Wednesday, 22 November 2006

Taxpayer-subsidised Heroin for Addicts

Reports that heroin may be available on the NHS (because it is cheaper than having addicts becoming criminals to support their addiction ) indicates the imbecility of those who presume to govern us.

If we regard heroin addiction as undesirable then we must take steps to discourage rather than subsidise this. A sensible government would penalise heroin addiction wherever possible and not, as I heard recently, allow nearly 200 prisoners to get a total of £750,000 after being forced to stop taking drugs by going “cold turkey”, because this might be deemed by the European Court of Human Rights to have infringed criminals' rights.

If it is the inclination of the European Court of Human Rights to give more favourable treatment to imprisoned drug addicts at the expense of taxpaying citizens, then it is surely time we removed ourselves from its jurisdiction.

So sensible, simple and obvious. Strange, then, that no mainstream political party is so far offering us this option.

The late Milton Friedman, Thatcher's economist, was of the opinion that all drugs should be made legal. Legal recreational drug purchase will not bring about the breakdown of society since any crime committed under its influence could be regarded as an aggravating factor. Methods of punishment could be made short, sharp, and shockingly cheap, but it seems we no longer have the political will to do the obvious and sensible - a sign of senility and imbecility in a civilisation. Since extinction tends to swiftly follow senility, such problems of existence will no doubt resolve themselves in time. The Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest must also apply to ideas and civilisations, I imagine.

Tuesday, 21 November 2006

The European Union

Harry Beckhough, that distinguished and remarkably computer-literate veteran of the Great War, has demanded to know why I have so far said nothing about the European Union's abhorrent embrace that is stifling the liberties of free-born Britons. I hope he will accept my explanation that the direct democracy website I will soon be launching must be entirely apolitical and not officially advocate any course of action, apart from extolling the virtues of direct democracy (and recommending it to every nation on earth capable of running such a system).

My belief is that one must not tell people what to do, which only makes them bloody- minded and do the opposite. Instead, we should give them all the pros and cons as honestly as possible, in the hope that they will come to the right decision for themselves and others, on grounds of enlightened self-interest alone.

Demonstrating the obvious virtues of such a system would be the operating purpose of my soon-to-be-launched website.

Wednesday, 15 November 2006

"100% English"

What a piece of nonsense was 100% English shown on Channel 4 this week! Predictably, it stated that even those who thought themselves racially pure are to a degree mongrelised. Perhaps Englishness is merely a tick-list of of origin, residence, accent and nationality, rather than the colour of one's skin or the genetic composition of ourselves and our ancestors. Increasingly, the idea of Englishness has more geographical and cultural connotations than a racial one. If one is British, then one must by definition be English, Welsh or Scottish since one must reside or have originated from one of these countries.

Northern Ireland however poses a slight problem of definition. Ulstermen certainly do not want to be called "Northern Irish" and therein lies the difficulty of their identity and belonging to the British family of countries.

Ironically, there would be no such confusion of what to call non-white British citizens residing in England, Wales and Scotland. They would simply be identified with the country they happened to reside in, for example, English Asians or Indians, Welsh Orientals and Scottish Africans, Blacks or Negroes (or whatever is the politically correct term to call these people nowadays).

But perhaps on balance it would be better to call all races by their police identification code names. Thus we would call English whoever is British, residing in England and speaking with one of the English accents and when relevant mention their physical characteristics in coded language. (The key: IC1 is someone of Caucasian appearance, IC2 Mediterranean, IC3 Afro-Caribbean, IC4 Asian, IC5 Oriental, IC6 Arabian and Egyptian) Their political and religious affiliations are only knowable after an in depth conversation, after all.

But I digress. As I was saying, more interesting questions could have been asked on the programme, such as:

(a) What is Englishness?

(b) Who is English?

(c) Can anyone who lives in England and speaks English like a native (with Scouser, Geordie and Brummie accents, for example) be English if they are also British by nationality?

(d) Do these people consider themselves English even though they are non-white?

(e) Do the pale-skinned English people accept the non-white people mentioned in (c) and (d) above as English?

(f) Does it matter?

(g) Why? (Or why not?)

An old Arab saying states that anyone who speaks Arabic [like an Arab] is an Arab - surely a more logical, simple and tolerant way of looking at things than any of this scientific DNA nonsense we have been bamboozled with.

The Real Meaning of Racism

It is said that when a civilisation rots it rots from the top down. The rot always takes the form of silly ideas that tend to bring about the decline of that civilisation through acting irrationally and persistently to its own detriment.

Unnecessarily extending the definition of racism (originally meaning the political doctrine that one race is superior to others therefore justifying that race's oppression of other races, eg Hitler's Aryan Ideal, South African Apartheid and, not so well known, the Hindu caste system) to include those guilty of mere expressions of dislike for other races is one of the more insidious side-effects of cowardly self-censorship.

Well-meaning people tend to assume that they must not say anything rude about any other race. Politicians, wanting to be populist and not wanting to offend any potential voter whilst relishing the opportunity of scoring points at the expense of those who are seen to be out of step, have connived in extending the meaning of racism.

The ugly truth is that nasty people of all hues would exploit and bully the vulnerable, either outsiders or insiders, if they are allowed to get away with it. Of course there should be laws against this, but they should not be allowed to disproportionately limit our freedom of expression. If freedom of expression means anything at all now, it must mean that we are at liberty to be offensive about each other, provided we do not fall foul of the laws of defamation, criminal incitement or public order.

The law on defamation would be a relatively cheap but focused way of fighting the cancer that is politically correct censorship.

Is being called a racist likely to bring a person into hatred, ridicule and contempt by right-thinking members of the community?

Do the BNP mind being called racist?

Quite a few of them do, it seems.

Win or lose, they would be doing us all a favour by causing the law to decide what racism actually means and how it should be defined.

If only they dared, they would be performing a very valuable service for the nation and the world at large.

We are either free to dislike, insult or mock anyone at all (including call any group of people cockcroaches), for reasons rational or irrational, or we are not. If we are not, then it appears that we have now arrived at the New Dark Age of the 21st Century, with its modern equivalent of blasphemy ...