long time

havent been on here for a long time, huntingdon is still a crazy county tho i can report with it still being dangerous to go to the supermarket (came out with a sore back of the neck/cervical spine again from one)

first nations

so in the good 'ole U S of A their "first nations" are the various amerindian indigenous tribes. so which are the "first nations" of britain? are you someone who can call yourself "first nations" over here. i guess over there anything after columbus is not regarded as first nations.

so where can we, where hominids have lived for longer, we think, draw a historical line and call some of the migrating tribes first?

well first came homo erectus, simple pre-humans, they say, but i don't doubt that they were far more human than animal, then other types of hominid from some groups from which or from their relatives elsewhere evolved both the neanderthals and modern humans, then the neanderthals and then the paleolithic 'modern' humans, both of whom seem to have lived here from about 100,000 to 30,000 years ago, and as far as I have come to believe both of whom left britain empty during some of the more severe glaciations until the end of the last one when only the northern paleoliths - the hunters - returned... but after a while the mesoliths - sea shore gatherers with mixed blood from the atlantic shore, african, mediterranean and neanderthal, thrifty and and nimble i imagine them to be, then following them the neoliths with there central and SE european origins plus either of middle eastern (beaker folk) or ukrainian-ish addition depending if ploughmen or herders... so thats three, unnamed races... can we still see them today? amongst them must have been various nations and tribes, but now we can only name the celts, goidels of the west, and brythons of the east of these islands, basically, and then romans, then the nordic tribes - jutes, frisians, saxons, angles, alans, danes, norse, and then the normans - franko-romano-celto-vikings from nearby normandy. with them came flemings and bretons.

and there i for one draw the line. 1066, and england had a stable political structure and settled down to mix all that.

in the 1100s a few jews settled here, but were expelled by 1300.

from about 1500, came the rom nation[s] of hindu origin, to settle, or rather peregrinate the isle, and during 1600s came dutchmen to drain marshland, jews, and hugenots from france.

that brings us to the glorious revolution and the founding of the modern kingdom of england. in 1688.

more anti-scotch stuff

for a long time i have been aware of a scots concept called "kicking it to him/her", however because of an unwillingness to interact with scots, due to my fear of them, i haven't discovered exactly what this is...

but it seems to involve killing various people, who are thought to be associated with someone you don't like, and perhaps torturing the person you don't like over a long period of time... i pray i pray that this quite often oppressive and in MY EXPERIENCE sometimes vile people will soon be got out of Britannia, that is England and Cymru, the sooner they are gone the happier i will be - roll on scotch independance and a population exchange like kemal ataturk arranged with Greece after WWI!

Although I believe 3rd generation and longer immigrants don't preserve this kind of attitude, especially if they are mixed ancestry.

rule the world - hippies

clearly people who hug trees should be in charge, unless they are on dope?!?

Judaism

well once when i was alone in my bedroom in bournemouth i was reading in the local newspaper about some hooligans attacking and damaging and drawing grafitti such as stars of david and swastikas on jewish gravestones in that city...

well i had previously seen with my own eyes similar, seemingly less focussed but very considerable and accumulated vandalism in a church of england church and graveyard in streatham in london... [although i am not a christian, the CofE was obviously the traditional religion of england for more than a thousand years and my ancestors are buried in such graveyards] ..... so feeling a moment of empathy/sympathy for those who might have some attachment to the jewish cemetary in bournemouth i spontaneously and angrily exclaimed [unheard, i believed at the time] in Eisenhower-esque fashion "i am a yid!"!

in fact i am not a jew or "yid", although i don't think that it is impossible that i could have some jewish ancestry, although a minority. but there is no tradition or history in my family of anyone being jewish..... however since that time i suppose i must have been heard because a few times since then people asked me why i dont go to the synagogue! in fact i know only of judaism what any human might know... from the old testament, which i believe the jews call the 50 books and from a little reading of some of their philosophers.....

much of it seems excessively brutal, bloody and illogical to me, eg kings, some of deuteronomy for example in fact plain wrong and i believe that if i had been born a jew, i would by now be in a position where i would acknowledge the community attachment but deny the religion. i also hope, but anyway for me myself it is true anyway, that i believe any talk about any people being "special", "chosen", master-races", etc etc ad nauseum is not only wrong, proud and obnoxious but is also the type of thinking that leads to genocides. i believe in fact that there are some terrible ideas in the "old testament" and therefore in many strands of judaism, and latent or present also in some christian thought - and is not christianity merely a branch of judaism that through proselytization and imperial and royal patronage evolved along separate paths? - or available through individual conscience through reading the bible, that are in fact unfair, unjust, cruel and wrong, and indeed make for a world more miserable than otherwise...

so in fact whilst i believe i was correct to feel sorrow and anger at what was probably some foolish and ignorant nasty people damaging sacred monuments to the dead of a major religion here in britain, i do in fact regret the words i used, although i regret far more that they were heard!!!

for those who don't know look up "ich bin ein berlinner" and "eisenhower" on wiki..... or "berlin airlift"

perhaps if it had not been for those vandals, i would have thought half as much about judaism as i have done over the intervening years... but in fact as with many complex subjects an increased knowledge has not led to any great eureka moments, and i still feel as i believe i probably would have thought, if asked, even 20 years ago that the relationship between their primitive tribalistic paternalistic but now rather matriarchal creed and a on the other hand relatively high "density of acheivement" in the more rarefied and intellectual spheres of life, such as science, philosophy, finance, music, literature, is obscure, difficult to determine or even unconnected with it, although to an outsider these are the two things that appear to delineate that people...

i as an englishman, living in a post-imperial nation that, mostly voluntarily withdrew from its hegemonic position in the globe, although perhaps doing so due to the effects of two enormous wars with germany in terms of loss of young men, and the spending of treasure on weapons and ammunition leading to completely different priorities in the national life, do not really want to spend too much time and thought on the issues around judaism... but in fact they are a fairly substantial number of jews in britain, and they, like a lot, i believe, of the minorities that reside here, regard themselves and the issues concerning them particularly as not only very important to themselves but also of a dispropotionate importance, in relation to their numbers, to the whole world, as it were.

so in fact it seems that by these events and attitudes of others a thinking person is not forced, but falls easily into contemplating the issues surrounding this people. and what of the others, the irish, enemies of old, and the scots, cunning rulers of the UK by gerrymandering, trickery and an education system [the scottish] that acts to overqualify in order from a smaller population to fulfill all the roles of society and economy and hence exports its people easily to positions of relative advantage within england... what of the peoples of the empire and colonies? well for the most part it is very easy to dismiss very many of those, mentally at least, "back to where they are from". home is where the heart is, people say and one has only to listen to an irish rebel song eg almost anything by the "wolfe tones" to feel the proud, savage, hearty, patriotic, courageous and unyielding love of land and nation of the gaels of "erin" or ireland..... if you ever want to stir up patriotic fervour with music i suggest you can take the tunes of the irish rebel songs and simply change the words to reflect whichever country you want to arouse!!! they certainly had that effect on me.

with the jews it is not really so. so they seem to have a different position to those peoples listed above who for the most came here from countries proudly and determinedly freed from British rule, eventually by political means, but involving violence, strikes, mass protests and riots and even armed insurrection... in other words a struggle, a conflict and the invocation of a profound anti-British sentiment that only slowly diminishes, and sometimes increases in those populations that have been admitted to the UK more so than in those that remain at home, although it changes its form over the generations.

of course a profound anti-british sentiment, whether in rastafarianism, memories of gandhi, the irish "cause" of which i suppose the proudest moment is thought by them to be the easter rising of 1916, or even the scots denying that they are priviliged and dreaming of robert the bruce, william wallace or the pretender stuarts....this sentiment even if not expresed explicitly can be felt, by the people of british origin in our society, and naturally arouses some similar resentful attitude as a backwash, a reflection... but intellectually it is not difficult to resolve this to the position of "home is where the heart is".

Norman Tebbitt put this somewhat one-dimensionally but neatly i think when he spoke of the "cricket test". his argument, i believe is that people would choose to live, to acquire passports, property, employment etc wherever they felt their own personal or family advancement would, for that time and in those circumstances be best served, but that an activity such as international sport-supporting, which appears on the whole to be an activity with almost absolute free choice - ie no penalty whatever the choice (lets hope) allows individuals or small close groups of people to show, if we can knowof it, where their heartfelt and perhaps longterm loyalties lie...

this may not be quite true as sometimes people (like me occasionally) will support a team for quirky reasons, such as style, performance, coming up from below or simply the colours of their shirts

in fact within the "cricket/rugby/olympics/football int'l etc test lies the cultural assumption, true for britain and indeed many countries that sport is a matter of significance

these long term loyalties might, it is often argued, and often argued against, affect actions taken by minority persons or families in times of trouble such as war and indeed in their attitude to public order and crime issues and issues around honesty in public life - eg corruption.

on the other hand the few it seems anglo or welsh mixed persons that have returned to this country have clearly got a long history of heavily paid for loyalty to britain and most often i believe returned and made once again a great contribution to the national cause.

but what matters to me in the immediate sense is the sense of resentment that emanates from more than a few members of many of our minorities, which lessens the joys of day to day life, and if one goes out a lot can make it a little more unpleasant..... certainly this would come within the "cricket test" if that is as good a guide as many think. or should that be the "cricket test test"?!

whilst jews on the other hand came here also for the most part as economic migrants and some came later as refugees from persecution. but none seem to have had a history of any resentment or enimity towards either the british people or the british state. it seems from reading history in a general sense that they had no particular loyalty to their countries of immediate origin, except for a taste for their foods and music, with which they enriched somewhat the mix available here...

and then the jews progressed to participating in the ventures of britain, which much as might think that i would done differently are far from being their responsibility, as i see it. after all disraeli was not palmerston, was not gladstone, but what difference did that make in india and jamaica? or indeed malaysia...

by the time jews started to participate fully in that imperial venturing, the position of the colonies proper as i would call them - australia, NZ, and canada was already settled... 1867? anyway these were destined from then to be independant nations

jews seem to have participated in trade and administration and have been just as loyal as indigenous britons to the country. so why now after about 150 years of a substantial jewish population being present in this country do i, and evidently many others including they themselves still find it, if not an ever present thought at least a political issue that quite frequently recurs to mind?

One reason is that quite a few of them, as with several other minorities these days do in fact put, in their own minds and either implicitly or, perhaps explicitly, in their published and private communications their own conditions, experiences and ambitions as being of a much higher priority and as of a far greater general global importance than an objective observer might think fair on the basis of population etc. so part of a modern trend in britain towards "tribal" loyalties, perhaps due to the recent presence of distinct and fairly well organised groups of immigrants.

Another reason is the idea of distinctness which they appear to have, or rather to hold in mind... briefly - "they" which clearly does not incude all jews, but a substantial number of those amongst them who are prominent or fairly active political and social commentators, seem to adopt a peculiar [although perhaps this type of thinking could be discovered in other groups if it was sought] type of universalism, in which almost all issues are considered according to universal values and measures, with the exception of those instances where they themselves or most often the state of israel is involved.

as an englishman, i have found in fact that i have considerable sympathy with their positions as taken in israel itself... their political parties, for example - beit netanyu and kaduna according quite closely to policies i might myself be able to endorse across a broad spectrum of ministries... likud i feel a more emotional sympathy with, although i do not endorse even for here any of their extra-legal methods... (labour i think are a little soft, although compared to any current mainstream british party they are probably solidly patriotic and far more truly socialist)

in fact it would be great if we, here, had that spectrum of parties to pick from, and not as here no choice except the conservatives who are probably closest to israels labour party...

the universalism that "they" these commentators that i describe espouse is very interesting to read... as "they" examine for example the affaires of mongolia wiith much the same criteria as they examine those of brazil or france or denmark or the sudan, even... but it is in fact more i believe the fact of the exception to this universalism, and its occasionally sharp contrast as a shadow on a clear day with an entirely different, yet still intellectually argued in the same style, attitude and set of beliefs concerning themselves.

so i have described my impressions of a sense of distinctness and a sense of exagerated global significance... the only thing more i can add is an occasionally prominent but somewhat pervasive sense of vulnerability, understandable perhaps due to the historical facts regarding that people but amounting to a paranoia, and i believe in fact a self-endangering paranoia which can from time to time arouse the indignation and resentment of various peoples around the globe...

going back to the distinctness issue, just to give one little example which many readers would find upsetting, i suppose if they were for example christians and were friends with the person expressing these opinions... i overheard a jewish person saying that he belived that if a jew killed a jew the killer would spend 1,000 years in a purgatory type torture cell, but if it was a non-jew that killed a jew the killer would have their immortal soul actually devoured and would not be reborn and not exist! i think it was mentioned as a tariff of about 3 years for a jew killing a non-jew!!!

of course, that is certainly not true, and indeed many other religions also put forward this kind of preference system for the afterlife but it seems that apart from primitives still living isolated existences, such as yemeni tribesmen few have had this sunk into their psyches so deep as some jews.

off topic but another interesting anecdote, yemeni tribesmen and many mohammedans, used to believe that there was no penalty, nothing wrong at all with killing non-mohammedans and used to shoot at such travellers for sport - that was 50-150 years ago, i believe, obviously they were wrong as well, i suppose.

now whilst these types of attitutudes might be understandable due to history and the books people study from and the type of upbringing they have, it is surely wrong to be like that and might be unhelpful even to themselves. is it reasonable for the citizens of a modern and assumedly integrated country such as the UK to debate in such a divided way? i ask mainly in reference to those who write on british and global political topics.

scots ruling over england--- GIVE US HOME RULE NOW!!!

The Lord Mackay of Clashfern	1987 – 1997
The Lord Irvine of Lairg	1997 – 2003
The Lord Falconer of Thoroton	2003 – 2007
The Rt Hon Jack Straw MP7

all of these chancellors above (the highest judicial position in england and cymru) have been scots until jack straw

• Sir John Donaldson (Baron Donaldson of Lymington from 15 February 1988) (30 July 1982–1 October 1992) (retired)

- scots surname, but born in england

• Sir Thomas Bingham (1 October 1992–4 June 1996) (became Lord Chief Justice, created Baron Bingham of Cornhill)

-english/welsh

• Harry Woolf, Baron Woolf (4 June 1996–6 June 2000) (became Lord Chief Justice)

jewish, born in england, but early on in life moved to scotland, educated at Anthony (Tony) Blairs "alma mater" Fettes College in Edinburgh

• Nicholas Phillips, Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers (6 June 2000–3 October 2005) (became Lord Chief Justice)

jewish, raised in england, no scottish connections on wikipedia

• Sir Anthony Clarke (3 October 2005–present)

born and raised in england, it is however, one of the scottish spellings of the names based on 'clerk'

these above were the "masters of the rolls" for the last twenty odd years, probably the second most senior judicial position... not quite so much scotchness here but still only one full english!

• Lord Lane (15 April 1980 - 27 April 1992)

english, i believe

• Lord Taylor of Gosforth (27 April 1992 -4 June 1996)

of lithuanian jewish origins, born and raised in england

• Lord Bingham of Cornhill (4 June 1996 - 6 June 2000) |
• Lord Woolf (6 June 2000 - 30 September 2005) | see above (masters |of the rolls section)
• Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (30 September 2005 - 1 October 2008) |
• Lord Judge (1 October 2008 - )

maltese

even better here, above, although in theory the lord cheif justice is more senior than the master of the rolls, with perhaps two "full english/welsh(cymraeg)" in the list

huntingdonshire

once huntingdonshire was an earldom, for all i know it might still be, but anyway it was given as an earldom to some scottish kings a long time ago..... now many people think that this means scots have some kind of claim over huntingdonshire, but this is not so, in fact it was given as a fief, so that scots kings could surrender to the mainbor of the kings of england, and become their slaves thus earning the right of protection and placing scotland as a satrapy of a suzerain english monarch...

since then huntingdonshires earldom has passed to native english families and so the scots do not and never will rule in huntingdonshire.

speech

silence is golden the fools said

wrong you are now say this instead

speech is of silver, and writing of gold,

text, phone and computer from copper unfold,

but silence is mud, a poisonous slime,

in which worthy types drown, as i saw time after time.

This is a poem on a subject that i rhymed on a few days ago, i will try to find the original for comparison

incompetant gaels

ireland and scotland combined are the same size as england and cymru combined so how is it that only 10 million people can manage to live in the gaelic countries of this archipelago whereas in the british part we are supporting 50 million? is it because gaels are often aggressive and unconstructive people who can't thrive unless they are exploiting other people and using other people's economic social or political structures, work, ideas etc? we would be better off here in the british countries (england and cymru) if the irish and scots went back to their own unhappy, repressive and often cruel (scotland) or chaotic and violent (ireland) cultures in their homelands or find some other charitable givers than us to get a way to live from. how come they can't support even 25 million people in their goidelic (gaelic) lands???

i tell you this is for sure - the lives of the vast majority of peoples in england and cymru would be 10 timers better if millions of the gaelic peoples now here moved back to ireland or scotland. there should be 30 million people in ireland but many of them are here.

where blair wants to live

View Larger Map

gordon brown said he didnt want to use this country palace when he became pm, but know he does (look up chequers on wikipedia)

and anthony BLiar liked it so much he still wants to live nearby it.

best avoided, as if Bliar is around the slime oozing out of it might offend!

perhaps thats what they are spreading on the field !?!

looks plush doesn't it?

however i doubt if many of the chiltern electors are Bliar lovers, why doesnt he go back to edinburgh and live amongst his scotchrelatives who put labour in power!

shopping trip

took a shopping trip out of area the other day, it was really nice, reminded me of how our own shire used to be about 12 years ago, whereas our shire now seems much like london used to be 12 years ago - quite hustly and pushy-shovey-argy bargy, great to see that not all areas have been degraded by the vile years of BLiar rule into a lowest common denominator society. although ahem the lady at the checkout, whilst pleasant didnt seem to understand quite a lot of what i said to her!! nothing new there though, but its still not nice to not be understood by shop staff.