28 February 2006
Supporting the next aggression.
It's nice to see Little Green Soccer Balls revert to type - I knew that yesterday's bout of sanity was too good to last. They are now urging people not to sign this petition, that was created to oppose the next bout of American aggression, the one involving Iran.
The excuse given is that the document carries the names of Howard Zinn, George Galloway, Tony Benn and Harold Pinter. Let's pause for a moment and consider each of these in turn:
Howard Zinn, historian. Probably the greatest living American historian. In A People's History of the USA he did for his country what E.P. Thompson did for mine with The Making of the English Working Class. He made ordinary people come alive again, so that their struggles are not forgotten.
George Galloway MP. What can I say? Thrown out of the Labour Party because he stood shoulder to shoulder with Iraq in her hour of need. He stood for the newly founded Respect Party and took the London seat of Tower Hamlets from the paws of a NewLab bimbo. He went to Washington and made a Senate committee look very foolish indeed. What can I say? The man's a gem.
Tony Benn, constitutionalist, author and former MP. The voice of the socialist left within the Labour Party for many years. His body is frail, but his mind is as sharp as ever.
Harold Pinter, playwright and Nobel Laureate. He helped transform the English stage from its hidebound past, and helped usher in its modern age. He will be remembered long after we are all dead.
Very good... Galloway is not as left-wing as people think, but what we have here is the voice of socialism, as it speaks through history, the stage, the printed page and the Commons. What these men have in common is consistency: socialists oppose intervention because they know that such interventions help prop up the odious system that all socialists seek to destroy. It is one thing to criticise George Galloway for his Popery, but not for his opposition to imperialism's aggressions.
These men have not changed. Their ideology is the ideology of socialism. The people who criticise them have no right to even call themselves socialists. They no longer stand inside the laager - if they ever did.
27 February 2006
I suppose that the law of averages would dictate that a hand-shandyist has to have one decent essay from time to time. Little Green Soccer Balls had one yesterday which I found quite interesting. It speculated on the link between political violence and sexual repression. In fact, the blog essay is better than the Guardian article that inspired it. The article jumped from discussing repressed sexualty in Mohamaden cultures to Ernst Rohm and his gay boys in brown. One would have thought that whatever else Rohm suffered from, a lack of sexual partners was not one of them. The blog essay just concentrated on Mohamadens who don't get any, and was all the better for it. It set me thinking back over thirty years to when I worked at a cinema in Oldham...
On Sundays the regular show did not open until about 7.00pm. This was because the cinema was rented in the early afternoon to run Pakistani films. We always ran two of them back to back, and they were always the same shit: lots of folk who broke into a song and dance routine because they were not allowed to even kiss on the Pakistani screen. The prints themselves were always falling to bits, having been run to death in Pakistan and then shipped over to places like Oldham and Rochdale, which is where they ended their days.
The young men who were responsible for the shows would always come and sit in the projection room to slurp tea all afternoon. It turned out that what they were really after was anything that would help their imaginations when the old right hand went to work. By anything, I mean one frame from a regular Hollywood movie that showed a flash of tit or a bit of bum. If you gave them a still from last week's show that had a girl in a bikini - the things that all cinemas throw out at the end of the week - they were in the seventh heaven. None of this was porno material - this was 1973 and everything legal was very tame.
In those days the only porn shops were in the big cities and there were very few of them. Manchester had two shops that were tolerated by the police, and both were basically back street lock-ups. Most porn merchants traded on street corners, or in certain pubs, with their gear stored in a plastic bag. The big magazine in those days was a thing called Privat that was produced in Germany. It had plenty of hard core photos and underneath each one was a short text in German, English, French and Spanish. Needless to say it was banned in Britain which meant that copies flooded in like shit off a shovel. I think that the latest edition for any given month sold for about a fiver in Manchester, which was damned expensive in a city where beer was 25p a pint. (My screw in those days was about £15.00 a week. )
Copies would make their way down through the second hand traders, each merchant slapping his price on the front in felt tipped pen. After about a year, but which time they were torn and encrusted with stains that did not stand too close an examination, even the cheapest punter wouldn't touch them, so they became ready for Oldham. Merchants would buy these copies for about 50p and then get on the number 98 or 82 bus up to Oldham to sell them to the Pakistanis for about a quid each. After that they vanished from sight. Pakistani merchants who eventually got hold of them would cut up the magazines and sell them on as individual pages for about 20p a throw.
I remember talking to one of those men who shipped old copies of Privat up to Oldham. Most porn merchants have a contempt for their punters, but he said that the thought of some bugger wanking over a single page out of a magazine that had been traded and re-traded for over a year, made even him feel sick.
Still, the best money is the easy money, and a lot of lads made their beer money shipping magazines to sad-arsed losers in Oldham all those years ago.
24 February 2006
Reactions to the mosque bombing
Returning to the mosque bombings, Juan Cole reports that "Iran is blaming Bush and the Israelis, which is ridiculous but already widely believed in Iraq and Iran".
For her part, Riverbend points out that religious leaders are trying to calm inter-communal conflict by claiming that "this is what is wanted by the enemies of Iraq- this is what they would like to achieve- divide and conquer."
It looks to me as if some good can come out of this tragedy. If the Iraqis come to believe that the Americans are behind the bombings - even if they are not - then the occupiers will face a united Iraqi population that is motivated by the single desire to get them out. Their position will be untenable and they will be lucky to get out with their army intact.
23 February 2006
The al-Askari bombings & a nice dose of hand-shandery
The nice thing about being a wanker for war is that you get to believe everything that the boss class tells you. Al Qaida was behind the recent bombing of the al-Askari shrine in Iraq? No problem, if that's what the Americans say, you believe it.
I have no idea who carried out the bombings. It could very well turn out to be al-Qaida. However, it could just as easily be a false-flag operation run by the USA. Why would they want to do this? Well, as Iraq slides further and further from imperialism's orbit, the notion of a secular, capitalist country that will recognise Israel and do as Washington wants becomes more and more unlikely.
So what about a fallback position? How about one that actually encourages the country to fall to bits, and then props-up the oil rich chunks that the Kurds and Shia will try to carve out? As a theory it has about as much evidence behind it as the notion that al-Qaida are responsible.
22 February 2006
(This is the money angel. Send it
to six of your closests friends and
you will be rich in four days. This
is not a joke. If you delete it, then
you lose the blessing. . . Believe)
Back in December I posted an essay on primitive peoples and their primitive beliefs. I drew a comparison between Popery as practised in Latin-America and Mohamadism. Basically, I wanted to show the hand-shandyists for war, who just love attacking Islam, that Christianity has its fair share of knuckle-dragging head-the-balls as well. You just don't see them in England, thanks to the secular nature of its Anglican culture.
Well, you bloody well get them here, and as evidence I offer the above load of old wank that recently arrived in my inbox. Two things are hilarious about this nonsense. The first is that it was a chain-mailing and the numbers of people who had received it and then passed it along amazed me. The second thing is that I assumed that the person who sent it to me was letting me into a joke that she was playing on her more gullible compatriots. Alas no, and she is now seriously cheesed off that I should have thought such a thing.
Now, if reasonably literate people who use the computer and the internet can believe in this stupidity, can you imagine what the knuckle-dragging bulk of the population are like? You can? Good - so it's all about primitivism, isn't it? And it is not resticted to the silly sods who stick their arses in the air five times a day. Rosary-rattlers are infected as well.
21 February 2006
Help! The Mussies are coming - literally.
I don't think that I've ever commented on this wazzock before. An American who came over to the UK and helped put a British person out of a job. Not only that but the cunt gloated about it as well. I have avoided the bugger up to now basically because he makes me feel dirty, but while my bath is running I'll break the rule.
His latest wheeze is to present some statistics which purport to show that the UK will have a 17.5% Mussie minority by about the year 2061. Note the date, because most of us will be safely dead by then, so we won't be able to take the piss if it turns out that the figures are a load of old wank.
However, this is not the first time that I have heard this sort of thing said; although to be honest it is usually a finger-wagging claim that within a decade the country will be Muslim. It usually comes from that bloke in the pub who stands just a little too close to you for comfort.
To all these people I have one simple question: how many kids have you fathered? In round figures, without trying too hard to remember. If the round figure is zero, or comes to the rather unround number of one, then I'm sorry, but stop your mithering. Stop your mithering and get to work doing some serious shagging. If your wife is barren, then you can do as the Mexicans do, and dump her back on her family. Your race and nation demands it!
If you don't then I will just assume that you secretly want the UK to have a Mohamaden majority at some time in the future. Put another way, I won't be taking much notice of you.
As for middle class fucking foreigners who like to wander over and put British people out of work, all I can say is that I hope that one day a socialist government will put creatures like you on the next bum-boat going out. We have enough home grown scum of our own to deal with.
My bath is ready. Pray excuse me while I go and try and clean the filth that seems to have suddenly covered me.
Sorry about this, folks, but I have just received an e-mail telling me that one of the links to the site discussed in this posting does not work. If you try to go there directly from that link all you get is an error message. However, if you copy and paste http://dailyablution.blogs.com/ into your browser that will get you there. You will then have to scroll to the entry for the 20th February 2006 to see what I was going on about. The Exile apologises for any inconvenience caused, and asks his readers to understand that he is not responsible for some nesh bugger who doesn't like hearing the truth.
More on the Sheraton Affair.
|El Universal publishes an English language daily which basically consists of reprints from the Miami Herald. It does, however, contain some locally produced material. The point is that el Universal is a semi-official paper of the Mexican state. It reflects the official view, so this report is interesting.|
The writer looks at the recent Hotel Sheraton affair, where a group of Cuban officials were turfed out of their rooms and had to move to another hotel about 100 yards down the street. After looking at some of the possible reasons for this American inspired action, the writer goes on the ask:
Could it be that the Cubans and the oilmen were incidental players in the Hotel Sheraton fracas, and that the intervention of the U.S. Treasury was designed to show the Mexicans who still rules in the hemisphere? In its caution (or weakness?), the Fox government has not taken the bait and appears to be ready to prosecute the Sheraton for “discrimination” rather than taking the violation of its sovereignty to the various courts of world opinion.
I am not entirely convinced that the Marines are on their way, but it does concern me that el Universal has published something like this. If it had come from one of the small, leftist papers I doubt if I would even have commented upon it. It is the fact that el Universal has done so that gives me pause.
U.S. DOMINANCE In the Americas, the United States has long considered it a right and a duty to exercise dominance over its “sister republics,” and to intervene when necessary to protect its interests in the face of intrusion by other powers, be they Spanish, French, British, Soviet or drug lords. “Chronic wrongdoing,” President Theodore Roosevelt told the U.S. Congress way back in 1904, “or an impotence which results in a general loosening of ties of civilized society may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation” — namely, the United States.
Are “impotence” and “chronic wrong doing” loosening the “ties of civilized society” in Mexico? Is that what Washington is thinking? Are the “civilizers” on their way?
What could be going on? One obvious explanation is that the government wants to tell the Americans that they are on to their little game and that they should back off. Mexico clearly does not want a row, so if Washington is prepared to let sleeping dogs lie, so is Mexico. Since anything other than diplomatic wrangling is out of the question, given America's involvement in Iraq, this article seems to be saying that Mexico can add to America's diplomatic woes if it wants to.
20 February 2006
Why the smoking ban might be a good thing.
John Mortimer has an acerbic article in the Daily Telegraph that sets out the logical case against a smoking ban. It is both witty and informative, and makes the point that there is something very rum about a government objecting to smokey pubs and at the same time sending people off to die at the behest of a foreign government.
I don't think that it is controversial to say that the people who do not smoke are largely middle class and the ones who do are basically working class. Now, I know that part of the argument put forward in favour of a ban is to protect workers in pubs and such places, but I don't accept that line at all. If the anti-smoking brigade were serious about workers' rights they would be campaigning as well for stronger unions and a hike to the minimum wage. I shall not hold my breath waiting for them to do that.
What this is about is power: it is about the middle class filth demonstrating its power over the working class. The only reason why these creatures can get away with this is due to the fact that NewLab exists and the unions have been emasculated. If we still had a party speaking for us in Parliament, if the middle classes still shit their loads at the mention of the unions, then none of this would be happening.
Why do I think that it might be a good thing? Largely because it is one issue that will hit the working man on a daily basis and remind him just who is out to screw him. It won't lead to a new party being formed to represent the working class - it is not that type of issue - but it might just lead to a further erosion of the NewLab vote. Then, finally, we can take back our party and start the long, long task of rebuilding it: and creating policies with revenge in mind.
17 February 2006
Some thoughts on the British working class.
I was chatting to a friend from back home the other day and the conversation turned, as it always does, to the disaster that was the 1980s. My friend asked me if I could think of anything positive that came out of that bewildering, devastating decade. I replied that it was one retreat after another, but now I think I can see one cack-handed gain that we made. It's strange how these things don't seem so obvious until long after the event.
When I was a young man in the 1970s one of the things that truly got on my nerves was the division between skilled and unskilled men. I have commented on this before, in one of my digs at the lad, Eric, but let me return to it again.
I was a cinema projectionist in those days. I can remember meeting people who, after asking what I did for a living, would then demand, always in plonking tones: "Is that a skilled job, or what?"
Now, I did not have an answer to that, and I still don't. The answer I always gave was "who cares?" The problem was that they clearly did. To them the divide was not between labour and capital, it was within the working class. Their enemy was less the employer and more the unkilled and semi-skilled who might encroach upon their position as members of the Aristocracy of Labour. Half the strikes in those days seemed to involve demarkation disputes, as skilled workers demanded that a clear line be kept between them and the general workers below them.
Of course, any sucessful strike weakens the power of the management, but it was still a matter of gritting my teeth and wracking my brains to say something that was positive about gits like this. Especially since I knew that so many of them voted Tory. In fact, so many of them were actually card-carrying members of that party that I sometimes used to role my eyes in despair.
Now, I have to pause here for a moment, because it needs to be stressed that these gits were not really working-class Tories. My father was - I used to tease him that he was the only member of the 8th Army to vote for Churchill in 1945. However, my father was also a committed member of the T&GWU who always went to his union meetings and always stood on the picket line when a strike was called. His objections were to the chargehands and foremen at the factory where he worked as a labourer: he regarded them as "jumped-up buggers who become like Hitler when you give 'em a white coat to wear".
Now, the reader should not think that working-class people like my father did not believe in more holidays, higher pay and strong health and safety measures, because the did - they were trades' unionists, after all. However they also tended to believe in a kind of natural order to society. Men like my father may have known their place, but they expected the rest of society to respect the place where they stood. According to him, the senior management, former army officers to a man, did just that.
I do not accept my father's views, but I do accept their legitimacy as part of a strand of British working class ideology. However, those views are far, far removed from the attitudes of the gits mentioned above. Those tossers were not in the labour movement because they wanted to be there: they were in it because they wanted to use their muscle to keep a clear line between themselves and the rest. In my mother words, they were nothing more than "folk who've got a class above themselves and who think they are summat, but they are nowt a pound".
1983 was a watermark election because in that year the Aristocracy of Labour went over to the Tories in vast numbers. At the same time, both my parents voted Labour for the first time in their lives. They knew that it was a fight between classes and that the battle lines had been drawn. Within a few short years, many members of that old Aristocracy had found that their factories had closed and they looked ahead to years on the dole. It was the end of British gittery and a good thing too. Some have no doubt managed to arse-lick their way into well paying , non-union jobs. The rest have been thorougly proletarianised by the experience.
Visiting the UK these days I see that the old division within the working class no longer exists. Travelling around Manchester, in the districts of Ancoats, Miles Platting and Newton Heath, I don't hear those old idiotic questions being asked. The division now is as it should always have been: between the employer and the cockroaches who support him, and the rest of us.
The bad news is that the British working class is without any organisation, but at least it is far more homogenous in its views than it was thirty years ago. Thanks to dear Margaret Hilda Thatcher the divisions within our ranks are a thing of the past.
16 February 2006
Same old theme
I see that the lad, Eric, over at Hand-Shandyists for War has quoted this update to a posting I made last night. I argued that the "enemy, as always, is at home". The lad, Eric, believes that this is "the hard-left case for the Iraqi insurgency. . ." Actually it is neither a hard, nor a soft, case. It is a simple socialist case and nothing more.
Socialism is nothing more than a belief that the economy would be run better if it were run collectively. The people who reach that conclusion are the people who live collectivised lives already, and who are aware that they do. That sense comes about through the normal process of day to day living, but it is also something that is helped out by the way others see us. In other words self-identification is bolstered by the way people of other classes treat us.
Now, when I say that the economy will be run better if run collectively, I mean that it will be better for us. Nothing in the above should be read as meaning that it will be just a good for the people who either owned the economy prior to socialism, or who were given benefits by it.
A lot of things can flow from these basic premises. In Latin-America, socialism comes draped in the national flag of the country that is trying to collectivise. The Cuban example is the one that is obviously being copied, but Venezuela and Bolivia both seem to be doing a fine job of not only the basic collectivisation, but also of ensuring that the classes that fomerly ruled and had privileges are throughly demonised now. These creatures are presented not as anti-socialist elements, but as anti-national. Thus socialism and nationalism are becoming one, at least in this part of the world.
This coming together of nationalism and socialism may be something that British socialists might find a useful tactic. However, it is a tactic, it is not an end. The end is what it always has been: the collectivisation of the economy and the destruction of all those who benefited from the old order. I favour punitive taxation and high inflation, but I am willing to accept that there is a socialist argument for a bullet in the back of the neck.
Now, there is a world of politics beyond these economically based views. The problem is that none of those positions are socialist ones. They may be radical or liberal, but they are not socialist. Socialism is the belief that the economy should be ordered along collectivist lines by people who are used to leading collectivist lives. How many times does this have to be repeated?
Now, Eric, here's the thing. When you've got some years under your belt - after puberty in other words - get back to me and tell me about your years on the dole, or the collection of shit jobs for shit wages with shit gaffers, that you have done. Or you can tell me about how you wanted to put your fist into the face of some snot-gobbling git in a cheap suit who told you that he was there to manage and you were there to work. If you cannot do that, Eric, then I will just assume that you are either middle class filth or an arse-licking scab. Either way your opinions will not count for shit to any socialist. The aim is not to convert people like that: it is to bury them.
'Morning all - I see that Eric the lad has changed the text of his posting. First I was giving the "hard-left" case, and now it is the "National Bolshevik" one. I suspect that someone has had a quiet word in his little ear and told him that some other knob in the comments here had described me as a "fascist." Anyway, it's nice to see the lad running to catch up.
15 February 2006
Latest abuse scandal in Iraq.
The latest allegations of abuse in Iraq by the occupation forces should come as no surprise. It is not that these things happen in war, they do, but that is not the point. The point is that these things happen in imperialist wars, and that is why the left has a long tradition of opposition to imperialism's adventures.
When soldiers are turned loose on the locals it encourages them to think that they are superior to those locals. Furthermore, and this is the important bit, it helps encourage the notion that there is a convergence of interests between them, the ordinary soldiers, the class that sent them to war in the first place, and the middle class filth who supports that class. If we are all Brits together, all kicking the towel-heads around, then we can paper over the fact that the enemy is at home. This, more than anything else, has always been at the root of socialism's objection to imperialism. One war at a time, people, one war at a time.
Probably the only good thing to come out of this business is that yet another nail has been driven into imperialism's coffin. Throughout Arabia this footage is being shown and reshown. Newspapers are running angry editorials and printing stills from the video. The pressure on ordinary Iraqis to end the occupation can be expected to grow. The end of occupation means the discrediting of the people who ordered the war in the first place.
Update at 1.00am:
I see that some wazzock has the latest polling date which shows that a majority of Iraqis think that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth it. The point being? There is no point, because the issue for socialists is neither Iraq not the type of government that Iraq has. The issue is that we have a chance, albeit a small one, to see our enemy discredited by a lost war. The enemy, as always, is at home. How many times must this be repeated before fools like this either accept it, or stop calling themselves bloody socialists?
Update at 12.45pm, 23-2-06:
This is just to welcome 'mongers from Harry's Place who have been brought here by a reader's comment. They are cordially invited to remark on how they think the cakewalk is coming along?
13 February 2006
Is Iran the next target?
During my time in London last month I got gloriously smashed with an old friend that I had not seen for over a decade. He now works for the security services and had a few things to say about America's sabre rattling towards Iraq.
Basically, to try and destroy all the facilities that Iran has spread out around the country would take the USA about a week of almost constant air raids. Even then it is debatable just how much would be destroyed. Given that there is still no real evidence that Iran is building anything nasty, such attacks would probably cause havoc within those few countries that still have a good word to say about the USA. Furthermore, given that the American army of occupation in Iraq is now spread out in neat little bite sized chunks, any Iranian reply to an American aggression could lead to its swift destruction. This would probably come about due to a combination of Shia guerrilla attacks within Iraq, aided by Iranian armoured divisions flooding in from outside.
For all these reasons my spooky friend does not believe that any attack on Iran is likely.
I am not convinced, largely because I think that we are dealing with a regime in Washington that is as aggressive as that of pre-war Germany. It is possible that hubris will lead them on until finally the rest of the world comes together to see them destroyed. Part of me wants that to happen in the sands of Iran and Iraq. Then the other, nicer bit kicks in when I think about all the Iranians and Iraqis who will have to die to bring it about.
10 February 2006
Liberal-Democrats stuff Labour in by-election
In spite of all their problems the Lib-Dems have managed to take the normally safe seat of Dunfermline and West Fife from Labour in a by-election. Turnout was down to just 60% when the seat was contested in last year's general election, and it seems to have fallen still further now.
Once again we have proof that working class people will not vote for the Labour Party that has been taken over by Blair and his cronies. The issue is not socialism now; the issue is having a party that reflects the basic values of the urban working class, a party that exists in opposition to the middle class values of the Conservatives.
Unless and until the Blairites are removed, then I predict that working class electoral participation will continue to fall, and that NewLab will lose the next election to the Tories: and a good thing too! Only in that way will the party be reminded about what it was set up to do.
The Hotel Sheraton Affair
This one has been rumbling since last week when Sheraton USA ordered its Mexican subsidiary to turf out 16 Cubans who were holding meetings with some American businessmen. The Marie Isabel Sheraton duly complied, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they were breaking Mexican law by doing so. Sheraton's excuse is that the American government told them to do it, but nobody in Mexico is wearing that one.
First came the protestors who pretty much made life difficult for anyone wanting to enter or leave the hotel. Then the federal government said that it would prosecute the company for breaking Mexican law, an action that could lead to fines of around £300,000 being laid at their door. Alternatively, the hotel could be ordered to close down for a week or so.
As if that is not enough, the Mexico City authorities sent their inspectors into the building on Wednesday of this week and have come up with a list of infractions that range from not having planning permission for a sizable chunk of the hotel to a failure to provide restaurant menus in Braille. The city council has promised that the hotel will be closed for a period of time as a penalty.
So, Sheraton de Mexico is about to get shagged by the Mexico City authorities, then the federal government and all the while protestors are demonstrating outside the building's entrances, anyway.
Before the Americans started all this nonsense, did nobody up there think that since Mexico has its presidential elections in July, nobody could to be seen to be soft on national sovereignty?
08 February 2006
America (indirectly) funding Iraqi resistence
If true, this is a good one: the Americans spend millions of dollars on rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure, and the insurgents increasingly control the output.
According to this report, the resistence may even have taken over some senior management positions, thus to ease the flow of funds into their accounts.
Is there anyone in the UK who seriously doubts that imperialism has lost this one?
06 February 2006
|The tiresome need to go and earn some money means that this blog will not update every day. The next essay will be posted on Wednesday.|
03 February 2006
The new enemy for America is. . . Canada!
You might think that it was probably not a good idea for those American soldiers to open up with a machine gun on a diplomatic car in the Baghdad Green Zone. Still, those pesky Canadians had to be taught who's the top dog around Iraq, I suppose.
Yes, that's right, a Canadian vehicle with the acting ambassador inside, and a damned great maple leaf stuck on its windscreen has been riddled by gunfire.
The Canadians claim that their drivers are all given special tuition in how to avoid getting shot by trigger-happy goons from the USA. As usual the Americans are claiming that the car ignored instructions to stay away from the convoy.
The nice thing about all of this is that it further alienates the USA from those countries that are historically its friends. It will take more time, but I honestly believe that within my lifetime the NATO alliance will go the way of the Warsaw Pact, and the USA will find itself alone in the world.
Bring 'em on!
Cheers: Juan Cole
02 February 2006
What do Charlie Kennedy and Mark Oaten have in common? Well, they both like to get shit-faced.
The Oaten story broke on the 22nd January, but the News of the Screws wouldn't tell us what Mark Oaten actually did with his rent boys that was so "vile" and "disgusting". Now we know: he liked to eat their shit.
I went for breakfast soon after posting the above. However, the thought of Oaten and his shitty activities rather put me off. I have eaten nothing all day...
Tony, the last of the London Lib-Dems, has now reported that he had the idea of "resurrecting Simon "the Straight Choice" Hughes' 1981 campaign slogan against obvious bum-bandit Tatchell" might put him in with a chance of winning a council seat in May. Alas, it has emerged that Hughes is a poof as well. His e-mail went on to say that "the straight choice who takes no shit" may work instead. The Exile is dubious about that idea.
We at the Exile wish him well, but do advise him to keep his normal arse to the wall whenever any of his fellow Lib-Dems are around. We also suggest he joins a party with more chances of success: The Monster Raving Loonies seem to be in with more chance than the Homo-Shiteaters.
01 February 2006
Monger of the month: January
Given that updating the blog was difficult in January, I expected that this cherished award would have to be suspended owing to a lack of idiots. However reading through the comments I found one candidate who just about meets all the requirements. Ladies and gentlement, I give you The List Administrator, who made a rather sweet off-the-wall comment about this posting.
For the record, TLA, I'm neither a Communist nor a fan of Greenpeace - and neither is Brian Haw come to that. He comes over as an outraged individual who feels ashamed that his country is tied in with that shithole of a place that sits like a giant turd on the other side of the Atlantic.
Every month this blog will award due recognition to the animal, vegetable or mineral who has made the most asinine, stupid and/or off-the-wall comment or comments. Nationality is not important, but anyone who signs themself as anonymous will not be included. The publisher-editor's decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into.