Wednesday, 28 January 2015

A New Great Charter

What we need in these troubled times, where many channels of communication exist for people to learn and exchange views, is a new set of rules. When a benevolent group of people come together, with exceptional and altruistic ideas of how to best serve their community, the last thing they need is constant interruption.

Imagine, if, to provide the greatest safety from war, from pestilence, from insecurity, these people needed to repeatedly think up new ways to thwart troublemakers, how badly the project would be held back.

An international project of great scope and benevolence, would take decades to get the smallest changes in place. Naturally, not stating the objects of the project would be useful, but a bright spark on the internet can cause mayhem. We live in an age where mass hysteria strikes and gains a strangling grip on large numbers of people.

The possibility exists of, maybe millions of people coming together and claiming to be suffering from the actions of the project, being so selfish as not to consider the comfort and well being of others. These channels, the ridiculous voting against the benevolent project leaders, must be stopped. It is an intolerable abuse of power.

What we need in short, is a Great Charter that clearly gives power to this small group of enlightened, benevolent leaders requiring that no person can do any thing without the permission of these people. It should absolutely and forever, constrain the attempts by the masses to hinder the good work of the project.

Although it should allow certain persons to drive pigs across Tower Bridge, except on Wednesdays.

Urgent Need For Government Action

I have come to the conclusion that the people of the United Kingdom are in very grave danger (is there any other kind?). My research has thrown up disturbing suggestions that the population is exposed to the possibility of lion attack.

You may be comfortable at present with your commute and nice holidays and trips to the cinema, but what if one of your children was eaten by a lion? You would be devastated and maybe worse, you left it late to have a child and now are too old to organise a replacement.

Now I'm aware you may say that in your daily travels you have yet to see a lion, or hear of anyone being attacked by one. However, if you study the literature it is clear they have been here, some still are and may become more numerous and more bold.

Clearly, we cannot take any risks with the safety of our children and our children's children, so we must act now and act decisively. It is obvious that the government must provide every household (at least) with a firearm to protect themselves from lions and palisade railings around every property.

This will be expensive but is there any alternative? I don't think so. Some people will say lions aren't a danger and there is no evidence to suggest they will become so, but we cannot afford to listen to them, we must invoke the precautionary principle and act now.

In fact people who do not believe in the imminent danger from lions want your babies to be eaten and in fact probably kill babies themselves already. I, on the other hand am an expert.

As an aside, it is possible that the level of expenditure necessary will be beyond the means of a free market capitalist system to provide. Obviously an elite of experts such as myself could take over and run a command economy from the centre, where important projects will be funded and each person will be given some of their money back, according to our interpretation of their needs.

Dissenters will not then be the problem they are now. People will be free from the fear of lions. We don't want it to go this way of course, but too many objections may interfere with the proper running of the project, for the people, so a strong force will be needed to enable us to ignore those objections.

Thursday, 22 January 2015

Are You Not Fed Up With Being Lied to Yet?

It is so depressing and it goes on and on. But then, that is the point of propaganda, particularly in support of anti-democratic ideas. You only need to con people, of course, when the majority would otherwise not put up with you and your antics.

Last night on BBC Look East there was an article about the referendum and the prospect of the UK leaving the EU. A video link to some supporter of the EU was shown and she was asked to list some reasons why it would be dangerous to leave. How this constituted 'news' or met legal obligations regarding balance and lack of bias I have no idea.

But naturally, it is a necessary response when people are starting to realise that our companies sell to people, not political ideas. So, the prospect of some Germans saying they won't buy our cheese, for instance, because we leave a polity of which their country (more accurately, region of the EU) is a controlling force, is ludicrous.

The politicians could, if they wanted, impose tariffs on UK products but this would get a similar response from us and guess what, the EU needs our trade more than we need them. Apparently, there are other countries in the world! Imagine.

The silly Jilly on the telly said that EasyJet wouldn't exist if it were not for the EU. This, naturally enough coming from an EU supporter is a straightforward lie. But EasyJet make your flights cheaper and so you love it, hence allying the EU to it. But airlines such as this exist because of international agreements that the EU, as our supreme government, introduce.

And that brings up a powerful point that the EU propagandist on the telly strangely didn't. These international bodies, making most of the world wide agreements these days bring together the countries of the world to reach these agreements.

As Britain is no longer a country, but rather an EU region, we have an influence level of one twenty eighth of one vote in these negotiations. Norway, trading with the EU but not a part of it has a direct influence. As does Papua New Guinea if they want it. But not Britain.

We can talk all kinds of common sense at the EU meeting before the World meeting the EU will attend, but the points raised will be those that suit France and Germany (but mainly France), it being their club after all.

Are you not fed up yet with all this Leftie cant? How much can you take? Being told incessantly what to do and even what you are allowed to think. In what way is this part of the great tradition of common law, where the people own the law not the state, that we developed over centuries and gave to the world? When did a politician last do something for the good of the country rather than to gain power or for their own gain in other ways (apart from Gove in education, but that was soon stopped).

What would be wrong with allowing people more say over their own government, being allowed to keep more of their own money and spending it how they want, rather than the state confiscating it and handing back what they deem appropriate (with quite a lot going 'missing' along the way)?

We already have a police force that generally ignores real crime and spends its time enforcing the petty regulations of its masters in politics. We already have a population cowed into believing there are things you cannot say. A government that we can't elect and that rules us absolutely. But, by the tips of our fingernails there remains enough of the old world that we can break free of the stranglehold, the dead hand of 'Europe' around our necks.

Tuesday, 20 January 2015

Not Paying Attention and the Danger of the Left

Quite a lot of instances of the creeping influence of Marxism, both overtly political and also more culturally oriented, emerging recently. With the rise of support for the lunatic Greens, a hard Left organisation if ever there was one, more and more state supported bodies coming to light as the inquiry into Muslim influence proceeds and the casual nonsense spouted on TV, it is becoming more obvious.

Something akin to a seminal moment occurred on last week's Question Time. David Starkey, who is prone to go a little far when making points and tends to childish over-elaborate display at times, made a very correct point. He said that despite all that it had brought to the world previously, Islam and the Muslim world in its thrall had done nothing of note for six centuries.

Much of the audience howled in protest and Mehdi Hasan burst in decrying the assertion (even though his opening statement on the show was excellent. I know, unbelievable!)

Starkey's mistake was a common one today; he thought the audience would have a baseline understanding of what he was talking about, but they don't. By being a historian, what we mean is he 'does the detail', it doesn't mean we have no concept of his world and therefore what he is talking about. Or shouldn't do, if the Left hadn't succeeded quite so well at depressing education.

I don't think a large segment of the audience had any idea of the significance of what he was saying, that Islamic culture was so advanced in mathematics, astronomy, art and architecture. Starkey's point was that Islam is holding back the countries that have adopted it and this assertion is proven true by observation.

So how was it refuted? By shouting generally, saying he was 'wrong' and then the standard Left fall-back; attacking the man. Or how about this. Later in the week I stumbled across some limp show, run by an idiot Australian who was working the formula of saying anything Left wing to get the audience cheering.

He quoted Starkey and in a brilliant refutation said 'uh' and 'really', which I think we can agree is pretty strong reasoning. Deal with that Starkey. I think the wonderful cheer leader of Group Think wanted to go on to the logical conclusion of his point of view and say 'no wonder they go around shooting people'.

And that is my point. We are being too blasé, too laid back, there is a crunch coming and we are not fighting our corner. Left wing stupidity is everywhere, in mainstream politics, in political correctness, from nursery schools and the multiple fears that have been planted there, to the controlling influence of speed cameras.

You have to wonder what would have happened in Russia if mass communication had existed when the 'Communists' rose. Would the people have still been as stupid as to let it happen, as we are today in the West?