Novelist. Author of APSARAS and tales from the beautiful Saigh Valley. First person to quantify spiritual values.

Total Pageviews

Sunday 28 May 2017

Jihadists aren't true Muslims?

Following the atrocity at the Manchester Arena apologists for the Muslim community, hoping to shift the blame, have been quick to point out that the Jihadists aren't true Muslims. This is a lie; they are.
The difficulty the imams have is that in admitting that the perpetrators of these cowardly attacks are followers of Islam they must also admit that the Qur'an is open to misinterpretation; that not all the religious book promotes peace and that the sacred texts cannot, therefore, have been the direct word of Allah. This is unimaginable and they must therefore attempt to distance themselves from these radical murderers. It won't work, except amongst the gullible, much as it won't work in explaining the schism between the Shia and Sunni practices, each of which has varying texts incorporated into their respected Hadiths. Nobody can explain why Allah has not interceded with an update to save the loss of so much intertribal blood because to do so would be to question God and thereby commit blasphemy. The same could be said of politely enquiring why an omnipotent deity would require men (and women) to do his dirty work. Why do these killers presume to do God's work?
In the 21st century, this really isn't good enough. Nor is it good enough to deny outright that the goal of all true Islamists is to convert the whole globe to their faith and introduce 7th century sharia law throughout. For most the end justifies the means and if this means the slaughter of hundreds and thousands of innocent children then so be it. We really must put a stop to the Abrahamic religions before they put a stop to us.

You'd be stupid not to vote Labour

Corbyn's the man. As the polls demonstrate a closing gap, the British people are becoming aware of a new reality; Labour is the way forward. If they win the election we can look forward to a cabinet redolent with the wisdom of the likes of Diane Abbott and Emily Thornbury, reassured by the patriotism of John McDonnell, blessed with the policies forwarded by paymaster Len McCluskey of the Unite Union. There will be frequent discussions concerning foreign policy with the UK's greatest allies, the IRA and Hamas whilst relations with the US deteriorate as quickly as the dissolution of the monarchy. Oh yes, so much to look forward to. And then there's the manifesto; promising all things to all people. More money in the pay packet, better pensions, heavy borrowing to pay for fevered expansion to the public sector, now bloated with the arrival of the newly nationalised industries. But hey, where's the money coming from for all this? Don't worry we'll soak the rich, just you see. You'd be stupid not to vote Labour in the 2017 General Election!!!!!

Friday 26 May 2017

Hedge Funds

My understanding of hedge funds is that they invest money on behalf of clients in a bag of financial products aimed at maximising their profits. Some work very well and some don't which leads to attempts to make the system work better for the money men. improve the certainty.
Let me be clear here, I believe that such funds don't really earn their money; they do no real work, create anything or exploit minerals etc. They manufacture nothing, obtaining money earned by others using algorithms or other such computational devices to exploit the money market at the expense of the real wealth creators. They are, in effect, parasites.
Now, it seems to me that these funds are turning more proactive; actively involving themselves in the corporate world to fashion a market they can rig in their favour. They are coercing senior Company managers to acquiesce to, for instance, mergers or take overs that suit no one but the funds and their managers. These people have access to huge amounts of money, often greater than the GDP of many nations. They can buy influence to move the markets in their favour often, I'm sure, by dirty tricks.
This polarization of wealth is not healthy; it distorts markets causing massive and widespread disorder the consequence of which has the potential to be dire. Sadly the funds also 'own' many politicians in every country of the globe so not many speak up against this trend and those that do can expect to be slapped down. Maybe its time for the hedge funds to be closed down and the assets seized before they hold the world to ransom and put in place measures that stop the growth of these financial carcinomas.

Tuesday 16 May 2017


The so called 'Moors' murderer, Brady has died in prison of cancer. A policeman on the TV admitted that although he was against Capital Punishment he would have made an exception of psychopath Brady. That said, Brady never revealed the burial place on Saddleworth moor of one of his victims, perhaps thereby protecting his right to life at the expense of the long suffering victim's family. It was yet another example of his calculating cruelty.
At the end he was confined in a suite of rooms, attended by a palliative care doctor and two nurses. Where in the outside world do normal people get given this level of care? Is the treatment of Brady a measure of our humanity or our stupidity?

Friday 12 May 2017

GE 2017. Update 3. Chatham House speech

The leader of the opposition has spoken at Chatham House, the Royal Institute, on his policies for International affairs. His dream was for a peaceful world, untroubled by conflict, harmony abounding. It all sounded so peaceful, so idyllic, as if there was never any disagreement amongst the Nations let alone military aggression. In a Corbyn world you can always talk your way out of a situation.
His total approach to the Nation's security is to assume the rationality of a likely adversary as if they are always ready to comply with the resolutions of the United Nations. Oh yeah!
What about Kim Jung Un and the more militant followers of Islam? Neither are rational or likely to follow the dictates of the UN.
Corbyn spoke of his pedigree, how his parents fought for the International Brigade against Franco, relishing his description of the eventual winners as fascists supported by Hitler. These stupid people were supporting the Communists and yes the Monarchists ran a hard Country for the few, but imagine where they'd be now following the socialist agenda of Marx, Trotsky and Lenin. And let's not forget that when Hitler asked for Franco's support in the Second World war the Spaniard insisted on neutrality.
Corbyn stated that he'd not fight the upgrade for Trident but fell short of committing himself to use the weapon, thereby negating its deterrence factor. The British Army, a supreme, highly trained fighting force he suggested would best be used in peacekeeping rolls or in conflict resolution where human rights and white flag waving take precedence.
Throughout the speech, I heard not one word on Islam, the single most inflammatory factor in world conflict. Not one word on ISIS or Al Caeda. These people are not interested in following UN resolutions, only on destroying the West, its values, and setting up a world-wide Caliphate under Sharia Law. Tackling them is like tackling an out of control wild bushfire. You put it out in one place only for it to spring up elsewhere and then back again. These people are not open to dialogue; they die to achieve their aims but Corbyn has no answers other than to talk to people like Hamas. Is it a coincidence then that he introduced, at the beginning, the Somalian ambassador to the UN. Why? The one thing, however, he doesn't want to talk about are these Islamic issues because, I believe. he is after the Muslim vote, pure and simple, an object lesson in hypocrisy or lying by omission.

Thursday 11 May 2017

GE2017. Update 2. Labour manifesto

The Labour manifesto for the 2017 General Election has been leaked. That it has a marked socialist agenda is no real surprise given Corbyn's pedigree but will it lead the Labour party into the political wildness for decades?
Principal measure is the nationalisation of the railways, the mail and the energy industry, an echo of the Brexit mantra of regaining control; the bringing back into public ownership of key, strategic industries that shouldn't be entrusted to private, including foreign, ownership. I have sympathy with the idea but at what cost? Apart from compensating the Companies, all the employees will become public servants with all the benefits that brings; guaranteed employment, generous, unaffordable pensions. Then they will be compelled to become unionised and therefore at the mercy of McCluskey's Unite agenda of strikes and industrial chaos. Indeed, as Labour's paymasters, the Government will dance to the Union's tune of previously failed Socialist dogma. It's the politics of envy, the lowering of all standards in the need to subjugate the population into the lowest state of social existence.
This program is illustrated by the call for better equality. Now, I'm not suggesting, that this is necessarily a bad thing; there are some circumstances in which bosses have earnings that bear no relationship to the work they do, but there must be room for ambition, building businesses that employ, creating prosperity for all with rewards for the risk takers. Banks must be better regulated for instance but at the first whiff of a Labour Government in the exit polls, trillions of pounds and dollars will drain from the British economy. All the big companies will relocate leaving the UK a shell. It's almost as if the Labour Party wants to lose. Somebody suggested that Corbyn is a Tory plant, much as I thought of Tony Benn, doing all he can to ensure victory for the opposition. I suppose, the only surprise is that even with this manifesto for disaster, twenty percent of the population will vote for the Lemming party.