Naming the Beast – Part II

Even the End Times need a little entertainment, and so today we select the front runners for who will ultimately reveal themselves to be the true antichrist. Well, from the Bible and associated creative supplements, we know he’s inhumanly handsome, charismatic, a present or future world leader, will have addressed the UN, possesses an unusual birthmark or numerical calling card, will rise in the east, seems a lot nicer than he really is, wants total world domination, and will destroy the world on a bad hair day. So who are the leading candidates, front runners, and dark horses to become history's all-time ultimate bad guy? You mean worse than Hitler, Stalin & Nero? Yep, we sure do. We’ll start with the outsiders and weigh up the pros and the big cons with a little points tally. Please note that this list should be taken with a pinch of salt which should be thrown over your shoulder into the eye of any End Times devotees.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee
Odds:100-1

Sir Tim Berners-Lee is a distinguished mathematician educated at Queen's College, Oxford (for whom he played tiddlywinks against Cambridge (-1 point). So far, so innocuous, but whilst at Oxford he was caught hacking and was subsequently banned from using the University computer (+1). Sir Tim is of course famous for inventing the World Wide Web for which he has received more honours than a trumphant Roman general (+1). The Bible predicts that during the time of Tribulation anyone who wants to buy or to sell must wear the mark or stamp of the beast which is uncanny, as the letters WWW apparently equate to 666, well at least according to Cambridge calculations (well there’s +5 points right there!). Unfortunately he is only modestly handsome (+1), although he did spend plenty of time underground working with CERN (+1). Sir Tim is however a distant second to Bill Gates in dominating the World Wide Web despite having had a flying start (-1). Also he has shown surprisingly little interest in taking over the world, instead seeming to prefer a rather low profile (-2). Grand Total (5/10). Comments: Rank outsider.

Bill Gates 13/1

Definitely a promising candidate, given that Microsoft is widely demonised (+3 points). Bill has shown that he can overturn any US anti-Trust court judgement (+2), and virtually rules the Internet with opposition only from Yahoo and Google (+3). However he’s talking about retiring soon (-2), possibly with a view to going into politics (+2). Add to this that the fact he’s not considered good looking by most rock star groupies (-2), although most intellectual women think he’s a dish (+2). Grand Wizard Total (8/10). Comments: Needs to make a clear bid for the Whitehouse to become a real contender.

Bono 11/2

Rock Star who knows everyone, rubs shoulders with all the rich, the famous & the powerful (+4 points). Bono is devastatingly handsome (+3), charismatic (+2) and inexhaustible, as his career already spans three ten year compilation albums (+1). Bono has addressed the Labour Party conference and numerous right-wing organisations (+2), despite being an ardent left-wing campaigner (-2). He is a part-owner of a war game that simulates the invasion of Venezuela in the year 2007 (+1), and took the decision to buy a 40%, £160 million share in pro-capitalist, right-wing Forbes magazine (+1). Everyone loves him (+1) as Bono has done many good works (-3), and Bono regularly campaigns for peace and the abolition of poverty (-2). Favours a narcissistic demonic character in many rock videos (+5), although he appears on most TV and love ballads as a good guy (-5). Ireland’s biggest tax exile (+2) with a big heart (-2). Grand Total (9/10). Comments: Needs to make his move for power or to address the UN to make favourite.

Tony Blair 9/2

Aspirations, charisma and charm make him a poll favourite (+3 points). Fulfils prophesy about bringing peace then war (+3), is a former lawyer (+2 right there), and lusts for power (+2). May address the UN (+2 points pending), and certainly has been known to lie on occasion (+2). Accused of having the Evil Eye (+1) by conservative politicians (-2), and is only devilishly handsome in the eyes of Cherie Blair and David Blunkett (-2). May soon confirm the prophesy by rising to power through the Seven Hills of Rome (the EU) by riding a head of the red beast (coincidentally the colour of the Labour Party), which rises to power from the sea (the UK is an island: altogether compelling stuff - +4 points pending). Grand Total (9/10) with 6 points still pending! Comments: Move to become EU president would definitely make him #1.

The Pope 4/1

Trail-blazing late entrant. Only recently elected Pope, despite being former member of the SS Hitler Youth (+4 points and a good start). Has recently started attacking Islam as a violent religion (+2) and capped that off with anti-Semitic interpretations of the symbolism of the Cross (+4). However he is not very handsome (-1), although he did rise in the East (+1). Pope Benedict has a global platform of power (+1) and seems determined to start a religious war (+2), although his age may weigh against him (-3). Grand Total (10/10). Comments: Dark Horse – we’ll need to see if he calls for another crusade or whips Islam up into a state of Jihad before backing him…

George W. Bush 3/2 favourite

Seems to love Biblical prophesy (+2 points), and is an ardent crusader (+4) who makes attacking the Middle East a priority (+5). Loves threatening all nations with his power (+2), and would dearly love to invade Syria, site of Megiddo, the predicted location of the final battle Armageddon (+6). Has sinister charisma (+2), despite having no apparent ability to construct a coherent sentence unaided, and has threatened Middle East with World War Three (+2). (23/10) Comments: Off the chart. Clear front-runner, just one nuke from clinching the title.

So place your bets - with the End Timers putting down all their money this sweepstake should turn out to be more lucrative than a national lottery. Please select your favourite and send it on a postcard to:

President George W. Bush
Spot the Antichrist Competition
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500, USA.


Disclaimer. This article is intended in humour and the author does not believe, or intend to infer that any of the aforementioned individuals is, was or ever will be the antichrist, nor does the author believe in such a literal manifestation of evil, or for that matter in the validity of the End Time literature.

The New Tyranny of Labour

It’s certainly been a long week for the Labour government at conference in Manchester. What with all the rehearsal of speeches, transmission of coded compromises, in-fighting and back-stabbing, it’ll be a wonder if they're not all too tired to return for the re-opening of Parliament in a few weeks time. To be fair to them, after all the business dinners, lunches and coffee breaks, many of those jockeying for cabinet positions or leadership will probably have clocked up a good eighty hour working week in Manchester.

As usual Tony & Gordon have been the worst of enemies, the best of comrades, and the greatest of compromisers. Whilst they may be at loggerheads over some key political points of principal, such as the occupation of Iraq and Number 10, on many issues they are still Napoleon and Snowy epitomised. Perhaps their epitaph will read, ‘Conservatism good, New Labour better’. In his quest for leadership Tony Blair, or TB for short, is famous for having declared that there was “No use in having principles without power”. Twelve years on it seems that were indeed few principles that our Tony, who art still in Number 10, was not prepared to sacrifice for the sake of political expediency. True, he hasn’t added much New Labour legislation to fetter the unions, but then equally he has obstinately refused to repeal any of the anti-union laws introduced by the last Conservative government. In fact TB is no closer to being the savour of the working classes then any dedicated Victorian factory owner.

His defining shift away from the founding principles of the Labour movement, namely equality, state provision of good health and education, substantial pensions, a living wage, healthy working conditions, and a limit to the number of working hours is all safely dispensed with under the all-encompassing disclaimer ‘New’. Of course Tony has rallied the faithful for one last hurrah in Manchester with a recap of New Labour’s crowning glories. These include more lady and black MPs, a Labour London Mayor, free museum entry, the reclaiming of tax credits, more police (to deal with more crime), the replacement of mass unemployment with mass unpaid work experience, and of course his crowning achievement, three consecutive New Labour election victories - a feat that Old Labour with its baggage of socialist policies could never have dreamed of.

At this juncture Blair’s Britain, after ten years of power with scarcely a Tory to blame, is worthy of a moment’s reflection. Pensions are in terminal decline, the health service is suffering from rampant privatisation, as indeed are most public services, with highly paid health service managers being employed as lowly paid nurses are laid off, and, as for the two cornerstones of worker’s rights, namely living wages and sustainable hours, well they were never a feature of a competitive labour market now were they? UK manufacturing, or what little the British still own of it, has declined to represent only 14% of the Gross Domestic Product, little more than that contributed by the financial and professional service sectors combined. This statistic merely explains the UK’s £4 billion monthly trade deficit and, as for the remainder of the UK’s economy, it must be pretty much as invisible as Tony’s conscience.

Like all good corrupt bureaucrats, Tony and Gordon are making full use of all the essential political tools; smoke screens, paper shredders, ministerial shuffling, inquiries, manipulated statistics and, of course, the all-important carpet. One of the major issues which TB and GB have conveniently swept under the carpet at No.10 is the EU working time directive. This gem of socialist principle, considered a humane concession by the European legislature, states that the 14 member states of the EU should have a statutory maximum working week of 48 hours. To the shock and bemusement of other member EU States, Tony has cringed, manoeuvred and painstakingly negotiated his way towards an opt-out from this heinous piece of socialist legislation, in full keeping with the founding principles of New Labour. After all, how can the UK offer itself to the rest of the world as a cheap hinterland of skilled labour with such ridiculous policies as the maximum 48 hour working week, workers’ rights, or generous pensions? Why, without massive fiscal incentives, foreign investors would simply stay put where the air is cleaner and the quality of life is so much fairer. Forty-eight hours good, sixty hours better…

Good old Tony, soon he’ll deal with all those other thorny issues left over from the ‘crude individualism of the 80s’ he so deplored. Students will no longer be free to skip boring lectures or take a year out abroad (as they are encumbered by debt); the playing of music or smoking in public places will become an automatic ASBO; and soon even exercising your right to freedom of speech will mean that you ‘won’t work’. Once it was said that there were three classes in British Society, those with no money, those with some money, and those who could afford an accountant. Times have certainly changed with Tony. Now the British classes might be defined as those with no money, those with some money, and those who can afford a good lawyer. As a former barrister himself, Tony knows that Legal Aid is an unhealthy burden to the taxpayer and has allowed it to be run down to the level of a token public fund. After all we wouldn’t want any left-wingers to feel free to leave work before 8 o’clock now would we?

Sold down the river - generation debt

The summer sun is slowly becoming a warm glow as the leaves begin their golden descent to herald the season of family life, festivities and celebratory expenditure. This is the time for youth to turn towards the path of maturity and begin their inward journey of education, self-discovery and of course debt. The leaders of today were privileged to enjoy long summers and an essentially free, or at the very least, subsidised education. The Baby Boomers were afforded the luxury of developing new ideas, trying new things and given four years free from the cares of children, work and responsibility. However, the moral of this tale is of addiction to excess. The Baby Boom generation enjoyed the taste of easy living and prosperity of the post-war years so much that, unlike their forebears, when times became hard they did not tighten their belts, they merely invented new ways to spend and new ways to borrow to keep the good times rolling.

For every household two cars, two holidays, a dishwasher, a holiday home and, ideally, a boat for the weekends. When the economy became uncompetitive and did not sell as many goods, they simply borrowed. They borrowed from the bank, from the Federal gold reserve, and from other countries. Debt wasn't so bad from their point of view, it was just like a trip to the dentist - an hour’s discomfort and then you can return to the sun smiling more brilliantly than before. Eventually, when there was no more capital to spend or to borrow, they simply starting borrowing against the future, creating futures, options, derivatives and government bonds. Soon even students could borrow vast sums before they had even passed a single college examination. Medical students could amass six figure debts based solely upon their earning potential. But the Big Easy did not stop there. Why process waste when you can just bury it for future generations to deal with? Why generate electricity with huge, costly hydroelectric schemes or invest in renewable energy technologies when you can simply dig it out of the ground and burn it? Why cycle to work in the City when it's so much easier to cruise in an air-conditioned SUV?

The ‘buy now, pay back later’ generation has reached the end of its natural credit cycle. The writing is on the wall, and the balance sheets have simply not balanced for far too long. The US National (Federal) debt currently stands at $8,491,091,710,000, or $8,500 trillion (assuming that a billion is a thousand million), around $50,000 per adult of working age. So then, America is presently spending around $1.5 billion per day more than it is earning. Now add to this a US consumer debt of $9,709 billion (what the people owe), and a rising balance of trade deficit (what the country is losing per month in imports) of $68 billion, and the picture isn't pretty. The USA is haemorrhaging cash like a bad gambler, and is attempting to cover its losses and extravagant lifestyle with more borrowing. The Federal government (and its people) are paying more and more in interest alone, simply to maintain the nation’s fiscally and environmentally unsustainable appetite for consumption. For those who have read Madame Bovary, it is an inevitable destiny. By any law of common sense or economics, this state of affairs cannot continue indefinitely. So who's going to pay? The answer, unfortunately, is generation Debt.

The cost of public and private borrowing will spiral until the weight of the interest collapses free spending, and with it the economy. Direct and indirect environmental costs will rise as governments are forced to fetter industry and to cover the costs of climate change. Food is becoming more expensive as global production decreases, and energy costs are increasing dramatically whichever way oil production goes. So why hasn't the system collapsed to date? The answer is the unlimited bar tab of the Petrodollar cycle. In a nutshell changing money from one currency to another is a good way to lose money, and oil, the world's number one commodity, is traded in dollars. Oil producing nations sell their expensive black gold in dollars, and then store or invest their 'petro'-dollars in New York, and the Americans get a mountain of cash to invest, spend or use to buy foreign goods, which they do on a massive scale. The Americans import Japanese cars in dollars, and the Japanese spend their dollars on oil. The cycle is complete. in 2002 Saddam Hussein made the fatal error of threatening to trade oil in Euros, and look what happened to him...

So what are the consequences for those heading off to College under the warm red glow of a dying sun? Well for a start, you'll be borrowing more to study for longer. There'll be more people who are educated chasing fewer jobs, driving down average wages and increasing the cost of housing. You won't earn a fraction, relative to the cost of living, of what your parents’ earned at their peak, and it will take you a lot longer to reach the summit. You'll probably accumulate College debts of somewhere between $30,000 and $50,000 after postgraduate education, and the average salary for those fresh to the job market at 25 will be around $30,000. The 9-to-5 your grandparents worked, and the 8-to-6 your parents laboured will be replaced by the formality of an 8-to-8 working week with rare weekend breaks. After all, you've got the pensions and debts of your parents to cover. You won't earn $50,000 until you're into your mid 30's, if you’re lucky, and with the high cost of living you won't have paid off your student debt until your late thirties. At this point you'll be thinking of a mortgage which will need to be a thirty year arrangement, as by this time the average family house price will be over $500,000.

So don't plan on your retiring before 70, because your government certainly isn't. If you do the right thing and expire before your retirement you'll be doing your country a service by reducing the pension deficit. An unduly gloomy and pessimistic assessment you might suggest? Think again. So if you're heading off to College this month and your parents give you that fond farewell from their lavish house or stylish sedan, remember one thing, you're the one who will be paying for it all...

Hollywood Wives & Lurid Lives

After a lengthy withdrawal from coffee, say around three edgy hours, the world loses its form and strange hallucinations start to suggest that the world is truly concerned with AIDS, poverty & oil crises. One large latte later, with lashings of extra foam to bring the tab up to $5, and the temporary departure from reality is at an end. One may again read the world news with a clear mind.

The front cover will of course have a full blown image of a Diva (or her male counterpart, a Divon), preferably juxtaposed to a grave headline such as ‘Bush declares World War Three on entire Middle East’.… Such a combination of gravity reinforcing superficiality helps to drive sales behind the glossy image of a perfect Hollywood being. A ring of rouge framing brilliant white dentition crowns an hour-glass figure enhanced by expensive silicon. If a Hollywood actress isn’t available or affordable, then an errant fashion model or lesser Royal may have to do. Such daily visions of beauty, wealth and worldly happiness must of course be underlined by a catchy caption relating to a latest celebrity partner, Oscar or DUI charge (in the event that she’s an heiress).

We are of course expected, depending upon our gender and orientation, to be personally drawn to the image they project, if not sexually attracted. Throw in a few intimations about their sex lives, and the media have a simple and timeless recipe for endless international obsession. Whether it is a home-made Paris Hilton Hotel video, a choreographed music video of Paris Hilton, or yet another image of Jennifer Lopez displaying the world’s most coveted derriere, we are saturated with projections of an idyllic existence of sun, sea, sand and sex. Doubtless if we read and watch sufficiently (intentionally or otherwise), their Hollywood agents believe that we will dream of them as well.

Despite an entire lifetime spent in stoic denial of their very existence, immersed in the purifying pain of daily work, commuting and chores, their influence is about as avoidable as the Florida rain. A merest second’s sideways glance on a busy street or in a bar, and the attention is caught by a glossy front cover or a TV screen, drawing the mind towards news of the latest Hollywood divorce, marriage or affair. Like a perfect storm each passing indiscretion, sexual partner or public tirade takes days to subside, and after the rain has passed we are left with the indelible impression of the significance of their existence. Of course what makes it so much worse, other than the fact that 99% of us will never have the time, the money or the social licence to emulate their hedonistic lifestyles, is the suspicion that even their personal lives are choreographed for the cameras.

Cynicism is more an affliction than a grace, but even the most open-minded and sanguine of people must have lingering doubts about the sincerity of the Hollywood marriage. Cruise married Kidman, and then moved swiftly on to the arms of the next rising starlet. Brad Pitt found true love in the arms of Jennifer Aniston before finding eternal happiness with Angelina Jolie a couple of years later. True Hollywood heavyweights, such as Joan Collins who courted five husbands, Elizabeth Taylor who was married no fewer than eight times to seven husbands, and Doris Day who managed a modest four husbands, lived to suggest that marriage is merely another means of sharing sexuality within high society.

Monroe in her day was associated with most every beau in Bel-Air, as were Jane Russell and Britt Ekland. Other than the usual Hollywood cliché of high society promiscuity and star-studded sexuality, it is difficult not to read in between the lines and to wonder, just for a sombre moment, whether the varied assortment of boyfriends and marital partners is merely smoke rising from the flames within the sacred valley. Even the biography of angel-eyed Judy garland is tainted with well known tales of extreme promiscuity, drug-use, and failed marriages. It is nigh impossible not to draw the conclusion that Hollywood marriages are as much a front as the silver screen itself.

On the other side of the Pond, Beckham-bashing has become a popular pastime of late, and England’s golden couple, never more than a day or two from the front pages, are past masters of the art of the leaked shopping spree, the lavish seasonal party, and the well-timed press release. Britain’s working class royals, ‘Posh & Becks’, were a celebrity match made in tabloid heaven. A working class football hero (who rose from emptying ashtrays in a night club), and ‘Posh Spice’ who toured the world fully booked (although not necessarily for her musical talents), held the press captive for a decade with collections of designer sunglasses, designer babies and designer clothes. Whether their infidelities were media exceptions, or more a rule of celebrity life, merely adds another spark to the media frenzy that was their lives.

So who is Britney Spears, proud export of Kentwood, Louisiana, sleeping with in between scenes? Which of her five long-term husbands and boyfriends did J-Lo, beauty from the Bronx, really adore? Well the price for entry into their star-crossed lives certainly runs into many millions. On the other hand you might do just as well to take twenty dollars and go into your local small town diner or ghetto and become intimately associated with the next generation of Hollywood stars. Perhaps the greatest magic in all of Hollywood is their routine transformation of a twenty dollar harlet into a multi-million dollar silver screen starlet. What is certain, is that the catwalk procession of sideways glances, private parties and serial wives is as certain as the next sequel.

The poppies are in the fields...

Another American war, and yet another assignment of young British men are sent off as a token force to lend moral multi-national support to another doubtful cause. So what’s new? Nothing apparently, as officers from Britain's small professional army are sending Emails complaining that they’re overwhelmed, over-stretched and over there. Their opposition? An historical foe that recently defeated the mighty Red army of the neighbouring Soviet Union at the peak of its powers. Then of course they were the heroic, legendary freedom fighters known as the mujahadeen, a band of rebels which gave the feared Red army a damn good spanking at the end of the Cold War. Now of course they are better known as Muslim extremists, terrorists who would be bombed to smithereens by our bunker busting bombs and cruise missiles, if only they weren't so jolly unsporting and insisted on using the lie of their land to hide from our rocket ships and fighter-bombers.

Well anyhow, the home team's got our boys in a spot of bother, and they’re knocking off our elite forces at the rate of around a dozen a week in Helmand province. A spot of bother with the natives is of course a favourite euphemism over the British dinner table, but there's a longer history to it than just the language...

Long before the Boers gave our battalions a frightful licking in South Africa, there was a portent of warning over messing with the natives of Afghanistan (as though the recent humiliation of the Soviet army were insufficient). There were in fact no fewer than three Anglo-Afghan Wars waged between 1839 and 1919, which were largely disastrous from the British perspective. In the first of these, the Afghans rose up against the British invader in Kabul in 1841 forcing the British garrison to surrender. Upon their retreat the British army of around 16,000 (considerably fewer than the 6,000 now in Helmand) were harried and slaughtered at the Gandamak pass, leaving only one sorry survivor to pass on the warning to the British empire. Did we learn? Did we ever? In a replay of the 1841 massacre, the British again managed to have their Kabul garrison wiped out during the Second Anglo-Afghan War, before eventually retreating in 1881. It is even said that the Afghans used the heads of decapitated British officers to play polo. Shame, they might have learned their lesson if they'd kept their heads.

So here we are again a century later, with British commando officers sending whining reports that their young lads are emotionally distraught, overwhelmed, overrun, under-equipped, and overstretched. Well some things never change, especially the inalienable British delusion that every nook and every cranny of the globe is British business, and the national fantasy that a standing army of 100,000 men represents a significant fighting force for a perennial global superpower (by my arithmetic that's about 500 men for every nation on the planet). Well, we've certainly overstretched ourselves this time, and, surprise, surprise, there are no more troops available, and no other NATO country can either spare or would even dare to send troops into Helmand, except of course neighbouring Islamic nations. Across their neighbouring borders flows an inexhaustible supply of fanatical freedom fighters, armed to the teeth with AK47's and vengeance, until that is we get round to keeping that long overdue appointment with the UN psychiatrist...

Is Britain then going to turn tail and run? Never, by jingo! We'll do it the old fashioned way and fight to the last man (again). So, other than the world's most prolific poppy fields (and the main reason for the last set of wars in the region), what is there for us Brits to fight for in this barren and inhospitable land? The safety of an oil pipeline, national pride, Tony's Blair great legacy, or is it merely to add moral support for another catastrophic American foreign policy failure?

Betting shops are currently taking odds on our exit strategy. Other then the 100-1 odds available for the bet that there isn’t one, you can get odds of 11/2 that we'll be forced out by Christmas, but sadly only 2-1 that the troops will be home by the time Mr.Blair is unceremoniously forced out of office next year...

Are we really capitalists?

One of the favourite religious works of modern Western civilization, if not its Clarion call, is the gospel of capitalism. Of course the greatest of all the prophets, and the mantra of iconic Western leaders from Thatcher to Reagan is Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate and advocate of 'laissez-faire' capitalism. In a nutshell Friedman believed in unfettered markets and allowing natural selection within a free market economy to match supply with demand, and ultimately to allow an economy to find its own level without fiscal interference from big government.

A classical liberal, Friedman also supported various (sensible) libertarian policies such as the decriminalization of drugs and prostitution. If Friedman were dead today, he would turn in his grave at all of the platform speeches advocating free market economic policies. Yet what we actually have in place is a political marquee of vested interests, political positions within the legislature bought with interest and in return for favours in lobbying and contracts.

Despite our technology and millennia of recorded historical wisdom, we still live in the Dark Ages of Kings, Queens and Majestic Presidents, and we are no further from the system of Roman patronage than we were at the time of Christ. This system, in a word, is the politics of the pot, a pot through which all money flowed and all influence was bestowed, thus maintaining the power and influence of the hand that controlled it. A Roman noble, much like his medieval successors, would hold court and, in exchange for services rendered, would consider bestowing grace, position or favour upon one or more subjects deemed pleasing to his or her influence.

Those who please are rewarded, and those who ruffle feathers, no matter how effectively or hard they work, usually do not. We all see how favoured sons, daughters and mistresses often appear to advance seamlessly, and perhaps without excessive perspiration. The economics of the pot, or 'potonomics' is the simplest of all fiscal systems (other than spending until bankrupt) and is elegantly illustrated throughout the modern Western world.

Potonomics is universally applicable and condenses all roles and rewards under a central system of control and influence. Take the BBC as a classic example. Funded by a mandatory tax on all UK television watchers, some £100 is taken from some 20 million viewers to generate a legislated ball park income of £2 billion (ask them for a precise figure). These billions are then doled out from the BBC Controller's mighty pot into those of those of section heads, ultimately cascading down into the pots of individual departments. The supreme ruler has total control and budgets are apportioned by a witch’s brew of accountants, politics and viewing figures, not that the BBC has to perform or compete to get its revenues.

Yet again, the salaries of the directors and top brass went up dramatically this financial year, as scores of workers were made redundant, paid off from the pot. A protected market income, a super pot, and wreathes of garlic and Holy Water to keep away the slavering acolytes of Milton. The BBC is perhaps the most pure and perfect form of potonomics, and many lovers of the BBC (including its chief executives), claim that it should be left that way, but there are of course other examples.

US government medical research funding is run by the National Institute of Health, or NIH, which commands a vast annual Federal budget of $29 billion of tax payer's money (2005 figure). This is allocated into different pots covering different areas such as infectious diseases, diabetes and cystic fibrosis, but most of the money is allocated to those diseases which affect the rich, elderly taxpayers and legislators such as Alzheimer’s and cancer, to a level which is out of all proportion to the impact of these diseases upon the young, wealth-creating workforce of the USA. From each research division pot are allocated research grants, with the established illuminati of the medical sciences taking the lion's share.

Once there were little itty bitty grants for young (34-38 year old) investigators to start their careers, but these were scrapped in favour of large, centralised program grants run by a small number of office dwelling academics, giant multi-million $ pots before which young scientists and researchers must bow and run around if they are to obtain funding. Those who displease will not obtain funding, and more importantly will be denied the opportunity to publish their research in prestigious journals and advance their careers to become the pot holders of the future. Even at the level of laboratory research potonomics holds sway, as all research data is put into a communal pot under the control of a principal investigator. From this data pot research papers are ultimately produced carrying their all-important hierarchy of authors. A favoured son or mistress may be placed as first author on a paper whose actual content was supplied by a cast of mere extras. Of course only those who are first amongst equals will advance.

We could of course dwell on the extensive influence of the all powerful pot, from which attractive secretaries, exotic conferences, and weighty restaurant bills all flow. However, that would be preaching to the converted. What is interesting is how potonomics simplifies fiscal control and creates a self-polarising influence upon the distribution of national wealth. Whether 80% or 98% of national wealth is held by a mere 20% of the population depends on whether you listen to the accountants or the socialists, although there’s no contesting who holds the key to the treasury. A staggering 40% of the wealth is held by a mere 1% of the population, leaving some 30-50% of the population of the USA & the UK at or below the UN poverty line. No wonder Marx got so upset in Victorian London.

You don't need to be a socialist to be disturbed, but even the most ardent capitalist should argue that for optimal wealth creation and equitable distribution, that capital should be freed to allow the industrious and enterprising to create more wealth? This is the case you say? If you believe so, then just try and start a business and see how many bureaucratic, man-made and anti-competitive barriers to entry are put in your path within any field of endeavour. Now try and start a company without your own capital...

Wherever you choose to focus your mind, patronage and protected market shares abound. BP, Exxon and Shell have the oil market sewn up and, along with OPEC, conspire to drive up prices to maximises profits, domestic air carriers have protected slots at their own national airports, and we won't even start to get into the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, please...The world diamond trade is run by a restricted set of interests, and the entire pornographic film industry in the United States is run by a small group of Jewish businessmen.

Continental Europe revels in patronage and is beyond moral consideration, or indeed any recourse other than insurrection. The 'Sovereign' States of Europe plough well over a €100 billion a year into EU coffers, merely adding a weighty layer of patronage and bureaucracy on top of those which already existed within individual nation states. The Germans pay the most in, and get the least back, the UK pays a hefty proportion, and the French, masters of pomp and patronage, get back almost as much as they put in, surprisingly. One super pot to rule them all, and all this in the cause of European integration and French hegemony.

There is of course only one solution to world disorder and that is to make Milton Friedman President and Pope and, if he still has the energy, UN Secretary General as well. I'm not sure about capitalism, but it's sure a darn site fairer than patronage. Will we ever truly leave the Medieval/Roman world of patronage and become true capitalists?

The Last Crusade

Pope John Paul II had successfully rewritten the script of the smouldering remains of the 'Holy' Roman Empire. From the compromise of Constantine, to the rise of Justinian and Constantinople, and the subsequent reconquest of Rome from the (relatively more peace-loving and civilised) Goths, the remnants of the Roman empire had malingered on in scarlet and gold through military might and tribute. The first and last great European Emperor Charlemagne saved Rome from Lombardy (AD 774) and was cunningly crowned Holy Roman Emperor by a grateful Pope Leo III, simultaneously reviving the Holy Roman Empire and placing the Pope above all Kings of Europe. From that day on, the Pope could call upon all the Kings of Europe to launch wave upon wave of brutal attacks upon the relatively cultured, peaceful and properous Muslim world to 'liberate' Jerusalem. In these crusades (1099-1271) rape, cannibalism and massacre were commonplace, and to this day the Crusader cross has remained a symbol of terror in the Middle East, and the word crusade has become synonymous with genocide.

Unfortunately our populist gunslinger Bush has reintroduced the dreaded C-word into foreign policy addresses, undoubtedly as a religious smokescreen for expanding the Bush family businesses of arms and oil, much as Medieval Popes did before him. In one generation John Paul had succeeded in recreating the Papal image as being the benign father of all the world, and in one year our new Pope has succeeded in returning the West to the Dark Ages of bigotry and religious feuding.

America's economy is in melt-down, held together only by the petrodollar cycle and through sustaining unsustainable levels of spending and imports. Internal strife is rising as more and more Americans find their American dream rapidly turning into the new slavery and mire of debt. What better way to expand national revenues and to restore cash flow than to capture foreign commodities and markets, and how better to distract domestic angst than with the tool of foreign wars.

There is of course nothing new under the sun - the Emperor Trajan had the same idea some 2,000 years ago....Rejecting a previous policy of diplomacy and alliances, Trajan found in favour of military expansion to overcome the Roman Empire's cash flow crisis and impending bankruptcy. The solution was acquisition and invasion (sound familiar?), and the unfortunate target the gold and metal rich kingdom of Dacia just across the Danube (modern day Romania & Hungary). In 101 AD the Roman armies of Trajan defeated the Dacians, and in 105AD, after an uneasy truce, systematically massacred them, a genocide which may still be found celebrated on Trajan's Column.

So now we have a Pope who served in the Hitler Youth, decrying Islam as a war-like religion (of all the crusading hypocrisy...), and reinvoking the anti-semitic symbolism of the Cross. As if this were not enough we have a US President acting under the 'influence of God' who has a commercial interest in war and oil, and is quite happy to invade any Islamic nation on the grounds of the 'moral right of way' of the Largest Superpower. After all why should an irresponsible, aggressive, and extremist nation like Iran have nuclear weapons, and join the enlightened West in hegemony.

The Russians and the Chinese of course have had enough, let alone the Muslims, and are presently holding joint military exercises. Now take into account that a majority of Americans not only believe the surreal and woolly predictions of the Book of Revelations, but are prepared to commit to a self-fulfilling prophesy of Doomsday and Armageddon according to their own literal mistranslation. We appear to be heading for global conflict on an unimaginable scale which will inevitably engulf Europe and the Middle East.

In God's name (like everyone else I seem to be invoking the creator to embellish my viewpoint), when are the next US Presidential elections? The last Bush-Gore showdown almost split the nation in two in an embittered rage of allegations and tears. Perhaps a second American Civil War is not such a fantastical thought, or, dare I say it, even so undesirable?

A good place to start

Things came to a head recently when, as most of us do, I was trying to make sense of it all. In fact I was trying in vain to remember where I stood the day before yesterday on this issue or that, and whether I had been plain wrong, or just not as well informed as today. Once again I was muttering to myself darkly, and, as is frequently the case, found myself on an imaginary podium lecturing aloud into empty space, shouting at the sky.

Another news item, another desert of sound with 32 channels simultaneously broadcasting propaganda, comment, counter-comment, lies, misinformation and, eventually, the usual set of political compromises. A few days later, when the eye of the storm has passed over to a state of relative calm, we find ourselves wondering what the original issue was, and why we were moved at all to care in the first place...

Many a truth was said in jest, although most of us lack the artistic genius or the sharp wit of the political cartoonist, a cherished elite who dare to depict what no materially insecure citizen dares to say or write - well at least until the Blog came of age...