Monthly Archives: June 2010

Amazon.co.uk: james eves "WOUIFE"’s review of The Blood of Alexandria

 

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars YOU CAN NOT BEAT A GOOD STAKE, 26 Jun 2010

By 
james eves "WOUIFE"

This review is from: The Blood of Alexandria (Hardcover)

This is my first outing with Richard Blake Aelric,the young British clark who has become a senator and trusted henchman of Emperor Heracluis and i found that it kept me page turning all the way to the end of this politcal intrigue in 612AD Egypt.The one character i was not sure of was the Mistress who seem to float through the story but was not notice by anyone except Aelric and who had powers that seem to take us into the world of fantasy.The man who i grew to like was Priscus,the old enemy from Constantinopl who has a drug habit and a passion for a nice stake,but not all ways on the plate,which along with his pet cat,was not unlike that of a Bond villain.I also throught the Amazon Nuns was a nice touch in the final outcome,so perhaps not so far from fantasy.So to sum up,a good read that makes me want to explore the first two books by Blake and the ending leads one to believe we will have more adventures with Aelric yet to come.

Amazon.co.uk: james eves "WOUIFE"’s review of The Blood of Alexandria

Peter Saunders: The Working Classes are Thick

I agree. Clever people tend to have clever children. Stupid people tend to have stupid children. In a society where birth counts for everything, there will be a gradual tendency towards an even distribution of intelligence among the classes. In any reasonably open society, however, clever people will rise from the bottom. Over time, there will be a decline in the average intellectual quality – among much else, perhaps – of the lower classes. Welfare policies that subsidise the proliferation of the unfit will make things worse.

I am willing to accept a system in which those who are able to pass certain rather stiff examinations can go to university, and receive financial assistance if their own family means are insufficient. Indeed, though my own interest is not necessarily a guide to what is right, I am a beneficiary of this system. But I see nothing but national harm and individual shame in the system we now have. SIG

“In an open society, people will be recruited to jobs largely on the basis of their ability. This means the brightest people will tend to be found in the higher occupational classes. These people will tend to produce relatively bright children so, in the next generation, middle-class children will be over-represented in the higher positions. In a meritocracy, therefore, we should not expect equal success rates among children from different class origins.”

More at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7144765.ece

101 Years Ago – G.K. Chesterton on Great Powers

Christopher Houseman

By 1909, Chesterton was contemplating the prospect of the decline of the United States, especially in light of its war against Spain over the Philippines. The decline of the British Empire after the Second Boer War of 1899-1902 was a given.

It may be said with rough accuracy that there are three stages in the life of a strong people. First, it is a small power, and fights small powers. Then it is a great power, and fights great powers. Then it is a great power, and fights small powers, but pretends that they are great powers, in order to rekindle the ashes of its ancient emotion and vanity. After that, the next step is to become a small power itself.
Chesterton, G. K. (2010). Heretics (265). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Says it all really, doesn’t it?

Surrey Police Authority owns up to confidence trick (almost)…

Christopher Houseman

My copy of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines a confidence trick as “an act of cheating or tricking someone by persuading them to believe something that is not true.”
Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

So imagine my reaction upon perusing the contents of “Policing Surrey”, a glossy puff-piece shoved through my door this morning as part of Nanny’s ongoing efforts to convince me she’s doing a bang-up job for the money. In a surely unintended moment of honesty, I note from the ten performance targets for 2010/11 listed on page 11 of the booklet that Surrey Police is hoping:

“1) For public confidence in Surrey Police to remain at or above 80%”

But further down the list, I read that Surrey Police is also hoping:

“8) To improve detection rates for serious crimes to 18.6%”

So, let me get this straight. Surrey Police currently spends a £215.8 million annual budget (page 7), almost half of which it admits (on page 11) is extracted from Surrey residents through Council tax.

In return for this largesse, more than 80% of Surrey residents are kept convinced that Surrey Police is doing a fine job. But for this coming year, the force is hoping to raise its detection rates for serious crimes to a point where perpetrators will still have an 81.4% chance of not getting caught.

If this isn’t a multi-million pound public relations confidence trick, what is it?

And by the way, in light of the force’s own assessment of its results, will the next person who tells me the right to bear arms should be left to the public safety experts kindly tell me who the experts really are in this context?

Meanwhile, should a genuinely public-spirited officer or civilian member of Surrey Police happen to read this piece… let’s swap condolences.

101 Years Ago – G.K. Chesterton on Home Rule

Christopher Houseman

Although he wrote the following passage in 1909 about the United Kingdom and the question of Irish Home Rule, G.K. Chesterton might just as well have written it about the EU and UKIP. Enjoy:

union is no more a good thing in itself than separation is a good thing in itself. To have a party in favour of union and a party in favour of separation, is as absurd as to have a party in favour of going upstairs and a party in favour of going downstairs. The question is not whether we go up or down stairs, but where we are going to, and what we are going for? Union is strength; union is also weakness. It is a good thing to harness two horses to a cart; but it is not a good thing to try and turn two hansom cabs into one four-wheeler. Turning ten nations into one empire may happen to be as feasible as turning ten shillings into one half-sovereign. Also it may happen to be as preposterous as turning ten terriers into one mastiff. The question in all cases is not a question of union or absence of union, but of identity or absence of identity.
Chesterton, G. K. (2010). Heretics (255). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Chesterton wrote the above in the context of correcting the idea that older politicians like Gladstone were idealists whereas newer ones like Joseph Chamberlain were materialists. In fact, he noted, the real difference between them was that Gladstone thought of his ideals as things he would like to change reality to resemble, whereas Chamberlain thought his ideals simply described the way things were in any case.

Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.

Diane Abbott for “Labour” leader

David Davis

As I have often said on Facebook, it is of no account whatever who is the leader of the “Labour Party”, since it will try to do the same thing over and over again regardless – which is to say: burn down and destroy what semblence of liberalism still exists in the UK.

It must, simply, be shut down and its hard disks malleted, before it can continue to exist to do yet more damage to liberty in the world.

But although people are rating her as a 3%-cert or less, I think all support should be given to her. That will ensure that Labour is unelectable for at least three years.

Diane Abbott and jobs and security and moving house

Michael Winning

That Diane Aboot woman is a scream. First, she clams up in front if Andrew Neil (not a good position to be in) saying “Andrew, I have nothing more to say” many many times over her taser fares. And then she thinks that not having tenure in your job is “cruel”. Well look love I farm pigs, and if no sod wants to eat them, or I don’t get the money  for them I need to pay our way, then I’m thrown out of here by the Bank and by your governmint. What do you suggest I’d do then Diane.

Fantasy Book Critic: Odds and Ends: My New Top 10 Anticipated Novels From the Rest of 2010

 

The Blood of Alexandria by Richard Blake (same as above, except that this is book three in a pretty anachronistic series that nonetheless managed to hook me by the narration of its irrepressible and cynical (anti)hero and which I plan to review soon – for fantasy lovers, this series is what I imagine Joe Abercrombie would write as historical fiction)

Fantasy Book Critic: Odds and Ends: My New Top 10 Anticipated Novels From the Rest of 2010

Meetings of the Other Libertarian Alliance

We meet on the second Monday of the month at 7pm at The Institute of Education, just off Russell Square – student bar, Room S16, Thornhaugh Street, London, WC1B 5EA. On Monday, 12 July Jock Coates will speak on “Mutualism, Market Anarchism and the Libertarian Left: foes or fellow travellers?” On Monday, 9 August Derrick Silver will speak on Global Warming. On Monday, 13 September Tim Evans will speak on ‘Thoughts on the UK’s Libertarian Movement’

The joke of the day

Michael Winning

Had a hard day on the farm todasy, so here’s some light reliefe.

North Korea to elect a new leader.

PFS Conference Videos

Sean Gabb

Here they are:

http://vimeo.com/channels/114000

There are two general discussions that must wait until my upload quota resets next Tuesday. But the speeches are now up.

By the way, I may be about to acquire the ability to upload long videos to Youtube – the normal limit is ten minutes only. If so, I will upload everything again, which will allow me to mix in some of the video footage that Hans is sending me from the Hotel’s own record.

Sean

A quick response to Mr. Osborne’s Emergency Budget

Christopher Houseman

This tough austerity budget, in which everyone will bear the pain together, has everyone at the BBC prattling on about the projected 25pc departmental spending cuts.

Apparently, everyone’s forgotten George Osborne’s admission that, because of his refusal to cut capital spending projects, overall Government expenditure is set to rise from £637bn to £711bn over the five-year term – a mere £74bn increase (that’s well over 11.5pc).

Wow! What a sacrifice by the State. Imagine how much more Government would have awarded itself if we weren’t in a recession.

I further note that, as indicated beforehand by David Cameron, some Government departments are more equal than others. Spending at the Department of Health (doh!) and the Department for Overseas Bribery Development won’t be cut. I guess the coalition Government needs to keep renting votes in the North-East and the UN General Assembly, and Big Business needs some more taxpayer-oiled overseas contracts in the “Developing” World.

Clobbered: middle England (esp. those on household incomes of £40-60k), anyone on State “benefits”, anyone planning a big ticket purchase in the New Year (when VAT will rise from 17.5pc to 20pc)

Pseudo-clobbered: the rich (28pc CGT is still less than the top rate of 40pc income tax, so that loophole remains cost effective), the banks (surely the new bank tax won’t be passed on to customers in the form of higher charges – will it?)

Encouraged: Some small business owners (various breaks relating to entrepreneurs’ CGT, NI breaks for SME’s outside London and the South East).

Overall: Open for (Big) Business as Usual.

New Video Files for the Property and Freedom Society Conference

Sean Gabb

Note: I have said this many times to individual correspondents. But I am now getting so many enquiries that I will say it generally. I use a video hosting service called Vimeo. This allows me to upload high quality video of any length. However, there is an upload limit of 5Gb per week – which sounds a lot, but isn’t. This is also an inflexible limit, and there is no question of a rollover from the many weeks when I upload nothing.

Therefore, the videos for this month’s Property and Freedom Society conference in Bodrum must go up over several weeks. I have uploaded the main details for every speech, and have attached position holding videos for those that have not yet had the speeches uploaded. That is the reason for the four second clip of a baby crawling – it was the shortest piece of video I could find at the time.

These position holding videos are now being replaced one at a time. So far today, I have uploaded the following:

PFS 2010 – Hans-Hermann Hoppe, On Private Goods, Public Goods, and the Need for Privatization
http://vimeo.com/12598721

PFS 2010 – Norman Stone, World War I: Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and the Making of Turkey and the Modern Middle East
http://vimeo.com/12598642

At this moment – 1:20pm BST – I am uploading these videos:

PFS 2010 – Thomas DiLorenzo, America’s Culture of Violence: Myth vs. Reality
http://vimeo.com/12598489

PFS 2010 – Anthony Daniels (Theodore Dalrymple), “Public Health” as a Lever for Tyranny
http://vimeo.com/12598829

These should be ready for viewing within the next few hours. I will continue uploading until I reach the 5Gb limit. I expect to get everything up before then except two of the general discussions.

Therefore, please be patient. Everything will be available soon. In the meantime, do think of me. My dear friend Richard Blake, the critically-acclaimed and internationally best-selling author of “Blood of Alexandria” (available through all good booksellers), etc etc, is trying to work on his next masterpiece. I am preparing lectures. My Baby Bear has found how to unlock the bathroom cupboard and is unpacking all the aftershaves I have been given over the years for Christmas and never used. And all you want is video uploads…..

Regards,

Sean

Some very nasty people are NICE

David Davis

Spotted this just now.

Robert Henderson on Primrose Hill

A lesson from Primrose Hill

Robert Henderson

I was walking down Regents Park Road in Primrose Hill in the heart of London recently when I was struck by a curious thing: the street had a distinctly old fashioned air. There were no supermarkets, chain stores, no MacDonald’s, not even a Starbucks or a Coffee Republic. Instead there were a string of independent shops, cafes and restaurants. None was of mega-size , most were small, none sold the tat which is the staple fare of nearby Camden Town. There was even that great modern rarity a bona fide fishmongers. The telephone boxes were the old iconic red ones. There was a blissful shortage of street furniture and signage. The traffic was light and the pavements well inhabited but not painfully crowded. There was not a tramp or drunk to be seen, nor gangs of young men loitering. It might have been a market town high street from the 1950s.

Other things were striking. Although Primrose Hill is in central London there was barely a non-white face to be seen. Even more remarkably for these days, the voices I heard about me in the street were almost all English. The staff in the shops were overwhelmingly white, and in the couple of shops I went into they also turned out to be English. Away from the shops a similar unusual cultural scene obtained, with the large houses and the streets being overwhelmingly inhabited by white faces and English accents. No council or housing association properties stand amongst the urban villas . The place has the unmistakable stench of wealth.

The interesting thing about Primrose Hill is that it is one of the favoured residences of the denizens of the media and allied trades. If you talked to them or encountered them broadcasting or writing , to a man and a woman they would effusively tell you of the benefits of multiculturalism, how marvellous it has been for the country, how dreadful it would be if England was the England of old, that marvellously homogenous place so recklessly and traitorously thrown away over the past fifty years. Yet these are the people who choose to live in a place which comes closest in modern London to precisely the England they ostensibly decry.

These days most of the Primrose Hill fraternity would also happily parrot the globalist creed as well., for they converted to it when the Labour Party became NuLabour and embraced the Thatcherite economic faith. Yet they do not choose to live in an area touched by the economic fruits of globalism . Instead, they opt for a locality which is miraculously protected from the chain stores and their ruthless drive to destroy the private shop and impose uniformity. Not for the Primrose Hill set the vulgar traipse round the supermarket, even a Waitrose, but the old-fashioned and civilised shopping which involves personal service from people who understand their products and display a civility which is dignified rather than chummy.

That most of the inhabitants of Primrose Hill are card-carrying members of the “right-on” brigade is unsurprising , because the only people who can afford to be relaxed about the effects of globalism are those who can avoid its consequences, or at least its most immediate and obnoxious effects.
Not for them the “joy of diversity” of living in a tower block on a council estate where they are the only white resident. Not for them the sending of their children to schools which boast “179 languages spoken here” and where their child is the only white child in his form, children such as 15-year old working-class boy Richard Everitt murdered by a Bangladeshi gang in the 1990s who attacked him simply because they had decided to harm a white boy. . Not for them gangs of young men in the streets. Not for them street dealers operating openly before the police. . Not for them an area shorn of shops except those run by ethnic minorities, where the only meat available is halal and if English is spoken at all it is spoken as a second language. Not for them the feeling that they are a stranger in their own land.

The very white, very English, very old-fashioned world that is found in Primrose Hill is mirrored wherever the better-off congregate, whether that be inner city enclaves such as Primrose Hill and Hampstead or villages in leafy Surrey or Cheshire. The less well off – the large majority – must take pot luck .for they cannot move where they choose. . Those born and raised in an area which is still largely untouched by immigration still have the luxury of living in an English environment, although they will not have the further luxury of living in a world with the other goods which those in places like Primrose Hill enjoy such as independently owned shops with polite, knowledgeable and attentive staff. But even those born and raised in such places are vulnerable to being forced out as house prices rocket, east European immigrants flood the local labour market taking jobs and lowering wages, more and more second homes are bought by well-off outsiders and by the refugees of middle-class “white flight” from the immigration- infested towns and cities to those parts of England which are still England.

For the poor born and raised in paces with large immigrant populations – first, second, third generation immigrants and so on – there is no choice. They have to live cheek-by-jowl with the immigrants, send their children to immigrant dominated schools, shop in local stores owned by immigrants. The older amongst them will have seen their previously homogeneous community transformed by mass immigration, often at a bewildering speed., but always within their lifetime.

But it is not only those who are unmistakably poor who are vulnerable. Increasingly those who are solidly middle-class by background and occupation are finding that they are being priced out of a means to escape the effects of mass immigration. Our elite have made living in an English environment , whether in an enclave in urban areas with a large ethnic contingent or in an area as yet not subject to mass immigration, an expensive business . Many of the white, English middle-class are finding to their horror that they cannot engage in “white flight” to areas where they can enjoy a society devoid of all that wonderful diversity they are supposed to adore. House prices are too high, suitable jobs too few. Most disturbingly, even if they do manage to escape they cannot be sure that where they have gone will not fall to the immigrant wave or the local economy be demolished by the relentless march of the chain store. To have the best of all worlds – the secure world of Primrose Hill – is very expensive indeed.

What lesson can we draw from all this? It is a very simple one: this is the way people normally choose to live when they have the choice. They wish to be in an area where they are ethnically dominant because that makes them feel secure. They choose to avoid the de-personalised uniformity of life which is the lot of the vast majority who are left only with supermarkets and chain stores within reach. They want people to serve them who are polite and competent. Of course, not every person will want exactly the same environment but the will want the same basic things of an ethnically secure territory, better quality products and reliable service.

Attack the System » Blog Archive » Revolutions: American and Spanish, Anarchist and Patriotic

 

Attack the System » Blog Archive » Revolutions: American and Spanish, Anarchist and Patriotic

Amazon.co.uk: M. Huet "Sianlover"’s review of The Blood of Alexandria

 

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The Best Blake Yet, 16 Jun 2010

By 
M. Huet "Sianlover"

This review is from: The Blood of Alexandria (Hardcover)

I discovered Richard Blake in 2008. I am a big fan of ‘Conspiracies of Rome’, and I greatly enjoyed ‘Terror of Constantinople’. When I heard there was another one on the way, I could barely wait. I was also more than a little apprehensive. Sequels (and sequels of sequels) are often increasingly disappointing. I had been lucky once with Mr Blake, but this was hardly a guarantee of his continued excellence. But I have now read ‘Blood of Alexandria’, and while I would be the first to say it is not in fact the best novel I have read, it is certainly the best historical novel I have read. Indeed, it is better even than his first, which I have come to prefer to the admittedly more richly-studied and sophisticated follow-up (possibly because it seems to me to be in some way "purer"). But what more of this one? Well, the best idea I can give you of it is to as you if you would like to know 7th century Alexandria. If you would, this is the book for you. Would you like to see the mummy of Alexander the Great? Would you like to see the Great Pyramid before the Arabs chose to deprive it of its limestone casing? Would you to see, hear, smell and taste a world that is long-dead, and may never have existed quite as depicted here, but which is presented with the utmost persausiveness and plausibility? Blake’s knack for setting the scene is one of his greatest strengths. He has never been less than impressive in this respect, but here he excels himself: we are presented with a veritable rogue’s gallery of disreputable but entirely credible characters. We are also left in no doubt that this is exactly how clever, ruthless people behave when plunged into an interlocking set of crises. Mr Blake’s writing is fluent, immersive and so subtly expositional that we are able to persuade ourselves that the guilty pleasure of reading his works is tempered by their educational value. As we have come to expect, there are many moments of delicious black comedy, and many moments of shocking horror. And, driving everyone and everything inexorably on, is a plot as logical, complex and aesthetically and intellectually satisfying as a Bach fugue. It is a plot that picks us up on page one and does not allow us a moment’s peace of mind until the moment when it sets us down, cathartically exhausted, five hundred pages later.

Amazon.co.uk: M. Huet "Sianlover"’s review of The Blood of Alexandria

Film Review – “Dawn of the Dead”, 1979

From Free Life, Issue 36, April 2000
ISSN: 0260 5112
Dawn of the Dead
Directed by George A. Romero,
USA, 1979, 140 minutes

(Is this review an altogether serious expression of my views?)

This film was recently shown on BBC2 in its “Forbidden Season”. Though described in The Radio Times as “the Citizen Kane of horror” and promised in its entirety, several minutes from it appear to have been forbidden by the controllers. The cinema version, which I saw in June 1980, I remember as much nastier – more blood, more cannibal scenes, and even some zombie children at the airstrip. Never mind this, however. The film has been trimmed of a few superficial horrors. But the effect has only been to bring its political message into sharper focus.

And its message is one that might have been written by Jared Taylor, the Editor of American Renaissance, and have inspired the murder of Stephen Lawrence. For Dawn of the Dead is best seen as a white separatist parable, in which the zombies represent the blacks and hispanics and the heroes represent the white race.

Of course, there are objections to this exegesis. In the first place, the critics all agree that the film is a satire on American capitalism. Indeed, Mr Romero himself says so. In his ten minute introduction to the BBC2 showing, he mumbled very earnestly about “materialism” and Ronald Reagan. In the second place, the zombies are played indiscriminately by black and white actors, and the leading character is black. But there is no need to spend much time on either of these points. It stands to reason that Mr Romero should try to conceal his film’s true meaning from the PC dictatorship that rules America. He covered his true meaning back in 1979 by using a black actor for the lead; and he keeps it covered today by echoing the critics – people, in any case, who can be relied on to miss the point of everything they watch. For myself, I cannot conceive how any reasonable person could sit through Dawn of the Dead and not come away struck by its advocacy of racial segregation where not supremacy.

It opens in the middle of a huge crisis. America is being overrun by zombies. It seems that a plague has killed about half the population, and these have risen from the dead to prey on the living – sometimes to eat them, sometimes just to infect them with plague so that they in turn die and become zombies. Since these zombies have no intellectual capacity, but are driven by a few basic instincts, it should have been possible to destroy them at the beginning, or at least to contain them. It is plain, however, that the authorities have taken no firm action until it is too late. The opening scenes are shot in a television studio, where a chaotic debate is in progress. This is intercut with news bulletins about how the President has just sent another package of tough measures to Congress, and how communications with Detroit have just been lost. Armed police are roaming the streets, shooting at zombies – who need head shots, by the way, before they lie down. But even now, when the danger has become obvious, the fight for survival is being sabotaged. Too many people believe that the zombies are human beings, and refuse to kill them or give them up to be killed in the common interest. In one scene, a woman embraces a zombie, insisting that it is her husband: it bites a lump out of her neck. Even worse, there are people so twisted in their outlook that they side with the zombies against humanity. About a minute after the biting scene, a priest exults over the growing numbers and strength of the zombies and laughs at the armed policemen who are risking their lives to save his.

Though the authorities keep insisting that people should remain in the cities while taking precautions, it is obvious that no built-up area is safe: the zombies are everywhere. No doors can keep them out. They are dragging people from their cars. The heroes – two television people, male and female, and two policemen – realise that the cities are no longer the havens of civility that they were built to be, but have become more dangerous than any wilderness. They take a traffic helicopter from the studio roof and fly out into the country. They have limited fuel and no idea where they are going. They just fly in hope of finding a place where they can again live in safety among their own kind. Looking down, they see the roads choked with military and other official vehicles streaming out of the city. As ever, the rulers of America are happy to recommend one course of action while doing something quite different for themselves.

Further into the country, we find the redknecks at work. They have no delusions about the humanity of the zombies, and are slaughtering them without mercy – but, sadly, without much efficiency. They have the right instincts, but lack the sort of leadership that would ultimately save them. We see the redknecks drinking beer and playing rock music as they load and reload. But the zombies are stumbling towards them in an unending stream. Sooner or later, the bullets will run out, or the night sentries be overpowered, and another outpost of humanity will have fallen to the outsiders.

Moving on, our heroes come to vast shopping mall powered by a nuclear generator. After looking without success for helicopter fuel, they realise that they have found their promised land. It is a place filled with every good and desirable thing. There is food and clothing and shelter and electricity, and weapons and ammunition, all in endless abundance. Like most other promised lands, however, it is already occupied. Unable to appreciate or enjoy what they have taken, zombies wander round in a parody of human activity. But despite their superior numbers, they are no match for human ingenuity. The zombies have a limited capacity to use tools: the humans have the entire contents of a gun shop. Those zombies still in the car park outside are excluded. The reinforced glass doors are locked, and lorries are parked just in front of them to prevent any build up of brute pressure against the glass that might force an opening. Those inside the mall are exterminated in a carefully planned offensive. Their bodies are neatly stacked in some of the cavernous freezer rooms. The bloodstains are washed away. By the time the humans have done their work, the mall has become once more a safe and pleasant resort.

The middle scenes of the film are taken up with the idyll in the mall. The television woman grows big with child. The men make full use of the resources available. They mark out as their living quarters a suite of upper offices that have access to the helicopter parked on the roof, and furnish them with commendable taste from the shops below. They then build a false wall between the corridor that leads up to their living quarters from the mall. As in the great extermination just passed, we see them using the minds that are their real weapon against the numerous but lower beings who would otherwise destroy them. Indeed, we see their humanity displayed even more prominently than in the extermination. That was an act of immediate need. This is a preparation made wisely but without any immediate danger. They are settlers who have cleared their land and secured it against aggression, and who by virtue of their work have earned a fully moral right to the enjoyment of its fruits.

The zombies have not gone away. The world outside the mall is teeming with them. They have overrun one less secure human settlement after another. The television broadcasts become yet more chaotic, more filled with pointless argument – and less technically accomplished. The manned studio of the opening scenes has dwindled to a hand-held camera in a bunker. The broadcasts become increasingly infrequent, and then stop. The airwaves fall silent. Though they have not the means of breaking into the mall, the zombies remain outside, squeezing themselves past the lorries, pressing their faces against the glass doors, howling with brute lust for the warm human flesh they see inside but cannot reach.

I was not at first sure about the Hell’s Angels who eventually break into the mall. They do not represent the lefties – they are too well-organised. They do not represent the Jews – they are not bright enough, and they affect no compassion for the excluded zombies. But then I realised: they are the Soviets. They lack the comforts of civilisation, but they have the sort of command structure that is very effective for surviving without natural defences, surrounded by zombies – those numerous but lower beings. They smash their way into that mall simply to plunder it. They make no effort to keep the zombies out who follow them in, nor to use their presence for any constructive purpose. Of course, the Hell’s Angels are driven out: they lack the organisation and firepower for victory. In the retreat from the mall – and Mr Romero here may be predicting events that have yet fully to happen – many of them fall victim to the zombies, and we see their bodies devoured.

But despite their victory, our heroes have not won. The battle has allowed the zombies to retake possession of the mall. Still worse, one of them has been so badly wounded that he dies alone in a liftshaft and emerges himself a zombie. I am still not sure what this represents. Perhaps it means that we must be continually on guard against our own relapsing into lower ways. It might be so, considering that another of the heroes has already died and then been destroyed to prevent his becoming a danger to humanity. Then again, it might represent an intellectual conversion to the ways of the enemy. Jared Taylor et al. are continually lamenting the inability of white people to remain racially aware, and their tendency to protect and advance outsiders. Whatever the case, the new zombie smashes down the partition wall, and leads the others up into the human quarters.

In the penultimate sequences, the two survivors – the black policemen and the pregnant woman – get into their helicopter and escape just as the zombies have completed their retaking of the mall and are coming onto the roof. They have little fuel and still no idea of where to go. But as they fly off into the dawn, we know that somehow they will survive. They represent a new dawn for humanity – a dawn that will put an end to the reign of brute savagery and reclaim the world for civilisation.

But the mall is lost. In the final scene, the zombies are as close to celebrating as such mindless creatures can be – staggering up and down the escalators, and falling into the ornamental fountain. Very briefly, but significantly, we see cobwebs forming on the central display. The zombies can take, but they cannot maintain. They have the numbers to deny a future to others, but they have no future themselves.

There – does this or does this not make sense of the film? Is it not this subtext that gives the film its power over audiences that dare not openly express their fears in public? Will Mr Romero send me $100 for having rumbled him? Or will he sue me for libel? We shall see.

The New Barbarossa?

Christopher Houseman

George Osborne’s emergency budget tomorrow will coincide with the anniversary of Hitler’s decision to invade Stalin’s Soviet Union in 1941.

Those of us who, on the one hand, grieve “New” Labour’s sovietization of British society and the UK economy, wait with some trepidation on the other for the new Chancellor’s pronouncements.

The coalition government is reportedly keen to raise income allowances but will at the same time penalise any attempt to translate this extra income into investment capital by slashing non-business CGT exemptions and raising CGT rates. Meanwhile, the combined result of reported plans to raise VAT with recent cuts in the number of tax inspectors is a subsidy of the so-called “black” economy. No doubt, this subsidy will be further enhanced by the usual rises in taxes on petrol, diesel, alcohol and tobacco.

When combined with ongoing efforts to artificially depress interest rates, the unmistakable end result will be to encourage people to keep spending as much or more than they earn, but to try to do so “off the books”. And no doubt any future reversal of the proposed war on capital gains will involve encouraging capital formation under the control of large financial institutions. I can think of no outcome more likely to disillusion coalition members and the wider electorate alike in the longer term.

In 1941, some people hoped that Operation Barbarossa could somehow result in both sides losing. Sadly, until control of the money supply (at the very least) is wrested from the political system’s cold dead hand, such a hope will again be too much to ask for.

All in all, it sounds to me like a good time to go long on gold, silver and ferry companies (the booze cruise boost), and short on the FTSE in general and off licence chains in particular.

Will Hutton on How the Banks Won (and keep winning…)

Christopher Houseman

Will Hutton presented a Dispatches documentary recently on Channel 4 about the British banking cartel system.

The extent of Mr. Hutton’s connections with the previous Government were plain to see, as he treated us to an hour of breast-beating to the tune of “Why oh why do the noble politicians not rescue us from the greedy bankers?” This seems more than a little rich (in irony only, you understand). As I recall, the recent banking crisis would have lawfully removed large numbers of greedy bankers from the UK economy – but for Labour’s insistence on debasing the money supply still further to try to prop them up.

Perhaps the most informative snippet came towards the end when Mr. Hutton revealed that British banks currently lend out fifty times more money than they have on deposit, and five times more than the value of everything else the UK produces. No wonder our glorious leaders are worried about a repeat performance. Mr. Hutton’s solution? To try to force the banks to stop inflating residential property prices by switching the focus of their lending activities to (British-based?) businesses.

Sadly, Mr. Hutton didn’t tell the viewers how his proposals would avoid inflating the prices of business “assets” (commercial property, plant and machinery, R&D, properly skilled and experienced labour, etc.). Nor did Mr. Hutton explain how artificially stimulating productivity could be compatible with any conceivable form of environmental responsibility (so much for the alleged anti-environmentalism of decision-making in a free market). In fact, Mr. Hutton didn’t even tell us why businesses should apply for his proposed extra loans if they can’t be sure there are enough additional customers able and willing to pay for all the proposed new supplies of goods and services.