Friday, 28 September 2007

The British and the Burmese

"They aren't Communists, they don't threaten British interests.


Internationalist hand-wringing, finger-wagging, futile Liberal do-gooding!

It is telling, is it not, that it is the Russians and Chinese who have a policy that resembles common sense, while the Western media egg the young Burmese firebrands into yet another Tiananmen-style massacre from the comfort of their armchairs watching it all on TV ...

The military junta have shown unaccustomed patience so far - 9 dead is really very few in the great scheme of things.

It is nauseating that most do-gooding viewers and media commentators are secretly hoping for more violence and loss of life, so long as they are the ones left alive to wring their hands and shake their heads ...

Thursday, 27 September 2007

Why are allergies on the rise – and how can medicine combat them?

"One of the most extraordinary increases has been in peanut allergy, up 117 per cent between 2001 and 2005. An estimated 25,000 people in England are affected, and many are at risk of a severe reaction if they are exposed to the nuts."

In my opinion, these people are growing in number because they are looked after too well, live to adulthood and go on to mate with other peanut allergy sufferers. The result is a new generation of peanut-allergic sufferers. I have nothing against these people and their offspring some of whom I know to be perfectly nice people, but it seems that in schools the policy is now to forbid other children from bringing in their peanut-butter sandwiches in their packed lunches. To be honest, I find that such over-zealous practices repugnant to my Libertarian and Darwinian instincts.

It seems the medical profession are about to spend hundreds of thousands if not millions of taxpayers' money researching the whys and wherefores of this state of affairs before reluctantly coming to exactly this conclusion, ie that our health and political system actively encourages the unproductive to remain unproductive and the physically- and mentally-deficient to flourish at the expense of those who are productive, healthy and normal.

The US government used to require engaged couples to have blood tests before allowing them to marry in order to prevent a generation of mentally or physically-deficient people from becoming a burden on the state.

Perhaps all that is required is the implementation of this very sensible policy to reduce the number of those who are peanut-allergic and likely to further multiply with the predictable medical coddling these research scientists and campaigning doctors will no doubt propose, regardless of cost.

I am certain that the traditional Eskimo policy of abandoning their weak and ailing to the elements while the tribe moved on to richer hunting grounds was rooted in necessity rather than primitive callousness.

Whole tribes of Eskimos must have perished in their attempt to look after their weak before reluctantly coming to accept that those who are weak and ailing must be abandoned to the inevitable if the existence of the tribe itself is not to be sacrificed in the name of the mawkish sentimentality that now passes for compassion.

Perhaps we resemble the Aztecs way in more ways than we would like to think. While it is true that we do not actively and directly use human sacrifice to appease our Sun God, we are certainly actively and directly using the sacrifice of our Liberty to appease our God of Social Welfare while the political classes further indulge in more damaging Liberal do-gooding. (Brown's proposal to give pregnant women as much as £200 to persuade them to eat healthily is yet another example of how much they like using our money to show us how much they care.)

If Conservatives are now to be "compassionate" without the entire Conservative Party rising up in one body to hang, draw and quarter Cameron for refusing to promise lower taxes, or at the very least replace him as leader very soon, then we are all most certainly doomed, and deservedly so.

Bush and the Burmese

I have not been paying much attention to the Burmese "crisis" but I gather from the radio that Russia and China are against sanctions being imposed on the Burmese government proposed by Bush. Clearly, the world is in need of a balancing force against an increasingly irrational and insane American policy who wants to punish everyone else, from imaginary WMDs to not subscribing to the same "democratic" values and by defintion being in need of regime change.

Sanctions were imposed which isolated Burma, depriving the Burmese of an income from tourism amongst other things, impoverishing its economy, which must have contributed to the present crisis.

To show that they care, the Western powers are collectively wringing their hands now that the military junta are dealing firmly with the recalcitrant monks (now egged on by the Western media), and are now considering imposing further sanctions to make themselves feel better, whatever the consequences for the ordinary Burmese.

Soon, when the Domino Effect of the Credit Crunch has reached its devastating and depressing conclusion, we will have less of this nauseating and officious interference in other people's affairs, when the Western powers (but particularly the Anglo-Saxon economies) will find their attention drawn to the more immediate domestic problems of their own demonstrations and riots by their jobless and homeless middle classes.

Every cloud has a silver lining!

Elderly and unable to feed oneself ....

It seems that, apart from neglect, abuse and all sorts of indignities that are now rife in homes for the elderly, the latest scandal is that those who cannot feed themselves are not fed. Trays of food would be brought to such patients and then taken away uneaten with no help offered to spoonfeed such unfortunates.

It strikes me that this ought to be the test for the viability of a life.

I shall certainly be quite happy to be "euthanased", were I to end up in a care home and unable to feed myself. What would be the point of feeding me and keeping me alive in these circumstances? Starving to death would be preferable to being fed like a baby.

No doubt the penny will eventually drop when we run out of migrant workers willing to work in our care homes. We may not have too much longer to wait before even migrant workers shun a country unable to pay its debts after decades spent living beyond its means, after the full consequences of the Credit Crunch become known.

Monday, 17 September 2007

America's New French Poodle

Now that the Nicholas Sarkozy has supplanted Britain in its role as America's Poodle and is apparently calling for Iran to be bombed, that may just make the case for Direct Democracy more persuasive. I am sure the French have not suddenly decided to be war-mongers and in fact prefer their traditional role of remaining the cheese-eating surrender monkeys that Bush Jr has accused them of being.

However, this was the inevitable consequence of choosing any leader who wants a greater role on the world stage, who wants a diversion from the unglamorous domestic problems of putting one's own house in order. The French elected what they hoped would be a fiscally-responsible Conservative government who would cut red tape and lower taxes (unlike the British Conservative Party), but are now saddled with the role of being America's poodle - the furthest thing from their minds when they rejected Socialism.

I wonder how many Frenchmen are now uneasy about Sarkozy's intentions and whether they are happy to be seen in this role by the rest of the world. They have a significant Arab population. Can a French version of 7/7 can be that far away if Sarkozy persists in alienating Arab and Muslim opinion by siding with the most unpopular nation on earth - more unpopular even than Zimbabwe who at least oppresses only its own people?

Let us hope that China and Russia will have something to say about all this.

Rather than merely hope that there will be other powers strong enough to disagree with foreign policies that seems deliberately designed to start the Third World War, Direct Democracy would let the people decide. I do not say that world peace and brotherly love will reign through this system, merely that ordinary people would then be more able to make their feelings known on so many things that affect them which they are powerless currently to influence. Allowing them to do so would at least give a better indication of their approval or disapproval of government policies, and this can be the only way make responsive and accountable government more likely.

How many taxpayers would have voted to started the First World and Second World Wars if they had been asked?

Not only would it be a more sensitive barometer of the public opinion, its in-built Conservatism would balance the undeniable radicalism of letting taxpayers decide on all aspects of government policy while encouraging greater interest and participation by citizens in politics, which can only assist us in preventing the wool from being pulled over our eyes and cattle prods from being used against us when we do not agree with the government of the day.

Friday, 14 September 2007

Environmental Correction

World consumerism rests on creating desire and being confused about our needs and wants. Our needs are few, our wants insatiable. In this way do we shop the world to death, leaving carbon footprints and litter on our way to environmental disaster.

Environmental disaster will bring about certain benefits, however, and will cull the numbers of a species that is so plainly getting above itself and laying waste to the world. With world population increasing at its present rate, there are clearly more people around to die in floods, tsunamis, earthquakes etc. Nature will in due course rebalance itself in the only way it knows how, with war, pestilence and famine ...

Humanity will survive but in reduced numbers. Those of us who aren't fanatical environmentalists need only bear in mind that profligacy and extravagance are sins, campaign for a day of rest and make Sunday special again so that we do not drive around madly trying to enjoy ourselves spending money on things we don't really want or need. With the coming Credit Crunch and Depression, we will all be spending less anyway and have more time, having lost our jobs and our homes, to think about the more important things of life ...

Thursday, 13 September 2007

How to get a legal definition of "racism"

Racism is now a term of abuse used against anyone who gives offence, whether intentionally or unintentionally, about other races or when someone treats different races differently and misjudges the situation. The "institutional racism" of the police, a phrase coined by Lord McPherson, is the grandiloquent and politically explosive term used to describe mere police incompetence and lazy thinking.

Traditionally, racism only meant the actual belief that some races are superior or inferior to others.

It is quite clear that nobody, not even members of the government or its opposite, knows what it really means.

Even the BNP does not know its own mind about whether it is a racist political party or not. Quite a few of their supporters are confused about whether they are or not (for some deny that they are racist and have friends who are non-white) and do not know whether to deny their racism or embrace it. Are they merely xenophobic (ie fearful of foreigners of any hue and nation, which is still allowed) or actually racist, whatever that means?

Does excluding someone from your party on grounds of race mean that you think they are inferior and that you are superior? Or is that just invoking the principle of free association?

Does disliking the physical and cultural characteristics of another race (who is perceived to be doing better or worse than you because of their alleged racial or cultural characteristics) mean you are racist? Or does racism actually require you to believe in your/their superiority/inferiority?

Does believing that another race is superior to yours (and praising that race) racism?

The law is undecided. On the one hand it criminalises discrimination on grounds of race, on the other it allows the BNP and NF (who wish to repatriate non-whites) to exist.

Much could be accomplished by the BNP if they started an action in defamation the next time a national publication that is worth suing describes a member of the BNP as racist. A case for libel is made out when a litigant proves to the satisfaction of a jury that, as a result of words published or broadcast, he has been brought into hatred, ridicule and contempt in the minds of right-thinking members of society.

This could run and run, folks!

Will the BNP do us all a public service and get us a legal definition of racism? Will they, hell!

Obviously, they would be helping themselves if they lifted their colour bar and removed any mention of their intention to repatriate non-whites from their constitution.

No doubt they will be saying they want to repatriate white Eastern Europeans too and will claim they are merely xenophobic - a state of mind that has yet to be labelled "thoughtcrime" in 21st century Britain.

(In case anybody has not yet noticed, it is of course already "thoughtcrime" to discriminate on grounds of sex, age, disability and sexual orientation.)

What are they for, I keep asking, if they will not even fund the litigation of members of their own party (and race) who are oppressed by Political Correctness - the ones who get unfairly or constructively dismissed from their jobs or expelled from their unions after going public about their BNP membership, the most recent of which is Mark Walker, a teacher?

Answers on a postcard, please.

Monday, 10 September 2007

Pregnant women to get cash for healthy eating

The phenomenon of Western civilisations losing their marbles at roughly the same time as a result of Decadent Liberalism will no doubt make for an interesting subject of study for future students of psychology and history.

The latest manifestation of marble loss is the astonishing proposal by Health Minister Alan Johnson to give as much as £200 to every pregnant woman to induce her to eat healthily. It seems taxes are to be taken from the married and the working (who will mostly already be aware of the basics of healthy eating) and given to CHAV and never-married, under-achieving, non-working, welfare-claiming teen mums so that their delinquent little bastards (who are now increasingly likely to be shooting and stabbing our children) will have a healthier start in life.

Now, what is the point of this, I wonder?

Is it Gordon Brown's little way of showing us that he cares?

Wednesday, 5 September 2007

A definition of Conservatism and Liberalism

A Liberal is one who insists that others would be as good as he is when he is at his best.

A Conservative knows that most people, most of the time, are as bad as he is when he is at his worst.

Rhetoric in defence of Conservatism

The new spirit of our age, Political Correctness, is but a manifestation of Liberalism in extremis. Its dominance can be attributed to the proletarianisation and vulgarisation of Western culture, female emancipation and indiscriminate universal suffrage, which pander to all that is mawkish, sentimental and irrational in the human breast.

It is not surprising therefore that we are in the mess we are in, when most people are culturally and socially encouraged to glorify emotion and despise prudence and reason.

Notes on a lecture I once attended on the nature and purpose of Rhetoric records that it should, ideally, be (1) corrective (2) suggestive (3) instructive and (4) defensive (as well as being of course persuasive). This is precisely what is required to defend boring old Conservatism against any ideology that promises us Utopia and Heaven on Earth, such as Communism, Socialism, Fascism etc. However, hardly anyone studies the Classics these days and our political classes these days cannot boast of even one Classicist. The last one was Enoch Powell, who was racially discriminated against by the English because he was Welsh.

With its attendant censoriousness and mania to legislate against free speech, it seems we have now entered the New Dark Age of Political Censorship, where nothing can be said without penalty against state-protected groups of people: the lame, the halt, the unproductive, the illegitimate, the coloured and anyone who can successfully claim the now coveted and honoured status of Whingeing Victimhood.

It may be some time before we emerge again ...