Thursday, 31 January 2008
America is reeling, punch-drunk with corruption. Can they pull themselves together, snap out of it and find the thread that leads out of the labyrinth? Only time will tell.
A: A social worker.
The social worker movement have their roots in the eugenics cult of 100 years ago, who created an army of 'racial hygienists' intent on sterilising and euthanising the working masses for our own good.
True to demonic form and armed with no more than a piece of paper they called a 'birth plan', these certified child-snatchers muscled their way into a maternity ward and abducted a two-hour-old baby - hindered by no one, it seems. Thankfully, High Court Judge Munby reacted with humanity and ordered the ghouls to hand over the child.
Wednesday, 30 January 2008
According to the Prof in the conference blurb: 'Doctors should play as big a role in championing green issues and sustainable development as they would in the clinical care of their own patients." He warned of more asthma as pollution gets worse, deaths from heatwaves and tropical diseases like malaria arriving.
How ignorant is this guy? Malaria is not tropical. Sure you find it in the tropics, you also find it in Siberia. Pollution may get worse, but is he suggesting we're anywhere near the situation that pertained prior to the Clean Air Act? It may be bad in London, but ask a Londoner who remembers what a pea-souper was, and they'll set you straight.
'As embassadors for improving healthcare we must become champions of change to protect the planet from climate change.'
Here's another idea: Shut the fuck up. You want to change the world? Start by cleaning up your hospitals. Once you've 'championed' that change, maybe you'll have time to administer to Gaia's ills.
Tuesday, 29 January 2008
Wrong. So what's the solution? As usual for the social engineers on their mission to create the perfect society (-AKA a hellish dystopia of nightmare proportions) it's keep taking the medicine, and let's increase the dose.
Thus MP Chris Bryant calls for children to be indoctrinated with the state-sanctioned message at ever-younger ages. The idea that such personal, individual matters are the rightful domain of the state, and thus the elitist minority who direct it, seems to be widely accepted these days, and only the religious-minded are likely to complain.
No doubt such as these latter can be ridiculed for their 'archaic' beliefs. The irony is that the state's desire to imprint young minds with the 'correct' attitudes, in this area and many others, is just as theocratic as the average Pakistani madrassa. Its aim is to inculcate a worldview, secular and humanist perhaps, nevertheless all-encompassing and all-pervading.
Sunday, 27 January 2008
Geoffrey Robinson's speech in defence of Nouveau Labour sleaze piled lies, bombast and moral vacuuity to such heights, I feared some kind of critical mass would be reached, a chain reaction started and the world sucked into a black hole. I long for the day when the audience stop expecting answers from these clowns, storm the stage and dole out savage beatings.
The three main parties represent a minority fraction of the population, and we need to find a way to push them aside.
I don't know how widely this has travelled already, but this guy should go far. Thankfully, he doesn't live anywhere near me.
As Sam Kinison once said:
You get too drunk
You get too high
You stay too fucking long
That's why they call it a PAAARTY
Friday, 25 January 2008
“Putting in 50 standard humps on three or four connecting residential streets costs about £150,000. A set of eight average-speed cameras covering the same area would cost £250,000.”
God help us. A quarter of a million quid for three or four roads?! Three grand for a hump? And the cunts can't even fill in the potholes while they're at it. Why not keep your cameras and your humps, leave the potholes – that'll slow down the traffic – and I'll keep my money, then maybe I'll be able to buy some food this week you thieving, profligate scum.
(Hat tip to An Englishman's Home)
The Captain's contribution enriches them no end, providing much of the comedy and all the best lines.
“Writing a constitution involves endless discussion by people who understand the intricacies of such a process - inevitably a tiny subset of the population.
”Does anyone seriously think that any more than a fraction of one per cent of the population will have any real idea of what they are being asked to vote for or against?”
“We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy with popular votes on specific issues”
There is no doubt in my mind that we as a people have been systematically dumbed down. Although I have no particular reverence for grammar schools, it is significant that, when the Prussian-style three tier system of grammar, secondary modern and technical schools was found wanting, the part that was destroyed was the part that worked the best, the part that was competing with the independent schools and in fact out-doing them in terms of producing Oxbridge entrants. Worse still for the upper echelon, it was smashing their superiority paradigm to pieces, by showing that a working class kid could be just as bright and achieve just as much academically as little Lord Fountleroy. So the grammars had to go, in the name of equality – but equality for the mass, not for the Fabian elite who planned it – their brood would still be off to Harrow and Eton.
Perhaps I'm digressing. The point I intended to make was that the more we are treated like feckless ignoramuses who are unable to understand the complexities of such lofty matters as, in this case, a European treaty, the truer it no doubt becomes. And conversely, the more responsibility we are allowed, the more responsible, by and large, we will be. It is not that we are incapable of discussing and judging these matters, but that the elitist class do not want us to break into their monopoly of decision-making.
In centuries past, the priests fought tooth and nail to prevent the Bible being translated into English, for two very clear reasons. Firstly, maintaining control of information made the priests powerful. Secondly, if the people knew what the Good Book said, who knows what dangerous, subversive ideas they'd get into their heads?
The same fight for control was seen over the Latin medical books and the Norman French laws. Knowledge is power, and the people must be kept from both, if the elite are to maintain their position. If Norman French is no longer an available mystifying agent, there is still the chance to thwart the layman with legalese. The complexity of this particular European treaty is wholly intentional. As Giscard D'Estaing said: 'It is not meant to be read.' The document that the French and Dutch voted down was bad enough, but this is far worse. To cite Churchil, if the first is a lie, the second is a terminological inexactitude.
The third comment is brought up whenever our politicians are out of step with public opinion, such as it can be discerned, in other words only when our system is seen to be unrepresentative of the democratic will. Again the elitist disdain for the people underscores the concept. If it was up to the hoi polloi, we'd be back to burning witches they say. The label 'representative democracy' allows these political swindlers to claim a moral case for their defiance of the people they supposedly represent. There are two arguments that spring to mind in defence of this system, and only one is valid. Delegation: in other words, we delegate the business of overseeing political matters to these people in terms of division of labour, allowing the rest of us to go about our business. But if this is to be democratic, the system is only effective insofar as our delegates do what we want them to. Our check upon this is a vote every four or five years, and due to the electoral system the vast majority of us may as well not bother turning out, for the good it does. A handful of 'swing constituencies' will decide it. Other than this, we could riot, which is the more traditional way of making our feelings felt, and no doubt if we weren't mollified and conned by our pseudo-democratic system we'd employ it more often. The second argument is as previously stated with regard to burning witches.
Much as I believe that the people should be sovereign and that the power to decide should be in our hands and not those of an elite, it is not the case that some kind of 'dictatorship of the proletariat' should take over from the technocratic oligarchy of today. It is not that the power that the few now wield should be wielded by the many, but that the power should not be wielded at all. The state is too big, the government is too overbearing. Insofar as it must exist, it must be democratically controlled and accountable to the people – but only insofar as it must exist.
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
The elitist eugenic nuts who set up the diabolic Fabian Society 100 years ago, named themselves after a Roman general who avoided battle, thereby infuriating and exacerbating his enemy Hannibal. This is ever their tactic. First pass the legislation, but fix its implementation far in advance, hoping that in the mean time the furore will subside and apathetic indifference will take its place. If this doesn't work, then float a few stories to the effect that the plan has been dropped and wait a little longer. Meanwhile, behind the scenes crack on with setting the system up.
Elsewhere in Gormenghast Castle, the NHS database is busy pulling together all the same information, the police are building a huge DNA database, schools are finger-printing children etc. Underlying all such measures is the same fabian doctrine: The people must be controlled.
Mr Davey tells us: "The DNA of mice and human beings is 90 per cent. the same—it is just that the remaining 10 per cent is quite important." True? Perhaps. Relevant? Not really. Applicable? Not in the least. At issue is what the treaty will do. Lead is not the same as nickel, but, Mr Davey, when crafted into a bullet and fired into your brain at point-blank range, the effect is much the same. Let me know if you need a demonstration.
accountable politicians with Prussian-style managers – faceless, soulless bureaucrats meeting behind closed doors. The retort this often invites is to point out that our system is hardly democratic (rather than to defend the indefensible). I agree, which is why we must fight for democracy here and now.
And not just us. It seems Poland has fallen foul of the Commission's lawyers, as it seeks to defend its people from the dangers of genetically-modified trash. According to the blood-suckers, as the Polish government hasn't come up with cast-iron scientific reasons for stopping such imports, "the Commission therefore considers that the national provisions notified cannot be approved." After being dominated for so long by the Soviet Union, you'd think such high-handed dismissiveness would stick in the craw, and so hopefully our Polish brethren will stick to their guns and not allow their sovereign rights to be overridden by multinational monopolists like Monsanto.
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
Lilburne's fight is our fight today - the liberty of the common people against the rich and powerful.
We need to change the monetary system.
NO REFERENDUM, NO MANDATE!
Thursday, 10 January 2008
In places where ballots were hand-counted, Ron Paul got on average 15% - completely in line with polls. Nevertheless the overall vote for Dr Paul is given as 8%, which is exactly the kind of 'discrepancy' that election monitors look for when examining evidence of vote-rigging. There are many instances of votes 'disappearing' that we already know about from witnesses. The same dark forces seem to have been working against Barack Obama as well.
It would be wrong to see the Ron Paul campaign as only about getting the Doctor into the White House, it is certainly waking people up, and hopefully these many people will stay awake and become active in a thousand different ways, exposing the criminals in power in America (and the world in general), and exposing the mainstream media for its willful smothering of the truth.
Come on Ron Paul's campaign: GET THE GLOVES OFF AND DEMAND A RECOUNT!
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
Frederick Douglass, Aug. 4, 1857
Saturday, 5 January 2008
(Hat tip: Samizdata)
Indeed, there seems a willful blindness towards the sins of capitalism (or what goes under that name) which perhaps springs from a desire not to complicate matters, or concede anything that may be seized upon by socialists or statists and other such heathen, and thereby undermine the ideals of free trade. For such people, the privatisation of our utilities was a crowning mercy of the Thatcher era. Ironically, however, we still have many state-owned companies - only they are owned by foreign states.
On the world stage, Russian state-owned Gazprom is in an acquisitive mood, at the moment seeking to plough investment into Nigerian gas and oil production, and China is busy hoovering up mineral rights wherever the dollar is still accepted. Other sovereign wealth funds are doing likewise, and in the shell-game of international finance vast amounts of imaginary money are circulating, as the utilities and infrastructure of this nation and most others are snapped up and passed around like drunken girls at a Manchester United Christmas party.
This is not economic liberty, but monopoly capitalism - its very antithesis. However, my (strawman) rightwing libertarian sees no evil.
Friday, 4 January 2008
According to the Guardian: 'The survey of abandoned projects is not exhaustive and the total of £1.865bn is likely to be a considerable underestimate of the actual cost to taxpayers because neither Whitehall nor the National Audit Office, parliament's financial watchdog, keep definitive lists of which schemes go wrong. Also it does not include the major modifications required to fix new systems that have failed to perform as required -' such as parts of the new £12bn NHS computer system, then there's the new ID database... The list goes on and on, a sickening catalogue of failure and waste, financed by burdensome levies on the commoners.
Do you think it bothers them? Or rather, when confronted with the facts, would they instead tell you what a wonderful job they're doing, and how it's all for our benefit? DO YOU THINK THEY HAVE A FUCKING CLUE?
We can't afford to passively accept this shit any longer.
Tuesday, 1 January 2008
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!"