Tuesday, 28 February 2012

Tough choice? Not really... Taxpayer funding for long term treatment of foreign patients VS surgery for a UK citizen.

I saw two stories about medical treatment in the UK today:-

Free (NHS - so taxpayer funded) treatment to foreign nationals in the UK - at a cost of around £18,000 per year each.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100140001/free-nhs-treatment-for-foreign-hiv-patients-no-wonder-were-out-of-cash/


And

A Sussex family trying having raised £15,000 need a further £10,000 for an operation to let their disabled son walk.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9557935.Family_s_bid_to_raise___10k_to_help_boy_walk/

While there are UK citizens having to pay for treatment, there is no case for taxpayers to fund treatment for chronic (long term) conditions for non-citizens - the choice here is simple.

Sunday, 26 February 2012

1400's "Heretic!" - 1600's "Witch!" - 1990's "Racist!" - 2000's ?

Its good to see that these mindless calls to 'mob' a victim are out of favour at the moment.

At these various times these various accusations have had the magical quality of automatically condemning the accused - someone would make the accusation and the 'mob' would descend - then regardless of the outcome of any investigation/trial the accused would still be condemned/tainted by the accusation alone.

In the politically correct 1980's up to around the 2000's 'racist' was an accusation that could be made against anyone and you could be reasonable sure that the mere accusation would damage and condemn the accused even if untrue - it lost its 'magic' when it was finally recognised that most of the nasty people making the accusations were deliberately using it in that way.

What these abusers had no regard for was that by crying 'wolf' so often the word is degraded and real accusations get ignored, so genuine victims are left impotent. But this is of no concern to the false accusers, their motivation is simply to damage people they don't like in anyway they can, at any cost to society or to real victims.

Many of Brighton's politicians seem to have learned their lesson in 2010 when they and supported a 'call to arms' (http://free-english-people.blogspot.com/2011/09/unwise-brighton-politicians-put-back-on.html) along with Brighton Unity against 'March for England' - a call intended to bring violence to the streets of Brighton.

Even at the time many UAF (unite against fascism) supporters blogged to condemned the call, as March for England while being 'pro-England' were not considered racist, and the racist organisation EDL (English Defence League) that sometimes tried to muscle in on March for England events had been told to keep away and had agreed to do so.

But there are still some idiots that continue to throw around worthless, bogus allegations - particularly when they have no argument of substance to advance, and particularly when they seek to cover up their own racist or otherwise objectionable views.

Saturday, 25 February 2012

#Localism #Roots and #Racism - Cultural AIDS and Social Arthritis - #bhbudget

Recently during the Brighton and Hove budget debate an item was raised that, I think, is the nub of all these issues.

One councillor questioned the commitment that newcomers/incomers to an area have to the history and culture of the people of that area, as compared to people 'born and bred' in an area. In return another councillor (not a native of the area) suggested that incomers were a good thing to prevent inbreeding.

In many university towns there is some friction between the transient students and the settled/native population - students being seen as non-taxpayers who have no long term commitment to the area, the native population feeling that they are picking up the bill and getting no long term benefit in return.

In Brighton and Hove this seems to be coming to a head as more or the originally transient students settle permanently in the area attracting other newcomers in - often without ever having 'integrated' with the native population.

Where does this leave 'localism'? Are the 'locals' whoever happens to be in an area on a particular day? If so, at least that is clear - but if not, then where is the line drawn between who is and who isn't local, and so who should be given the power that 'localism' is supposed to be handing down?

To apply the blanket term 'racists' to people who want to preserve the heritage/culture simply doesn't make sense - that would suggest that all 'anti-colonials' were simply racist and should have just submitted to colonial rule. This isn't about race or genetics, its about culture, the social norms of a society and their development.

It seems to me that the UK is suffering from Cultural AIDS and Social Arthritis - having never had to really defend the our way of life on our own soil, earlier migrants and their cultures have simply been absorbed - adding what good they may have, and letting the bad fade away. But now we see the rise of more militant alternative ways of life - ways that don't want to develop/integrate with what is here, but to simply replace what we have.

The UK's culture has never needed that much of an immune system to preserve the good, it simply overwhelmed/adapted/integrated good new things letting the bad fall away - but now with mass migration, bad, unwanted elements of some cultures are establishing permanent footholds and will not simply fade away - our immune system is being overwhelmed.

And even where our society does have some defences left, like a body with arthritis, it ends up turning them on itself - while the good fights the good, the bad simply breezes through.

If someone seeks to join a society, I would, at the very least expect them to make the effort to learn the language well enough to communicate effectively, and to have the humility to understand and absorb the culture before setting themselves up to direct it.

Linda Hyde puts the case for local people and their attachment to local heritage


Ania Kitcat suggests incommers are good to prevent inbreeding

Friday, 24 February 2012

#Brighton and #Hove Council and #Green Supremacists

The people of Brighton and Hove are inbred and need new blood to improve their stock.
Really Green Party Opinion?

Yesterday Green led Brighton and Hove Council debated the first Green Budget. It was webcast on a live stream and there was a busy live twitter discussion using the #bhbudget hash tag. I watched and tweeted on much of the discussion, only missing one bit (which I hope to catch up on, on when the council put the video on the council website).

In the end the result was as expected - the Greens proposed tax increase was thrown out.

however, the event of the evening was actually the maiden speech by one of the Green Councillors - Ania Kitcat.

In her speech, she said that she thought it was good for Brighton to have new people coming in to prevent/reduce inbreeding, and with a dramatic pause looked daggers towards the Conservative councillors.

As her English is not very good, I am not 100% sure if she intended to make such a nasty insinuation/slight against the people of Brighton and Hove - particularly the Conservative councillors. I thought it may be a phrase that she translated from her native language and was rather more offensive in English than the original (update: I asked this on yahoo answers http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AokwmV64bUT20lkbox1Uqn7sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20120227085333AArnjsm). Or maybe her English is so poor she didn't mean it at all (her English was quite muddled for most of her speech).

However, on consideration, I don't think it is for me to second guess what she meant - I think it must be taken at face values (a horrible, nasty slight on the natives of the city), surely the least the public should expect from a councillor is someone who can express themselves clearly?

If she meant something different, it is really for her to apologise, explain what she actually meant and explain how she will prevent such misunderstandings in future (if, a misunderstanding, it was).


Linda Hyde puts the case for local people and their attachment to local heritage


Ania Kitcat suggests incommers are good to prevent inbreeding

Saturday, 18 February 2012

#Welfare #Workfare #Injustice and #Slavery

It is wrong for people to expect to be supported by others if they are capable of earning their own living.
Paul Perrin

The coalitions 'workfare' programme as currently operated is nothing of the kind, it is wrong, immoral, coercive and wealth destroying.

1) The government justifies much of the Tax and National Insurance contributions it extorts from us by claiming it is to fund welfare - But if welfare is to be withheld and people are to be made to work for a pittance instead, then our Taxes and National Insurance contributions need to be cut substantially - I don't see that happening - do you?

2) If people are to made to work for their benefits, then why are they made to work for the benefit of shareholders in private commercial companies? Tesco may get free shelf-stackers, but how does that save the Taxpayer any money?

3) If people are to made to work for their benefits, then why are they doing jobs that might otherwise be done by real 'employees' - this destroys the very jobs that they might have hoped to have taken!

4) Even if people were made to workfare in the public sector rather than for private shareholders this would displace public sector workers who would otherwise be employed.

There are two possible answers:-

1) Forget welfare all together - let people keep their Tax/NI and provide for themselves when times are tight.

or

2) Offer people 'workfare' working for *private individuals* - doing work/jobs that would otherwise not be done at all. Gardening, decorating, household chores - things that the individual would otherwise have done for themselves.

Option 1 is likely a bit radical and would need to be brought in over time. However option 2 could operate immediately, taxpayers would get a direct benefit from the welfare they are financing, individuals would be doing *real* work on *real* jobs, but without displacing any real employees.

'Workfare' is very loose label - too broad to really mean anything specific. As currently implemented it is clearly slavery - peoples have had their wealth taken from them (tax/NI) and then are being made to work to get it back. Worse still the taxpayer is being ripped off, because the benefit of the work is going directly to private shareholders. What a mess - just like so much of the coalitions policies.

Socialism/Fascism vs Libertarianism = Creationism vs Evolution

Socialists and Fascists are the militant creationists of human social interaction, Libertarians are the believers in natural social evolution.
Paul Perrin


Socialism/Fascism vs Libertarianism


It is funny that totalitarian schools of politics (e.g. Socialism and Fascism) are based on the central premise that people need to be controlled to deliver the 'best' results - that people left to their own devices/strategies will naturally lead to chaos, decay and anarchy.

Contrast this with Libertarianism, which is founded on the belief that 'the best will out', it opposes the enforced limitation of individual self-direction - the only limit being a practical one for the survival of the very system, that is limiting individuals unwanted interference with other individuals own self-direction - "you are free to do anything except interfere with other peoples freedom".

And while socialism/fascism can't tolerate anyone having free-will, a libertarian wouldn't seek to prevent a group of individuals from working together, following a leader or observing a text - as long as it didn't interfere with their own freedom.

Now consider the parallels here with creationism and evolution.

Socialism/Fascism insist that their is one right way (their way) and this must be enforced - the same thinking that demands that life/existance can only be the result of an intelligent guiding mind that had a master plan all along - in the case of totalitarians it is 'their' master plan that they believe must be applied, completely and exclusively.

vs

Libertarianism recognising that billions of heads are better than one, and that through natural selection, survival of the fittest, random mutation and other evolutionary processes people will create/discover what works best individuals and their social interactions.

Libertarians extra strength


Where the libertarians win hands down is that they have no ideological objection or barrier to cooperation, or formal social rules/structures - their concern is only how they come about and ensuring there are no artificial barriers to them evolving further. While socialsim/fascism want to lock humanity into a final rut of their totalitarian ideologies, libertarians are committed to ensuring that there is always a way out for those that want it.

Sunday, 12 February 2012

UK Devolution - there are two choices as far as I am concerned.

There is plenty of talk about the unbalanced devolution situation in the UK.

Certain issues have been 'devolved' to national bodies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales (assembly or parliament) - such as health and education (so university fees). However England has no national body, so these issues are still decided by the UK parliament at Westminster - so Scots, Welsh and NI policy are set by people from those nations, but English policy is set be people from the whole of the UK.

This is 'unfair', but there are several possible ways of handling this, 1) It can continue to be ignored, 2) The devolved bodies could be abolished and 'devolved' issues returned to the UK parliament at Westminster, 3) England could get its own parliament.

Option 1 - ignoring the problem is the default option, it is what currently happens and is generating a level of dissatisfaction, however to change a different option needs enough support to actually bring the change about.

Option 2 - abolishing the devolved bodies - this is generally said to be impossible/impractical/unacceptable - however I would suggest that given the option of only full independence or abolition, this could focus minds somewhat.

Option 3 - An English parliament. This is the option that gets the headlines, however there are two suggestions for implementing this.

3a) A new body to work under Westminster. This is a proposal for a new parliament, with newly elected english representatives - working separately from the UK parliament which would continue to handle UK wide issues.

3b) Allow the English MPs at Westminster to meet separately as an 'English Parliament', while also meeting with all UK MPs as the UK parliament.

It seems to me that if we can't have equality from option 2 (having a single parliament for the whole UK), then option 3b is the best solution - I only need one 'representative' (MP) - my current MP decides UK wide issues and English issues - so I see no reason that he can't continue to do so. It simply means that NI, Scots and Welsh MP's would be removed from the decision making process on issues 'devolved' to the English parliament.

Having a single MP for the English parliament and the UK parliament would mean no extra expense and no change to elections and no extra politicians to *create* more work for themselves - also it could be implemented very quickly and simply.

NI, Wales and Scotland may wonder why they are paying for two full time representatives, while the English pay for only one - but as long as they pick up the tab for there representatives, then that is their privilege and their problem.

However - should Scotland decided to become independent, then I think all bets are off - if GB is to be divided, rather than being a single island/country then I would favour the South East/London becoming an independent state too. GB/UK has some rational as an island, but if that is given up then there is no particular rational to the south east and north to be a single nation...

England as an independent nation - Cockneys and Scoucers, Geordies mashed in together but not Scots? - why?

I have as much/little in common with a Scouser or Geordie as I do with a Scot - if the Scots break the UK, then the South/South East should become independent too - if we aren't in this all together then we need to be a size that we can get behind to build a new nation.

Workfair, Immigration, EU and stuff...

Before getting on to workfair...

For generations, many people in the UK (known as the very rich) have 'made their living' by simply inheriting land (originally from a distant relative who got it from a monarch who took it from someone else simply by force) and letting people use it in return for rent. Nice work if you can get it...

I tend towards 'all property is theft' (which raised the question is theft always wrong, can't it sometimes be justified - I'll leave that open for another time).

In my view, if  being a citizen of a country means anything it means an equal share/right to the resources of that country - its 'our' country, we are all born equal as citizens, so what argument against this can there be?

A share of the resources of the UK is enough to give every citizen the means (with their own labour) to support themselves - in my view that is the states duty discharged, you can offer a citizen a means of support but you can't make them use it.

Workfair - expecting people to work to support themselves, and giving them a safety net opportunity to do so is not a million miles from what I set out above.

Immigration - this is an issue because there is a distinct link between the land/country and its citizens - it is for other countries and citizens to decide how they run their affairs, but how the UK is run should be solely down to the citizens of the country - nothing is owed to, or asked of non-citizens.

EU - well the Euro debacle shows that the EU is simply too big an area to seed new ways of working/thinking - you don't start a fire with large logs, you start with a spark, tinder and twigs.

Where 'workfair' gets a bit of a bad name is that people say it 'forces people to work' which is slavery. But it doesn't... people are entitled to not-work and freeze/starve if they prefer... Whether the amount of work required and the level of reward returned are equitable is a different issue, which does need attention, but that is a detail, not an flaw in the principle. If people don't want to use the state workfair programme, and still don't want to freeze/starve they should (of course) have the opportunity to do so working for themselves or for others on the private sector.

The choice is yours/theirs - chose to support yourself or not - what you can't choose is to make others support you (and that should apply to landholders as much as bog-standard citizens).

The answer to life the universe and everything is...

The answer to life the universe and everything is...

Freewill.

Every individual human being has the capacity to exercise freewill - and it is only be exercising that freewill that they make their own unique contribution to the world around them.

Exercising freewill is:-
  • the difference between simply existing and really living.
  • honouring humanity.
  • celebrating you own unique life.
  • only possible while you are here - time is limited.
  • divine.

Denying others freewill:-
  • freewill denies them life, and condemns them to mere existance.
  • strips them of humanity.
  • selfishly condemns them to insignificance.
  • robs them of their short, precious lives.
  • is the very essence of evil.

Every legislation-promoting do gooder, collectivist, nannying official, coercive government official and everyone who wants to impose their will in place of your own is attempting to override and deny you freewill, they are evil and an enemy of you and all humanity.

It is only be recognising individual liberty, rights and freewill that people can make the real contribution that human life uniquely allows and that human life demands (if it is not to be wasted).

Freewill is the difference between man being a simple beast of burden and being human.

This isn't a new idea - right back in the myth/truth(delete as applicable) of many holy books such as the Bible, mans true existance starts with the acquisitions of freewill that self-knowledge allows. However, the denial of freewill (that the churches based on these books tend to promote) is not a good thing, it is not a way of returning to a purer state, no, it is to decry and demean that which (if exercised) makes us human, and uniquely makes human life worthwhile.

Freewill turns the existance of a simple beast of burden into a living human being with a life that can be rewarding and worth living.

If you aren't fighting for individual freedom, then you are supporting the death of the most precious gift man has at his disposal. Don't impose on others - let them be human too.

Saturday, 11 February 2012

Public Health Campaigns are Killing us - Nudging us to Death.

Bullying has been nationalised - its called Public Health Campaigning.
Paul Perrin

Have you noticed that whenever the government start a new campaign on a health issue related to eating food or behaviour the situation almost always gets worse?

You might argue that this is because the campaigns aren't big enough or were started too late, but it seems pretty clear what the real situation is...

By publicising an issue widely, it becomes normalised and (at least partially) acceptible.

In the past 'fat kids' were always citing medical conditions for their situation - never overeating - overeating to become fat was always a taboo. But now (with government help) it is normal and 'expected' for many kids to overeat and be fat, the government have supported those who have taken any 'shame' and 'peer pressure' out of behavioural issues - you aren't allowed to comment on anyone's appearance any more. If members of the public happen to exert any 'peer pressure' (even if it to the good) it is now considered 'bullying' and has a whole new taxpayer funded industry to combat it.

So instead of the public regulating itself, the 'public health industry' have usurped that role - and (at taxpayer expense) are making a complete hash of it. They tell us that its not unusual to overeat and get fat - in fact is is very, very common - so if you are told that most people lack the self control to mange their diet, well, you are hardly to blame if you can't are you? Yes its good to know that there are other people (again) funded by the taxpayer who can 'help you' - but god forbid you should help yourself, or your fiends or family or the public have any influence.

The other 'common' eating disorders Anorexia and Bulimia we all know what they are called and what they mean - but they weren't common or well known 30 years ago, they are still uncommon in counties that still don't publicise them.

When it was discovered that Carol Carpenter (a singer in a popular musical duo) had an eating disorder (in addition to drug issues), a disorder that led to her death - it was shocking headline news. Now it seems every female in the media has an eating disorder, as well as millions of children in our schools, and millions of young adults.

So how do these Public Health Campaigns try to do their work? By nagging, pestering and needling us - on TV, in the Newspapers and all over the internet (at our expense) they are telling us that most people are doing something bad, but are incapable of doing anything about it with out further taxpayer-funded help. Given the abject failure of these campaigns to actually work, people are left with only one outlet for their apparent failure that about which they are constantly reminded - stress. Public health campaigns are a massive source of stress to every one they are targetted at, and stress related illness is currently one of the biggest killers in the UK.

So on one hand taxpayer/government funded Health Campaigns are publicising and promoting the very issues they claim to be aimed at reducing, on the other hand they contributing to stress - a massive killer.

How did this come about? Why is it allowed to continue?

Because many thousands of people's livelihoods are tied up in keeping this industry going - through our taxes we are obliged to pay these people to destroy public health and to slowly kill us - and their profits are huge.

Wednesday, 8 February 2012

Vassal States - EU, Italy Greece (and WIkipedia)

I have updated the Wikipedia entry for vassal states... Some eu-phile muppet has created a new account just to revert the article (coward). So thought I'd put a copy here for reference...

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassal_state


Vassal state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
vassal state is any state that is subordinate to another. The vassal in these cases is the ruler, rather than the state itself. Being a vassal most commonly implies providing military assistance to the dominant state when requested to do so; it sometimes implies paying tribute, but a state which does so is better described as atributary state. In simpler terms the vassal state would have to provide military power to the dominant stat

European Union

The European Union (EU) was originally established as a economic pact between a number of European countries first based on trade but then expanded its membership and developed by steps to establish itself as an independent political identity under the Treaty of Lisbon.
The first member states to truly become vassals of the EU were Italy[1] and Greece[2].
In Italy the EU directly appointed an existing MP as new Prime Minister (Mario Monti) who then appointed a new cabinet including many unelected technocrats all with out reference to the citizens of the country.
In Greece the EU directly appointed an academic as new Prime Minister (Lucas Papademos). Shortly after this, the EU sought to deepen its power over Greece by attempting to directly appoint a commissioner to take direct control of the Greek national budget[3]. There were even suggestions that the country should be renamed to mark a break with its past[4].
The appointment of a financial commissioner was blocked, but a special task force was sent to Greece under the leadership of Horst Reichenbach[5]. This was not well received by many Greek people, who made reference to the Nazi German occupation of Greece in the Second World War[6], and reference made toGauleiter[7] the name for local Nazi party leders during the Second World War.

References