When I wrote my note to Boris the other day, it occurred to me that it was probably very stupid of me to mention that I do not do my work on the basis of making money from it.  Of all people, Boris knows the value of money.  I could probably wheedle my way into a position of influence if I threw my principles on the bonfire of vanities that is my usual MO.

Here is the problem with money – money makes people insincere – money is a great motivator, but it is also at the root of many significant problems. As I have discussed in previous posts, fear of mortgage payments is at the heart of many significant societal problems.  What your average white collar employee would term indiscipline, bad planning, rebelliousness or simple lack of predictability is often what we used to call integrity, back when we actually grew the economy instead of paying for votes.

David Torrance was objecting to criticism on the basis of a mere mention of journalistic impartiality today.  When I asked who pays journalists, and that it is entirely obvious that nobody is impartial, he responded by blocking me.  So now I am presumably on his list of dangerous radicals.

To save anyone’s confusion on this issue, and evidently David is extremely confused – what do you think would happen if I started spamming the Spectator with offers of a series of posts on Scottish Nationalism?  How would the Daily Mail respond if I generously proffered my witty scribblings on the underperformance of the English economy?  How would the Express feel about me jotting down my thoughts on petunias and dead disabled people?

That’s correct.  I would not get anywhere at all.  Despite my being a perfectly normal, respectable person, I would be rejected, laughed at, disparaged.  If I then somehow managed to make their contemptuous responses public, there would be howls of disparagement.  There is nothing impartial about journalism.

I tried illuminating Loki the rapper on this earlier this week – no response.  Asking for money before an ‘honest debate’ merely means that you are offering your opinion for sale.  As Loki is likely to concentrate on personality rather than economics, his opinion appears to many to be bought and paid for.

I then considered the issue of Wings – why would it be OK for Wings to do much the same thing?  The difference is that Wings made his agenda very clear, and stuck to it.  I am not a big follower of Wings, so I would not care to comment on his work, but I am sure it is what it says on the tin. You have what you paid for, in the event that you are a funder.

So, in terms of my work, I do not approach it with the intention of generating money.  If my investigations, which tend to be critically affectionate, as with David Wolfe, turn up a good guy I will say so.  If they do not, I will say that too.  I am a very gentle puppeteer, so I can say that my muses tend to be in very safe hands.

Having said this, the idea of money becoming involved before I do the work is horrifying and would seriously impact on my work, and so it is important that my muse keeps their trap shut until I have done it for best results. Money is helpful, but it is also a bigger influencer in most people’s lives than anything else.  Sex, religion, politics all pale into insignificance next to the divine cash.

At least two aggressive unionists, both English, swore, cursed, disparaged and tried to malign me in the course of answering their questions on various formats this week.  Both were silenced when I pointed out that Scotland does not vote Conservative, and had nothing else to say.  It was that easy.

Be aware that the vast majority of people form their opinions from a cursory look at the headlines, and they have been told that we are insignificant whingers.  They have no understanding of the active resistance to allowing foreign investment into Scotland, no understanding of cultural erosion, no concept of income/road/stamp duty/inheritance tax leaving the country and going elsewhere.  They have been led to believe that Scotland is trying to steal something that actually belongs to England.  Scotland would be so nice without Scottish people.

This continued policy of English domination is backfiring.  They do not seem to have an alternative course of action.  I see no wooing.  Therefore directing your career towards the ‘might is right’ economic domination is not a sign that you desire to become a top level journalist.  In other words, individuals who choose to write for money, without stating their agenda, forge their careers on the basis of doing what they are told. I am sure that David and his pals have nice flats, but they have no real fire or depth.

Who are the real whingers?  Those of us who would like to take up our tools and build our country, or those of us who see nothing, say what they are told to say, and have no feeling for their own nation?

Today I had a very irritating conversation with a dude that could not understand my retweet.  It was in relation to Poland.  He was feigning horror at Poles in England having said they would stay forever, but since the attack in Harlow, they do not think that they will.

My retweet informed him that since sending the 1-2 million workers, and in some cases entire families to the UK Poland has, in the meantime created conditions for the subcontracted employment of workers from North Korea, who work in closely monitored gangs for a very small wage so that the regime gain foreign currency.  They pick people with families, who are at risk until they safely return.  They also employ Portuguese workers, who are apparently willing to work for less than the Polish workers were.

Who decides who the valuable humans are?  Is it Poland, whose politicians have described African immigrants as ‘human garbage?’  Is it the trendy liberal implying that I am a racist?

Members of the Polish government have suggested scrapping benefits altogether, to dissuade immigrants from wishing to settle there, and their sense of nationalism is so strong that they have openly said that Muslims, and refugees from countries such as Syria are not welcome.

To your average British racist/xenophobe, the fact that the Poles come here, undercut existing business, work for less money and send what they do not spend home directly damages their welfare.  British wages are lower, the local culture changes, the appearance of the street changes with populations who prefer to live together in a sometimes hostile environment.  This greatly aided the case for Brexit, since it is perceived that supply outstrips demand.

With my economics hat on, this is not strictly the case.  Full employment is a case of prioritising the case for full employment.  Business does not want full employment.  If a bank requires 6 hedge fund managers to turn up for interview, for example, this means that there need to be at least 40 unemployed hedge fund managers at any one given time.  Hence, the unemployed population must reflect this.  Likewise, if a shopfitting company wish to choose from 200 carpenters for ten temporary jobs, this creates a perceived political requirement for 500 unemployed carpenters willing to work in that particular area.

The EU is a nice idea.  Free movement is a nice idea.  It is open to extreme exploitation by countries such as Poland, and it is certainly highly desirable for companies who want more and more choice when it comes to their employees.  What is not OK, is shifting millions of people from the Polish population to a country which already has an unemployment and welfare problem in order to exploit suffering people from a poorer country.  Hence, we see that the EU is not a good idea for the general population, particularly if you are on the shittier end of the stick.

In no way should these attacks be happening, but if you can imagine what will happen if Scotland achieves independence and stays in the EU.  There are only around two and a half million jobs in Scotland currently.  It will not take much before the Scottish population takes much the same attitude as the poorer English regions to immigration.  Do you really want to see Scotland covered in hastily built housing, crippling native unemployment and circulating currency which is continuously sent to another country?  Even Spain has an astonishingly high unemployment rate now.  This suits business, but people are stifled, from having families, buying houses, starting businesses.  People suffer. The economy suffers.

What irritates me intensely is that you are not allowed to speak about this.  If you do, you are immediately branded a racist/xenophobe.  If I put it to you that eventually you should be willing to share your bedroom with 22 Europeans, would you then understand what the problem is?

I have seen many friends, former socialists, who have gone from heartfelt defence of ‘the glorious worker,’ class hatred and the pretension of solidarity to absolute and very real racism because they are frightened.  They already have very little, and they fear losing it.  The same social classes who both at school and afterwards assumed that I was ‘a snob’ and did not understand them, now direct their hatred at immigrants.  Such is the nature of having very little, fully expecting that the future involves having even less.

The point is that we have an increasingly stratified population looking for things to tut at in the same way old ladies used to tut at the News of the World whilst buying it on a regular basis.  They tut at attacks on foreigners, they tut at people who want to leave the EU, they tut and look for the nearest foreign person they can patronise so that they can then look down their nose at anyone who has the audacity to say “Actually I was first in that queue.”  It is the usual very successful strategy of divide and conquer.  Fear of poor people is only to be encouraged in a conservative world, after all.

So, I ask you, who is the real racist?  The person who chastises you for using the word Muslim, even though you have far greater awareness of the Muslim population than they do and have the vocabulary to discuss it rationally, or the little oik that openly says they hate Muslims and wishes they were not in the UK?  With the latter, you can reason with them and educate them, with the former, you are condemned to silence by their stinking sense of entirely fake knowledge and self-worth. In the meantime, hate groups of other faiths, nationalities and interests feel no shame at all in protecting their interests.

Are you willing to allow your culture to be destroyed?  It would not, as I have demonstrated, take a great deal of erosion for you to view the world very differently.  In Scotland, we currently have the now Marks and Spencers-led attempt to call anything Scottish, British. We have been in an economic war with Westminster for fifty years.  Are you ready for the cultural war which they have already declared?  Once you have fought that, are you ready for the cultural war with the EU which is likely to follow?

Finally, I will leave you with the example of the Andaman Islands, in the Bay of Bengal.  These islands had four untouched colonies.  There are hundreds of islands, but India decided to settle on the occupied islands.  Out of four colonies, three are perishing and losing their land and seclusion to India, who have actually been fairly gentle in their domination of other people’s land.  Only the Sentinelese are likely to survive, because they have refused to speak to the emissaries sent by India.

Nationalism is not all about hate, it is about survival and very wisely protecting yourself. Globalism, on the other hand, is for people who got lucky, feel very superior and cannot see far enough into the future to see their children’s children made slaves to corporations who have long since lost sight of their role serving, rather than dictating to consumer populations.  Cling to your nationalism, because once you have lost it, you have no way back short of destruction of your enemy.