Saturday, 29 March 2014

Marriage - abolished in the UK

Yesterday was the last day it was possible to have a real marriage. The last time that a man and a woman could be recognised in law as representing the fundamental, human, animal and natural basis of the family.

Today that concept has no word in UK law - the word we used to use ('married') is now unconnected to family/reproduction etc, it now simply means BFFs (Best Friends Forever) and can apply to any two people.

Same sex couples have achieved 'equality' by denying any legal acknowledgement of the historic, natural form of the human reproductive unit of the couple/family.

The cry of 'Don't recognise any sex marriage? Then don't have one!' will almost certainly be observed - with couples who would formerly have got married rejecting this new, weird, institution of the same name.

If I were considering marriage today, I would not bother with this new creation. A 'nuptial' style legal contract/agreement for the practicalities (shared ownership of assets etc) and a non-legal ceremony to announce/celebrate with friends and well wishers would be fine. There will be some areas that the state will continue to make awkward - but I'd look at this on a case by case basis. As ever the states 'helpful contribution' to 'marriage' is just to reduce some of the penalties that the state itself imposes...

Marriage is dead, who would have thought that a supposed 'conservative' led government would lead its assassins?

Tuesday, 25 March 2014

Goodbye BBC, I spit on your grave.

The BBC are dying because they only ever existed because they were the states monopoly on broadcasting.

They controlled the messages that the British people heard. And they were financed by stealing the money that used to be earned by live entertainers, and cinema newsreels the length and breadth of the country. Instead of paying for these things as we saw fit, the TV Tax extorted this money and simply gave it to the corrupt institution that is the BBC.

Having such a powerful monopoly meant the BBC could not be challenged - upset the BBC and you would get nowhere nationally - so people had to pretend (or actually delude themselves) that 'auntie BBC' was a good thing. It was the only way they could live under such oppression.

But now this abusive relationship can end, because there is a way out for the public - the internet.

We can walk away for the vile, evil construct that is the BBC - personified by the likes of Jimmy Saville, Lord Patten and even Hughie Green.

Some people will remain attached and reminisce for it (as some people still do for the soviet union) - but that will only because they still fear facing the reality of the abuse they suffered, their lives have been built around it, and to face it would destroy them.

Goodbye BBC, I spit on your grave.

Saturday, 22 March 2014

The Legitimate Roles of Government, MPs and Civil Servants

The only legitimate purpose of government is to ensure the liberty of each person to whom it is accountable.

Liberty is the ability for an individual to have the widest and freest choices available at all times.

The power required to administer this duty - of ensuring liberty - is such that it is also the power to enslave the population.

To ensure that the government do not abuse or misuse the power they have, the people regularly have the opportunity to replace the government. Also, on an ongoing basis there are non-governmental MPs in place to ensure that the government only work within their legitimate purpose.

It is common for MP's in the UK (and other elected members in other countries) to be called 'law-makers' however, by definition, every law is a reduction in liberty, so law must be minimised, it must be as small and limited as possible. So while the government itself has the authority to make law, it is our elected MP's job to ensure as little law as possible exists at anyone time they should be law-slakers. This will include blocking new law that is non-essential or not in line with a governments only legitimate purpose, also of repealing old laws that are no longer relevant or non-essential. In each case where a law is so repealed, it should be clearly explained how and why the law was ever considered necessary in the first place.

I do not believe that free men should be subject to law that they cannot understand, or cannot know. Accordingly all law should be understandable to (say) 98% of 10 year olds - the age of criminal responsibility. Also, there must be little enough law that it can be completely read and understood by 98% of individuals by the time they are 10 years old.

I would propose a rolling 10 year programme of law review and renewal - whereby all laws are automatically repealed after 10 years if they have not already been directly repealed and have not been actively renewed. If this programme were started today, in ten years we would have a new, complete and exhaustive body of law, understandable and knowable by all, and all existing law could be dumped.

The problem with the civil service is that they are not regularly replaced or rewnewed, so corruption and abuse can run continuously, indefinitely - this must be addressed so that we (and our elected representatives) have the upper hand at all times.

Thursday, 20 March 2014

I despise the EU, as they took this as their model. LibLabCon joined them. #UKIP haven't... yet.

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

By P.J.Proudhon 1851. Cut/paste from

Friday, 14 March 2014

Evolution is about change over time, not about the start of life.

In the US the sides are pretty well defined - 'Creationist/Intelligent Design/Bible' on one side and 'Evolution/Science/Anti-Christian' on the other.

However, in the rest of the world there are other positions to be considered - you can't assume that someone not in one of these camps is automatically in the other.

Unfortunately when the Atheist Cult was picked up outside the USA it adopted the US arguments lock, stock and barrel - despite the fact there are few if any people who could be described as 'bible bashers' in the UK...

Anyhow, as I see it, the 'evolutionary' perspective starts here and looks backwards, but never actually addresses how it all started... it addresses 'development' not 'creation'.

Further evolution in using 'survival of the fittest' misses out on what I think is a rather important point - in a reasonably life filled environment, each new, fitter species will (almost by definition) replace at least one other species... So evolution is unlikely to increase the number of species, in fact as fitter species win, the number of species would tend to decrease...

This leaves a big question about where it all started and how many species there used to be and where they came from. We are back at 'creation' and evolution doesn't have an answer - it doesn't try to have... Oops.

If there was an initial 'creation' event (or events) I don't know what they consisted of, but the proposals seem to be 'intelligent design' or 'anything except intelligent design' -- but while anyone looking closer is attacked by both sides, progress is likely to be slow...

Thursday, 13 March 2014

Bible Stories, Creationism and Atheism

The roots of the popularity of atheism appear to be rejection of 'old school' christianity.

A negative comment about atheism will immediately draw a mob demanding that you show the bible to be true, that evolution is wrong, and that you prove god exist.

I mostly attack atheism for its own inconsistency nothing outside atheism is needed to show this... No reference to religion (other than their own), or to the bible or to darwin. Just their obsession with erasing other peoples faith to be replaced with their own arbitrary faith.

Outside the logical flaws with atheism, the worst aspect of atheism is the denial of humanity - the belief that there is 'nothing else' just atoms here and now.

Jimmy Saville shows where that leads - he enjoyed what he did, and got away with it for the duration of his existence on earth, every atheists dream surely?

His morality may have been different to other peoples, but so what? Morality is all relative to an atheist. On what basis does a devout atheist condemn free living Jim? Especially as he raised so much for 'good causes' - he didn't have to do that - most paedophiles/rapists don't bother giving anything back do they?

And before anyone decries his fund raising intentions, I haven't heard of any dodgy book keeping or similar, it seems his fund-raising side was squeaky clean.

No one need ask a non atheist why they would condemn such people - but an atheist needs to spell it out (I look forward to some doing so (one cannot answer for all) - preferably with out mentioning religion, christianity etc.

By denying humanity, that humans are not special, there is only one possible end game, that every thing in existence is treated equally - an averaging out of all respect for everything.

Unless you currently believe that humans are treated (on average) with less respect than everything else, this average will mean treating humans worse than now, with less respect than now. I'd rather see humanity on a pedestal rather than in a sea of grey goo with everything else. Is this based on self-interest? Does it matter? Most religions consider man special anyway, and an atheist would have to consider themselves my god to tell me what to think!

Also by denying humanity and promoting only science/logic you fall prey to 'incompleteness theorem' - this is a mathematical proof that it is impossible for any language to state proofs for every truth - a similar idea to "you can't prove a negative". If you can't prove something, you cannot pretend it doesn't exist, it remains a possibility (or maybe certainty, unbeknown to you) and you'd have to make a judgement, and hope (have faith), that you have made the right call.

Humanity has the ability to make those judgements - whether you like that fact or not.

Atheism is a faith indistinguishable from Religion.

Atheism is just as 'faith' based as religion is - so much so, it is indistinguishable from religion.

There are many people who like to say they are atheist who then deny that they follow any of its creed - but there are many people who call themselves catholic, christian, jewish etc but say they don't really believe in god or are 'non practising' - at least these people rarely claim that they are just as 'devout' as those that do follow their religion to the letter (Church of England excepted...). Whereas many non-devout atheists like to claim that their position defines atheism (as members of the Church of England like to claim their position defines christianity).

Why do I care/object? Mainly because atheists attack the religious (as they see them) and attack the areligious/agnostics. I am broadly libertarian and respect peoples right to choose - nowadays most religions are tolerant of those who don't agree with them - the main exceptions seem to be islam and atheism, both of which have high profile fanatics who have zero tolerance of dissenters. Intolerance can be amusing in small doses, but if it gets the upper hand liberty (per-se) is lost.

It is widely accepted that "you can't prove a negative", however this doesn't mean you don't have to acknowledge that you *haven't proved it*. If you believe you cannot prove a negative, how stupid would it be to create position for yourself that claims that you have?!

Atheists claim to respect science and logic etc - but then say their position is secure because it is impossible to for them to prove they are right (there are no gods), so there is no need for them to do so!

Atheism has become what it claims to despise - maybe faith is a common human need, so those rejecting it were bound to come around to it in the end - but (of course) would not want to admit their mistake so need to remain in denial.

Atheists you are not better, nor smarter than theists - you just have a different faith - get off your high horses, they only exist in your minds.