“Nature cannot be fooled” – Richard Feynman


During the final days of WWII, Berliners told each other to “enjoy the war – the peace will be terrible”. Reading the reports on Sunak’s spending review I feel like saying ‘enjoy the lockdowns – life after will be terrible’. The remarkable thing about this spending review isn’t that we’re told how bad the economy is going to be, or how debts are going to pile up. It’s that those who have privileged access to data – economic forecasts, NHS and covid data – are now posturing from behind their closed doors, zooming and whatsapping and giving the impression that nothing matters as much as their own virtue signaling.

I’ll leave the reports and interpretations of that Sunak ‘Spending Review’ to the ‘experts’ in the MSM and the manufactured outcries therein. At the moment there’s nothing we can do about this. That also goes for covid – check out today’s LockdownSceptics Newsletter for more covid news which you’ll not find in the covid MSM (link). There are  however two issues demanding a closer look. One is of course that holier-than-thou outcry about the foreign aid budget. The other is more general, going to the heart of the Westminster Cabal.

Regarding that first item: it’s astonishing that the Westminsterites even now, after the gloomy economic picture painted by Sunak, still believe that, covid debts notwithstanding, we must borrow even more to ‘look good’ on the international stage. There’s even a ‘Tory minister’ – a junior minister in the Foreign Office – who resigned because she thought this cut was ‘morally wrong’ and was breaking a ‘promise to the poorest people and countries in the world’ (paywalled link). Oh dear. Well, even yon Archbishop of Canterbury said so, therefore it must be true. It’s apparently not immoral to pile up more debts for our children to pay just so she, the former PMs and that Archbishop can ‘feel good’. We tax-paying serfs will surely be happy to pay!

Diverging slightly –  I’m sure the next Parliament, after the next GE, will be even more happy to hand out more benefits to all while keeping us in a state of permanent fear for our health – testing every sniffle, just as precaution – because BJ has proposed that the HoC ought to show ‘equal gender representation’, i.e. a 50:50 distribution of wimmin and male MPs (link, paywalled). He ought to have proposed quotas for trans- and other-gendered MPs as well, ‘binary- gendered MPs’ are so unrepresentative!

And so to the foreign aid budget. Douglas Murray, after his outstanding article in yesterday’s DM, has an equally coruscating Comment in today’s DT. Alas, it’s paywalled, so I’ll quote the first and last paragraphs in full:

“There was always something of the moral poseur in David Cameron’s insistence that foreign aid should be ring-fenced. After all, what prime minister has the right to decide what a future government should spend? Who can foresee what eventualities – such as a global pandemic – might emerge to change the fiscal situation of the nation? And why ring-fence the spending of only certain departments? Why not go to town and ring-fence them all? Is education, defence or policing any less important than foreign aid?” (paywalled link)

The answer to that question really ought to be simple: no, they’re not! However, from a cushy, well-paid, secure job with a lovely pension the majority of us can only dream about, it’s easy to overlook such petitesses as defence or education.

Murray again points to the stupidity of defending that cut by mentioning China, pointing out a rather inconvenient fact – inconvenient for those wanting to posture on the ‘International Stage’:

“In recent years this has included sending money to China to help pay for rice production. China, incidentally, is the only country in the world whose economy is predicted to grow this year. […] The UK has spent many billions of pounds of taxpayer’s money in recent years on peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Is this to be regarded solely as “military spending”, while paying for rice-growing in the world’s only growing economy should be counted as generous, lovely foreign aid?” (paywalled link)

Isn’t it remarkable how all those former PMs and the rest haven’t used their wonderful status on that ‘international stage’, pointing at our ‘do-gooding’ and demanding that other, very rich countries should also contribute! Not just China, there are also certain states in the Middle East which come to mind … 

The Westminsterites, that cabal of mandarins, politicians and MSM, clearly believe that the saying “charity begins at home”  is too old-fashioned, too ‘populist’. They think that only the ‘aid’ taking from our wallets by taxation is worthy of the name.

It’s as if we’re back to medieval times when the lords postured in their finery and armour on ‘the international stage’, all of which had of course been paid for by the work of their serfs and villeins. I can’t see any difference to the present where we’ve become the ‘tax serfs’ for those Westminsterites, can you? 

Even so, covid or not, “we” serfs are doing better than those poseurs, we’re more generous than them, as Murray observes in his concluding paragraph:

“The British public is exceptionally generous in its own right. In the first six months of this year alone, the public donated a staggering £5.4 billion to charities at home and abroad. That is more than the amount that the Chancellor is now rightly cutting from the Government’s budget. Charity – including charitable giving abroad – begins at home. It should neither begin nor end in Whitehall.” (paywalled link)

Precisely! However, I believe the coming economic devastation will stretch even the generosity of us, the British public, to its limits. Not even the posturing of ‘charitable’ football stars, of Labourites and those Tories who believe that only ‘The State’ can do things properly, will be of much use. when there’s no money there’s no money … They’ll still go on though, exhorting us to ‘give’ while they’ll clobber government with ‘outcries’ in the Westminster MSM. Don’t expect them to even hint at criticising the Whitehall mandarins.

Next, to Andrew Lillico and his paywalled comment in the DT. He’s right on target with his sharp pen although Whitehall isn’t quite on his horizon. His description of the state we’re in is precise:

“Britain is permanently poorer, and the British state weaker, as a result of Covid, the collapse in GDP and the gargantuan debt binge that has kept us going. Our economy is the most socialised it has ever been outside of war, and we have resorted to the printing presses to finance spending in a shockingly unprecedented way, pushing the great fiat money experiment close to breaking point. We will spend a lot more every year even after the virus is gone, which will necessitate tens of billions worth of tax hikes or spending cuts merely to stabilise the debt.” (paywalled link)

That is of course in the far future … so: no worries! Lillico, not sparing our parliamentary peacocks, next scores another point, observing that every economic crisis:

“[…] overshadows politics for at least a decade, changing everything for better or worse: the crisis and stagflation of the Seventies, in which I include the recession of 1982; the boom, bust and ERM crisis, culminating in the nightmare of 1992; the financial crisis of 2008; and now the Great Pandemic. Set against the economic carnage, it is therefore staggering that our political landscape remains stuck in an absurd state of suspended animation. Our political classes seem to believe that they can continue as if nothing had happened. The Government clings to an obsolete manifesto predicated on the very opposite of a Covid shock: an assumption that we were richer than we thought, that the supposedly austere 2010s were over, that we could afford to live beyond our means.” (paywalled link)

It’s no surprise that Lillico labels the Tory Party as ‘economically illiterate’. Add to this the patently obvious scientific illiteracy and the innumeracy of Tory MPs and indeed of the MPs in the shadow cabinet and on the opposition benches, and we don’t need to look far to see who has got us into this mess.

What then about the vaunted ‘quality’ of the Whitehall mandarins who ‘only advise’? Is it fair to say that such global illiteracy is similarly prevalent in their hallowed corridors? That it might even be required for those who want to end up at the top of the mandarins’ greasy pole, spending the rest of their cushy lives on yon red benches, with a handle to their name to make us serfs dutifully look up to them while tugging our forelocks? 

Why, given these past ten months, must we bow to and accept the edicts and pronunciations of those ‘experts’, those ‘advising’ mandarins, those peacocking politicians? Haven’t they sufficiently demonstrated their omni-illiteracy, to the detriment of our lives, aided and abetted by the equally multi-illiterate MSM editors?

My only consolation is that this fabled ‘Great Reset’ of which we mustn’t speak will surely fail, given the ignorance of all those who dream of lording it over us. Might this ‘reset’ not, in the end, turn into a ‘Great Awakening’? Not least because, as the famous physicist Richard Feynman said, ‘nature cannot be fooled’ – especially not by virtue-signalling ignoramuses who deem themselves to be all-powerful.





Photo by mielconejo

Print Friendly, PDF & Email