What’s that coming over the hill…

There is a monster. It is eating our world. It is driving us to social collapse. It’s happening right now and many people know it. But nobody can agree on it’s name.

Everyone likes a good read

Some call it ‘Fascism’. Some call it ‘Socialism’. Some call it ‘Bigotry’. Some call it ‘Inequality’, or ‘Intolerance’, or ‘Religion’, or Greed’, or ‘Politics’. All these people fight each other constantly, rather than fighting the monster. They fight over what the monster’s name is.

All the while, the monster is eating our world and the end is getting nearer. I want to show you how I think you can start to decide for yourself what the name of the enemy truly is.

But first…

let’s get the admin out of the way.

Thanks for those who emailed about my health checking I am OK. The saga seems to have come to an end.

After spending the last month investigating, we found out that my health is fine, I simply have a susceptibility to indigestion, if I eat the wrong foods, if I eat too quickly or sit in positions that scrunch my stomach when I eat, then I will get a lot of chest pain. I do tend to wolf my food and to enjoy a lot of things that aren’t digestion friendly. There’s no cure for what I have, it’s just susceptibility I have to learn to live with. However, I found by chance a natural remedy which almost completely, if not completely, counteracts my discomfort. This week, for the first time since last December, I am living without having to endure disruptive pain on a day to day basis. It’s lasted since this Monday, so fingers crossed. It feels like I have my life back.

I’ll be hitting the jaunt button again in the next few days and August will be my final month of adventure before hopefully moving back to London for work. I have most of the month booked up coaching wise, but late August and early September are free if anyone else wants to book in and spend some time in the sunshine, drinking coffee and chasing skirt then let me know. This very time last year I was in Zagreb with Yohan, Rapid Vienna and Irish Does Asia. And what a great time we had the three of us. Well, let’s see who might make the team sheet this year.

Two days ago Bodi sent me a sneak preview of his new book. Death By 1000 Sluts Part Two. I read it and gave him some feedback, for what it was worth. I am not a very good devil’s advocate for him really. I always enjoy his writing and I laughed all the way through the book. It was great. I’d change nothing and told him so, but I am very partisan.

His second book is nowhere near as dark as his first one. In his first book he set himself up as the joke in many ways and we laughed as he lampooned a string of his comical misfortunes. The second book is much lighter. It’s much better written too, not that the first wasn’t good. I just think he has moved forward with his craft. It has some very well set out themes and scenes. It recounts life in the RSG mansion and all the eccentricity that was contained therein. The lampooning is no longer pointed at a wiser and more secure Bodi and firmly towards his friends in the mansion as he spills the beans on our comical mannerisms, obsessions and eccentricities. But does he find pickup success and happiness by the time he makes his 1000th set? You’ll have to read the book to find out.

One of my books will hopefully be finished soon. I may make a concerted effort to finish it by the end of this year.  I was surprised to find out that following my steady chipping away, I am well more than halfway there now, plus the plot is finalised. I really just have to write it all out. I will probably only sell about 10 copies but it’s not about that, pickup was simply the best thing that ever happened to me so I want to write about it.

Apart from Bodi’s book, there were three things this year that I hoped for. (Well, four things if you count ‘Krauser gets syphilis’). Events that were outside my control that I would like to see happen. In January, I visualised them, I  tasted them. Everything else could dig an hole, but I hoped to see these three things.

Firstly I wanted to see my football team win its league. That was granted in May.

Secondly, I wanted Pittsburgh to win the Stanley Cup in June. I felt they were going to. I felt when they started winning in December they were going to. I’ve been a Penguins fan since the late 80’s. My cousin and I used to pretend we liked Ice Hockey so our grandparents would let us stay up late. As soon as they’d gone to bed we’d keep the hockey on for 2 minutes in case they were listening or came back into the living room because they forgot something, then when we thought the coast was clear we’d turn over and watch RTL, which was a German channel that often showed smutty films. Thing is, it was the playoffs and Mario Lemieux was playing. By the third night I’d forgotten about RTL and just wanted to watch the Penguins. The last few seasons they weren’t ready, but this time, they simply found their spirit and were the best team by far in my opinion.

And finally, a week later, I hoped for Brexit.

I got my hat trick.

The month leading up to the election had me locked into the Stanley cup and in the remainder of the time, due to being ill, I had not much else to do but argue with people on Facebook about the pros and cons of Brexit. I saw so much delusion from people who just didn’t have the understanding or background to the issues in order to have a fully formed opinion.

Instantly name calling as soon as people realise others have a different opinion to them.

People using the word ‘fascist’, when they mean ‘racist’. Don’t use words if you don’t know what they mean.

Endless screams of racism. Endless. So boring. Everything is racism these days. Even when it is racism, I don’t care about racism. It’s unpleasant and anti-social, but so are a lot of things. We don’t use measures of pleasantry to define our truths.

‘The car is out of fuel, we need to go to the station and fill the tank’.

‘You’re saying we should use gasoline?! It’s smelly. How unpleasant’.

Yes… but… it’s what cars need to move…’


‘OK, I’m sorry. I apologise. I’ll stop talking. Cars now magically don’t run on gasoline and we’ll just put water in the tank from now on’.

I care only about the truth. Is the argument correct, or not? ‘It’s racist’. So what? I asked ‘Is the argument CORRECT or not?’

People think the fascists are the people who voted for Brexit because if you voted for Brexit you are racist. These same people then take to the street to try to use intimidation and the power of the state to overturn a democratic vote and enforce their opinions onto others. The delusion is staggering. See this video by Paul Joseph Watson to see how fully deluded and misinformed people are. Calling the successful Brexit vote ‘fascism’, while taking to the street to protest in defense of the unelected, Marxist superstate.

That’s what you get when you put the Government in charge of education.

There are many resources out there now in order for one to educate oneself as to the truth of the world in which we live. I don’t mind someone having the opposing opinion to my own, I’d just prefer to hear argument based in reality rather than just the same old threats and name calling day in day out.

There are three books in particular that share similar principles and all seem to support and dovetail with each other. I’d like to recommend them and share them with you. Start from these three books and then move forwards on your own. In terms of understanding the political landscape, these are the books I just wish I would have read in my early 20s.

  • Henry Hazlitt’s ‘Economics In One Lesson’

Recommended to me by Krauser. This book won’t tell you what you didn’t already know. But like the Mystery Method, the arguments are presented in one place, chapter after chapter, each one referring back to the same universal underlying principals.

What it gives you? A basic understanding of how state solutions destroy wealth.

It’s not an argument that the state should or shouldn’t get involved in any given enterprise. It’s merely an explanation of how as far as solutions go, it’s an extremely inefficient and expensive one. So be well aware of this before you vote for state solutions.


  • Richard Dawkins’ ‘The Selfish Gene’

Recommended to me by Bodi. Again, the book won’t tell you necessarily things you didn’t know. It’s how it demonstrates time and again the underlying principles. Once you get the principles that drive the mechanics of economics and genetics… you can see the world through a more informed lens.

What it gives you? An understanding about how genes play such an important role in our behaviours, how it’s possible that not only physical attributes, but personality can be passed on genetically and how and why it happens.

It ties in beautifully with the Hazlitt book because the principles of genetics match the principles of economics. Nature is a free market. Genetics are the currency of the free market of nature.


  • Thomas Sowell’s ‘A Vision Of The Anointed’

I saw this mentioned by someone on a discussion thread on a social media post, so I bought it and read it. And I am glad I did. It beautifully ties into the Hazlitt and Dawkins’ books. The principals in this book compliment the other two.

What it gives you? An understanding about how the Government interjects itself in social progress in order to manipulate it for it’s own ends. With the knowledge gained from the previous two books you will know for yourself why this is needless, counter-productive and incredibly inefficient and expensive.

The three books link together beautifully in many ways, here’s ONE example.

Scenario: ‘If the Government don’t do something, the whole of the property market in London will be bought out by rich Arabs and Russians and nobody else will be able to afford to live there, businesses will then collapse as workers move away and the UK will turn into an economic wasteland’.

Hazlitt will explain how we can’t ever get to doomsday scenarios this because economic forces make it impossible; they drag the needle back to the middle.

Dawkins will explain how this works also in nature. Male hawks fight each other for females, the next generation more aggressive from the last. But we don’t need to worry. If left alone male hawks can never get too aggressive, they’ll actually get more timid. But don’t worry, they won’t get too timid, if start to get too timid, they’ll buck their ideas up and start to kick ass again. The needle always gets dragged back to the middle.

Sowell will then explain how the Government knows all this. But they see a chance to make money and sell us an urgent service that we just can’t do without and it’s OK, they’ll avert the disaster. Just as the needle rises, just before it starts to fall again, it will be announced that ‘male hawks are getting too damned aggressive’ or ‘too many rich people own too much property’. The doomsday scenario will be stated. People will demand ‘somebody’ does something to avert the disaster. There will be calls for Government intervention. The Government will apologise for their lack of action and in order to serve the will of the people they’ll set up a Government department to prevent the doomsday scenario – and charge us for this important service. Government departments will be set up.

Hazlitt will then explain the impact of the Government departments being set up.

Dawkins will then tell us about the Dodo.

Once you have grounded yourself with this information, you’ll see the monster which is eating our world and you will be able to decide for yourself its true name.

Right Wing Extremism

The following is a work in progress, it is not very well written in that it reads very clunky. I will be returning to this to edit and work on over the next few days. (We all know that means that I probably never will).

Well, Christmas is now well and truly over, we’re almost a full month into the New Year and your old pal Jimmy is all cozy and tucked up, back in his little cave in Gloucestershire. Back into his little routine, back to wearing his little suit and back to tootling off to his little job in his little car. ‘Beep beep’. Turning up to work with his Frappicappilatte and croissant. His fat little red cheeky face munching away, dropping crumbs, as he frantically prepares for the morning meeting. He always makes it in early, he’s very diligent and he tries very hard.

He is lovable. Just remember, he is very lovable.

Every day is like Groundhog Day. I come home at night, record some music (badly) or get angry watching the ‘news’. Like yesterday’s Panorama expose on Vladimir Putin and tonight’s programme on Donald Trump. Fairly obvious propaganda to the rational mind. At least I have a student coming this weekend, so that’ll be a little bit of fun to be had, some ‘skirt chasing by proxy’.

So there is this theme prevalent in political discussion, which every time it comes up, I find myself pushing back. It’s such a well worn trope that trying to push back on it is like trying to tell people the earth is flat (yes, I know it’s not).

The theme is this idea of the ‘extreme right’ or ‘far right’. Basically, that means a Nazi or a fascist. If you get too ‘right wing’, you become a Nazi. Hitler was too ‘right wing’. Racism is ‘extreme right’. Selfishness is ‘right wing’. Being mean in general is ‘far right’. Someone from the ‘far right’ had a skinhead and put a brick through a window. He was stupid, mean and on the right.

Here are my thoughts.

One Dimensional Spectrum

First of all, as far as I understand it, a one dimensional spectrum such as left/right can only measure against ONE independent value. For an impartial example – preference for bananas.

If I want the spectrum under discussion to have any value in the discussion, I also want it to be as universal as possible too. I can’t chop and change it depending on the subject matter, otherwise it becomes meaningless. So I can’t be saying far left is ‘liking bananas’ and then three minutes later I’ve changed it to meaning ‘juggling ability’ without notifying the person I am talking to.

What that means is – we have to choose one value and stick with it.

Left – Loves Bananas ————————————– Hates Bananas – Right

That works just fine, but obviously it cannot measure anything else if it wishes to be universal. So for example it can’t also measure juggling ability. Otherwise you get this.

Left – Loves Bananas. Ace Juggler ———– Hates Bananas. Shite Juggler – Right

As soon as you do this, it’s no longer universal because juggling ability doesn’t increase or decrease in accordance with banana preference. That is to say, as soon as you find yourself a banana hating juggler, your spectrum is blown.

It’s also arbitrary to put excellence in juggling ability next to a preference for bananas.

So a left/right spectrum has to define clearly which ONE independent value it is measuring and as far as I can see, in popular discourse, this is ever changing. When we talk about Hitler, he is always depicted as right wing because he is ‘racist’ or intolerant in some way or that he imposed state solutions, depending on the preference of the person you’re talking to. So the spectrum measures racist or intolerant/exclusive attitudes, or state solutions?

But no, because then five minutes later when we talk about Che Guevera, he is left wing because he ‘represents the worker’. So now the spectrum measures ‘attitude to the worker’? Che is never mentioned as a leftist because he was anti-racist, but because he represents the worker. (In fact, Che was profoundly racist. But that’s another story).

So we have a situation where Hitler is on the right because he is racist and Che is on the left because he represents the worker? Depending entirely upon the preferences of the person you are debating.

Well, that just doesn’t make any sense. It’s total nonsense.

Left – Represents The Working Man ———————— Racist – Right

Racism doesn’t increase as one’s favour to the working man decreases. That’s just like saying, the less you like bananas, the worse you can juggle.

The truth is, left or right wing can actually mean whatever you want it to, as long as you define your spectrum up front. If you want to make it measure racism, then fine, but if Hitler is right wing, so is Stalin and so is Che Guevera.

You can’t then flip flop in the next sentence and put Che on the left because he supposedly ‘supports the poor’.

A one dimensional spectrum can only measure against ONE unique value. This is the first reason the left/right paradigm is unhelpful and misleading.

What does ‘left’ mean?

The idea of the ‘left wing’ comes from French politics. Around the time of the French revolution. The Socialists sat on the left of King Louis (I think it was). So the left wing were the Socialists.

So when we refer to the left/right spectrum, historically, the left means socialism. That means that the right means the opposite of socialism?

Racism is not the opposite of socialism. History has plenty of examples of racist socialists.

Left – Socialism. Anti Racist ———— Anti Socialist. Racist – Right

The above spectrum is completely arbitrary because racism doesn’t increase as, say, your preference for free markets increases. If Margaret Thatcher loved free markets any more she wouldn’t magically thus become a racist.

Is that maybe what we’re supposed to think though? If anyone like me talks of limiting the size and power of the state, then they’re ooh ‘right wing’. Are we supposed to think they’re dangerous if we go along with their ideas…. because if they go a bit further…. the next thing we know we’ll be murdering the Jews again. Is it a slurring tactic?

I know for sure that if I said at work ‘I am very right wing’, then it would be very bad for my career. Even if I identify as right wing, I’d have to be very careful how I said it.

So if the left is Socialism, what is Socialism?

This is where it gets very woolly. Everyone can have their own personal definition of what Socialism is and this is the second reason the left/right paradigm is unhelpful and misleading. Every person has their own subjective and woolly definitions of what left/right politics represents.

For me, if the extreme left is Communism – then the left is centrally planned Government solutions. It’s the most universal measure of socialism I have found. I prefer to refer to it as Statism, rather than Socialism.

Left Wing = The state. Solutions delivered through the state.

There are other things that people on the left have done. Such as wrap people up in barbed wire and roll them along the ground, or put their heads in petrol filled car tyres and set fire to them. So if we want we could make sadism the value of our spectrum, but if we ever found a sadistic conservative, then our spectrum’s use against political measurement would be limited.      

So what is right wing extremism?

So if the left is centrally planned Government solutions, left wing extremism is a total command economy. Socialism, Communism, or the modern day authoritarians (often ironically called ‘liberals’ or ‘regressives’) are all examples of solutions delivered through the state. So these are on the left.

This is very important. Hitler and the Nazis, were by this measure also on the left. They were Socialists – marked by high centralisation and state control of the economy and society, pensions, schools, services – all under state control.

Importantly the Nazis also set the prices and the labour rates. They just didn’t do it overtly. They did it behind the scenes. They supposedly left industry under ‘private ownership’ but they dictated how those companies could be run. Then when things inevitably went wrong, they could blame the ‘Capitalists’ in charge of the compannies, rather than the Socialism that actually caused the problem.

By the way: Capitalism means ‘an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners, for profit, rather than by the state’.

So if anyone tries to tell you Nazi Germany was Capitalist – I’d be keen to ask them how that can be possibly be the case when the state set pricing, production levels and wages.

The fact is that there is no magic wand that dismisses all this and makes the Nazis ‘extreme right’ just because – ‘Dictator’ or ‘Racist’ or ‘Moustache’. It’s an adolescent narrative.

The BNP are also on the left. Read their manifestos. State control of key industry and state delivery of key services.

These horrible racist intolerant bastards we’re always told about – they are not right wing extremists by any universal or consistent measure only by adolescent narrative and incredible logical gymnastics. If someone is proposing they deliver solutions through the power of the state then that’s left leaning.

If ‘Left’ is solutions through the state then the right can only be the opposite of what the left is. So that would be solutions without the state? The free market? Maybe just the absence of the state?

Right wing extremism would be an anarchist (anarchy, by the way, is rules but no rulers). Someone who espouses entirely the requirement for state power and wants all solutions delivered outside state interference.

Ultimately, the idea that anything as complicated as interlinked political positions can be measured accurately on a one dimensional spectrum is unrealistic and totally useless, but the problem is, the theme is dominant. I try if possible to reject it entirely. A much better measure, but still not perfect is something like this image.


Notice how on this image above, Communism and Fascism are next each other. Hitler and Stalin are close bed fellows. Not opposite ends of a left right spectrum.

We’ve been fed for decades some woolly idea that politics looks like:

Left (kindness, giving, inclusion, state support, new ideas, state solution)

Right (selfish, old fashioned, Christian, puritan, racist, free markets)

It’s ludicrous to accept that as someone becomes meaner, they become more Christian. Or if someone becomes more supportive of the Government, they become less racist. On closer inspection, the narrative falls apart.

This is by no means the last word on the discussion. It’s just what I notice right now in terms of a lot of the inaccuracy in this particular subject. If someone talks to me about left and right wing, I ask them to define their criteria of measurement – because otherwise, if I don’t know their criteria for measurement, then I am just not having a conversation of any merit.

I look for their criteria to be consistent and universal and if it’s not, I push back. I don’t let them put ‘anti immigration’ on the right next to ‘free markets’. It’s nonsensical. I remind them that a libertarian or an anarchist would be extremely right wing and would propose both open borders and free markets, I ask them to explain that and sense check that their spectrum is not too narrow, inconsistent or short on logic.