Wednesday, 30 October 2013

'The State' - the thuggish gang with the biggest sticks who run everything... You want anarchy? We already have it!

The 'democracy delusion' is not that democracy is broken or doesn't work, it is that it doesn't actually exist at all.

Its taken some time to get here... but like so many revelations, once recognised it seems obvious...

We live in anarchy - we can only live in anarchy - there is nothing else. Our lives are 'what we can get away with' while they guys with the biggest sticks try to impose their will on us. They guys with the biggest sticks are 'the state' - we are well trained so they don't need to use their sticks too often on most of us - and the state is very experience, they generally know how far they can push without causing outright rebellion.

The key part of our training, to keep some peace in the midsts of this anarchy, the element that keeps (most of) us in order is the delusion that we have some say/control over the guys with the big sticks. We have been suckered into believing that our 'system' is not anarchy, that our 'system' is something called 'democracy' that is in some way intrinsically different to anarchy. It isn't - but many of us eagerly accept this delusion because it means we can pretend/imagine/believe that we are free.

This realisation - that democracy is a delusion, and there is only anarchy - explains why trying to install democracy in other countries has been so hit and miss, imposing the delusion on a whole population, of mixed ages, in one go, is very, very difficult - here we start the indoctrination as soon as a child can be removed from its parents and put in the care of the state at school, so the delusion is established in our minds on a one to one basis over many years.

The 'democracy delusion' is not that democracy is broken or doesn't work, it is that it doesn't actually exist at all. People will only follow a 'democratic' decision if they agree to do so, or are coerced to obey it... thats obvious isn't it? People do what they think (given the immediate circumstances) whatever they think is in their best interest. In a 'modern western democracy', the guys with the big sticks (the state and its minions) try to make compliance with their decisions appear to be 'in our best interest' by punishing us if we don't comply. How is that different to anarchy?

The states 'laws' are just their 'rules' - and we will be punished if we don't comply with them, their 'laws' are not special in anyway, they are not intrinsically different to a group of street thugs running a 'protection racket'.

Monday, 28 October 2013

Islam inspires many people to become terrorists - So what are you going to do about it?

People can bang on about islamic/muslim terrorism or bang about Islam being 'the religion of peace' and deny that it has anything to do with terrorism.

However, regardless of where blame lies, it simply cannot be denied that Islam does inspire many people to terrorist acts - there are plenty of examples of this, we see them every week.

To say that it is not islams 'fault' that this happens is pretty much the same argument as 'guns dont kill people, people kill people' - 'islam doesn't kill people, people kill people'. Outside of the military, most guns are used for sport, not for killing people, however this has not stopped guns being heavily regulated and  (in the case of hand guns) banned completely. In the same way, if Islam was a common drug that caused some of its takers to turn terrorist then it would undoubtedly be banned - one wonders why followers of a 'religion' get such special treatment as compared to sportsmen and drug takers.

I am not a fan of bans - every ban restricts my choice (regardless of what my choice would actually be) nor am I a fan of making people responsible for others (whether I am my brothers keeper is for me to decide), but its is time to at least recognise and accept the undeniable fact that islam/mohamed/allah inspires some people to become terrorists and murderers. If Islam is not to be banned entirely  then it is for the supporters of islam to make the case for not proscribing it, including their plans for ensuring that those who cannot handle it are protected from its influence.

Friday, 25 October 2013

Left try to baffle with bullshit - Grangemouth bailout: Did Ineos screw the taxpayer of £134million? - Daily Record

However much complexity the Daily Record raise around the accounts and tax situation, the key point is that the shareholders believed their money could be better used elsewhere.

Grangemouth bailout: Did Ineos screw the taxpayer of £134million? - Daily Record

I used to play chess. I was taught that when playing against a much better player, my only chance of winning was if my (superior) opponent made an error. I was further instructed that a much better player would not make a mistake against my normal 'sensible' game, so the tactic to employ was to make the game as complicated as possible. A complicated game also made it more likely that I would make an error - but with out the complexity I was going to lose anyway!

A similar tactic comes up in politics - especially (but not exclusively) in broken left-wing politics. When an argument cannot be won the opponent will create a fake, complex, web of arguments to divert attention from their obvious failure.

This story in the Daily Record is an example of just such a tactic.

You must remember that Ineos the owners of the Grangemouth plant had left their chair, put on their coat and were going out the door - they had walked away from the plant as a business. There was no path for them to reopen negotiations, it was game over from their side. Ineos shareholders had decided that their money (£00's of millions) could be better used elsewhere than at the Grangemouth plant under the unions terms. End Of.

The story in the Daily Record seeks to suggest that there was lots of profit to be made from Grangemouth, they are suggesting that the Ineos shareholders turned away from those big profits - but can make no suggestion as to why the shareholders would do that.

However much complexity the Daily Record raise around the accounts and tax situation, however scheming they paint the shareholders as being, however cunning and duplicitous they paint the shareholders as, the key point is that the shareholders believed their money could be better used elsewhere and were taking it with them.

The Shareholders were not cunning - they simply decided to put their money where it would get the best return - that was not at Grangemouth under union control. The shareholders were simply rational, the Unions were simply incompetent and arrogant.

If persuading Ineos to reopen their offer has cost the taxpayer - i.e. the taxpayer has had to pay for an offer that was available *free* only days earlier - then that cost is directly attributable to Len McCluskey and his Unite union - and if that is the case, and I had my way, the union would be surcharged every penny of that cost to reimburse the innocent taxpayer.

Tuesday, 15 October 2013

McCann - Crimewatch Reconstruction.

Ok firstly... I virtually skipped the whole McCann thing 'till now - Kids can go missing if parents leave them unattended... I use the safe in hotels (even in the UK) for valuables, and kids are far more valuable than anything that would fit in a safe - I never left my kids unattended anywhere.

But as there has been a reconstruction, I thought I'd follow it through to get the time line of events that evening - this is what I got from Crimewatch (times aporox, so give or take 5 mins either way on each?).

This is the iplayer link (will probably be out of date by the time you read this http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01jqssz)

Praia da Luz on the 3rd May 2007.

Back entrance - Shutters, french windows, curtains - all closed to keep dark (no mention of being locked)
Fron entrance - Door

8:30 McCanns leave kids in apartment 5a, go to tapas bar to meet friends.
8:35 Other guests arrive Matt+Rachel Oldfield (staying  next door in 5b), Jane Tanner+Russell O'Brian
9:00 Matt Oldfield goes to checks on his kids.
9:0? 3 more guests arrive
9:0? Gerry McCann goes to see kids
9:05 Gerry McCann sees kids
9:1? Gerry McCann stops to chats to guest on the way back.
9:0? Jane Tanner leaves to check her kids
9:15 Jane Tanner passes McCann apartment checking on her kids
9:1? Gerry McCann Back
9:20 Starter - every one present
9:30 Kate McCann stands to check, but Russell O'Brien and Matt Oldfield Go
9:3? Matt Oldfield returns, Russell O'Brien stays with sick daughter.
9:40 Jane Tanner goes to take over from Russell O'Brian
10:00 Kate McCann finds daughter missing, French windows open

So if it was a planned abduction, as the police currently suggest, then abductor(s) - knowing the McCanns schedule - would have to be looking at 8:35-8:55, 9:05-9:25 or 9:35-9:55 (a few minutes after a parent is expected to have left/half hourly check, till a few mins before they return - giving a maximum of 20 mins to get in, do the job and get out). Gerry sees the kids at 9:05 so not the first slot, and a delayed start on the second, how ever Gerry is still not clear at 9:15 when he is chatting to another guest between the apartment/bar and Jane passes to check on her kids, giving almost no time until the the next slot... So 9:35 it has to be. This time Matt goes in place of Kate (no explanation of how he gets into the apartment to check on their kids) - he checks his kids (next door as well) so now looking at going in about 9:40 at which time Jane must be going past the apartment to take over from Russell, who then (presumably) pass the apartment going back to the tapas bar. So it is about 9:50 and your slot is to 9:55... Would an abductor go for it? If you can silently kidnap a kid from an apartment in five minutes, who needs a plan? Kids would be going missing all the time - even while parents are in the shower!

Saturday, 12 October 2013

There are only two political systems - and only one is practiced today.

People talk about political systems as if you simply choose one and implement it - communism, democracy, anarchy, socialism, fascism, marxism etc.

However this misses the very simple point that any system can only work in one of two ways - firstly by consent, where something is engrained enough in human nature that it happens and works all by itself; secondly by force, where a greater power makes people work/live in a particular way. These are the only options - voluntary or involuntary.

Now, not every part of an involuntary system will require coercion. People will naturally do what they need to do to survive, the coercion may just be in making them give up part of what they have created, or some similar event.

If a system operates on consent, its participants may freely choose any form of government - and as there is no coercion may drop out of that system whenever they please. Many communes style communities operate like this already - you are always free to leave with your belongings.

A system that you are not allowed to drop out of is (by definion) coercive - people are not allowed to leave, they are obliged (by force) to comply.  The people enforcing compliance may structure their system how ever they please and give it any name they want - and as long as they do not over-reach themselves and suffer a revolution they can do as they please.

Some people are foolish and think that political systems exist outside this model, 'we live in a democracy' they may say - the only question you need ask is 'can you leave it?' - if the answer is 'no' then you live in a coercive system that those wielding the power have chosen to present to you in that way. In practice your vote has as much influence/power as the fact you breathe the same air as those in power.

The most powerful coercive systems are where those in power mange to get the public to do the coercion for them - if you are ever attacked for questioning the system, you know that you are living in such a system. You question but are told 'this is a democracy, you have your say, now shut up and get on with it'.

The most aggressive non-violent threat to a questioner is to suggest that they should have no land to live on - that they should sacrifice what they currently own and go and live elsewhere - starting (presumably) from scratch.

Changing they way things are run is not a quick or easy job - you have to have, and present, a convincing case that the human mind can accept and clearly see as better - so much better that those currently in power either accept it too, or face a revolution by those who do.