Tuesday, 31 May 2011

Gang of Disabled people victimise potential BNP mayoral candidate for saying she does not wish to bring up a severely disabled child

You would have thought that no parent would wish to bring up a severely disabled child.

You would have thought that you would be allowed to express this view in a country known for its liberties.

But apparently not.

There is a Disabled People Against Claire Khaw Facebook group which repeatedly claims I wish to exterminate the disabled even after I have repeatedly denied this.

What I said (or was trying to say) on the Victoria Derbyshire Show on 2 March 2011 was that I would smother my own severely disabled baby if the midwife would not do it for me, and this was what midwives would do for you if you have a home birth.

"After the delivery, the midwife made the initial call on whether or not an infant was healthy and fit to rear. She inspected the newborn for congenital deformities and testing its cry to hear whether or not it was robust and hearty. Ultimately, midwives made a determination about the chances for an infant’s survival and likely recommended that a newborn with any severe deformities be exposed."

But apparently even citing this piece of social history is no longer allowed because it is offensive to the disabled, who demand that I be forced to bring up a severely disabled baby, destroy my marriage and give up the opportunity of having healthy babies because I would be too busy looking after my severely disabled one.
That is what the disabled demand and expect me to do while demanding that I be punished for saying what any honest parent to-be would feel.

Is this quite right, I wonder?

Is this Political Correctness gone mad? 

Sunday, 29 May 2011

Should there be a colour called "Honky White"?

Friday, 27 May 2011

The regionally accented Cheryl Cole

Cheryl Cole: "Ahm gooted me. I joost cannae oonerstan, joost divvent has a clue like, why us wor kicked off the Eggs Fuckta USA. Does us hid in man like."

The USA: "Pardon?"

Will there be a sudden surge in demand for elocution teachers?   

Disabled People Against Claire Khaw

Disabled person in wheelchair giving the able-bodied the one-finger salute - used on Riven Vincent's Facebook profile.  Is she biting the hand that feeds her?

For some reason Phillip Blond - the theologian and think tanker   @Phillip_Blond!/Phillip_Blond  - is a member of "Disabled People Against Claire Khaw", which I find rather bemusing.   I had no idea that he was suffering from a disability.

Claire Khaw is a Malaysian member of the BNP and a very dangerous woman, in 2009, when David Cameron lost his son, Ivan, Clair Blogged that it was a positive thing because keeping him alive was a waste of public money. She has a bizarre blog where she expresses her insane views, including "reintroduce slavery, make bastardy a disgrace, reintroduce public executions and reintroduce public floggings" ( see interview Here: . Claire has built up a reputation online, Counting politician and journalists among her ‘friends” on face book. She has received a lot of hostility on-line from the public, but it is her views on disability which are the focus of this group on the 5th of March, 2011, 5live interviewed withy Rivern Vincent the mother of a disabled child, Ms Khaw rang up and wanted to ask a question , she then proceeded to argue that the it was fundamentally wrong for the state to0 support Mrs Vincent’s daughter, because it was not economically viable. When challenge about this by everyone including the presente Victoria Derbyshire , Mrs Vincent, another parent, and the MP for Filton and Bradley Stoke, Jack Lopresti (Con), she defended her posistion and went on to state openly that if she gave birth to a disabled child she would reject it and instruct the midwife to ‘get rid of it’. Now I have challenged her about her views and found her response immoral and upsetting,. Some of her replies were as follows: “Art has utility because it gives pleasure. A severely disabled baby cannot possibly give me any pleasure, though it may be very useful to you if you use it for begging money from the government and your friends and family or getting sympathy from everyone you meet.” Or “No one has said they agree with me, but there are others who do agree with me if you read my wall on that day, though they are not in the BNP. Disabled people are really getting above themselves these days.” 

According to blogs and forums, Claire is being touted as the BNP’s candidate for 2012 London Mayoral Elections. This means she will be NO. 1 on the Top-up list for the GLA for the BNP. This woman needs to be challenge. I don’t care what your politics are who you vote for, this is not a political cause, it is about what ideas are acceptable in public lif., Iin calling for a united front against the evil bigotry of this ‘woman’ let’s challenge Claire rout her ‘views’ at every single opportunity . Invite everyone you know, because we will win. displays my reasoning in some detail, which I do not need to go into here.

It is tiresome to have to keep repeating that I have not advocated a policy of general extermination of the disabled by the government.

I do not believe that anyone has a right to demand that anyone else pick up the tab for their children, whether able-bodied or disabled.

Having been described as "a very dangerous woman" (as if I were really capable of breaking and entering your home and exterminating your severely disabled baby), I wish to reassure those who are easily frightened to please believe that I do not have the superhuman abilities sometimes attributed to me nor the athleticism of a cat burglar to break into your home to exterminate your disabled baby.

I am Libertarian, not Terminator.

"I don’t care what your politics are who you vote for, this is not a political cause, it is about what ideas are acceptable in public life."

This is of course an issue of CENSORSHIP, which is of course extremely political.   

I have blasphemed and now must be punished.  I have been repeatedly called a Nazi when infanticide is in fact common to many cultures and was around for a long time before Hitler had been heard of.

Predictably, it has been suggested that the BNP (who may or may not make me the 2012 London mayoral candidate) have members and policies that endorse what I have said.  Actually, many of them wished I had not said it because they have quite enough bad press already.  For the record I should make it clear that the BNP manifesto has no policy at all on the disabled as any search at would reveal.  This is probably because, like all parties, the BNP do not regard the disabled to constitute a significantly large section of the electorate to come under the BNP radar.

There are many mothers who use their disabled children as an instrument of attention- and sympathy-seeking that makes them somehow beyond criticism.   It is also a way of sorting out the pecking order amongst mothers who do not work.  The more a martyr you are to your children (disabled or not), the higher you are in the pecking order at your coffee mornings.

"You have a disabled child?  Well, I have two!"   

Their disabled children are used as weapon to bully Prime Ministers like Cameron (who used his late son Ivan to show the voting public that the NHS was safe with him).

This mania to have more disabled children and therefore be more worthy of sympathy and respect is just what Mumsnet culture consists of  ie demanding yet more handouts from the government who are so pathetically eager to pander to the female voter.

Riven Vincent is of course Queen of Mumsnet.

Witness how willingly our so-called alpha males - David Davis and David Cameron - humiliated themselves on Woman's Hour (which is the radio version of Mumsnet) when they suffered Martha Kearney to ask them what kind of underwear they wore.

Can you imagine a female politician being asked this question??

So this is how low we have sunk, that our politicians are too afraid of telling the most demanding clients of the welfare state and the most rapacious consumers of welfare - mothers of disabled children - that they too will have to suffer their fair share of the cuts.  

Pandering to the Mothers of the Disabled vote is pretty idiotic anyway, since they are so electorally insignificant.

What a shame the government will not do the obvious and rational thing and pander to the over-burdened taxpayer.

Thursday, 26 May 2011

A new kind of party ....

A new kind of party: a mock funeral for oneself. A chance to listen to eulogies of oneself would be tremendous fun. One could lie in state in the mock coffin trying to stop oneself from "corpsing" .... 

Monday, 23 May 2011

My criticism of single mums may lead to my not being selected as 2012 BNP London mayoral candidate

It would appear that I may not become the 2012 London mayoral candidate because of ideological reasons (my views on single mums) rather than my ethnicity.  I got the impression from meetings that quite a few people liked the idea of my being candidate. They were certainly not hostile. Some were even warm and encouraging, so I will not have it said that, if I were to be rejected as candidate, that it was because of my ethnicity.

In these matters one wonders if one should have been more circumspect about uttering such heresies as criticising single mums in the land where single mums rule with a fist of iron, but I have no regrets.

It is my considered view that widespread illegitimacy and family breakdown has been very very bad for white people, who are the people most affected by the destructive policies of liberalism and feminism.

Singly-parented children tend not to do well educationally and socially, and this makes them less desirable as employees, which means that the jobs go to foreigners who are on the whole not singly-parented and better employees.

One of the main reasons why Muslims won't integrate is because they don't want their children to become singly-parenting, divorced and don't want their children to give them illegitimate and probably feral grandchildren.

I know how distasteful Muslims find female promiscuity and understand completely why they would wish to prevent their own children from suffering the same fate as the white working classes and turning into welfare-dependent single mothers or NEETs.

It would be betrayal of my principles and even the interests of BNP supporters to keep quiet about this when about half the babies born in Britain are now born out of wedlock.

If the BNP is too afraid of telling the truth because it is afraid of single mums and feminists, then it is just as bad and in thrall to the feminazis as all the other parties.

If I have demonstrated this ugly truth by failing to be selected as mayoral candidate because of my views on single mums, then at least I will have made my point.

I suppose there is is no harm however in asking people who think I am right to make this stand on family values supported by marriage - whether they are BNP supporters or not - to email the Chairman

It has been suggested that there may not even be a 2012 BNP London mayoral candidate at all, because of funding issues. I do not know how true this is, however, and I am sure the funding will come if my stand on the institutions of marriage and family strikes a chord with British people of all races and faiths.

It is not as if anyone else is saying the things I am saying about feckless never-married single mums who are a burden on the state and causing the quality of the national gene pool to decline, together with our educational standards and our moral standing in the world.  And so I find myself stepping dutifully into the breach, even as I know will get shot as the bearer of bad news.  

Sunday, 22 May 2011

The horror, the horror of the liberal establishment and rape

After a week of discussing this subject, I have come to the conclusion that there are more mad and silly people in the liberal establishment who are keener to cause women to be raped and prosecute men than they are to prevent it.  (It was after all a Canadian policeman's well-meaning suggestion to rape victims and potential rape victims not to dress like sluts if they don't want to be raped that provoked an outbreak of Slutwalks all over the Western world.)

It just goes to show how intellectually and morally bankrupt the liberal establishment is.

These people are the Agent Provocateurs of Rape.

1.  They want women to provoke men into raping them.

2.  They then want women to first become victims and then prosecute men for the rape they provoke.  This is presumably because liberalism - which is essentially feminine and irrational - loves victimhood.  The greater one's victimhood the higher up the pecking order we are.

Question 1:  Why do these people want to destroy Western civilisation?  What's in it for them?

Question 2:  Can they even explain themselves?

Question 3:  Does feminism cause dementia?

Friday, 20 May 2011

The incorrigible stupidity, treachery and incompetence of British politicians on the subject of RAPE

Derbyshire: Rape is rape, with respect.

Clarke: No it's not, and if an 18-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old and she's perfectly willing, that is rape. That's 'cause she's underage, can't consent. Anybody has sex with a 15-year-old, it's rape. So what you and I are talking about, we're talking about a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to. That is rape. Serious crime, of course it's a serious crime. And I'm very glad that people do now got to the police and report it. There used to be a taboo against it, in a crazy way.

Clarke should have known not to confuse a tabloid radio show hostess!/vicderbyshire and her baying listeners, consisting mainly of the incorrigibly self-righteous and the incorrigibly ignorant, with too many facts.

Statutory Rape and Jailbait 

Being a lawyer, he wanted to show off his knowledge about statutory rape by explaining it to a lay audience.


Some of you may be familiar with the term "jailbait" - an Americanism.  I still remember how an American acquintance once thought it was a great compliment to repeatedly tell a very pretty and posh English girl that she was jailbait, to the distaste and horror of those around him.

This means, boys and girls, that even if it was the under-aged girl who offered to have sex with you and it was all her idea, and it was she who jumped your bones, you're gonna get done for statutory rape when she decides she doesn't love you any more and is feeling a bit vindictive.  Understand?

Is Ed Miliband a complete shit for asking him to resign over something like this?

Does the Labour Party believe in responsible Opposition?

We all know the answer to that, don't we?  

A role-playing game on the subject of rape (especially for lawyers, politicians and tabloid journalists)

Victoria Derbyshire:  "Rape is rape."

Kenneth Clarke:  "No, it is not."

Readers, pretend you are one of these characters above and try to extricate yourself if you are the male character and impale the male character if you are the female character.

Hours of fun!  

I shall make all my guests play this game at my next dinner party.   

Thursday, 19 May 2011

Truth about rape offends FemiNazis AKA The Feminist Agenda

If rape is a about violating a woman, then arguably violating a prostitute or a promiscuous woman is not as bad as violating a virgin. We all know how promiscuous the modern British woman is these days. Even Jack Straw pointed out that white women these days are regarded as easy meat by Pakistani-origin British men. Andrew Gilligan asked if they were but dared not answer the question in his piece.

So what is this manufactured outrage seething and boiling in our age of Slutwalk London 11 June 2011 at 1pm at Trafalgar Square?

I think it is part of the living a demented matriarchy. Whatever you think of Dominique Straus Kahn, he should be given a swift trial but for some reason these things take months. Surely the simplest thing is to have a trial ASAP, get all the evidence and jury in? But no, he has to be presumed guilty because it was a crime against women ...

A Facebook friend comments:

Feminists want women to be victims. The higher the number of victims, the more they can push the feminist agenda. So they lobby to create laws and rules which tilt the favor towards the victimization of women. Then after changing laws that help to artificially inflate statistics for the purpose of passing tougher laws and lower evidentiary standards to further inflate statistics in the favor of victimization. They tell women not to protect themselves. The "law" will handle it. They are not looking to prevent rape, just prosecute it. 

The intention to subjugate men and make them mind their Ps and Qs and be properly afraid of them, and make Western men the sad emasculated limp-dicked effeminate cowards they now are.

He adds:
It is also subjugating women to the role of victim. So they are not true feminists but power mongers using feminism as a guise to subjugate everyone.

Usually they select the survivors of the most brutal attacks to help push the agenda. The ones most hurt by the crime do not realize that in most cases, the changes they are making in the laws help put innocent people behind bars. It has altered in a negative way the way men and women interact.

So now you know why men and women distrust and dislike each other so much that they cannot bring themselves to marry each other or have legitimate children or stay married when they do have children.   This of course has implications for the future of the country because it concerns the quality of the next generation, which has of course been destroyed by feminism.  

Saturday, 14 May 2011

Anti-war Demos outside Russian and Chinese Embassies

Suggested form of chanting to be translated into Mandarin and Russian:

Are you mice or are you men?
Squeak, squeak, squeak!
Chinese/Russian mice are scared of Yanks!
Squeak, squeak, squeak!
Squeak, squeak, squeak!

Moo Ah Mah!
Gah Dah Fee!
We love you 
cos you're a star! 

can be in English.

Proposed demo at the Russian Embassy asking them why the FUCK they didn't just veto the war plans of the warmongering NATO nations. Are they STOOOPID or just scared? If you object to your taxes being spent on STOOOPID wars started and continued by cunting Cameron, then be there or be square.

Muslims will demonstrate outside the Chinese Embassy, and EDL and BNP can demonstrate outside the Russian Embassy.

I believe that would be a sensible way of deploying my troops.

We would sell to and exchange green things with each other, eg green T-shirts, green scarves, green umbrellas etc and just bring green things to sell or exchange.

And then we would sing to the tune of TEN GREEN BOTTLES:

Ten NATO nations sitting on the wall.
Ten NATO nations sitting on the wall.
And if a NATO leader should accidentally fall
There'll be nine NATO nations sitting on the wall ...

Friday, 6 May 2011

The Templeton Prize for Claire Khaw in 2012?

... it is awarded to a living person who, in the estimation of the judges, "has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works". 

Until 2001, the name of the prize was "Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion", and from 2002 to 2008 it was called the "Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities".

The monetary value of the prize is adjusted so that it exceeds that of the Nobel Prizes, as Templeton felt "spirituality was ignored" in the Nobel prizes. At £1,000,000, as of 2009, it is the largest single annual financial prize award given to an individual by a philanthropic organisation. The prize is awarded "based on the decision of a panel of distinguished judges from various academic disciplines and religious traditions".   Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and atheists have been on the panel of judges and have been recipients of the prize.

I rather fancy the Prize to be honest, and could do with the dosh and the glory.


  1. Would the creation of a new religion count?
  2. Would initiating debate on the creation of a new religion count?
  3. Would creating a new religion that would unite atheists, agnostics and monotheists count?

A new British state religion is my gift to the British people (let us call it a thought present) and my contribution to Western civilisation.  Its Holy Trinity consists of

  1. Anglican Islam (for the masses)
  2. Secular Koranism (for the judiciary)
  3. Agnostic Indifference [to the existence of God] (for anyone who wishes to participate in politics)

What would make it unprecedented (were I to be awarded the Prize) would be the fact that I will have been able to successfully claim to be simultaneously Agnostic, Atheist and Monotheist and present a Unified Theory of God, Reason and Morality that will be acceptable to all three schools of thought, without any attempt to convert anyone to Islam at all.  

My 2007 essay for the Chris Tame Memorial Prize which should have won but didn't because Sean Gabb disagreed with my conclusion


Essay Title: Does Britain need a Libertarian Party?

The answer is YES, if only to give voters a choice between having a succession of tax and spend governments (whatever their official party ideology) and the option of having, at the very least, a party that consistently promises lower taxes and smaller government. It is also important to give the impression to the rest of the world that the British are still governed by a political system called democracy, even if it is in fact an oligarchy. Like a cartel, Labour and Conservative have carved up the market in policies between themselves and successfully excluded the competition by claiming that anyone who wants anything other than the policies they offer, (eg withdrawal from the European Union, lower taxes, the death penalty etc) are mad, bad and sad. This is common to all declining Western nations whose party system allows this state of affairs to continue.

Now that the Cowardly Cameronian “Conservatives” have unilaterally withdrawn the option of lower taxes from those who had been under the impression that being a Conservative meant supporting a political party that at least offers the option of voting for taxes lower than a sitting Labour government, there is now a gaping Democratic Deficit that must be bridged in the name of the choice that is meant to exist within a democracy. The impression now that Conservatism as practised by Cameron is merely a knee-jerk reaction of maintaining the status quo, whatever that is, must be corrected. Conservatism is not, after all, about displaying the Cameronian characteristic of a cushion that bears the imprint of the person who last sat on it.

What, though, is a Libertarian?

Chambers defines this as “a believer in free will: one who believes in the maximum amount of freedom of thought, behaviour etc.” This is best exemplified in John Stuart Mill on Liberty: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” Or, more graphically: “Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.”

But what does this mean in practice?

It can only mean fewer laws and lower taxes. Not only would a Libertarian be in favour of Small Government, he would actually want a Minimum State. What this means is of course a question as apparently as unanswerable as:

“What is good?”

“Where does commercial lending end and usury begin?”

“What is Justice? (or indeed “social” justice?)

“What is a ‘just society’?” When do we know we have it? When no one complains that life is unfair?

How are we to measure the “greatest happiness of the greatest number”? Leaving this concept practically indefinable, even with a Felicific Calculus in place, was fatal to the now discredited concept of Utilitarianism. If the happiness that was to have been generated by Utilitarianism cannot be measured or quantified, then it is unlikely to gain adherents as widely as did Communism, Liberalism, Socialism – ideologies which wisely avoided being hoist by their own petard by assuming that the greatest happiness of the greatest number would be generated if World Communism/Liberalism/Socialism were imposed!


Mill’s Lacuna is one to which there certainly exists a solution. Happiness can in fact be measured, but negatively, in terms of the absence of evil or unhappiness – through Negative Utiliatarianism, which requires us to prevent the greatest amount of suffering for the greatest number.

Even if it is generally accepted that Evil is the unnecessary infliction of suffering and Good the necessary enjoyment of something that makes a moral life possible (eg food, water, shelter, beauty, justice, peace etc), there will inevitably be disagreement about what is in fact “necessary” or “possible” or “moral”.

In the face of this disagreement, objective criteria of measurement must be used and it is proposed that violent crime is to be an indication of unhappiness with murder as its strongest conclusive indicator. Statistics on divorce, abortion, war casualties, criminal damage, suicide and civil litigation will also provide a good indication of unhappiness which can be used over time to make comparisons as to the relative success and failure of policies formulated negatively to prevent unhappiness (the raison d’etre of a Minimum State) rather than to promote happiness (the operating policy of our Nanny State that has been failing for some time). The Minimum State is more rational simply because we can all agree on what we don’t want (eg crime, war etc) while we are more likely to disagree on what we do want (eg whether the state should continue to sponsor illegitimacy and crime by giving unmarried mothers housing and child benefit when it is already known that single parents will have children who are more likely to grow up into under-achieving single-parenting adults who will be a burden and blight to society, or whether to give all pregnant women as much as £200 to eat healthily).

The apparently indefinable Minimum State could be defined thus: a flourishing nation that runs on the fewest possible laws and the lowest possible taxes, with Liberty, Efficiency and Economy as the new Holy Trinity.

Get this right, and Mill’s Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number would subsist. Keep getting it right and Heaven might even prevail on Earth.

In 1787, about the time the original 13 American states adopted their new constitution, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, made the following statements about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2000 years earlier:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.”

“A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.”

“From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

Machiavelli observed in The History of Florence: “Countries generally go from order to disorder and then from disorder move back to order … because ability brings forth quiet; quiet laziness; laziness disorder; disorder ruin; and likewise from ruin comes order; from order ability; from the last glory and good fortune.”

In this way does human society lurch: from bondage to courage, courage to liberty, liberty to abundance, abundance to complacency, complacency to apathy, apathy to dependence, dependence to bondage again.

Instead of the traditional Bill of Rights proposed by those who want a written constitution, it is proposed that following two rules are always observed:

“No law proposed shall be passed or any act of war committed which cannot be proven to be necessary to prevent an evil that is clear and present rather than imaginary and exaggerated.” (eg passive smoking, environmental disaster, the late Saddam Hussein’s non-existent WMDs)

“No law proposed shall be passed if the evil it wishes to address calls for a disproportionate deprivation of the citizen of his Liberty and property.”

The Law of the Jungle is of course no law at all, and it is probably necessary to point out that a Minimum State must at the very least protect its citizens from offences against the person (eg murder, assault, rape) and crimes against the property (eg embezzlement, fraud, theft, criminal damage).

Apart from protecting its citizens from the harm they might do to each other as well as foreign aggression and invasion, the next right that must be protected is their right to property, without which we might as well all be Communists.

A tramp may in theory have the freedom to say what he wants, be with whom he pleases and do business with anyone, but in practice none of this will be within his reach if he does not possess any property with which to make transactions with him worth while. State confiscation of property through punitive and oppressive taxation needs to be prevented to protect a citizen’s liberty and it is proposed that no tax rate shall exceed 25%. This ought to be the motto of HM Revenue & Customs and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Any shortfall will have to be made up by efficiency and ingenuity or individual contributions from altruistic citizens as and when required.

Liberty is a nebulous concept that requires a concrete and legal definition. Once this is in place, the sacred cow of the Nanny State can then be slain and a new goddess of Liberty put in its place.

The 3 essential ingredients of Human Liberty are:

(1) Freedom of Expression

(2) Freedom of Association

(3) Freedom of Contract

It is revealing how little Liberty we really have now that it has been broken down into its constituent parts. Patrick Mercer could not even suggest that it may not be necessarily racist to call someone a “black bastard” during army training even if other “bastards” were being similarly insulted by being called “fat” or “ginger” without being sacked from the Front Bench.

Freedom of association plainly does not exist if gentlemen’s and working men’s clubs are now compelled to admit women and make them equal members against the wishes of the majority male members.

Freedom of contract is non-existent if we are not allowed to discriminate against potential employees on grounds of sex, age, race, disability and most recently, on grounds of sexual orientation. (Catholic Adoption Agencies that refuse to serve same-sex couples are now to be closed down under the Sexual Orientation Regulations.)

It can be seen that we are now the Mature and Declining (or Over-ripe and Decaying) Phase of Democracy. Voters “have discovered that they can vote themselves great gifts from the public treasury” and are “appeased by candidates who know they must promise the most generous benefits from the public treasury” (Cameron’s refusal to promise lower taxes is conclusive evidence that we have reached this stage) and the state is about to “finally collapse from loose fiscal policy to be followed by a dictatorship”.

What can be done to prevent this collapse and the dictatorship that is to follow in its wake?

The answer is to narrow the franchise from indiscriminate universal suffrage to a more accountable type of democracy where, to turn on its head the idea of “no taxation without representation”, there will be the converse of “no representation without taxation”, which no one can justifiably claim to be actually unfair.

Added to this would the refinement that there will be greater representation with greater taxation by which it is meant that those who pay more tax will receive proportionately more votes, as if they were a shareholder of a company with votes allocated according to the number of shares held.

This proposal is intended to serve as a Manifesto for the Taxpaying Classes, from the professional to the plumber to the prostitute, without distinction.

There appears to be no reason why this idea should not catch on amongst those who wish to do better for themselves and who have the confidence to believe in the viability of a state that has low taxes, an excellent and free education system and compulsory health insurance.

The technology is already there to support this system, as can be seen from – an opinion-polling direct democracy website that visually demonstrates how it would work. It uses no unworkable Felicific Calculus, believing that the collective opinion as to what should be done should always be seen as the objective indicator of the current perception of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. If the majority of members are in favour of departing from the status quo, then it can be inferred that maintaining it is perceived to generate more suffering than departing from it. Should the departure from the status quo prove to be a case of going from the frying pan into the fire, then voting by a majority to return to the previous position remains an option, from which we can infer that returning to the previous position is perceived to generate less suffering than remaining in the current position.

As can be seen, there is always a time-lag in the calculation of the actual amount of unhappiness a policy under this proposed system prevents. The amount of unhappiness prevented can be inferred from the length its implementation under a Libertarian administration. The longer the length of implementation, the less unhappiness it is deemed to have generated.

These objective criteria are necessary since we can never agree on what is (a) necessary to prevent (b) an evil and (c) whether it is clear and present or imaginary and exaggerated, until we have the historical perspective to do so.

Those who fear that the country would be ruled by a plutocracy need not fear too much, since no individual, however wealthy, can prevent the mass of taxpayers voting for tax rises for individuals earning over a certain amount, if there is perceived to be a shortfall. These super wealthy individuals would have to buy more votes by paying more tax to defeat the proposal for a tax increase amongst ordinary taxpayers, and this act alone would make up for the shortfall that caused ordinary taxpayers to agitate for the increased taxation of those wealthier than they, in the first place, and the shortfall made up and the problem resolve itself under this system of voting. The system is foolproof in theory and beautifully transparent, fair and simple.

Will these ideas gain support if a political party promoting these principles were formed? Quite possibly, if all that is proposed is that any policy is allowed, without fear or favour, and that the entire membership is allowed to decide on policy.

All policy is to be presented in the form of a promise to conduct a referendum on a particular question, should the Libertarian Party be elected into office.

Any proposal will become official party policy provided (a) over 50% of its membership has voted on it and (b) of those who voted on it over 50% are in favour.

It cannot be stressed enough that Direct Democracy must be seen to be above ideology to attract popular participation. Its manifesto must therefore be a completely blank sheet to be filled up and changed by its membership from time to time.

The Acting Leader in a caretaker role will in due course hand over to an elected leader when sufficient talent emerges amongst its membership to make a leadership contest a worthwhile exercise and a national event.

If nothing else, it will encourage ambitious and talented thinkers and speakers to participate in politics.

Why is Direct Democracy here equated with Libertarianism? Because any enthusiasm for voting under such a system, which makes such great demands on the voter, will in time be worn away by the inevitable apathy that would eventually overtake him. This would therefore tend to decrease or even completely prevent unnecessary legislation, since not enough people would trouble themselves to vote or agitate for any change unless and until it causes enough distress to warrant action. In this way would state interference be discouraged: by the apathy, laziness or the attitude that there is no need to fix something that ain’t broke.`

The crowning glory of Direct Democracy is that it would herald in an age of Minimum Government with the minimum of political parties: just one good one, instead of many big and small ones that do not do what they say on the tin.

Monday, 2 May 2011

Bringing back bowing and scraping, curtsying and forelock tugging

I think commoners should start curtsying to each other and bring curtsying and bowing back into fashion so that we re-enter a politer, more deferential and hierarchical society.  Equality is of course a polite fiction.

In fact, I rather like the idea of peasants tugging their forelocks, men lifting their hats and younger and poorer women curtsying to me. Why can't we have that sort of thing again? If the white working classes were more deferential to their elders and betters they would be more likely to be employed instead of having all their jobs taken by foreigners.

After The Revolution, Comrades!   

Bin Laden Is Dead, Obama Says

American officials said bin Laden resisted and was shot in the head. He was later buried at sea.

What? Bin Laden "buried at sea" ALREADY??  It would have been more appropriate to display his corpse, surely? Or put his head on a spike? So weird to dump his body so soon.


Yanks want to get out of Afghanistan and are saying #OBL now dead as face-saving justification. Many think OBL died a long time ago.,2933,41576,00.html
Report: Bin Laden Already Dead - Wednesday, December 26, 2001

Allowing him to lie in state at the White House East Room and charging people to see him would have been a nice little earner.

The body of President John. F. Kennedy lies in repose in the East Room of the White House.

UK political system a Warmonger's Charter

"No vote was held in Parliament on the invasion of Afghanistan."

"Constitutionally, the authorisation of military action requires only a decision by the prime minister. Parliament has no formal role in the deployment of UK forces."

Reform is clearly in order.

After The Revolution, then, my friends.   

Sunday, 1 May 2011

The curse of Gaddafi?

Why I now want to believe in God

The bombing of Libya has made me want to believe in God,who is allegedly capable of dispensing of perfect justice in the hereafter.

I do not think the Germans in Nazi Germany who said nothing were necessarily evil people. Standing by and saying nothing because you are not affected is pretty much normal behaviour all over the world. Russia and China could have stopped it but chose not to. They know the West is weak and breaking its nose with a swift sudden punch for its policy of compulsive liberal interventionism would be easy and satisfying, and yet they seem rather nervous of making a point in such dramatic terms. If they won't do it, and it is clearly in their interests to do so to mark the end of Western hegemony, then I guess nobody will.

Everyone will just stand by watching the West go on an orgy of drunken violence and wanton damage until it falls to the ground dead drunk, and then come over and take turns kicking its fucking head in.

Since the villains of the piece are in fact the governments we live under, I do hope that those of us who spoke against the war will be spared the punishment for bombing another sovereign country then seeking to assassinate its leader for no good reason except for the fact that it thinks it can do this sort of thing and get away with it.

Cowardly Cameron dared not dress down and instead got his wife to dress down instead

Mrs Cameron hatless at the Royal Wedding.  SHIT of a husband too scared to dress down but got wife to do so on his behalf.

It would appear that Cameron first considered making a point by dressing down in the hope of currying favour with the oiks, and then thought the better of it when he realised that the oiks would not be impressed.

And so he got his wife to dress down for him.

Are there no depths to which this disgrace of a man would not sink?

Is not time that Eton distanced itself from the Prime Minister whose every word and deed oozes mendacity, hypocrisy and infirmity of purpose except his desire to bomb Libya and assassinate the ruler of another sovereign nation on spurious grounds that British public are either too stupid or too apathetic to challenge?   

Cowardly Cameron and his "Calm down, dear" comment

The Prime Minister’s spokesman said:

‘Let’s not over-analyse something that was clearly a humorous remark. He was mimicking a popular TV advert. Clearly no offence was meant.’

If you make a joke the intention is to laugh at the subject of the joke.  To laugh at someone is to mock them. To mock them is to intentionally cause offence.
To say that you did not mean to intentionally cause offence is clearly a lie.

Cameron is not a gentleman, for a gentleman never unknowingly causes offence nor does he tell an obvious lie to get himself out of trouble, underestimating the stupidity of the even the incorrigibly stupid British public and the incorrigibly stupid MPs who cannot spot a lie even after it has boldly strode up to them and poked them in the eye.

Now, will Ed Miliband take him up and invite him to repeat again that he did not intend to offend Angela Eagle by that comment?

And if Cameron says that he in fact did not intend to offend Angela Eagle, is he not immediately guilty of misleading Parliament with a transparent lie?

Is Cameron the best Eton can produce?

Would your son not be better off being sent to the lower local sink school comp for a better standard of moral education and drug-dealing?

If Cameron is the best Eton (supposedly the best school money can buy) can manage to produce then you know this country is in trouble.  But hey, you already know that, didn't you?