum debate; ‘in’ or ‘out’, offered extreme financial deprivation as a consequence of voting for them. Staying in the EU or leaving the EU inevitably involves long term suffering.


Both sides in the debate are cultural constituencies and cultural constituencies are not primarily interested in economic matters. And there is a reason for this: Cultural constituencies don’t care about economic matters because there is nothing that can be done about them. The choice is no longer a significant factor.


This point is of fundamental importance:


There is increasingly less and less an element of choice in the political and economic decisions that are being made in developed economies.


Margaret Thatcher famously said: ‘There Is No Alternative’ and after nearly fifty years of Monetarism her prognosis/proclamation is in the process of becoming indisputably true.


And since there is no longer any economic room for choice, the political basis for ‘left’ and ‘right’ is gone. What do they have to argue about? When people realise that there is no longer a significant economic choice they stop giving allegiance to traditional economic parties and instead give allegiance to cultural constituencies. This is what has happened in Greece.

But there is another, potentially frightening aspect of this to consider. Economic rationale has two component parts (that can be considered to be benefits), Economy is one and Rationalism is the other. When economic rationale goes, rationality goes with it. What happens when rationality is gone? Emotion takes over. There is clearly a psychological component to what we see unfolding in Greece and elsewhere.

Which brings us to Perry’s Cats.


Put in a bag and thrown in the river, the cats inside the bag try to kill each other in their last moments- what else can they do? For Schrödinger’s cat there was at least the possibility of survival. That’s not on offer – not this time around, if the river doesn’t kill you the other cats will.


This is the emotional content of cultural constituencies. Every cat in the Greek bag knows what is going to happen. There is no longer even an element of chance. So they fight each other. The blame each other. Which takes us to the United States of Everywhere.


The Business of America …Annie get your gun


The writing of F Scott Fitzgerald offers profound insights into American society, not the least of which is that the ‘Business Of America’ is and always has been… show business. Fitzgerald shows us that Americans conduct individual lives as though they are competing shows on Broadway. Everybody stands outside each respective theatre barking for custom and selling tickets. But the shows they want you to see are all the same.


Fitzgerald also understood that America is not interested in shaping the future, that has always been at best a secondary consideration; America is interested in shaping the past. Americans constantly want to impose order on what happened, when it happened, to whom it happened and why it happened.

The battle for American democracy and free speech is the freedom to tell individual and collective lies about the past. Contrary to what most people in the world believe, the American Dream is a dream about what did happen not what will happen.


In America there was never going to be any choice about the future because in America there was never any choice but capitalism. Even when there isn’t any capitalism anymore the choice is still only capitalism. Because in America culture and capitalism are one.


Nowhere better illustrated than in this startling cultural artefact:


The eponymous Annie, an archetypal German mädchen,

is dressed in faux Native American hides (I think they call this ‘cultural appropriation’ nowadays). She is surrounded by three men who are pretending to be American archetypes, except everyone knows there weren’t ever any Americans like this. They are all singing a song telling the girl that an inauthentic life of show business is the most authentic life anyone can have…


And everyone knows that the American rodeo circus was based on a myth but that doesn’t matter because anyway its a film of a stage musical of circus that never really was..


We know its all fake. They know we know. That is part of the ‘charm’ and since it is supposed to be ‘charming’ Americans expect the world to cheerfully take part.


Annie Is Divergent


When the USA elected Ronnie Regan to the Presidency it marked an irrevocable split with the rest of the globe. I don’t think any living American really understands the extent and the depth of this split and the way its effects persist to this day.


Intelligent Americans understand ‘Ronnie’ in the same way that they understand ‘Annie’, and they are surprised and somewhat resentful that everyone in the world couldn’t just go along. But they figure that with a little more musical jollying and a little more charm everyone can be persuaded. To see history ‘our’ way.


Unfortunately like Shirley Temple or JonBenét Ramsey, for the most part, the rest of the world is not buying. It’s a cultural thing. Think of Paul Craig Roberts defending Reaganomics and condemning Neo Liberalism without realising they are essentially the same thing.

This Charming Man



The truth of the Ronnie Regan persona in as far as it can be found, is in his portrayal of Jack Browning:

‘a gangster, posing as a legitimate businessman’ (Wiki)


in the 1964 film ‘The Killers’ with Lee Marvin, John Cassavetes and Angie Dickinson- excellent actors all.


This was apparently the only time Reagan played a villain and I think he is eminently suited to portraying a crude and devious business man who is quickly seen to be a lot less than he appears at first sight. The story goes that Ronnie regretted playing a villain in his last role. Perhaps he didn’t like giving the gag away before the final act.


The premise of the film is that ‘The Killers’ don’t have to try too hard to kill the John Cassavetes character in the first reel, because he wants to die. He knows what the future is. Which reminds us of Greece and Perry’s Cats..


The Kochasians



trumpAnd Ronnie Reagan brings us to Donald Trump; a famous American self made man (except of course he isn’t). Trump is perhaps most well known as the central protagonist in ‘The Apprentice’ a programme that portrays Capitalism as soap opera. (The English version shows Capitalism as farce. If you have any doubt in your mind how low faith in Capitalism has fallen in England, you should watch a little of this programme).


The narrative behind the Apprentice is that of a prolonged Job interview that is punctuated by people being fired. This is especially odd as the candidates don’t actually have a job to be fired from yet.

Another example of fabricating history, which by the way, is the only thing any of these people would be capable of actually fabricating.


In the course of his Presidential campaign Trump recently ran into a little difficulty when he trespassed onto Republican Senator John McCains personal history myth. There was outrage in the media that Trump should impugn another Americans God Given Right to make stuff up about himself so as to make himself appear favourably in the public eye. As of writing this Trump has agreed to tone it down, after all, it’s the American Way.


Trump represents the WhiteKochasian cultural constituency. And he tells them stories about what happened. The more elaborate and fanciful these historical constructions are, the more his constituency likes it. Which is obviously going to be the case if you think about it.


And in case anyone is of the opinion that this is all happening in a ‘far away country about which we know little’ I would remind you that we are all living in the United States of Everywhere.


Now let’s go on with the show….




Over The Rainbow Or Not in Kansas Anymore Or Moral Minority Report Or My Cupp Runneth Over Or What exactly happened back there?


220px-Heimdall_an_der_HimmelsbrückeRainbow bridge to Asgard


A quantum mechanical system or particle that is bound—that is, confined spatially—can only take on certain discrete values of energy’


For the past three or four months race and racism has been the central focus of intercultural discourse in America. A spate of police shootings and demonstrations was followed by the Rachel Dolezal interval, things quickly got serious again with the Charleston killings.


And then everything changed.


Chess strategy was no longer the focus of the game, (see last time). The players put the chess men away and took out an entirely different set of pieces.


Post Charleston shootings, the ‘left’ went after the Confederate battle flag as a substitute for gun control; the next phase of the game seemed more or less set. Then from left field came a Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage and the entire topography of the culture war was changed in a day.


Just as a quantum particle jumps from one energy level to another with no interim stage and no warning that it will do so, the American polity moved into an entirely new configuration. The pro-gay marriage movement celebrated, but it was clear that even they were taken back by the sudden completeness of their victory.


Even more startling was the response of Anglo Saxon Protestants. Like a cage fighter who walked onto a roundhouse kick to the head, the legs buckled. Slo-mo close up showed they were out before they even hit the canvas. Trad WASP’s are slumped in the red corner. They know that they took a heavy beating – they are not looking forward to a second round.


The Moral Majority (remember them?) are now the Moral Minority and suddenly look at risk of becoming politically irrelevant almost overnight. Let’s be absolutely clear; its not going to be enough to grudgingly acquiesce to this dispensation. The Moral Minority will have to willingly accept the new state of affairs and tell everyone: mmmmm! just how much they like it if they want to stay in the political cage fight.


Or, in the words of teary Conservative pundit S.E. Cupp, they risk becoming relics.

Conservative Pundit Starts Crying At Gay Marriage Footage: ‘They’re Patriots’ (VIDEO)

or this:

‘How many fingers am I holding up son?’

‘Er, Tuesday..’

‘That’s fine son, lets get you back to the dressing room..’


So what exactly has happened, and what exactly does it all mean?


From one perspective the Supreme Court decision could be seen as something and nothing; merely the formal recognition of an existing state of affairs. Does the decision simply acknowledge that American attitudes towards sexual practice have changed? It is substantially more than that.


Consider that the Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade is still being venomously contested across America, decades after the actual ruling was handed down. In fact, abortion provision across the USA is decreasing and under constant attack. (Although you can bet there is now going to be some serious push back here as well). How does the retreat in post war women’s rights tie up with the ongoing success of the gay marriage rights campaign?


Obviously rights for sexual minorities (actually I think women are the majority), in America per se is not the driving force in shaping what has happened. In fact, you can’t understand the progress of gay marriage in America unless you understand Whiteism and its relationship to sexual morality.


Whiteism is the ideological belief that white people have something in common. The underlying purpose of Whiteism ideology is to legitimise Germanic ideological control over all white people. In particular, the Germanic Cult Of Capitalism based on Germanic Land Democracy.


The purpose of Whiteism is to assert the supremacy of Germanic culture, first in the context of white people and then in the context of the entire globe. In other words, Whiteism asserts that all white people should have Germanic culture in common whether they themselves are Germanic or not. Put another way, all white people should perceive and communicate through the medium of Germanic culture and morality as a stepping stone to all people everywhere communicating through the medium of Germanic culture.

Post war Germanic culture required white people to subscribe to the ideology of sexual freedom. Let’s get it clear what this sexual freedom means: Not stoning, imprisoning, or punishing in any way anyone who violates the moral or contractual rules of marriage or the associated sexual code. It means that a violated or dissolved marriage must be settled entirely as though it were simply a joint financial contract.


The participants in a marriage have no moral obligation to each other, or to society as a whole (and of course definitely not to God!). You mind find it amusing and instructive to consider that most subscribers to the Germanic morality code consider it more important that members of society fulfil their obligations to a mortgage contract rather than to a marriage contract!


All Germanic people subscribe to this belief system and most demand that it should be propagated world wide, many advocating using force to achieve this if necessary.


Modern sexual freedom as we understand it was pioneered in NW Europe in the aftermath of the Second Germanic War. Scandinavia and Holland became synonymous with black and white porno films, magazines featuring free love in the sauna etc. Anybody who has travelled the territory of the Hanseatic League knows that visiting the fleshpots of German cities now has the character of a cultural historical tour. Like Japanese tourists wandering round the Houses of Parliament (which of course is a different kind of whore..)


(On the subject of the Hanseatic League I recommend Jonathan Meades’ excellent documentary ‘Magnetic North’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw6J9bYQ4XY)


The relationship between modern sexuality and traditional morality was very carefully calibrated in post war North Western Europe. Prostitution and associated practices were legally ‘domesticated’; controlled and effectively promoted -as soft drug use in coffee shops and gay activity was. These liberalisations were intended to be understood as totemic representations of cultural freedom, in particular in opposition to Slavic and to a lesser extent Catholic, culture. This is pure Whiteism.


The ‘traditional’ family was domesticated in a slightly different way; through sponsorship and welfarism. Germanic political elites promoted a specific vision of family life through financial and legal incentives and punishments.


‘Modern’ laws on marriage and divorce, the provision of chemical contraception, (think of the Matrix: ‘you can take the red pill or the blue pill’), and the increasing possibility then necessity, of women’s employment, together with state provision of education, medical and other services, dismantled the traditional family and forced it into a supplicatory relationship with the Germanic state.


All of this is open to a variety of interpretations as to its meaning and significance, and as you know, often is. But it cannot be brought into sharp focus until you understand it as the promotion of Germanic pagan thought.


The moral collapse of Protestantism was both cause and consequence of two Germanic Wars in the last century. By the late fifties there was a clear need to restructure the moral landscape in North Western Europe. And if you doubt that such a project would or could be consciously undertaken, what else was the introduction of Protestantism centuries before but this very same thing?


So the post war modern Germanic state supported the traditional family the way that Lenin supported the provisional pre- revolutionary Russian government: as a rope supports a hanging man. And this has gone on for fifty years or so, bringing us to today. Or about ten days ago.


Look at the Supreme Court, and the power structure they represent. Consider the general nature of their recent pronouncements. Are we really supposed to believe that they have transformed miraculously overnight into the voice of ‘liberal’, ‘enlightened’, ‘progressive’ thought?


What nonsense!


Here is the root cause of the confusion on both ‘left’ and ‘right’.


In fact, they are the black robed designated executioners of the Protestant Welfare Family. In 2015, the corpse hanging for four decades still twitches on the rope. The time has come to end it. This last edict is the equivalent of jerking on the subjects legs to finally break his neck.


The Welfare Family was given a very specific structure. Its stated purpose was the raising of children, the provision of medical care and arrangements for old age. A specific substitution arrangement for each of the three main periods of family life.


This new definition breaks that link. The Supreme Court decision effectively means that any two men can get married for tax reasons and of course any two women can also. This means that marriage is now entirely a legal financial arrangement. It is a legal intellectual break from the historical family.


The order of an individuals life will no longer be defined in relation to the order of family life.


There will be a number of consequences that will follow from this:


Non married people and those who choose not to get married are going to ask on what basis ‘marriage’ should have any benefits or privileges. Moral? Intellectual? Political? Try making up some justifications for yourself and see how far you get with it…


It follows that the State will rapidly come to openly regard all family members as discrete individuals. It follows from this that the state will take direct responsibility for the welfare of these individuals, not mediated through the structure of the Protestant Welfare Family. For instance mandated nutrition requirements for children.


Since I have argued on more than one occasion that predictive ability is the validation of analysis, let me end with this:


In short order, (at most a couple of years), a modern western welfare state system will implode completely like a power station relay that cannot cope with altered voltage. It will come as a complete shock (pun intended) to the generality of the developed world. But not to me. And not to you too, now that you understand something of what really lies behind it….


updateJuly 4 2015

Two stories featured in Drudge Report illustrate the decline of the Protestant Welfare Family…

Schools Implant IUDs in Girls as Young as 6th Grade Without Their Parents Knowing


Vegan Italian parents investigated for neglect after baby son found severely malnourished


The reason I mention the Drudge connection is because these stories are obviously chosen to play to the outraged Protestant Welfare Family contituency… The state directly replacing the family etc…

White Takes Black or Skin In The Game

quote-i-look-to-a-day-when-people-will-not-be-judged-by-the-color-of-their-skin-but-by-the-content-of-martin-luther-king-jr-102475 1984-movie-confess_a

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

‘The first-move advantage in chess is the inherent advantage of the player (White) who makes the first move in chess. Chess players and theorists generally agree that White begins the game with some advantage. Since 1851, compiled statistics support this view; White consistently wins slightly more often than Black, usually scoring between 52 and 56 percent. White’s winning percentage[1] is about the same for tournament games between humans and games between computers. However, White’s advantage is less significant in blitz games and games between novices.’


If you play chess, (even infrequently and badly), you come to recognise that certain sequences of moves appear again and again. Together these repeated sequences form a lexicon of chess strategy.


Among inexperienced players the outcome of a game is often decided by a disconcertingly small number of opening moves. Developing players learn that a central objective in opening is to prevent the game being over before it has even really begun.


To achieve the space and time to develop position, a player can use the tactic of offering an exchange which can alter the focus and tempo of a game. It is not unusual to see an early sequence where players effectively swap out a number of pieces.


The advantage of exchanging is that it clarifies where players stand. But often the price you pay for simplification and consolidation is to sacrifice the chance for a quick win.


There is such an exchange of pieces taking place now in the American game. Over the past week or so we have seen the Rachel Dolezal incident playing out, quickly followed by the Charleston church massacre.


Some might claim there is no comparison; might even be offended by any attempt to make one. They might claim that the Dolezal case is relatively trivial and the Charleston massacre deadly serious. But the real importance of each event cannot be understood in isolation. Both are part of a bigger, more complex contest. Understanding the nature of that contest and giving it a name is what Whiteism is about.


Rachel Dolezal represents a white pawn that advanced largely unnoticed on the left flank, right up into Black lines. It is fairly obvious even to a novice that this solitary piece is now isolated with little or no support or protection.


Since retreat is impossible, the Dolezal pawn is stymied and waiting to be taken at the convenience of Black..so why has she not been taken already? Because she represents both opportunity and threat for Black.


Whiteism is the ideological belief that:


  1. White people have something in common (This is nothing to do with white supremacy)
  2. White people are necessarily different from non-Whites (Blacks)


For Whiteists, (whether White or Black!), it cannot be that Rachel Dolezal is justified in self identifying as black for the above reasons. But modern day America is divided between Whiteism and Post Whiteism.


Whiteism was the framework within which it was argued that post WWII the belief in White intellectual supremacy should be transformed into belief in White moral supremacy.


Germanic culture was totally discredited by the Second Germanic War. To be rehabilitated, it had to be placed on probation; nurtured, controlled and chaperoned by global white culture, in exactly the same way that the German nation was placed on probation and chaperoned by Saxons in the West and the Soviets in the East. Whites as a whole, would act as guard and guarantor of Germans within the world community.


This meant that in the post war period Anglo Saxons would seek to promote the idea that all whites, including Slavs should be seen as being committed to becoming more ‘civilised’ than any other group of people.


The movement for Black ‘equality’ in the USA comes out of this. Black equality is in essence a claim for white moral superiority. The moral justification for Welfarism is the corollary and counterpoint to Black equality.


If Blacks were to obtain political and economic equality, (or even superiority), through force that would negate white moral superiority. The successful expression of White moral superiority requires that Blacks don’t ever get anywhere entirely on their own merit.


The election of Barack Obama as President of America is cited as proof that America is now a ‘post racial’ nation – an achievement of white America. But can Obama really be legitimate as a Black president if not on his own merits? And if he could become President entirely on his own merits, does that mean that Whites were effectively defeated by a superior force?


It is clear something has to give: Black ability or White morality.


If we are to accept the Martin Luther King dictum that people should be judged on character (whatever that is supposed to be), and not skin colour then the persona adopted by Rachel Dolezal is entirely valid and so are her actions.


But then the entire structure of racism, of black disadvantage and white reparation is blown away.


On the other hand, if Rachel Dolezal’s racial persona is illegitimate then Martin Luther Kings dictum is obviously wrong- we must judge personal actions, at least in part, on the colour of skin. In other words Rachel Dolezal personifies Martin Luther Kings dictum reductio ad absurdum.


It’s little wonder Black is not sure whether to take the Rachel Dolezal pawn…


While Black dallied over Rachel Dolezal, it was swiftly superseded by events on the right flank where Black suffered unexpected loss. This has given rise to a resurgence of an old spat about the rules of the game, specifically what specific pieces are allowed to do, (otherwise known as the Second amendment right to bear arms).


Again, this represents both opportunity and threat for Black.


To characterise Dylann Roof as terrorist and not lunatic, that is to say that his was a political act and not a random, meaningless one, has on the surface obvious advantages for Black. It is much easier to deny arms to ‘enemy combatants’ than American citizens. And if White supremacist violence can be used to bell the right libertarian cat, that would be a substantial strategic advance for Black.


But this means characterising Roof’s actions as both a coherent and meaningful  political act. And this is a high risk thing to do.


At the time that Anders Brevik attacked a group of Norwegian elite kids I argued that this was a significant political event rather than random meaningless act as many tried to portray it.


The standard ‘progressive’ interpretation of the shooting was that Breviks act would show the meaningless madness behind all race hate words and actions and cause repulsion among mainstream society.


Is that what has happened in Scandinavian politics? Hardly. Since the shooting there have been systematic and substantial moves to the right, rolling back the social democratic ‘anti racist’ alliance that has ruled across Scandinavia since the end of WWII. If left leaning Scandinavians hoped that the Anders Brevik incident would corral the populace back into the pro-immigration fold, they have been sadly disappointed.


The same is true in America. If Black chooses to make Dylann Roof an example of a serious anti Black movement, the danger is he might turn out to be one.


So, can this two part exchange sequence tell us anything about the way this particular match in the American game is going?


I think so.


White has made a rushed, undisciplined opening. There is clearly a lack of coherence in the way that White pieces are occupying the board. It seems that in this particular game White is eager to engage with Black but lacks a clear strategy for doing so. I think this betrays a lack of confidence and a confusion about what Black strategy and tactics are going to be.


The Black response so far indicates that it lacks confidence too, it is clearly more hesitant to act than White. It seems that Black is having difficulty calculating the possible consequences of its actions.


Both Dolazel and Roof are left hanging by Black who seems more intent on haggling about the rules than making a forceful response. This shows that Black does not want to make a move until it can negotiate some change in the rules…


You might think it hard hearted, even cynical, to depict events such as these in terms of a game, but my purpose is to point to an important truth. Of course the game of chess is a metaphor. This is not to say it has no meaning. The game is fascinating because it represents a real clash of forces. There is a real prize for the victor and a real price to be paid for losing.


So what is the important truth I want to tell?


That in racial terms Black and White are metaphors.


So what actually is ‘White’? What does ‘White’ actually represent?


White represents first move advantage. White is the side that moved first.White came before black. White was defined before Black was defined. Making this definition IS the White identity. Making this definition was the first move in the game.


The first move in the game was taken before the game even began. That is how the player who took White has won up until now.


So who is the real player moving the White pieces?

And who is the real player moving the Black pieces?


Understand this and you understand Whiteism.


Last point: Not only is White the one who traditionally starts the game, White traditionally has the privilege of ending it. White gets the last move. If I was playing with the Black pieces I would want to think about that very carefully before I decided to argue for minor rule changes. I might want to think carefully about whether I want to go on with the game……


“He examined the chess problem and set out the pieces. It was a tricky ending, involving a couple of knights.
‘White to play and mate in two moves.’
Winston looked up at the portrait of Big Brother. White always mates, he thought with a sort of cloudy mysticism. Always, without exception, it is so arranged. In no chess problem since the beginning of the world has black ever won. Did it not symbolize the eternal, unvarying triumph of Good over Evil? The huge face gazed back at him, full of calm power. White always mates.”


George Orwell ‘1984’


update23 June 2015


Moral Hazzard Or National Lampoons Animal House or Chicago Rules (not) Or This is a Live Fire Exercise

“Theme From The Dukes Of Hazzard (Good Ol’ Boys)”

Just’a good ol’ boys
Never meanin’ no harm.
Beats all you never saw
Been in trouble with the law
Since the day they was born

Staightnin’ the curves
Flatnin the hills
Someday the mountain might get ’em
But the law never will

Makin’ their way
The only way they know how
That’s just a little bit more
Than the law will allow.

Makin’ their way
The only way they know how
That’s just a little bit more
Than the law will allow.

I’m a good ol’ boy
You know my momma loves me
But she don’t understand
They keep a showin my hands and not my face on TV


I wrote that Black doesn’t want to make a move until it can get a little clarification on the rules of the game. Well, it seems like the clarification has come through.

The kids at Yankee Frat House have decided to launch a daring raid on the flag that flies on top of  Charleston House.  They say: ‘We can be in and out before they even know what has happened! What a gas! That’ll teach ’em to mess with Yankee Fraternity..

‘Sort of like one of those army training exercises  where you win by seizing the enemy’s flag. You know, like a war, but not really.’

Might be as well to go careful with this cultural prank though, since we haven’t actually managed to get all the guns away from those rednecks yet…..