Thursday, 30 December 2010

100,000 voices

Yours truly does apologise for his unseemly long absences from this blog. University is taking its toll particularly since this blogger is attending a real university and doing a real course (which his arrogance never falters to mention). Exams are due after Christmas holidays so this post in itself is an outlier. But nonetheless things need to be said and since our pointless MSM continues to be just that, we have to say it ourselves, we the people.

100,000 voices will be required to get motions debated in parliament. A lot of people do not like this, one of my favourite bloggers Mr. North at EU Referendum does not like it either. Yet one of my favourite politicians Mr. Hannan likes it so it would appear we are having a good old bout of difference of opinion. I like it not because I am naive enough to think that it will actually improve democracy in this country but because it is a very useful tool for politicians to shot themselves in the foot with. And since our ruling class is monumentally stupid as it is, you can be quite sure that given the opportunity to shot themselves in their feet; they will.

Politicians nowadays despise the electorate, our current ruling class is a testament to this fact. No one voted for the coalition yet the coalition now votes for us. That is not democracy and certainly not representative democracy where they are supposed to represent us, instead they represent themselves since under the aegis of 'coalition' they threw out their election manifestos, wrote a new one and forced it onto the people under the guise of 'compromise'. We were stupid enough, as always, to swallow that, line, hook and sinker.

Thankfully the public will always outshine private politicians. We have the benefit of 60 million minds and they only have 646 of our kind, not even our best kind, a rather mediocre staple they come from. With few scholars, officers and entrepreneurs. They are by and large sheep and followers, not leaders. Hence it is not a surprise at all that they now think this gimmick of a measure is going to help shore up their popularity (read 'the LibDems popularity').

What will happen is this: we will suggest loads of things we want debated and changed by our "sovereign" parliament. We will submit the HRA for expulsion from the legislature, we will demand that immigration is significantly reduced, we will demand a referendum on the EU, we will enforce very convincingly our commitment to the Armed Forces, we will demand the termination of the Human Rights Commission and we will most likely demand that a number of services such rail traffic and postal services are returned to the public sector. And many others.

They will of course ignore every single one of our requests, when we come, cap in hand, and beg that our masters listen to us.

But what they do not seem to have factored into this ploy is that there will be a lot of these 'citizen's initiatives' - because we, as a whole, despise our politicians and what they have done to this country. When the hoi polloi start to realise that their vox populi is being ignored en masse, even they will realise that their politicians are not serving their best interests.

Hence it will follow; motion after motion will be rejected because it is truly what the people want, people's disillusionment with the ruling class will only grow and grow, the ruling class will become more and more aware of their disillusionment until they one day feel compelled to act on one of the requests.

Alas, this act is a pointless play to the galleries for is should not be needed, politicians should by definition hold the executive to account. They should by definition have balls and a firm spine. But what this act will do is to force the public balls and spine onto our politicians, and there is not a single thing they can do about it.

Unfortunately we are a nation which is going nowhere.

Tuesday, 14 December 2010

Very unfair

You will find no one who is more against the current "student" protestors, but introducing water cannons is cheating in my opinion.

Saturday, 11 December 2010

The police

The police would do well to remember than when justice is not brought to bear, they are not serving the interests of the public under whose aegis and custodian they serve. When the public feel that the full force of the law is not brought down upon those onto which it was designed, they will take matters into their own hands, to make absolutely sure that vengeance does strike down upon those who pray on the weak.

Friday, 10 December 2010

My fellow "students"

They have done it again. This is nothing but a massive stroke of luck for the Coalition. All these scenes of pathetic vandalism and attacks on the police are music to their ears. Yet again the mindless militant left comes to the rescue. The vast majority of voters will not look at the policies in detail, the ludicrous situation where the English are shafted once again. They will just see the lefty muppets on the telly and support the Government. Cameron will be laughing all the way home.

Tuesday, 7 December 2010

Of spies, students and universities

The newly announced spy in the House of Commons is most certainly not alone, she is joined by some 1,000 other pass-holders, who are not British citizens, who also are free to roam the halls of our "sovereign parliament" (I hate when they say that, because anyone who ever does instantly displays that he is an academic cock). British security at its finest would you not know.

Now our little spy studied at the 'University of Bradford' that bastion of academic starlight founded in our year of the lord 1966. I happen to know a fair bit about that university, not because I have studied there (roll on academic arrogance and elitism), no because one of my friends has. My friend is very bright. So bright in fact that he got royally ticked of with Bradford and applied to our current university because, lo and behold, Bradford was shit. As it turns out his equivalent course at our university covered the same and more material than they do in one year at Bradford, in three months in London.

Dare I say it? If we introduced a more rigorous academic framework would we be able to weed out all the phonies who seek only to abuse the system? Perhaps that is to autocratic for the liberal-left and socialist-workers-party-supporting people? Nay, I strongly maintain that university is but for the brightest and that only a small proportion of the population should be able to go, as to help the rest of the people who were not served with brilliance at birth. Granted, this would probably result in my not being able to go either (I am most certainly not clever), but that is a small price to pay for a functional and proper higher education system, which incorporates governance of people actually coming here to study under the right premises. This would thus exclude potential russian spies, it would exclude the bogus students from all over the world who come to the UK to study english, it would include the brightest foreign students who should be encouraged to come here and study and funded to that end as well.

Think how productive a craftsman really can be, some of them manage to turn out absolute works of art be it chimneys or glassworks. Think instead how productive a craftsman with a real degree could be - call him an entrepreneur if you will, his economic prowess would be relatively endless seen from the Treasury compared to the current lock, stock and barrel, who are apparently going to drag us all out of recession with their brilliance.

Certainly, one might ask, what cannot 30,000 media-studies graduates do?

There are now roughly 2 million British students at UK universities, and some 0.5 million foreign students including EU students. This is why there is no money left to fund the whole damn higher education system; there are too many fucking students and most of them are not doing anything remotely productive.

Why do we always do it? Why do we always fiddle with the system? We KNOW what the successful system is, we used to have it here before we gave a few dozen politicians the chance to play God with our kids futures. Remember the following:
  • Posh Independent
  • Grammar
  • Comprehensive
  • Technical College
  • Polytechnic
  • University
Put bluntly, the brightest kids went to Eton, smart kids went to Grammar and the mongs went to the Comp.

Brainboxes went to University, technically good kids went to tech and normal kids went to Poly. It worked.

Industry and commerce knew exactly where to find the people it needed and we flourished (and if you think that just because the government has decided that everyone should go to university that means the same for industry, you are utterly wrong. Basically it works like this now; some companies recruit people solely from the G5* universities and some exclusively from the Russell Group - they are blissfully aware that most other universities produce shit graduates because you cannot artificially make the population clever). We made things. Ships, cars, aircraft. We produced scientists, engineers, creatives and entrepreneurs. The rebels could study art and many of them did exceptionally well at it. We ruled the world in fashion, music, photography, film making and art.


The Germans have an excellent education system because Politicians can't get their hands on it. It is based on three types of school.
  • The Gymnasium is designed to prepare pupils for university education and finishes with the final examination, Abitur, after grade 12 or 13.
  • The Realschule has a broader range of emphasis for intermediate pupils and finishes with the final examination, Mittlere Reife, after grade 10
  • The Hauptschule prepares pupils for vocational education and finishes with the final examination, Hauptschulabschluss, after grade 9 or 10
See that? And what does Germany produce? Cars, ships, power stations, railways, aircraft, infrastructure. No fucking about in Germany. If you're thick, no WAY are you going to University to study to become a Nail Technician. You'll do an apprenticeship at 17 that will pay pretty much bugger all and then you'll get a job that will keep you and your family fed for life. We used to do the same here until the Socialists decided that was not the way to a progressive future.

And all because Germany has the courage to say to it's citizens
You're smart, you're average and you're thick. Don't worry, we have something for all of you.
And most of all, they keep their education system away from the clutches of Politicians. Their kids are far too important for a few dozen idiots to ruin. It's time we learned to be honest with our population again. We OWE it to them.

Whilst we import German cars, kitchens and machines because they are so fucking excellent, I can see no better argument for a return to sanity in our education system. Who knows, in 30 years, the Germans might be buying our cars whilst they push bits of imaginary paper around a banking system for a living.

* The G5 group of universities consist of: University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, LSE, UCL and Imperial College.

Friday, 3 December 2010

Quote of the day

On similarly aligned bloggers there is Ana, she is good with words:
I love tradition, I love monarchy, I love the ancient folk ways of this country, I love its eccentricity and its differences; I love to hunt on winter mornings and punt on spring days. I dislike reform for the sake of reform, government for the sake of government. If you think I cannot be a libertarian and a conservative you are very much mistaken. A patriot is a person who loves the nation, not the state. And there is a huge difference.
Where is the PC brigade I wonder?

Thursday, 2 December 2010

Global Warming Apology?

I suppose it is too much to ask for an apology from the crazy warmists?

Ours is not a 'House of Commons' - commoners have common sense from whence the parlance is derived. Ours is a House of Fools for they do not represent the people and have not represented the people for a few decades now. Whilst the Union is craving for some proper leadership in tune with the fiddles of the people, we are given nothing but pathetic puppets who would not be able to tell the difference between a spine and a crime, where they forced to do so.

Remarkably they seem to harbour under the illusion that the current status quo will continue.

Tuesday, 30 November 2010

Third Time Student Protests

My parents both worked when they were at university. One of them worked in a pea factory and was a tutor, the other in a pub, as a tutor and a delivery boy. The spare time they had, they had to study. They both left with good degrees and no debt. I work as well during my degree, granted it is not enough but one does try.

Look at all the photos of today's protests and you will see that generally these are people from the 'Socialist Worker's Party' student section. I tore down their posters at my university because they were an incitement of violence. I speculated as to whether I should leave my email or not so that they could contact me, but I decided against it. Somehow I cannot see 'fair-play' being in their dictionary. Yes, I know it does not really square with my liberal tendencies but they are really starting to piss me off right now.

We are not all like this, do remember that, most fellow student bloggers that I know share my disposition and disgust towards our "comrades" who have taken to the streets. These "students" should just get over themselves. Most countries do not pay grants or give loans to students, so they have to pay their own way. Look at America, apart froma very few scholarships, students work their way through college/university, usually at menial jobs. Like my parents, mine is not menial at all, I quite enjoy my job actually, and they are not hard to come by what I do.

What these "students" protestors all have in common is that most of them have probably never done a single days worth of honest labour in their lives. Yet they have the stomach to call for free education. Why they fuck should it be free? If you want it you pay for it.


It is interesting to note that all the pundits in the MSM cannot seem to be able to take a stance on the Wikileaks issue. They are all, quite rhetorically it seems, asking whether Wikileaks "are the defenders of democracy or the nemesis of establishment" - take a bloody stance you spineless apparatchicks. Is that not supposedly why you got into media in the first place, to make the big scoops, to defend democracy, to show the people the 'real' world - yet when someone finally does you hide behind the curtains of ambiguity.

You spineless fucking hypocrites.

From your point of view it should be perfectly obvious that Wikileaks has done you a favour. Only problem is that you are too thick to see it or too afraid.

And yes this is most certainly a rant.

UPDATE: What do I think? I think this is a good thing because big government is getting away with too much nowadays.

Monday, 29 November 2010

Why I left Amnesty

Alex Singleton is bang on the money
The Swiss know how to stand up for themselves. In a referendum yesterday, they voted in favour of the automatic deportation of foreigners who commit serious crimes. Needless to say, the latte liberals at Amnesty International are appalled and – revealing their utter contempt for democracy – are calling on Swiss politicians to ignore the will of the people.

Amnesty’s reasoning is that deportations could cause convicts to be sent back to countries where they could face persecution. But this is a ridiculous argument: no one is forcing visitors to Switzerland to commit offences. If people don’t want to be sent back home, why don’t they just desist from rape, robbery, murder and fraud?
This is why I stopped supporting Amnesty a few years back, having become a member during my early teens; they despise democracy when it doesn't suit their political agenda.

Full article here.

Sunday, 28 November 2010

Funny that...

Funny how "global warming" seems to have been taken of the news in recent times? Could it be because it is so fucking cold right now that if you suggested that it was because of "global warming" people would laugh at you. The righteous do not like being made fools of, which is funny seeing as it is the inevitable outcome of all their exploits.

Thursday, 25 November 2010

To be clear on the EU

We Eurosceptics love Europe: we know its cultures, speak its languages (I speak two other european languages), admire its nations, cheer their patriotisms. We simply recognise that there is a wider world out there: a world that is growing while the EU is shrinking.

Wednesday, 24 November 2010

"We are the future"

You are the future of this country? Then god help us all I say. Are you going to attack the taxman when he comes to collect as well? Or the bin man for not properly aligning your garbage? Perhaps the NHS for not giving you treatment ahead of the line?

I am ashamed to be a student yet again. People will now treat me with the same deserved disrespect with which they will approach the rest of the fucktards that today have soiled the good name of academia yet again. University used to be for clever people as you can clearly see there is no differentiation nor meritocracy now, just shit.

I am going to stuff so many 'EU-referendum' leaflets down your neck when I get them, that you wont be able to spew out your socialist-workers-party bullshit for a fortnight. And when you have cleared your throat again and think you are ready for the next round don't forget to look behind you; for there I will be with my leaflets...

Where were the student protests when Labour introduced tuition fees? Oh I forgot, students vote Labour. You hypocritical fucking scum, if mine would have been the generation of WW1 and WW2 we would have lost.

Tuesday, 23 November 2010

The Euro

We need to end it now, these are the people that are dealing the cards and they simply cannot be allowed this kind of power anymore.
We must stress that the euro has been beneficial to the European Union because, otherwise, in this context of international turmoil, every country would have to devalue their currencies.
Jean-Pierre Raffarin

By the by, one must take in these dire straits not to agitate the germans. We know what they become like when they are in a pesky mood. That said and jokes aside, this is very serious. We may despise the EU and all that it stands for but it has accumulated so much power at this point that were it to fail the peoples of Europe would hauled back at least a couple of decades. Not in spirit but in their financial systems, judicial, police, armed forces and every single area where the EU thought it so self-righetous as to exploit its gullible member under the aegis of 'in varietate concordia' - what utter shite. Caesar could pull that of barely, but no the EU, never the EU.

Saturday, 20 November 2010

'Xenophobic' British students shun foreign universities

There you have it, bang on the head, we are all xenophobic for wanting to stay at home. I really don't know what to say, the above conclusion is so inherently stupid it does not require further commentary.

Wednesday, 17 November 2010

The EU wont fail

There is a lot of sniping and snide remarks spinning around in the press and in the blogosphere. Some from eurocrats and some from eurosceptics; the eurocrats claim that it is our fault, the unyielding minority, that the euro is in such dire straits. Eurosceptics of a not-so-informed ilk are on the other saying that finally the day has come for the monster to be brought down.

Both are wrong.

What is going on now is not entirely clear but there is a lot spin, misinformation and propaganda to make it appear that our dear leaders in Brussels have a clue as to what they are doing.

You see the problem with the euro is that it is a complete gamble. A gamble of launching a premature and dysfunctional currency without a central treasury, or debt union, or economic government, to back it up – and before the economies, legal systems, wage bargaining practices, productivity growth, and interest rate sensitivity, of North and South Europe had come anywhere near sustainable convergence. Looking at the press releases it would appear that it is all about to backfire.

Happy days I would say. If not then that too is fine, judging from the spirit of my fellow kinsmen of my age, ladies and gentlemen alike, the EU does not stand a chance of ever being accepted in this country - ever. If it is not accepted that we should live as a satellite state of a foreign vestige of power, a power which has not been elected by us the people, then that power cannot survive. I was walking past Buckingham Palace last night and if you recall the EU tried putting their flag on the castle in Prague, not realising they were up against a real man in the form of Mr. Klaus they got properly harangued as a result. Thank god. If they tried that in the UK I can honestly see people breaking in and taking it down - which is why they never have; they know they can push the UK but not too far.

Wednesday, 10 November 2010

Well done fellow students

You well and truly fucked that up didn't you? What is the name of Chancellor of the Exchequer now again? Eh? Perhaps if they got their basic spelling right before going on a parade, supposedly, in the name of education people would take them a bit more seriously. What is more, they storm the Tory HQ. Who was it exactly who introduced fees in the first place? I guess the socialist and self-righteous fuckers who unfortunately share the same denominator as myself, conveniently and appropriately ignored that little piece of history and focused on the "nasty Tories" instead. Fucking idiots you are, the lot of you.

Who is going to pay for your free-education then you reckon? The state? You see we are spending £200bn on welfare and another £100bn on NHS. But if we try to slice some of those then you are all up in arms as well. How the flying fuck are we supposed to conduct our business then if you fucking little socialist utopia does not satisfy every boundary condition?

Idiots. Plain idiots. None of you will get a job because none of you have studied things which anyone else cares about, anyone who is on the productive sector of society. You cannot get hired by the state anymore because they are offloading 500,000 people for being utterly useless. Ergo you are all royally fucked and that makes me happy. Perhaps if you adopted some common sense once in a while and an ounce of economic literacy then you could maybe see what everyone else is seeing; we are skinned.

Why should your education be free anyway? In which great document of state does it say that the state must provide free education for its citizens? If you are so fucking passionate about Shakespeare's sonnets then you pay to study them. I pay to learn about science. Those who cannot afford to pay will get help from the state. What is all the fuss about?

Your party [Labour] started this mess. Take your blame game and shove it up your ass because as usual you have got it all completely wrong.

Sunday, 7 November 2010

Must Read

Thursday, 4 November 2010


This blog is hibernating for a while since the author is being gang raped by his university and other activities! Fret not he shall return.

Sunday, 31 October 2010

How very odd

They are not allowed to show the outline of their bodies (for apparently if they do us men cannot control ourselves and will forthwith rape the lot of them) save for a pillbox-like slit at the eyes and to some extent their hands. But they are allowed to have opinions. Muslim (not Islamic) 'culture' continues to baffle me with its staggering contradictions.

I wonder what Stalin would have answered, with regards to particular aspects of the proles he would remove given the choice: 'opinions' or 'fashion'.

Friday, 29 October 2010

Immigration and the cap

I have had a thought that has been bungling my head now for some time, naturally in the current PC climate I have not uttered it for fear of character assassination and impending fathwas. It would appear that businesses think that the current cap is hurting their profits rather than helping them
The Government's immigration cap is facing fresh pressure after evidence from one of its own business advisory committees shows the damage it is doing to UK businesses.
Okay, so the 101 is that businesses want to bring in more cheap labour so that they do not have pay, admittedly, the astronomical costs associated with employing a British person. And since it is such an imperative, apparently, to bring in that cheap labour then why are they even bothering with having the business in the UK in the first place, if they are not going to employ British people? Surely if it is such a burden on them why not simply relocate and they do not have to pay the government imposed ridicule that constitutes the frankly affronting percentages that has become NI. Not to mention the soon to be raised income tax.

UK business have known for some time that this country does simply not produce cutting-edge graduates anymore, since we appear hell bound on becoming a third-world country on par with Zimbabwe. With this in mind it would seem easier to just relocate than to whine-down the government for attempting to stem the ridiculous levels of immigration seen under New Labour. They too must know that it is not politically expedient for the government to backtrack on anything remotely related to immigration.

The EU and our money

Sold short again then, not much of a surprise there, what is a surprise is that no one can get it into their heads that Cameron is not a eurosceptic and Hague even less so. Of course there is an argument to be made for the "victory". Usually these budget increases go without much event. Instead Cameron went out there, made a case, got support and got some kind of result. £460m is better than £1bn. Slowly, slowly catchy-monkey.

This is an absolutely shit argument because it is the "gentle rape" argument. Surely an oxymoron. Who governs Britain? The EU.

We shall leave one day but it will not be whilst Boy Dave is in charge. He should have walked out. No accounts signed off for 14 years and you say "it's better than a billion". Turkey, Christmas and all that.

Where are we going to get those £460m from then? Well, perhaps if we define the EU as a "failed state" we can divert some DfID money? I am sure it could work. But no; we will just take it from the defence budget or the police budget whichever harms Britain the most.

Thursday, 28 October 2010

The Socialist Brain of a Liberal Democrat

Wednesday, 27 October 2010

BBC Narnia

I watched this when I was small and I absolutely loved it and still do (the remake can only be described as complete and utter shite). It goes to show what the BBC really can do if it steps down from its pillar of righteousness and does what it is supposed to: provide a public service and not a public re-indoctrination. That tune is probably one of the finest ever written in my opinion, and one does not have to play it twice to bring tears to my eyes.

BBC Narnia was a proper public service, and I for one dearly thank them for it. They made it into an adventure; they followed in the steps of Lewis' imagination with no CGI but by the strength of their creativity. There probably are hidden leftist messages in the series but they are so subtle that I never picked them up at least. I can only hope that this was because the producer thought it inappropriate for children to be tainted by the distasteful intellectual-political battles we still fight today.

“…But I cannot tell that to this old sinner, and I cannot comfort him either; he has made himself unable to hear my voice. If I spoke to him, he would hear only growlings and roarings. Oh Adam's sons, how cleverly you defend yourselves against all that might do you good! But I will give him the only gift he is still able to receive.”
He bowed his great head rather sadly, and breathed into the Magician's terrified face. “Sleep,” he said. “Sleep and be separated for some few hours from all the torments you have devised for yourself.”
The Magician’s Nephew – Chapter 14

Don't ever grow up.


Self-righteousness (also called sententiousness, holier-than-thou) is a feeling of (usually) smug moral superiority derived from a sense that one's beliefs, actions, affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average person.

Does this sound like anybody you know? It is essentially very easy: somewhere along the line someone started to believe that 'wrongs' were not wrong if they were done by "nice" people like ourselves. Wrongs were right and 2+2=5, even war was peace. Funny what you can do with language to convince people without independent thought, how they should live their lives.

Monday, 25 October 2010

Melanchtron on good form

Later this week - on October 28th - Cameron goes to attend the EU summit in Brussels. Top of the agenda will be the Franco-German proposal for a new EU Treaty. I have already explained, many times, that Eurosceptics want a new EU Treaty - one that renegotiates our position within the EU, repatriating key powers as we have promised in our past three General Election manifestos. This is a superb opportunity to achieve what Eurosceptics have wanted for years.

To enable our leaders to take this opportunity, though, they must have confidence that renegotiation will not result in our leaving the EU. One past fear about that can be discounted on this occasion - namely the fear that our EU partners would respond to a request for renegotiation through simply rejecting it and that the logic of suggesting that renegotiation was vital would be that, absent renegotiation, we would be forced to leave. That's not going to happen here, because our EU partners absolutely must have a new Treaty in order for the Eurozone to survive at all, and no such Treaty can proceed without British agreement, so there is no chance of their being able simply to deny us any discussion of renegotiation.

The other problem is slightly more tricky. This is the fear that renegotiation would result in a referendum in the UK, and that once one had started down the path of referendum it could ultimately prove difficult to avoid holding a referendum on membership - such a referendum potentially resulting in our leaving. Since our government and Party leadership have no interest whatever in leaving, that means that there must be no risk that renegotiation would lead to a referendum on continued membership.

And why should it? What I and my allies want to see is a new Treaty that renegotiates Britain's position within the EU. Why would we need a referendum on that? Suppose it were won - what would have been the point in the referendum? Suppose it were lost - then we would have rejected repatriating powers from Brussels to London and would be left with the post-Lisbon Treaty; what Eurosceptic would want that?
We don't need any kind of referendum on a repatriating Treaty - the only point of demanding one would be as a Trojan horse for getting a referendum on membership of the EU; a referendum that we don't want.

Forget demanding a referendum - all you will achieve is to damage the cause of renegotiation, and leave us trapped in a post-Lisbon scenario. However, because of the low public confidence in our government’s dealings with the EU after Blair’s broken promises on Lisbon, I do think there must be a strong case for pre-committing, prior to the renegotiation, that the deal struck will be brought for ratification to the House of Commons on a free vote. I’m not normally a fan of free votes – whips are essential to the functioning of political parties, and the presence of parties improves government immensely. But on this occasion, I think a free vote is a reasonable compromise with and comfort to those that feel they were denied a referendum. I hope that agreement on a free vote could be achieved across the House – prior to the renegotiation – and that the large Eurosceptic majority in the House of Commons would be comfortably adequate to ensure that a renegotiated Treaty were ratified.

The next issue is what the renegotiation should be about. The Sunday Telegraph discusses two kinds of things:

a) allowing Britain to trade without tariffs with countries outside the EU
b) withdrawal from the Working Time Directive.

Well, (a) is just withdrawing from the EU. The EU simply isn't a free trade area; it's (inter alia) a customs union, and as such it is essential to its nature that there is a Common External Tariff - that is to say, that EU members are not free to trade without tariffs with countries outside the EU. I am a big fan of Douglas Carswell, but that's a non-starter.

As for (b), it's far, far too little. The very idea that a renegotiation of our position in the EU would focus on something as petty as the Working Time Directive!!

The fact that even a newspaper that takes as much interest in EU matters as the Telegraph is unable to see what could lie in between dissolving the EU altogether (i.e. allowing free trade with countries outside) and reversing one petty measure (the WTD) illustrates an extraordinary lack of understanding of Euroscepticism in the press.

To try to help, I'll explain what are some of the real issues about which we would need to have a renegotiation.

At the heart of Euroscepticism is the fact that the EU is a state-under-construction. I know that many Europhiles deny this, claiming that this was something briefly believed in in the 1990s but now passed. They are talking codswallop. The central doctrine of the EU is (and always has been) "ever closer union". EU members are committed to seeking always to merge themselves more closely - trade-wise, economically, politically, socially, constitutionally, legally. The European Union already has a supreme court, a common legal space (more developed in terms of civil and commercial law, to be sure, but also encompassing criminal law), a civil service, a democratically-elected Parliament, a central bank, a currency, a foreign service, a constitution, a charter of fundamental rights, an international legal identity, a military structure. In both legal and practical terms it already functions as a state. It is, of course, a confederate state, not a centralised unitary state like the UK (at least pre-1997) or France. But being a confederate state does not make it any less a state. Sometimes Europhiles suggest that what Eurosceptics really object to is the idea that the EU might become a centralised state, with too many centrally-determined decisisions and not enough decided more locally. They claim that principles such as subsidiarity imply that this can never happen. But that argument misses the point. The Eurosceptic objection is not to the sort of state that the EU is. It is to Britain's being dissolved into another state. Europhiles suggest that this is a "fear" that is unwarranted, as if there were some concern that the EU might stop us playing cricket or eating Yorkshire puddings. But Britain is only a constitutional entity. Without Britain being the sovereign entity there will be no Britain at all.

Now arguably that doesn't matter any more - arguably there is so little unique merit in Britain as a constitutional entity that it would be better to take the gains of involvement in the Single European State at the very small cost of losing Britain's constitutional heritage. I'm very tempted by that view, and indeed if the British Establishment flunks this golden opportunity to re-assert itself as the master of its destiny and to renegotiate Britain's membership of the EU, I might well think the game is up. But not yet. We may be in the last chance saloon, but for now we are still drinking.

What follows from the above is that the topic of the renegotiation must not be mundane matters about particular regulations that we don't like - that's all for another day. The key is for us to assert that we shall not be part of the Single European State. That means that the new Treaty must contain the following provisions:

Britain must explicitly be exempted from the obligation to seek "ever closer union". This is the single most important point. If we do not get this, little else will count for aught.
It must be asserted that, in respect of the UK, conclusions of the European Court of Justice do not have independent legal force. They constitute only an arbitration over whether we are or are not in violation of our Treaty obligations. (This provision probably needs to be supplemented by some piece of British legislation (a “Sovereignty Act”) that changes the legal status for British bureaucrats of acting in ways that violate Treaty obligations - specifically, that they are not subject to malfeasance findings if they do.)
We must withdraw from the common criminal space (the essence of which was already present in the Amsterdam Treaty).
We must withdraw from the common defence force (ditto).
We must withdraw from the common foreign service provisions of Lisbon.
We must state that the UK shall not be bound by any measures under the passerelle clause of Lisbon, even if British representatives in the European Council vote in favour.
We must state that the UK is not part of the single legal entity, for international negotiations, created by Lisbon.
We must become "outs" of the euro project, not merely "pre-ins".
My view is that the above constitute the essentials of any renegotiation. If these are achieved, then in due course we will be able to negotiate with the Single European State and other EU members (who, like ourselves, will not be members of the Single European State) over matters such as the Common Fisheries Policy or the Common Agricultural Policy or particular measures of financial regulation or health and safety rules that we dislike. The key thing in my view is to achieve enough disentanglement (and decisive enough disentanglement) from the Single European State that it becomes in the interest of the Single European State to disentangle itself from us, further, later.

Thus I don’t think we need to achieve everything in one hit. But perhaps I’m wrong. I certainly think it’s debatable and ought to be being debated. But at this stage we are struggling even to secure an effort from our government to renegotiate.

By October 28th we need Cameron to be saying that he favours a new EU Treaty and that the UK will use it to seek to repatriate powers. So there’s not much time to impress upon him and his team that they will ultimately have no choice here. We must convince them that their way to a quiet life on Europe is to renegotiate, not to seek to avoid renegotiation, and that the latter option would cause huge ructions on the Conservative side and make Europe a central issue of politics for the new five years. A good start from Eurosceptic backbenchers, though, with the rebellions over the Budget, the Bill Cash EDM and the pressure from Eurosceptics on Cameron over the weekend. Good show! Keep it up!

I do not agree with all of it, I think that we do need to leave the EU, but it is nice, just for once, to hear someone who actually grasps the concept of the EU other than Mr. North and Mr. Booker.

Saturday, 23 October 2010

A Hero

An act of heroism is rarely, if ever, a planned act. It is more a reflection of the human spirit's willingness to do good where it can, where it should and where it must.

Sunday, 10 October 2010

Sparse posting

Naturally still very angry but that is of no use if you have no internet in your flat, onto which to went thy anger. The latter is true for myself hence blogging is very sparse at the moment. Apologies.

Sunday, 3 October 2010

Mathematical Manipulation

This is a Sunday, a fairly nice Sunday I might say. That is taken in the light of what could be discussed in this blog rather than what will be. The weather is cold, windy and the leaves are falling to the ground like weights, as if they wanted to reach their final descent and grave quickly, not realising that this is their final journey and that they wont have the privilege again of covering the canopy of some ancient birch for the benefit of the rest of us. But alas I digress.

I like maths, I like maths because I might be so bold as to say that I am relatively good at it when compared to the rest of the populace of my age. Granted, people at my university are even better than me at maths but some are also worse much to the chagrin of their tutors I can imagine. Maths is a difficult subject if one considers its image, it is not what one would call 'blessed' with a sexy image but is rather vexed by the revulsion it involuntarily invokes in so many young compatriots. Those who were not fortunate enough to be blessed by mathematical fortitude have come to know the wrath of this unfortunate handicap which they possess.

It has become en vogue to try to redefine the founding pillars of maths for the benefit of the majority. 'Retake the Arithmetic' the hoi polloi shriek or more familiar yet 'Rein in the Nerds.' A bit insulting if you ask me (who invariably is the subject of their bemusement) but I know it is all in good fun if not with a hint of seriousness steeped in animation. There have been a lot of valiant attempts by Mathematicians and non-Mathematicans (and by science and non-science types) to try to instil a sense of ease in those not predestined to walk the halls of Integrals. Take this for example or why not this. 'Popular science' and 'popular maths' have become part of the colloquial tour de force with which science correspondents try to explain and convey the most abstract of concepts. Good for them they have certainly not chosen an easy task. However one must not forget that people without proper foundations in science will face difficulties understanding it, whilst they might have chosen a difficult field they also wield great power for they often get things hopelessly wrong. And look rather peevish when real scientists have to come in a clean-up their mess. I am going to step on an arrogant note here: we should not have to come in and clean-up their mess, if they do not comprehend a subject they should leave it alone or pass it on to someone who does. That said I will echo Einstein when I propose that science and maths are of little use if people cannot understand them.

Much as I admire Einstein was he correct in that latest of assertions? Most people do not know how or even why their iPhone4 functions as it does but they do not seem to be particularly worse of do they? The same with computers, they are ridiculous difficult machines to understand and the governing maths even more so, yet this is not the main concern for users. Quantum computing is on the rise but only a handful of people in the world (less than say 100,000 and yours truly does not count himself among those) have in-depth knowledge of the fundamental physical interactions which govern the behaviour of quantum functions which acquiesce the building of computers who can 'think' at the speed of light.

It would appear thus that intricate knowledge of the gears and spanners that make today's information society possible, are not necessary in order to take part in said society. Only for a select few is that knowledge necessary in order to further the boundaries of science. Which is why, though I admire their attempts, it seems somewhat futile to even begin to write Natural Science titles which begin with the epithet 'popular' since that is anathema to the confines of science. Science should be open for everyone, of course, but only for those who seek it. We obsess to a degree seldom seen, that everyone must take part in the latest results from CERN, yet only very few people can take any joy out of those numbers. Naturally, tax-funded the whole establishment was, its main benefit to society wont be the results it produces directly as part of its raison d'être, no, but rather the spin-off technology which will be developed to reach that end. That is where the true value to society lies and not in endless terabytes of data it spews out every second it is turned on.

This the principle by which I live; most people are stupid. But, everyone is good at something but by some stroke of nature the majority are not predisposed to natural science. Unfortunately. We can either accept this and press on with more urgent matters or we can, as is the current trend, continue to harbour under the illusion that everyone is equally bright and can reach the same standards. You do not even need a GCSE in maths to function normally and successfully in today's society. Yet politicians insist that virtually everyone needs to go to university - even those who have no desire to do so. As much as I regret to say it, unless you have a penchant for natural sciences you are going to find it difficult and it really is not something you can learn. Inhaling facts is not the same thing as understanding them. Like singing we say as part of 'good-will', that anyone can learn it, but most teachers know that this is simply not true. They tell that to parents so that they shall not think their children inferior to their peers, and quite right too, but the reality is far darker than the unicorn/fantasy-world parents are falsely led into.

Saturday, 2 October 2010

The blowing up of people

Now I am firmly on the sceptical side of the AGW debate and I know what constitutes proper science and what is complete and utter bullshit. But this must be the most tasteless fucking thing I have ever seen. Sure we do not agree on AGW but here you are blowing people up, to poke fun at us who don't believe in your thesis - and you think that is going to strengthen your position? How completely fucking retarded are you people exactly? I know you are all die-hard left but you guys seem to be beyond stupid, clinically and mentally incapacitated, seems a more appropriate depiction.

Richard Curtis’s eco-prop video confirms the worst impression people have of greenies, namely that, behind all the self-righteous rhetoric, they are misanthropic and nihilistic.

Thursday, 30 September 2010

Quick note on immigration

I found a very interesting site called 'The Poverty Site' - do have a look. You can be quite sure that anyone on the left, who actually proclaims to "know" anything about immigration has never seen the site, in common with all the other lefties who are the self-appointed keepers of the national conscience who argue that the opposition of many to uncontrolled immigration is racially motivated.

Sort of blows to pieces everything and anything the left has ever said on immigration. Oh the joy.

PS. There is a high probability that a lot of weird people are going to think that because I talk about immigration I am a baby-eating monster, genetically developed in a lab from flesh-eating cannibals from Sri Lanka. This is not the case; besides I gave away all my old mobile phones to charity today so fuck you.

Tuesday, 21 September 2010

Swedish Election Part 2

There is something quite fucking astonishing with the sheer stupidity displayed by the Swedish media establishment and political classes. If you think the UK's MSM is mind numbingly narcissistic and insolent you have seen nothing yet. As I highlighted in my recent post, the electorate does not seem to much like the idea and hand they have been dealt. They do not exactly warm to the predicament they are in; a sizeable amount of their own numbers have voted for a xenophobic party. Said party now has 20 mandates in the Swedish parliament. Fair enough, roll-on democracy ought to be the next logical step. They secured their votes fair and square, you and I might not like their message, but one has to be the bigger man here and accept defeat and accept that their campaign was very well organised. Not to mention that they played the 'martyr' card which is a common trait amongst marginalised parties across Europe, not to say the world; rearrange the board so that it looks like you are being unfairly targeted. Works a charm, always has done.

But the loudest of the few still cannot accept that several hundreds of thousands of people voted for a xenophobic party. It does not compute with their principles and morals.

But what about other peoples' principles? You might think that I am defending xenophobia but I am in fact trying to put the case for democracy at the onslaught of the righteous.

What has the MSM decided to do then, well, one of them has started a "massive, nationwide campaign" (which is tying to be all progressive and arty-farty by naming it something which is completely ungrammatical) to "tackle racism and show solidarity" - I am not even going to begin taking issue with the 'racism' thing, if they want to be unacademic, which is to say wrong, about the whole labelling issue then fine. No, what I really take offence at is all the stupid fucking politicians who are lining up to be part of this campaign. 'We show solidarity with immigrants and they deserve the same rights bla bla bla' - sure bacon Mr. McShit but was it not that kind of rhetoric which let the xenophobic in, in the first place? That well rehearsed patronising bullshit where voters were taken for cattle rather than grown-ups. If such a large proportion of the population has such an issue with immigrants is it not your responsibility as leaders and government to convince them of the contrary? I would have thought that it would be your place, with all the resources of state at hand, to initiate a well funded campaign to show that people have the same worth regardless of their origin. That it is the content of their character that matters and not the location of their genesis. There is not one but TWO state-funded TV channels and nothing was done, nothing which could even begin to quell the unease which people felt towards immigrants. Little if nothing was written in the national papers.

But now, when they stand at the edge of Pandora's Box, they have the cheek and arrogance to ignore the voters' concern again. As if they did not have enough lessons to learn the first time around, they continue, again and again and again, to quell legitimate debate about a delicate subject which deserves well-earned attention for few would touch it with a barge-pole hitherto. A real statesman would have the nerve to pluck up courage and tackle the issues head-on: make politicians travel to every far corner of the land and meet the people, so that they can tell them how they really feel. And pray that they are not ripped to pieces. Sweden is a big country and the feeling of abandonment in the darkest of forests is perpetual. This continued self-impoced ignorance is driving an ever larger wedge between the needs of the people and those who have been assigned to meet those needs. Ostracising your own and parading them as "freaks and brownshirts" will do you no favours, and it is not a question if it will backfire but only when.


I think few of those who are politically and socially savvy missed the Panorama show a couple of days ago. Lets consider some of the main findings.
  • 9,000 public sector employees earn more than the PM (who gets £142,500).
  • 100,000 public sector employees earn more than £100,000.
Russia is today planning to slash over 100,000 public sector workers over the coming three years. I do not propose we mimic them exactly, we should fire more. What more importantly should be considered is using the PM's pay as the benchmark to which all other salaries are levied. If we do the maths on the above numbers we will reach a final which is a massive understatement of the true cost of public sector pay. Remember these are not private sector figures these are public which means that you and I pay for them. Remember further all the rhetoric and hot-air the bankers have been getting from populist-politicians for paying their employees too much, even though the taxes generated from that sector alone pretty much pay for the Armed Forces budget in itself.
  • 9,000 x £142,500 = £1,282,500,000
  • 100,000 x £100,000 = 10,000,000,000
Again this is an understatement of the true cost, for the true cost is much larger, but it would appear that we are paying salaries to a tiny proportion of the public sector in the excess of £11,3bn. Naturally some of the employees do qualify for such a salary for some of them do a mighty fine job even though they rarely get credit for it (as you probably know the MSM only highlights failure). But does it really make financial sense to pay two GPs 475,500 a year each?

Nobody denies that many senior public sector jobs, especially in medicine, are difficult and require skills that need to be properly remunerated. But the same is not true for managers; and a system that generously rewards failure can never be justified.

Sunday, 19 September 2010

Thoughts on the Swedish Election

It has transpired that a xenophobic political party has transcended the allure of the sidelines and squeezed into the main stream of the consciously thinking swede. Xenophobia, or fear of that which is strange or foreign, is never a good quality in a person or entity mainly because we are all part of this world, we share the same genes and we are all fairly similar. A deranged muslim cleric can have his whole world crushed in a matter of minutes in the company of a fairly level-headed and well versed Englishman who will explain that Mohammed's perception of women does not fit into modern day Britain. Equally banning immigrants from Sweden makes little financial sense - this too a fairly level-headed swede can tell another not so open-minded swede of the far-left Swedish Democrat (SD) party (there is little point arguing with English lefties as to the socialist roots of the BNP, it is an absolutely lost cause to do it with swedish lefties).

There is a worrying, very disturbing indeed, verdict developing amongst the righteous, i.e. those who refuse to accept the wishes of the electorate, appear to refuse to listen to their fellow man. Sweden uses proportional representation and the Swedish Democrats got a full 6% (the horror!) of the total vote. The latest census showed that Sweden has a population of 9,259,000. 6% of this figure represents a full faction of 555,540 or just over half a million people (naturally not all of these voted but one has to extrapolate). This is a sizeable cohort of those eligible to cast their vote. A cohort who will see their decision scorned and judged based on the simple subject of fear. It is safe to say that Facebook has yet again a part to play in this; the righteous who I tonight am ashamed to call friends of mine are not exactly behaving, shall we say, graciously in the face of the result. They appear to think it is people's fault that SD have tonight gained mandates, but where are the real perpetrators, those who refused to be drawn in debate? To deny the right for a select group of people to voice their opinion is that not equally atrocious, if not worse? But for the sake of arguments lets suppose they are right; everyone with conflicting views to their own are wrong. The trouble then is, rather obviously, the age-old question of quis custodiet ipsos custodes—who guards the guards themselves?

Only when it suits the paradigms of the righteous, is democracy a powerful tool to wield in the face adversity. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic. We should be bold enough to make a stand and do battle for our views and beliefs. But we must strive to be mature enough not to resort to unnecessary personal attacks upon people with opposing views. I regret to say that few men and women poses the personal self-restraint to accomplish this very simple feat. Here it is though the simple truth: most people have shit for brains and you can quite frankly convince them of anything as long as your argument is powerful enough, never mind if you have evidence or not, that can be fabricated. It is the strength of your conviction which really holds the key to power. The history of dictators is a testament to this simple but penetrating axiom. And if you cannot convince a measly half a million people that immigrants are not evil red-eyed orcs, then how the flaming fuck are you going to convince the rest that your policies are the right ones? If there was one book I were ever to write it would be about just that; how completely fucking incompetent most people are. If you can harness that collective ignorance then the country its yours.

Fear is that which the main political parties refused to tackle head-on, fear which they refused to acknowledge and henceforth let it be dropped from the debate, fear which they let simmer until it grew; the Swedish Democrats have never breached the parliamentary threshold before (one needs to gain at least 4% of the popular vote to get any mandates in parliament). Now they are faced with a prospect which they did not account for: neither of the main coalitions command a majority and will thus have to give into the demands of the ex-fringe. They could have avoided this by simply taking a shot at the title; the question of immigration. But no, they chickened out, like the French, they squirmed and shrank and did everything in their power to avoid that so fundamental question to every modern-day society: do we or do we not import more people? They should have known. They should have taken lessons from the British election which was held well in advance, they could have looked at the Conservative Party and learned from its failings. It too never focused on immigration or the EU. Issues which the electorate wanted to hear more about; more about what the parties were going to do about them. As it turns out, they never intended to do anything.

The incapacity to act, to have the shame and arrogance to run away from your responsibility as commanders and officers of the realm, that is what is happening yet again in another european country. To act as if you rule by divine right, like King John, shows a supreme disregard for your constituents but what is more, a pathetic ignorance and lack of respect for your country. The blame for the entry of xenophobes to the Swedish parliament can be laid solely and squarely at the feet of the established Swedish political elite. It is not, and never will be, the fault of the electorate; they chose what their heart tells them to and if you have a problem with that you have a problem with the foundations of democracy (unfortunately for you then, that will take more than a TV-interview to change). If you wish to change their minds you convince them of your superior conviction to that end. But you do never, ever, question the legitimacy and genesis of their suffrage. That right never has and never will be given to you.

UPDATE: The witch-hunt has begun. A group has already been formed calling for the expulsion of the SD from parliament. Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty. Furthermore, I suppose this post is a chief-demonstrator as to why I do not engage in Facebook but merely observe: If I did engage I would not have any friends left.

UPDATE 2: There are now calls, by a group, for universal suffrage to be revoked and remodelled into 'confined suffrage' so that only those with "compassion and decency" are allowed to vote. Apparently those 6% of the electorate are all bloodthirsty Sturmbannf├╝hrers with a penchant for baby fingers. One wonders why hypocrites are never crushed under the weight of their own contradictions? One will probably continue to wonder but it is always fun to, in the meantime, expose some flaws in the otherwise bullet-proof moral armour of some famous people like, say, Mohandas Gandhi:
His description of black inmates: "Only a degree removed from the animal." Also, "Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized - the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals." - Mar. 7, 1908 (Reference: CWMG, Vol VIII, pp. 135-136)
UPDATE 3: All the major swedish newspapers have now increased the font size to the point where it covers 2/3 of your computer screen. They are highlighting the unholy wrong that has been committed by the swedish people: how dare they vote for a xenophobic party? (they actually use the term "racist party" but I actually happen to know the real definition of the word and SD are not discriminating based on race at all, they plain and simple just don't like foreigners) It is of course funny that they are not mentioning their own part in all of this; they like the established political bedrock rarely mentioned immigration either. The more populist side of the MSM have all started their mini campaigns where they "show solidarity with the different" - too little too late trying to erase their own failure (no doubt they will soon start writing articles about how they highlighted the immigration question all along* and that voters are all bigoted little proles) and being clever with hindsight, schmucks...

The press, the party apparatchiks and rent-a-celebrity are turning on each other and on top of all of this neither can understand why the foreign media are taking the piss out of them 'you stupid deluded swedes... Welcome to reality. Thought you were different? Think again.' The British post-election coverage was pathetic enough but this really is turning into full scale blue-on-blue civil war.

*About 10 minutes after this third update was posted one of the major newspapers posted an article on the policies of the SD, the first of its kind. Before the election thus was the level of political discourse: every contentious issue, no matter how worthy of scrutiny or debate, was swiftly closed down with threats of a fatwa or character assassination. In this age of hyper-sensitivity to offending anyone on any matter, discussion was suppressed and liberties surrendered. So well done you, MSM, you certainly got what you deserved.

Thursday, 16 September 2010

Why are young people left-wing?

I am what would be considered a young person and I am a right-wing conservative (not a Tory though). Without getting into a soul searching debate of what actually defines 'wings', lets just say that I am one of the few, if my position in society at large were to be examined. My fellow peers at university are mostly ultra-liberal and even more so left-wing bordering on socialist. Political affiliation is a difficult subject mostly because the people subject to evaluation simply do not know what they are, because few know what they believe in. They have a few hunches as to what an appropriate knee-jerk response would be to some random statement, intended to produce such a reaction but that is about it. When pressed they get annoyed and want to end the discussion. I do not want to end the discussion, I want to know why most people start of their lives as left-wing liberals but later on change to something else and not necessarily conservatism or similar 'isms'.

I have a lot of friends in Sweden, and Sweden is about to have an election. Regular readers will know that I wrote a long prodding essay about Facebook here, sadly Facebook will feature again in this little attempt to come to closure. Facebook is where the action is, so too with politics. I am very saddened to see that so many of my friends, of similar age to myself, are so fantastically left-wing. They post little messages on their personal "comment" about their thoughts on the election and they join various groups who advocate socialism. Much to my dismay for they are comprehensively and collectively, wholly ignorant of the dangers of what they are advocating. I can say this not because I am a righteous plonk who thinks he knows what is best for everyone else, no, because I am a political nerd, and I would like to think that my thoughts and comments are a bit more informed than those of the average Joe.

I have been fortunate enough to have known some of these people since I could barely walk. They are truly wonderful people, but sitting where I am, they are also complete fucking nut-jobs who are indulging in the most disgusting form of cultural relativism. What is more they seem to have no recollection of history, which is made even worse since I know they have had history classes; I took the same classes. When they say socialism, they dream up some eutopia-like scenario and post a nice little red star to accompany their political creed, leaving me dumbstruck again. They know nothing of the gulags, perestroika or glasnost or of serfs and Molotov. What is 1905 and 17 to them more than some random years? Do they know that Soviet socialism (which is nice way of saying 'communism') killed in excess of 20 million people. Who is Solyetzin, what did he do, 'sounds lika soya to me'. Do they know that socialism/communism has failed everywhere it was tried? Sweden was not built upon socialism, but it just so happens to be one of the frontrunners of the modern welfare state. Welfare per se, is not socialism - I think. That might just be my deluded way of putting together a cognitive argument. Put it like this instead: I believe that if you are fortunate enough to have had the possibilities to advance to such a point that you are self-reliant, then a small small percentage of your income should be given to your fellow man so that he too, hopefully, can do the same. Our birth place is, to the best of our knowledge, random and for all I know I could have been sitting in Katmandu right now, mending carpets, not having a thought in the world for the modern welfare state. Based on that alone, it suffices to say that we should all be compassionate but not excessively so [I think]. However...

The dangers of the welfare state are 1) it often is unjust in taking lawful property from individuals through excessive taxation, 2) it substitutes the collective judgment of the government for the freedom and judgment of the individual 3) it discourages initiative and entrepreneurship by individuals, and 4) it leads to excessive government power and hence corruption. The danger of these tendencies of the welfare state were well summarized by Lionel Trilling, a respected man of the contemporary liberal left as quoted by Gertrude Himmelfarb in her book 'Poverty and Compassion' “Some paradox of our natures leads us, when once we have made our fellow men the objects of our enlightened interest, to go on to make them the object of our pity, then of our wisdom, ultimately of our coercion. It is to prevent this corruption, the most ironic and tragic that man knows, that we stand in need of the moral realism which is the product of the moral imagination”. As political economist F. A. Hayek has stated; “The guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy remains as true today as it was in the nineteenth century”.

So why are young people left-wing? I think (a lot of 'I think' tonight simply because there is very little written on this subject, at least very little that is available to me) a lot of it is derived from some spurious belief that because you are young you want to break from the past, you want the new world, automatically assuming that the old world is a bad world. Since you yourself are 'new' your ideals have not been tainted by reality and pragmatism (you remember, I am sure, all the bollocks you got at school "anyone can do anything" and we all thought 'great, fantastic, I can be a rocket scientist' even though we knew deep down that there was probably only one or two kids in the room who had those kind of brains) and you express yourself in the way of a revolutionary who has the most commendable of values, not to mention altruistic of values, but has little in the way of prospects. Because you are new (simple terminology but lets not get bogged down in semantics) you reject all opposing views as being irrelevant and erroneous, because they are made on the premise of an old society. Yours is the right belief, the righteous belief, yours must be correct because others are wrong, since their ideals and morals have been debased and contaminated by the old world. Hence by proxy, and proxy alone, your altruistic and utopian idea must be morally superior to those of the elders. And since you have the moral imperative only you, and you alone, have the right to change the world.

Socialism is meretricious.

Wednesday, 15 September 2010

Eye-watering defence fact of the day

DE&S employs 22,500 people. Its equivalent in Israel, a country under direct military threat, has a reported 400.

It is not so much 'doing more with less' in the UK now, we are reaching new heights of breathtaking incompetence as every day passes, with every new departmental cost book laid open. It should really be, given the size of the civil service, 'do more with nothing' and that would actually work.

I must hasten to add that the media are ignorant as fuck when it comes to the MoD though. This I stole from ThinkDefence, I hope they wont mind, but here is how it is and take fucking note you ignorant slobs (MSM):


9,600 are in the Trading Funds, that’s the Met office, Hydrographic Office, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and the Defence Support Group. All of these provide vital services to the MoD and all but one actually return a profit.

10,500 are locally employed civilians outside the UK, educating service families children, maintaining the estate and running stores for example.

2,700 are in Defence Estates, 7,700 involved with Policing and Guarding (and these chaps don't simply police defence estates, no, they are also employed to protect the privately run and managed nuclear facilities dotted around the country) and 2,700 in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

The only bearing relevance they have to each other is that they are funded out of the same defence budget which is allocated by the MoD. For some inexplicable reason the media can create separate sections for the army, the airforce and the navy but when it comes to the rest their cognitive reasoning skills simply seem to disappear.

We keep banging on...

The reason we need to leave the EU, is not because a samey-samey Europe with every state being identical to the other would be inconvenient. That is not the argument. The problem is that they are liars. When they tell the people of Ireland that they should vote yes to the EU because it will be good for their jobs and economy what are the Irish supposed to think when Intel announces 1500 job losses a couple of days after the 'yes' vote? When the people of this country are told we are implementing fortnightly rubbish collections because it's good for the environment what they really mean is we are cutting your services because the EU landfill tax is so expensive that we are going to have to slim-down what we give you in exchange for your council tax while the rates are also rapidly increasing. When the Royal Mail says it is having trouble staying afloat, services will have to be cut, staff will need to be made redundant, prices will have to rise... what they really mean is the EU postal directive opening up the market to competition has taken away their profitable business and given it to EU based firms such as DHL or TNT. When your local pub closes due to the loss of revenues post smoking ban people do not understand that pubs were the places where revolutions were planned. The EU would like them shut down. It is really beneficial to us to have smoking banned in pubs? When the country is running a public finances deficit do we cut down our contribution to the EU or do we shed public service jobs? We shed public services jobs and increase our contribution to the EU. When Lakshmi Mittal is offered £6m to close down the steel plant at Redcar and move it to India as part of the carbon credits scheme does he give a carp about employment in Redcar? Nope, takes the cash, moves the plant to India where production is increased for the expanding world steel market. When the Tory party seems hell-bent on implementing a 20% rate of VAT they aren't doing it to raise revenue for the UK. They are doing it because the EU is forcing them to harmonise sales tax across the union. VAT is also an EU tax so it does not really benefit our economy anyway.

What you people need to understand is that there is no way to take the EU project forward without hurting people. If you want to keep on hurting the people of this country then continue to support them. I would like to see power returned to Westminster. A trade agreement is one thing. A soviet-style monster is something totally different.

Tuesday, 14 September 2010

Facebook - the fascination continues

My fascination with Facebook continues double apace. I hate the website with every fibre of my body and I have in rage deleted my account several times, only to find that to contact people I do need the damn things anyway. But yet, something about it continues to attract me to its strange atmosphere. I cannot help but to contemplate its psychological and sociological implications for its users and society at large (I know that sounds like altruistic wishy-washy BS but it is true). This is an ongoing experiment as ever, naturally, but I really cannot stop thinking about why it almost draws people in, as if there was no world before Facebook.

I have made some observations regarding my current account. This academic exercise must be seen in the light of how I have decided to manage my account after countless terminations. I decided that I would not 'add' any friends and that people were only allowed to 'add' me so as to make the whole exercise meaningful and remove the bias from my person. I cannot skew the results if I have not affected the results. Like quantum encryption; if you tamper with the package the receiver will know. I have not tampered with the data and remain completely (to the best of my knowledge) independent of its acquisition. Alas the results should look more favourably on my observations.

It would seem that the people who have extremely many friends, and now we are talking about the people who have in excess of 600+ "friends", have reached that number by seemingly just adding people at random, who have no bearing on their day-to-day life. This is to suggest that no matter how sociable a person it is no physiologically possible for a human-being to have a social network that spans more than even perhaps a 100 people. And even that is treading on ridiculous. Hence, I have concluded that these relatively few people collect "friends" to somehow make their standing in the community greater by somehow 'showing-off' to fellow users of the community that they are higher in the social hierarchy because they have more Facebook friends. Now there does exists the remote possibility that said person does in fact possess a network in excess of 600+ friends, genuine friends, but then one has to question the construct of that person's network. How does it function, are these relations interconnected, must these people be labelled under some kind of different label such as 'ultra-sociable'? The conclusion I was going to draw from this group of people was that although they are 'collectors' they are often also very insufferable because they are vain enough to care about such an abstract concept as online-networking. That was the conclusion as I said, but it is not anymore. While researching for this post I skimmed the people whom I would label collectors, I did find some people of utmost integrity who I could not possibly believe were collectors. Hence, I have not yet drawn a final conclusion on this one so I will leave it open-ended for now.

Remarkably enough actual research has been done on the topic we are discussing right here. Even more remarkable is that they agree with my findings as well. Here is the full article:
If you have too few "friends" on Facebook, people might think you're a loser. Too many and people might think you're a social slut. Is there an optimal number?

First let me point out that any perceptions people have of your personal characteristics based on how connected you are in a social network may actually be valid. A study published Monday in PNAS [pdf] reveals that social connectivity is partially genetic. Researchers James Fowler, Christopher Dawes, and Nicholas Christakis compared data on 1,110 identical and fraternal twins from 142 schools and found heritability in "in-degree" (how many people call you a friend), "transitivity" (how many of your friends are friends with each other), and "centrality" (how easy it would be to play six degrees of Kevin Bacon using you in the role of Kevin Bacon.) "Out-degree" (how many people you name as friends), however, is not significantly heritable.

The researchers also ran some computer simulations (using their "Attract and Introduce" model) and found that virtual people with heritable in-degree (how attractive you are as a friend) and connectivity (how often you introduce your friends) created network pattens that matched the real-life data.

The study doesn't say which heritable personality traits might contribute to popularity, but another paper coming out in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology does. Psychologist Alexandra Burt tested the DNA of 200 male college students, put them in groups for the purpose of planning a party, and then had them rate each other's likability. She found that the most popular students were the most likely to bust the budget or suggest illegal stuff like drugs and hookers. They also tended to carry a variation of a serotonin-receptor gene associated with impulsivity and rule-breaking behavior. Everyone likes the bad boys.

Covering the PNAS paper, Richard Lawson wrote on Gawker, "The way the world works, you are either cool and have 600 Facebook friends, or you are worthless and only have 40." But is that true? Does 600 = cool?

In research published last year in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (and covered in Psychology Today), college students viewed Facebook profiles that were identical except for the number of friends--either 102, 302, 502, 702, or 902--and rated the target's social attractiveness (without paying special attention to friend quantity). The number with the best results: 302. Appeal dropped off above and below that.

How can you have, as the authors write, "too much of a good thing?" They hypothesize that "Individuals with too many friends may appear to be focusing too much on Facebook, friending out of desperation rather than popularity, spending a great deal of time on their computers ostensibly trying to make connections in a computer-mediated environment where they feel more comfortable than in face-to-face social interaction."

So there you go. If you're looking for an excuse to start trimming nodes from your online network, besides getting a free Whopper or avoiding urgent updates that some guy you met once was super-poked by a Zombie flower, be a rule- and friendship-breaker and do it for your own popularity. Come on, would James Dean have 900 Facebook friends? Of course not. And he'd still be on Friendster, just cuz.
Outside my main academic area I find history, psychology and sociology absolutely fascinating. I have a certain habit of analysing people, some enjoy it and some do not. Family absolutely do not mainly because I know them so well that one can now predict their actions, and in an argument knowing your opponent's defence or retort, in advance, makes the opponent very angry. Equally people say they do not like to be labelled when one positions them in category A or B. This I find is a curious response since we are all part of this world and you are not one of a kind no matter how hard you try. Your mere existence and location in this world makes you part of its quest for order and rigidity. Hence you cannot avoid being labelled just because you do not want to be labelled; you belong to this world hence you must belong to a category because we might be individuals but we are not unique (a lot of people strive for uniqueness and self-elevation but with such a large data pool of 6 billion people this is a near impossible task).

Perhaps we do not need to label the collectors as just that nor the "losers" (their term not mine) for not paying attention to the website but I do believe we need to be perfectly clear that even though we as users are not paying attention to structure, Facebook is. Not wishing to be rude about the collectors I will hasten to add the findings of another paper that I read on this subject:
University of Georgia researchers analyzed Facebook users' pages to measure the relationship between an inflated sense of self-importance and the number of friends and wall posts on the social network.

Facebook users with a large number of Facebook friends and wallposts are more likely to be narcissists, according to a new University of Georgia study.
Laura Buffardi, a doctoral student in psychology, and University of Georgia associate professor W. Keith Campbell surveyed 130 Facebook users, analyzed their Facebook pages, and asked untrained strangers to assess the page creators' narcissism. Their findings, which will appear in October in the academic journal Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, indicate that the number of Facebook friends and wallposts one has correlates with narcissism.

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts talks about how social networking has created an entirely new culture around customer service.
Campbell, in a University of Georgia news release, said that narcissism hinders the ability to form healthy long-term relationships. "Narcissists might initially be seen as charming, but they end up using people for their own advantage," he said. "They hurt the people around them and they hurt themselves in the long run."

Facebook use that emphasizes self-promotion and friend quantity over quality is what Campbell considers to be narcissism.

The researchers chose Facebook because of its popularity and because of the fixed format of its social profiles, which makes comparison easier.

Narcissism severe enough to be classified as a disorder -- narcissistic personality disorder -- is defined thus by the Mayo Clinic: "Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. They believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism."

The concept of narcissism in the study is not as extreme.

In an e-mail, Buffardi said that there's been a lot of confusion about how narcissism is defined in psychology literature. "Importantly, we define narcissism as a normal personality trait, not a clinical disorder," she said. "Narcissism, conceptualized as a 'normal' personality variable, is distinct from narcissistic personality disorder described in the DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Trait narcissism, as we operationalize it with the Narcissistic Personality Inventory in the Facebook study, does correlate significantly with clinicians' and clinical researchers' prototypes of NPD. [When] we use the term 'narcissists,' we are using it as a shorthand for 'high narcissism scores.' Those with high narcissism scores generally have an overly positive view of the self. High narcissism scores are also associated with positive and inflated self-views of traits like intelligence, power, and physical attractiveness as well as a pervasive sense of uniqueness and entitlement. Research has shown both positive and negative outcomes are associated with this trait."

Buffardi argues that use of social networking sites to keep in touch with friends and relatives isn't inherently narcissistic. While narcissists may also have these goals, she said, "The difference is that we've found that narcissists portray themselves in narcissistic ways on their profiles and nonnarcissists (i.e., those with lower narcissism scores) do not generally do this."

The study doesn't draw a line between narcissistic and nonnarcissist behavior online. "All of the measures used in this study are continuous," said Buffardi. "That is to say our data does not suggest a dichotomous separation between a reasonable and unreasonable number of friends. What we know from our data is that those who have higher narcissism scores generally have a greater number of Facebook friends."

Facebook users wishing not to be seen as narcissistic should opt for casual, ill-lit snapshots over glamorous, professional profile pictures. For the untrained strangers surveyed, "the impression of narcissism is based primarily on the number of social interactions along with the extent to which the Web page owner appears to be self-promoting and attractive in his or her main photo," according to the study.

The study also found that unlike in the real world, where narcissists tend to be the life of the party, Facebook narcissists aren't very witty. "The narcissists' quotes were judged to be less entertaining than those of nonnarcissists," the study says, though it cautions that clumsy quips could just be inside jokes that went over the heads of the surveyed strangers.
It really is a rather funny construct the whole thing; never before has connecting with your fellow man been so easy as in the 21st century. Yet business for Facebook is booming. Why? Business for online dating is also booming. Why? Are we becoming lonelier as a result of increased interactions which is to say that perhaps, as a species, we have not evolved enough yet or are not designed to have a smorgasbord of friends but rather a close-nit nucleus of confidantes. Everyone, or at least the majority of people, know who their real friends are, who they can rely on in times of great need. That is certainly true for myself, I know precisely who I can rely on were I in need of help which is why I find Facebook so daunting; one is creating an artificial atom, not nucleus, of people on whom one supposedly has enough trust in to call him 'friend'. But either this is completely taking something out of proportion or it is a watering down, a degradation, of the concept of friendship. It probably is not harmful at all, not even the slightest, but because social interaction is such a fundamental human need, meddling with its foundations should be done only with the greatest of care. I think.

Monday, 13 September 2010

Real Ale - Christmas in a cup

Now I would think, it just a hypothesis, that the majority of the blogosphere drinks ale. I do. Would it not be interesting to make a little survey confirming that Mrs Dale is a aleaholic that Mr. North enjoys a fine smooth Doombar when he is done with the EU. Perhaps Messrs ConservativeHome end their day with a Pride? Who is to say? All I can note is that ale is back.

Friday, 10 September 2010

An unsuspected upside of EU regulation

The EU has taken control of the City of London which means that it will be gone within five years.

There is something good that can come of this however, once the UK realises that it has been fucked by the EU again (well, the rest of the UK we should say since every single blogger already knows this truth) perhaps then we can start making things again and return to a manufacturing economy which will lead to job creation and a higher standard of living. But as you can see, I am struggling to find anything good about the EU's latest acquisition.
I expect I shall be in favour of whole-hearted entry - the Europhile path. I suspect most of you reading this believe, today, that you would favour leaving. But would you, really? What would be the point? I wanted Britain to stay out of the Single European State because Britain had a different and better constitution than that of our European partners. But the ambition of our Establishment is that we should have positive human rights (it's forbidden unless it's allowed) instead of negative liberties (it's allowed unless it's forbidden), a supreme court, a coalitions-based lower chamber, an elected upper chamber, fixed term parliaments, retrospective legislation being commonplace, a ritual (instead of a constitutional) monarchy, participation in international law as if it were true law rather than international custom (as opposed to England being an Empire unto herself), the right to silence being merely the right not to be tortured, the presumption of innocence being circumscribed rather than absolute, justice being inquisitorial instead of adversarial and most of the other paraphernalia of a "modern" European state. Our Establishment hasn't the slightest appetite for preserving even what remains of the classical British constitution, let alone restoring what has been lost.


Thursday, 9 September 2010

Defence of Realm

Seeing as I am on a bit of a roll tonight let me just say this; something always turns up. Nobody predicted Northern Ireland, the Falklands, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone or two Gulf wars. If they cut the armed forces below operational level (my relative term) it will be the 1930' all over again. As I recall from my history lessons that ended in a complete shit-storm.

Are we smoking NHS joints?

So here is the pickle; welfare now costs £192 billion a year and the NHS costs £119 billion a year. Together they constitute 46% of the annual budget. Hence I ask, what the fuck? There is enough money in those two items alone to finance an average-to-large revolution in some failed state somewhere.

Yet the NHS budget has been ring-fenced and they are made to pay for such ludicrous items as sex-changes. Now this is somewhat of an issue with me not because I want to change sex (I am perfectly happy the way I am thank you very much) but because there are a lot, a lot, of doctors in my family. A few of them, well actually, all of whom I have spoken to, think that it is okay that the NHS should pay for some dude wanting to be a lass or a bird wanting to be a bloke. How is that the concern of the taxpayer I ask? Is it an illness, a disease, will not changing lead to terminal decline and ultimate death, are there not more pressing issue than some guy wanting to remove his penis because it 'feels wrong' - etcetera? You can understand my frustration when I realised that a sub-partition of the budget of the third largest employer in the world, was used for funding such trivial and non-issues as the one described above (the price for a sex-change operation is somewhere in the ballpark of £50,000 to £100,000). This is of course not news, what was news to me was that sub-partitions of my family thought this was okay. What have they been smoking?

It is politically expedient to support the current status-quo of the NHS, to, in real terms, increase its budget. But I cannot for my life understand why politicians do not make the simple argument that 'if we reduce the budget for the NHS we will be able to give you better schools, roads, ports, town-centres, national parks et al.' It is not a particularly freudian notion to want to make life better for the majority at the expense of the majority. There is some ridiculous waste going on in the NHS that is without doubt. Yet I am dumbfounded when I consider what other countries are spending on healthcare.

Look at these numbers (source) they represent the amount of money spent, as of GDP, on healthcare by respective country.

Australia 17.7%
Canada 16.7%
France 14.2%
Germany 17.6%
Japan 16.8%
Norway 17.9%
Sweden 13.6%
UK 15.8%
USA 16.0%

Why is that universal healthcare brings out the worst in systems in the UK? Now I have experienced healthcare in one of the above nations (other than the UK) and it is absolutely great, the doctors even wear white bloody coats - the hallmark of doctors (apparently they spread viruses and bacteria these white coats, something which I have been assured by family doctors is completely and utter bollocks, it is politics apparently why they do not have them anymore in the UK). Hence as I have described there exists a certain climate in the UK where anything goes, whatever you want to do you are not responsible for your own actions and the state will clean up after you regardless. Everything is free. Do not get me wrong universal healthcare is probably one of the very few virtues of man that makes us morally superior to any other animal where survival of the fittest is law. However charging a simple nominal fee for seeing your GP would save millions a year by avoiding the hypochondriacs who drain the system of all its usefulness. Of course if you are feeling severely ill then you go and see a doctor but nor four times a week. Here is another fine story why the NHS is such a nightmare when it comes to saving taxpayer pounds:
I just went to see my doctor for a renewal of my omeprazole prescription. For ten years I have been taking 80mg per day, for hiatus hernia. That is two packets of 7 x 40mg per week.

The doctor called up the prescription on her screen and it showed £15.50 per packet charge to her practice. She asked whether I had tried a cheaper alternative. The answer was yes, without success. So I went to collect a month's supply - eight packets at a cost to the NHS of £124 less my £7.20 contribution.

Yet this is a generic, not a branded, medicine. When in Ghana I buy precisely the same medicine, by precisely the same manufacturer - Dr Reddy of India - in precisely the same packaging, for the equivalent of £2.80 per packet. It is genuine - believe me, with this unpleasant condition you would know very quickly if it was not genuine.

So why is the NHS practice paying £15.50 for a packet of medicine available individually at retail price for £2.80 internationally?

At the international retail price my medicine costs £291.20 per year. The NHS pays £1,612 per year.
This is a very prevalent practise amongst medical companies. They charge the NHS 10 times or even 20 times the amount for nuts and bolts, than they would do the private person, because they know the NHS are stupid enough to just fill in any form without asking any questions. This is how it works: Craig has found the crazy little profit margin at work within the NHS. The government through the drug tariff sets what it believes a medicine will cost (the £15 mentioned). It will then remunerate the pharmacy that dispensed the prescription with this amount less your contribution and a percentage that is arbitrally decided every year (called the "claw back"). The pharmacy however is able to buy in the mediation at any cost it can find. Including you £3 pound packs from Ghana (provided it can prove a reputable supply chain). The pharmacist then pockets the price difference. As an additional note not all medications have quite such a vast price difference as omeprazole, some are even done at a loss. This does not however quite balance out and this is where the pharmacy makes its profit. Not from selling shampoo as they would like you to think.

There are a lot more ways this leviathan can and should be tamed, though under the aegis of political expediency I think we will have to wait for the NHS-Thatcher before something tangible will actually be done. Again I am going to pull the old oxymoron of woman with balls. With that note I end this piece, I cannot and will not, go into the impact of the EU and health tourism for then my own blood will start to boil and I will have to go the NHS and seek aid, which will make this entire exercise somewhat hypocritical (I cannot really criticise an institution one second, and the next seek its help).