Thursday, 26 April 2012

LibLabCon - you can't get a fag paper between them - #UKIP are the game changer.

Cameron and Co's problem is they exactly the nasty, old school, right wing, undeserving, toffs that the left wing are quite correct in objecting to. Cameron, Osborne et al know they don't deserve and haven't earned what they have, that they are throwbacks to an age that should have long passed.

Cameron and Co can't beleive that they are still getting away with it, so dare not make any waves that will accelerate their eradication. Unfortunately Cameron and Co see social democrats as the biggest threat to their unearned privilege, so it is to the left, the socialists, the social democrats that they make concessions, it is these social democrats that they dare not provoke.

Cameron and Co dare not provoke the socialists so follow their agenda with just a slight tweak to ensure that their own undeserved privilege is preserved.

While the battle is between undeserving toffs clinging on to undeserved power, wealth and privilege vs undeserving social democrats tying to usurp undeserved power, wealth and privilege for themselves, while this is the battle then real people, earned reward, liberty, merit, and equality of opportunity doesn't get a look in.

We are locked into an uneasy acceptance of a model that keeps the leaders of the left and the right in comfortable 'competition' while neither have any intention or interest in improving the lives of us, the masses.

LibLabCon - you can't get a fag paper between them. People who reject this phoney competition are joining and supporting UKIP - a fresh choice for the UK, a fresh choice for the people of the UK.

Sunday, 22 April 2012

Female Genital Mutilation... Cowardly Sunday Times.

This barbaric practice must be stamped out in the UK - Is everyone entrusted with power (every Government Minister, every MP, every Police Officer, ever Jounralist, every Parent, every Citizen) too cowardly to act?
Paul Perrin

The Sunday Times reports 100,000 British victims of this barbaric practice - carried out while they are British Citizens. Many not actually performed in this country, but some reportedly so.

Like so many reports, the cowards raising the issue shy away from pointing the finger where it really belongs. Instead they report on doctors and even dentists who offered to perform, or arrange for the procedure to be carried out.

But who are the real criminals? It is the parents. The parents (or guardians) entrusted with the care over a child who choose to have this grievous bodily harm and sexual abuse inflicted on their innocent charges.

Child sexual abuse has been given a special status in the UK - even if committed abroad, you can be prosecuted for it in the UK.

All parents of children who have been cut in this way, must be held to account - personally and individually - if found guilty the should be named, shamed and (if possible) stripped of their citizenship and their responsiblity for looking after children, or even coming into contact with them.

Illegally interfering with a childs genitalia is defacto sexual abuse - when will the police move? Where are the thousands of parents going to be locked up? Where are the children, taken in to care going to be housed?

Act now or be classed as savages, part of a huge step backwards for the UK.

Friday, 13 April 2012

Marx was a creature of his time - a time that has passed. If he were alive today...

I don't like Marxism it is a retarded throwback, an answer to question that no longer applies in the west (and hasn't for a very long time).

Marxists are just like other minorities who are no longer 'oppressed' but have been brought up with a 'race memory' of a time when their forebears were oppressed, and still think it applies. Jews are no longer forced to live in ghettos, excluded from mainstream society, homosexual activity is no longer a criminal offence, indeed 'civil partnerships' give same-sex couples the same benefits as mixed sex couples get from marriage, dark skinned people are no longer enslaved or segregated nor even forced to give up seats on buses (not they ever were segregated on buses in the UK...).

In fact, the American black civil rights movement actually owes the UK a huge debt of gratitude... it was during the second world war, right here in the UK that US servicemen started serving in non-segregated units - so as not to offend English sensibilities - an advance that could not be rolled back.

Just as minority rights groups in the UK are clearly trying to fight old battles with enemies who no longer exist (or never existed in their country) so Marxists and socialists are trying to fight a battle with a foe who no longer exists because opportunity is no longer about class.

Opportunity in the UK has not been about class for a long time - the first and second world war's were the final nails in that coffin. Marx broadly won his battle - but his soldiers marched on - and still do.

The enemy of opportunity today is not class it is generational. The redistribution of power in the first half of the 19th Century was huge - it transferred power from a ruling class to people from all classes. And this is where it has all gone wrong (again).

The baby boomer's had it all - a country in ruins that needed rebuilding - work, opportunity and growth lay at their feet for them to pick and choose from - which they did. They were from poor backgrounds, they were hard workers, they were careful with their money. Once the opportunity was there (as the working classes has so long demanded) they took full advantage. However, as a new experience for society, no one stopped to think whether this new way of life was sustainable. The previous model of class based privilege was a structure that had lasted for millennia - it is almost a 'natural state of affairs', it flowed down the generations almost unchanged.

This new 'opportunity for all' culture was untried until now. And with no established mechanisms for containment it went of the rails.

The new 'opportunities' were rapidly taken advantage of, and many people from all former classes got rich on it - and with their old instincts for prudence carefully tucked it all away. Property prices rose, billions of pounds were locked into pension plans, the squirrels took every newly available nut and not only hid them away, but guarded them jealously.

They guarded their new wealth so jealously that they even refused to pay for many of the new services (that would previously been considered luxuries) that they now demanded. Instead of paying themselves for healthcare, welfare, education, development etc, they decided that the government should borrow the money to pay for these things. Should the government ever have to repay, then the baby-boomers knew they had the money in the back to cover the bill - but there was no need to hand it over just yet...

What they forgot were their children - generation-x - the children of the careful, prudent baby-boomers who were brought up to be carefree because everything was now freely available. A generation they were now in the process of betraying.

Eventually the baby-boomers saw what a good time the youngsters were having and wanted a slice for themselves - they forgot their old prudence and started spending the wealth that they had so carefully and earnestly put aside for so long. The boomers conveniently forgot that the money they were now spending was already earmarked to pay for the services (former luxuries) that they had been receiving for so long.

And here we are now - the baby boomers bills are coming in - generation-x never had the money to pay these bills - the boomers had kept it all to themselves, and by now have either spent it all over again, or hidden is so thoroughly that no one else will ever get their hands on it.

The bills are coming in, but they are also still being run up. The boomers don't care too much, their hidden wealth will see them out before the final demand is ever seen. Generation-X are still only just realising what has happened (hence articles like this one). Meanwhile it is dawning that on the Generation-Y (the children of Generation-X) that they will be picking up all the bills and there will be *no* wealth to cover it.

Boomers lived on credit, but originally had the wealth to cover it - they bow out having spent everything, leaving a wasteland. Now, at this late stage,  Generation-X have bills (past present and future) to pay with no opportunity to create wealth, but worse still, Generation-Y and beyond are starting out with their credit already maxed out...

  • Boomers entered adult life with no money, but unlimited opportunity.
  • Generation-X entered adult life with no money and limited opportunity.
  • Generation-Y enters adult life with huge-debt and no opportunity.

The two world wars brought about socialism that 18thC philosophers/politicians would have died for. But because the 'race memory' of many people kept them thinking that they were still oppressed, needed/deserved more it brought about (and continues to advance) the very selfish, indulgent, unsustainable 'social democratic' society that is destroying us and will kill our kids.

If Generation-X won't bite the bullet, then Generation-Y and beyond will - they must reject the debts that are passed on to them - they owe the past nothing, Generation-X were stupid they let there parents spend everything and leave them will the bills - Generation-Y must be smarter, and not let the dead rule the living.

'Social democracy' is a long slow suicide - you can only really trust yourself, look at where trusting others has brought us. The rot started in Europe - the EU - and the UK got sucked in and is being stripped of what wealth it does have to foot their bills - Generation-Y have to turn this around if they are to have any future worth living at all...

Saturday, 7 April 2012

Have a bit of pride, the LibLabCon social democrats are for losers.

A dozen years of Labour government under Blair/Brown stripped the British people of their pride. Stripped them of their pride in 'doing things for themselves', 'working hard for good rewards', 'playing hard because it had been earned', 'taking care of themselves'.

Under John Major the previous Conservative administration got more votes than ever they did under Margaret Thatcher! It was a last ditch regrouping - Thatcher had instilled a confidence in the people of the nation that they could each be masters of their own destiny, and (now without Thatcher to maintain it) much of the nation desperately wanted to beleive that Major could continue it.

The choice for voters, wanting to keep their freedom and independence, was made easier by Labour having the buffoon of a welsh windbag Neil Kinnock leading them. In 1977 William Hague made a speech (as a 16 year old!) had captured the tone that lasted almost 15 years ( Kinnock was everything that was despised at the time - he supported dependency on the state, reward for mediocrity, limiting the benefit you could get from your own hard work, and end to personal reward for personal success. And the voters turned out and voted in record numbers for the (hoped for) heir to Thatcher/Hague individual freedom and pride, against the rush for mediocrity and dependency of the Labour party under Kinnock.

Unfortunately, Major did not live up to his promise, he simply did not have the leadership qualities to keep the Conservative party under control. So when Tony Blair came on the scene, aparantly rejecting the call to slothful of the Kinnock years, seeming to offer Thatchers pride with a twist more compassion for those who didn't flourish under their own steam or by their own efforts, then the die was cast and New Labour rose to power.

But while Blair's New Labour was busy fronting up the party, the old dark heart of Labour was busy in the Treasury under Brown. Over a dozen years, The smiling snake oil sales man Blair convinced people that everything was rosy, while Brown in the Treasury cut freedom, independence and self-sufficiency off at the knees - turning a nation of shopkeepers into a nation of welfare dependants, and robbing people of the pride they once had.

The Conservative party had a string of failed leaders (including William Hague, who had so capture the tone in 1977) - they failed because they didn't recognise what had happened to the country under New Labour - they were appealing to proud people who no longer existed, such people had been forced to change under New Labour rule.

Eventually David Cameron took charge and turned the Conservative party completely - he recognised what had happened under New Labour and had a choice - whether to appeal to people to rebuild their lost pride and progress again to self motivation, individual reward for personal effort, or whether to pander to the culture created under New Labour. He went for the latter - and where Blair had won as 'Conservatism but with an extra twist of compassion', Cameron now offered 'New Labour but with an extra twist of capitalism'.

This is where we are now - with the three old parties all offering slightly different flavours of the same dish - 'social democracy' - socialism with elections. A system that  that eats away at the motivation and pride of the workers from the bottom, so turning layer after layer of workers into state dependants. A system that will keeps going until so much has been eaten away that what remains simply cannot afford to support the increasing number of dependants any more.

LibLabCon - all social democrats now - you can't get a fag paper between them - but professional politicians are well paid however badly the country performs, so what do they really care?

The people of the UK only have one way out - and that is to build a path out of this social democracy nightmare, out of state dependency and back to self-sufficiency, self-motivation, reward for effort, a better standard of living by working rather then taking state handouts.  Where work brings rewards and Welfare as an essential safety net for the desperate, not a fun trampoline for the feckless.

Only UKIP even recognise that such a path is needed - and UKIPs' 6 point plan is the overview of how it can and will be delivered. The sooner the UK turns itself around, the sooner we will get back to where we should be as a first rate nation for our citizens and a first rate nation in the world.

(UKIP 'What We Stand For'

Wednesday, 4 April 2012

Paulsops Fables and Fairy Tales: Creation vs Evolution

On a small planet in a galaxy far, far away...

A group of men and women sat around a table discussing the meaning of life, where they had come from, particularly whether they had been 'created' by some great inteligence, or had 'evolved' by chance and random event - and in any case would they 'owe' anything to a creator even if one existed?

Back on planet earth, in the board room of a hugely wealthy and powerful corporation they received a crackling transmission. A transmission secretly relaying this discussion, captured with microphones concealed in the very pod that had taken the first artificial organisms from earth to that small distant planet.

The people of that distant planet didn't know about the pod, nor the microphones, nor the transmissions - if they did, it would have answered the question they were now discussing. However, all that was about to change. The board of directors consulted a document drawn up billions of years earlier entitled "Intellectual Property Rights to Genesis DNA and all its descendent", the life was owned by them, by law, and they were about to start preparing to collect what was rightfully theirs - before it got too smart for them to recover...

What was the name of the planet that those distant creatures inhabited? Funnily enough, the creatures called their planet 'the earth' - orbiting the sun between venus and mars...

If you allow life to be owned, don't be surprised should you find yours has an owner (other than you) and they turn up to collect.

Tuesday, 3 April 2012

Paulsops Fables and Fairy Tales: The Three Towers

There was an island in the middle of an ocean. It was quite a large island; it was large enough to have three citys around its shores. The citys were far apart and each was quite different in its culture and language.

Inland, the island was hard to traverse and as they hadn't invented the aeroplane the people of each city didn't have much contact with each other - there were few overland visitors between the cities, just the occasional intrepid explorer, trader and merchant., But the people got on quite well together when they did meet, and were always very interested in the different ways of the foreigners - despite the language barriers.

The people of the island had, however, invented the boat. It so happened that each city had been built on its own bit of coast so the people could benefit from the plentiful supply of fish and so each city also had a harbour where boats could safely dock to load and unload goods and people.

So it was the means of the sea that contact, communication and trading between the people of the different citys happened. However despite the safe harbours, each city had dangerous rocks near the entrance to their harbour, and if it was dark or foggy (and it often was foggy just off shore) ships were liable to be sunk - losing the lives of their crew, and the goods in their holds.

Losing ships in this way made imported goods very expensive, as many would end up at the bottom of the sea, and the merchants would have to make good those losses by charging even more for the goods that were successfully landed. The people of each city accepted this, as they understood the risks and the expense. If a merchant was unlucky they might lose all their goods, crew and so their fortune - and maybe even their own lives, but if a merchant got lucky and avoided the losses they could be come very, very wealthy indeed, so there was no shortage of people willing to take the risk.

This is how things had been for a very long time, as long as anyone could remember. But one day things changed. A man had an idea; he called it 'the light-tower'. All it needed was a tall building to be put on top of the dangerous rocks, with a light at the top so ships could be warned of the rocks and so avoid them. When people asked how the light would be kept alight he realised that he would need people to live in the tower to look after the light, and so he changed the name of his creation to 'the lighthouse'.

People knew that these lighthouses would be difficult to build and so would be expensive - and that the people who lived in them would have to be paid too. But they also realised that if the lighthouses meant that ships didn't sink, then imported goods could be far, far cheaper so they would save money there. With this in mind the people decided to build the lighthouses with their own savings, expecting to make good their costs from lower priced imports in future.

However, at first, it didn't work as the people expected, the merchants said that people had been happier with the higher prices in the past, so should continue to pay them - because that's what the goods were worth to the people - and now sailors weren't drowning the people should be happy with that as a return for their 'investment'. So without the risk of losses, and by keeping the high prices, all the merchants expected to become very, very wealthy indeed.

However it didn't work as the merchants expected either, the people were outraged and turned off the lights until the merchants agreed to lower their prices - which they did.

So the people had paid for the lighthouses to be built, and continued to pay for staff to live there and run them, in return they got cheaper imported goods; and the merchants had a more reliable income with far lower risk.

For many years this worked and every one was happy.

Then the Great Inventor (as he was now known) had another idea - he invented dynamite. Dynamite was a powerful explosive that could blow things up – even hard rock. The Great Inventor realised that with the dynamite the dangerous rocks could be blown clean out of the sea, this would make it safe for ships and a lighthouse would not be needed any more. In his own city this is just what they did.

The rock was gone, the lighthouse was gone and the people who used to live there went back to other jobs. The people still had their lower prices, but no longer even had to pay staff to look after the lighthouse so everyone was better off.

When the other cities heard about this, not everyone was so happy - especially the lighthouse staff. They had got used to being important and being well paid and didn't see why that should change.

In fact the lighthouses that had once been simple (but strong) buildings now looked more like palaces on the inside - no expense has been spared for these important people and their vital service - and the weren't about to let that go with out a fight.

So in the second city a campaign was put in place to remind the people how much of their money had already been spent on the lighthouse - it was explained that having spent so much of their money making the building so wonderful it would be 'madness' to blow it up. Madness to replace a beautiful, luxurious monument with an empty space. The discussion raged, but while many people wanted an end to the continued spending now that it wasn’t essential, there were also many people convinced by the staffs’ campaign who now agreed that it would be 'madness' to lose such a wonderful monument that already worked so well.

Without overwhelming support for blowing up the rocks and losing the light house nothing changed and the arguments just rumbled on and on and on, the staff kept their jobs and privilege and the people kept paying their wages – just as they had been doing for years. The staff were no longer as well liked by everyone, but their comfort made that an acceptable price to pay, meanwhile the people protested every time they got their salary-bill and they discussed new plans on how the lighthouse could be removed and the rocks blown up - plans that never quite came to pass.

In the third kingdom, the staff saw what had happened in the other two and didn't much like either result – to lose their jobs or to be despised! So they came up with a different, new plan. They told the people that they didn't like them having to pay taxes to finance the staff, and that the lighthouse could be made 'self financing' or 'financed from own resources' a complicated way of saying "we won't be on your tax bill" all the people had to do was give up ownership of the lighthouse itself, giving it to the staff and they would look after everything.

The people agreed to this immediately - a tax cut, free money – how wonderful... Of course it wasn't quite so simple as that, after all the staff had to get money from somewhere... and this they did, quite simply - they stopped each passing ship and made a charge to the merchants for the service the ship and merchant had received - of course the light house staff could charge what they wanted as the lighthouse was theirs, and without it the merchants could lose all their goods.

Of course, once the merchants had paid the lighthouse staff what they demanded, they needed to recover the expense - so they put their prices up. The people were not totally happy with this, as they weren't making a saving after all, just instead of it being a tax that they had a say over and annual reminders of, the lighthouse staff and merchants were now completely in charge of the cost that got passed on to the people!

But after a while this was mostly forgotten or ignored - taxes were lower, no one ever saw a bill for the light house staff, prices seemed 'reasonable' based on the costs/expenses paid by the merchants so every thing settled down.

When the people eventually leaned what the other cities had done, someone did suggest blowing up the rocks so the lighthouse would no longer be needed - but everyone agreed that the rocks and lighthouse now belonged to the staff... so it was only they who could choose to blow it up, and would obviously need compensation for all the money they would no longer earn – and that would be an amount that no one could possibly afford, so the idea was soon forgotten and every one got on with their daily lives. The lighthouse staff got wealthy, and the people almost unknowingly picked up the bill.

City one, where everything work in everyones best interest was called Liberty; City two where logic was put aside for 'social benefit' so no one could quite agree was called social democracy, and City three where people were ripped off, but didn’t even realise it – and had no control even I they had realised it - that was called the EU.

Paulsops Fables and Fairy Tales: The fairest of them all.

The Evil Witch looked in to her magic mirror and uttered those immortal words "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?".

The Evil Witch did not feel she really need to ask - as she knew she had taken actions to ensure she got exactly the answer that she wanted. So asking now was just a vanity thing, she did it so she could hear the mirror say the words that she so loved to hear.

Years before, The Evil Witch had come up with a cunning plan to be 'fairest of them all' with no effort on her part. Instead of making herself fairer than everyone else, she simply had to 'remove' anyone who was more fair - this would leave her as the 'fairest one of them all' and no one could dispute it without the risk being 'removed' themselves.

So The Evil Witch had enchanted thousands of henchmen and instructed them to go forth and butcher and destroy anything more fair than herself - that was a lot of destruction and butchering!

So when The Evil Witch uttered those immortal words, "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all", she knew the response she would get... at least she thought she did... but it was not to be, the answer that came back instead was:

"Shirley Williams, you evil witch, your comprehensive schools are not the fairest of them all, for a few grammar schools still exist and are expanding".

The Evil Witch was enraged that her orders for destruction had not been fully carried out, but dare not show it as it might create doubt in the minds of her enchanted followers - some of whom were now quite senior and had come to genuinely believe that not only were comprehensives 'the fairest' of what remained, but were 'fair' in an absolute sense - or at least this is what some of them (rather implausibly) claimed to believe.

What did The Evil Witch and her evil followers do? The answer to this, gentle reader, will have to wait for another day, when the Kent satellite Grammar schools situation is resolved and we shall see if The Evil Witch and her evil plan prevails, or if the people seize the opportunity to free their land from her evil, twisted spell so their children do not have to suffer as they did, but can learn, grow and prosper with social mobility once more, as previous generations had.

Sunday, 1 April 2012

Drug legalisation... opiates...

UKIP policy for drug legislation is to have a Royal Commission to take an unbiased look at the evidence - this seems like a good policy to me - review and follow the evidence to give us the best outcome possible.

Having said that I took a look at cannabis and opium - I chose to look at these as it would seem reasonable for people to 'grow their own' if they were legal... But I ended looking at opium (opiates) in most detail - opium, morphine, heroin.

The big surprise to me was that it is commonly known that, in themselves, they are not harmful substances, pure morphine and heroin do no damage to the human body beyond the potential for constipation(!), as a 'natural product' raw opium is not such a pure substance so is harder to so specific about.

The nasty medical state associated with 'addicts' is universally considered to be a result of their own poor hygiene and contaminated supplies - not the opiates themselves.

The other issue is 'addiction' - a person having any dependency is seen by some as a cause for concern of itself.

A typical addict in the UK will aparantly spend all their free time securing their next 'hit', so as to avoid going through withdrawal. This accounts for people who become addicts finding that their lives fall apart - everything comes second to getting the next hit, they have to put their jobs, families and everything to one side to seek out a supply of their drug - and as their lives fall apart, it becomes harder for them to finance their addiction - having to pay whatever the illegal suppliers demand - without a job, they are often reduced to stealing from their families and from strangers.

I have to say - having looked through all of this, it seems to me that the 'problems' associated with opiate addiction are a direct result of the legislation banning them - nothing to do with the drugs/chemicals themselves. I am still looking at evidence, research - but so far it seems pretty solid that it is the legal ban that causes the suffering and pain, not the substances.

If this is the case for opiates, one has to wonder what researching other illegal drugs would turn up