I link to Autonomous Mind and James Delingpole, both of whom post about the stupidity and illogicality of the energy policy proposed by the Lib/Lab/Con due to those three subservience to Brussels.
am
Change of URL
15 years ago
Sunday, 6 March 2011
Political Principles, Honesty and Integrity
When entering politics I have always believed it is important that a candidate must be able to demonstrate honesty and principle. Entering politics is, in general, done with an underlying belief in either socialism or capitalism - either strategy which must be also based on the ability of self-governance and any candidate aligns him/her self with a party that 'ticks most of the boxes'.
Having taken the decision to become an elected politician - at whatever level - the next decision to be made is whether that means representing the views of those that have elected you; or whether you view politics as a career path to further personal glory and wealth. The fact that that last question even has to be raised demonstrates the nadir to which the politics in this country has descended.
It must surely be the aim of any potential politician to be a representative of his/her electorates views, assuming he/she has any honesty and principle, eschewing personal gain or position. Obviously some MPs must serve in Cabinet and in so doing may well have to implement decisions that go against the wishes of those they represent - together with having to support those decisions in Parliaement, come a vote. Because of this their constituents are, in effect disenfranchised, as those MPs holding Cabinet, Ministerial, or PPS office are unable to stand in Parliament and plead a case on behalf of an individual constituent. This highlights yet another deficit in our democracy and - digressing slightly - might just warrant the institution of a 'second' MP for those constituencies in order that the constituents views can be represented.
I suppose the best example, out of the present MPs, who puts his constituents above personal gain is Philip Davis whose website states:
"Representing your interests, not self-interests.
I have made it my duty to work for Shipley in Westminster and not for Westminster in Shipley, I am working for your interest, not self-interests. Above all, I will always put my constituents' interest above my political career..."
That belief of Philip Davis should be put to every MP currently holding office with the question: can you prove likewise - and the silent and/or negative response would be deafening!
In which case, it is necessary to question the motives of certain MPs - and to focus on one, in particular, let us take Dr. Liam Fox - presently Secretary of State for Defence (an MP whom Richard North, EU Referendum, holds in high regard - not!). This is the man who stood for Leader of his party in 2005 and whose speech, at that Leadership Election, included these words:
"One thing I learned as a young doctor was that if you don't listen to what the patients think is wrong with them, they won't listen when you tell them what is wrong with them. We could learn a lot from that........This party needs to concentrate all our efforts on setting out a vision for the country we want to lead. And we mustn't lose sight of our own achievements. I am proud of how this party changed the face of Britain. You don't set an agenda for the future by trashing your past..........Let me give you one: there is no such thing as government money, only taxpayers' money. Let me give you another: you cannot go on squeezing wealth creators to finance an ever hungrier government machine........Europe is becoming economically stagnant, its share of world trade falling. That is bad news for Britain because it will damage our prosperity. That is why we need to have a bold new vision for Europe. The EU is locked in the past. We need an agenda for the 21st century. We need to break away from the whole outdated concept of "ever closer union". The inevitable destination of "ever closer union" is union. The Conservative party should never accept that Britain's destiny lies in a united states of Europe.........We need to re-establish pride in what it means to be British, pride in our national identity. We have spent so long focusing on diversity that we have forgotten to focus on what we have in common: free speech, a fair rule of law, our history and heritage, economic liberty and democratic government based at Westminster."
Admittedly, Fox also stated, by inference, that our nation should remain within the EU and lead that body in a new direction; which looks to me now and at the time as 'hedging his bets' - however...... In so doing Fox never made clear whether he was advocating a 'free-trade' agreement - something which may well have cost him the leadership.
Returning to the point about principle, a number of questions arise with regard to Liam Fox:
If Fox believes that there is no such thing as government money only taxpayer's money, why is he a member of a government that seems to believe that taxpayer's money is a bottomless pit?
If Fox believes that it is impossible to squeeze wealth creators in order to fund an ever hungrier government machine, why is he a member of a government doing just that?
If Fox believes that the Conservative Party should never accept that Britain, in turn, should never accept its destiny lies in a united states of Europe, why is he part of a government that believes it does?
If Fox believes that we should have pride in our national identity; that free speech; our history and heritage; economic liberty and a democratic government based in Westminster are important, why is he a member of a government that does not believe in any of those qualities?
If Fox believes in a democratic government based in Westminster, why does he (a) accede to a system whereby MPs are forced to vote as their party dictates rather than how their constituents would wish them to vote and (b) why does he serve in a government that believes in subservience to Brussels?
Liam Fox is not alone, as consider those MPs who agree to serve as Cabinet members, Ministers or PPSs. All MPs accept they are elected to represent their constituents, so why do they accept the positions offered? Principles, or personal gain?
Cameron's Cardiff Speech
Just a few comments as it contained one hell of a lot of words, but as usual with Cameron, not a lot of content. After the plaudits for individual Welsh Conservatives, Cameron first spoke about responsibility:
"But let's be clear about why we're doing all this. We don't want to win for winning's sake, just to get our feet under some council table or some ministerial desk.
We want to win for a purpose - to bring about deep, positive and lasting change to the country we love. And that change is all about one thing: responsibility.
Our aim is to help build a more responsible society. Responsibility is what this Party is all about. Yes, we believe in freedom. The freedom to choose. The freedom to make the most of your potential, to pursue your own dream and destiny."
This must be an classic example of 'foot in mouth'. If he loves his country, why is he content to leave our nation in a state of subservience to Brussels? If he believes in freedom and the freedom to choose, why is he behaving like a dictator and refusing to allow the people a choice on membership of the European Union? If he believes in a freedom to make the most of our potential, to pursue our own dream, why does he still control everything and everyone from the centre? If he believes that we are all in this together, how does he equate his lifestyle of taxpayer funded homes and all his other perks with the lifestyle and costs of the ordinary person? The only responsibility Cameron has, in general, is to do as he is told by Brussels.
In talking about the route map to recovery and debt, Cameron says that he will never push down the poor, yet this is exactly what he is doing by cutting central government grants and removing ring-fencing - a subject I have posted on previously. On the subject of debt, noticably Cameron said nothing about the possibility of that debt increasing by our having, until 2013, to participate in further bail-outs of euro-zone countries like Portugal and Spain.
Cameron is also being equally disengenious when he talk about a control shift and believing in devolution. Due to the EU's regionalisation policy, all Cameron is doing is implementing what the EU wants - the regions of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. He harps on yet again about broken politics, yet seems not to realise that what would fix the problem is a little honesty, transparency on the reason for policy decisions being made, honesty and principle - all of which are noticable by their absence within the Lib/LabCon.
Finally, it amazes me that Cameron whilst preaching about freedom, power to the people and, in effect, letting people fulfill their dreams whilst at the same time binding our country to the totalitarian state that is the EU, is unable to see that contradiction!
The David Cameron Appreciation Society
All the usual members are out in force in the Sunday Telegraph - Matthew d'Ancona, Melissa Kite , Tim Montgomerie and Janet Daley.
First, d'Ancona: How this man qualifies to earn his no doubt considerable salary writing what can only be described as utter tripe is beyond my understanding. He writes about Cameron being a tribune of the people and the wish to appear "....as a national leader, full of passionate principle and impatience, rather than yet another institutionalised prime minister, gone native in Whitehall". Never mind about Whitehall, there is not one word that Cameron has gone native in Brussels!
Second, Melissa Kite: Obviously with a copy of Cameron's speech which he is due to deliver this afternoon, she quotes: "So I can announce today that we are taking on the enemies of enterprise. The bureaucrats in government departments who concoct those ridiculous rules and regulations that make life impossible for small firms. The town hall officials who take forever to make those planning decisions that can be make or break for a business". Not one word on how concoction of ridiculous rules and regulations occurs, who is responsible and why. Has she never heard of Common Purpose?
Third, Tim Montgomerie: Whilst he is not a journalist per se and does criticise Cameron on occasions, he is nevertheless one of the Appreciation Society - ready to 'spin' when and where necessary. Writing about Europe, Montgomerie notes that: "Downing Street counters that even if the Tories had won an outright majority, it would have been difficult to get other European governments to give powers back to Britain."; in which case why was this part of the Conservative manifesto at the last general election? I have to take issue too with Montgomerie's assertion that older people's benefits have been protected when they haven't. Central government grants have been reduced and the ring-fence removed and councils are most definitely 'cost-cutting' in order to remove benefit monies to other budgets.
Fourth, Janet Daley: Another journalist, guilty in my book, of vacuous writing. It must surely be obvious to anyone with a brain that governments always present themselves on the side of the people when in fact amongst their aims, once in office, is the coercion of the people by means of what I have for some time termed 'democratised dictatorship' - at the same time ensuring that their own interests are best served. Not one word that our elected governments no longer have the ability to govern and that they are subservient to Brussels.
John Redwood explains how the bureaucrats are gaining control of the wheels of government; Dizzy shows that Osborne is 'spinning' his tease of cancelling the 1p rise in fuel duty due - to which one can add the stupidity of development aid to countries that are, in effect, richer than us, whilst decimating our armed forces; the stupidity of cutting help to our aged and vulnerable members of our society, whilst being unable to stop having to pay benefits to immigrants that will cost £millions; the stupidity of having to follow an energy policy that is by the day being shown to be flawed in delivery and flawed economically.
England - that once proud and pleasant land
Readers from Scotland and Wales will forgive me for referring just to England but it would appear the subject on which I post took place there.
Christopher Booker writes in the Sunday Telegraph yet another harrowing tale of child abduction by the state. (At least we have one journalist who believes in investigative journalism and not "cut 'n paste" journalism!) That such cases happen in this country and continue so to do must be the greatest scandal in our history. How can it be right that witnesses for the state cannot be questioned? What is even more despicable is that this forced abduction of children by the state does not appear to even appear on the radar of our politicians. It is beyond belief that not one MP has read, or heard about these cases and not made it their business to check whether events such as this are happening in their own constituencies?
Saturday, 5 March 2011
The thought processes of politicians
Autonomous Mind posts on polar bears and includes the answer to a question raised in the House of Commons.
Getting the message across!
As it has a cow affixed I am not sure if this vehicle belongs to a 'certain blogger', but - You gotta love UKIP!
Coalition "Achievements"?
Under the heading of "Sayeeda Warsi lists top Coalition achievements", Tim Montgomerie has just posted this twitpic on Twitter:
Having picked myself up off the floor, let us just look at a few of these 'achievements'.
Our freedoms restored: Until central government relinquishes all control of local funding, education, health services, law & order the people have no freedom to decide their own lives. Until the UK withdraws from membership of the EU, the people have no freedom to elect and unelect those placed in office who then practise coercion and call it government.
More power to local councils: This is true in that having granted the people local referenda, central government then authorises local councils to disregard the result of said referenda when it so wishes. The Coalition speaks of returning planning decisions to local councils, yet we learn today that George Osborne wishes to overhaul the planning system and thus putting himself totally against the policy of Eric Pickles.
Put a block on more power to the EU: More powers have been ceded to the EU since the Coalition took office and the European Union Bill, which has more holes in it than a garden sieve, won't block any further transfers.
Capped immigration: The only immigration capped has been that from outside the EU, the hundreds of thousands of EU citizens wishing to come to Britain still can. The Coalition is backing admission of Turkey to the EU - if one tenth of that country wished to settle here, that would mean a further 8 million people eligible to use our health service, access the benefit system etc etc - and the Coalition have capped immigration?
Afterthought: As I am tired of knocking down coconuts (no pun intended) I leave it to readers to continue the process.....
Just "Who" is "Government"? EU know though, don't you?
"Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own."
Henry Grady Weaver, author of a classic book on freedom "The Mainspring of Human Progress"
"We must remember that the principal instrument of government is coercion and that our government officials are no more moral, omnipotent, nor omniscient than are any of the rest of us. Once we understand the basic principles which must be observed if freedom is to be safeguarded against government, we may become more hesitant in turning our personal problems and responsibilities over to that agency of coercion, with its insatiable appetite for power."
W.C. Mullendore
When one considers 'government' our thoughts naturally turn to Westminster or, more lately, to Brussels - but it would appear that there is what may be called another 'government' within MEPs, MPs, Local Councillors, Quangos and the proliferation of 'Fake Charities'. Nourishing obscurity posts (and do please follow the links) on Common Purpose whose members have infiltrated large sections of our public services, charities and local government. Locally, following an FOI request, it was discovered that councillors of the ruling Conservative run West Oxfordshire District Council have been on Common Purpose courses. It would be interesting to know how many of our MEPs and MPs, when working as 'research assistants' prior to assuming their positions as elected representatives, have attended Common Purpose courses. Then, of course, there are "the great and the good" mentioned by Richard North, EU Referendum, who poses the question whether it is time for a "spring clean""We are a spoiled-rotten, coddled nation of eternal victims with a codependency on government." Marc Gallagher
We are continually informed by our national politicians that they govern our nation, a statement that is becoming more and more untrue as days pass.Setting to one side, for the moment, the eternal argument about how many of our laws originate from Brussels, I am grateful to Helen over at Your Freedom and Ours who alerts me to the fact that we have a National Reform Programme (NRP). Digressing slightly, do note the response of Lord Sassoon to a question that was asked. Any the wiser?
The National Reform Programme is a requirement of the European Union, a requirement 'managed' by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, from which we learn:
"Member States are required to submit annual reports on their NRPs outlining progress made over the previous 12 months......The Commission also proposes country-specific recommendations as part of the assessment of Member States' reforms, which are approved by Heads of Government at the Spring European Council in March every year."Accessing the Treasury website from the side bar of the BIS website we learn:
"The UK's second National Reform Programme was published in September 2008. It sets out the challenges currently facing the UK economy, and details the Government's forward looking agenda of economic reforms. It also sets out measures taken in the areas covered by the UK's country-specific recommendation and points to watch.The Government's long-term goals that cover the 2008-2010 cycle of the Lisbon Strategy are: maintaining macroeconomic stability; sustainable growth and prosperity; ensuring fairness and opportunity for all; creating stronger communities and effective public services; and ensuring an environmentally sustainable world."From the BIS website we learn that this year's NRP update is due to be published in September.
Much has been written about the lack of difference between the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties - and because of all three's adherence to EU membership there is no difference. The Conservative Party and David Cameron made much, prior to the May 10 election, of Labour's statist objectives, yet has continued the same ideological path because he has to. Our politicians no longer govern this nation, yet continue to act and preach to us that they do. Witness this from the Independent of today:
"Today the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, will turn up the heat on Mr Clegg after his party finished sixth in the Barnsley by-election, behind Ukip and the British National Party. He is due to give a speech suggesting the Liberal Democrats are no longer a distinctive force. "I think it's becoming clear that while there might still be three main political parties, there are only two directions for the future of our country," he will say."The two directions that Ed Miliband envisages almost certainly does not include the matter of in or out of the European Union. Calling England writes on Nigel Farage's statement this morning and his wish to make UKIP the 'third' party in British politics. Assuming Barnsley was not a one-off then Farage may well do this but he has, I suggest, to change course slightly. UKIP need to drop their 'out of Europe' main attack and concentrate on what most see as their sensible national policies - and then adding the rider that to implement those policies withdrawal from the EU would be necessary. Digressing again; following the success UKIP experienced in Barnsley today's print edition (can't find on line) carries a short article by Nick Britten entitled "Ukip 'could be vehicle for Islamophobia'", which reports that:
"Dr. Matthew Goodwin, of the University of Nottingham School of Politics, who led the study that analysed a YouGov poll of 4,000 Ukip voters, said: "The party does mop up defectors from the Tories but its appeal in domestic elections is rather different. It tends to do best among working class voters who find its populist attacks on immigrants, Muslims and the political establishment attractive. Ukip is well positioned to become a significant vehicle for xenophobia and more specifically Islamophobia."Either Nick Britten has uncovered new information or is guilty of yet another badly done 'cut 'n paste' exercise as the words attributed to Dr Matthew Goodwin are attributed to Dr. Robert Ford of The University, Manchester.
The problems our nation has with its current form of democracy can be found within the three quotations at the start of this post. Contrary to what Messrs Ford and Goodwin may think (and one has to wonder if they too have been on a Common Purpose course) it is not xenophobic to believe in self-governance; it is not xenophobic to want a situation whereby those elected to represent us can be removed from office; it is not xenophobic to wish a retention of our customs and traditions; it is not xenophobic to wish to retain Christianity as our native religion; it is not xenophobic to resist the practise of 'social-engineering' whereby our society is being changed beyond all recognition; it is not xenophobic to resist an education policy whereby the aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all, but is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality.
Which political group gets two candidates for whom to vote?
Not yet on-line at the time of posting is this letter in today's Daily Telegraph:
But RJ, all the Loonies did vote Lib Dem.
"Sir It is disappointing that the Liberal Democrats abandoned the tradition of putting on a brave face after an election disaster, and have simply confessed that at Barnsley Central they got a "kicking" (report, March 4)
There are a few encouraging points that could have been made:
1. The Lib Dems polled almost twice as many votes as the English Democrats.
2. The Lib Dems were only 198 votes short of keeping their deposit.
3. Coincidentally, the Loony candidate polled exactly 198 votes, so if all the Loonies had voted Lib Dem......
Richard Jenkins
Long Compton, Warwickshire"
But RJ, all the Loonies did vote Lib Dem.
Friday, 4 March 2011
Gender Pay Gap
Courtesy of The Albion Alliance Presents we find this from the EU Commission.
Now there may be grounds for believing that a 'male dominated' company board may have an 'in-built' aversion to female colleagues - but if a woman shows ability and aptitude (eg, Karen Brady), then surely on commercial and business grounds she would be appointed? 'Market forces'?
But, in the EU's mantra of equality, we learn:
"After a year, the EU will assess progress. If it is unsatisfactory, the Commission will look at steps - including a law - to force change at the top."
So besides our inability to govern ourselves as we wish, we no longer will have the ability to manage our own companies as we wish.
And the EU is not "totalitarian"?
Wales is a region of the EU for heaven's sake......!
According to Politics Home, Carwyn Hughes, Welsh First Minister, has expressed his delight at the result of the Welsh Referendum saying that the Welsh Assembly will now not have to "get permission from Westminster" to pass laws. Well, he is right in that respect, but omits to mention that eventually he will have to get permission for any laws he wishes to pass - from Brussels.
For Peter Hain - to my knowledge the only South African born Welsh Windbag - to claim that the vote was a sign that voters had decided on "more powers to stand up to the Tory-led Government in Westminster" is but yet another example of political spin. Hain may well present this result as an opportunity to stand up to a Tory-led government - what he has not told the Welsh people is that they have, in effect, subjugated themselves to Europe in the form of the Committee of the Regions (CoR).
Not heard of the Committee of the Regions? In which case a short explanation. It is said that the EU Commission is one of the most powerful voices in the EU, but perhaps it is nearer the truth to say that, if not on a par, then the CoR is the 'top dog'. Just take a look here and watch the video:
"With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the role of the CoR will be strengthened along the entire legislative process. The new treaty obliges the European Commission to consult with local and regional authorities and their associations across the EU as early as the pre-legislative phase, and the CoR, in its role as the voice of local and regional authorities at the EU level, is heavily involved right from this early stage."
Wales is but a region of the EU and it is through the regions that the EU will govern - national parliaments with, or without, any authority are therefore redundant. In actual fact all this 'devolution of power' is but a smokescreen to cover the implementation of rule from Brussels, via the CoR. As IanPJ on Politics writes in this post, it is nothing but 'smoke and bloody mirrors'!
Some time ago I linked to this post by Richard North, EU Referendum, in which he wrote about 'Judas Goats'. Well dear reader, the like of Carwyn Hughes, Peter Hain, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband are the 'Judas Goats' of our present political system. As a result, we the people, are being led to slaughter like the sheep we are.
Readers will no doubt recall the programme shown on BBC2 "One man and his dog" in which now and again there appeared to be one or two sheep that just would not do what they were supposed to. It also seems that research shows that sheep are not that dumb as some would have us believe!
Food for thought?
Open Europe's press summary for today links to a Briefing Note produced on Britain's contributions to the European Union, from which:
"Many people still think of the UK’s contribution to the EU as a small sum. But under the 2007-13 financial perspective the UK’s contribution, after the reduced rebate, will be £10.2 billion a year. To put the scale of this expenditure into context, this money could alternatively be used to:
- Cut council tax by nearly 50%:
- Build 40 brand new general hospitals each year
- Employ an extra 320,000 nurses each year
- Cut the main rate of corporation tax by 11p
- Cut the basic rate of income tax by 3p
- Raise the inheritance threshold from £300,000 to £2,925,000
- Raise the income tax personal allowance by £2000
- Cut petrol duty by 75%
- Pay the total bill for the London Olympics in less than one year"
In top of that £10.2billion can be added the tens of millions of pounds that this is going to cost the Exchequer.
Austerity? Not in Euland!
Some facts from Bruno Waterfield, Daily Telegraph:
"The latest increase means that the office staffing allowance for every single one of the European Parliament's 736 MEPs will rise to almost £220,000 a year, making a total annual bill for the taxpayer of £160 million."
"Last December, under pressure from angry EU governments, led by Britain with support for Germany and France, the parliament shelved any increases in 2011 to the staffing allowances. But following an internal "evaluation", carried out by MEPs themselves, of whether the money was needed, the parliament's budget committee on Thursday overturned the expenses freeze."
"As well as staff allowances, MEPs will be able to earn up to £90,876 in "daily subsistence" and "general expenditure" expenses without having to provide any receipts or proof of expenditure."
Assuming that Britain's MEPs (73) claim this additional amount of £15,336 (Roger Helmer has publicly stated on Twitter that he will not be so doing) then £15,336 x 72 equals £1,104,192.
On the same basis were Britains MEPs to claim the maximum £90,876 daily allowance, for which no receipts are required, then £90,876 x 72 equals £6,543,072.
That is a potential annual bill of £7,647,264 paid for by UK taxpayers!
From the Independent of 30th October 2010 we read:
"David Cameron yesterday claimed to have achieved a "spectacular success" over European spending, despite accepting that Britain would have to hand over £430m more to Brussels next year.Twelve other countries, including Germany and France, backed his demand to limit any increase in the European Union budget to 2.9 per cent. The European Parliament and the European Commission want a rise of 6 per cent. Mr Cameron announced he had also won support from other European leaders for future EU spending to be linked to the cuts being made by member states.Last week the Prime Minister said he wanted the EU budget for 2011 to be frozen or even cut. But yesterday he argued that pegging the rise to 2.9 per cent "made a real difference" and that the 6 per cent plan was now "dead"."
On 19th December 2010, we learned, again from Bruno Waterfield, that:
"In a rare display of unity, the Prime Minister, German Chancellor and French President, along with Dutch and Finnish leaders, vowed in a joint letter published on Saturday that action taken to reduce EU spending increases next year - already cut from a six per cent rise to 2.9 per cent - must be "stepped up progressively" until the budget stops growing altogether by 2014."Some "spectacular success" - eh, iDave?
Thursday, 3 March 2011
Nicholas William Peter Clegg
Or as he is more affectionately known on this blog: Nicklearse.
Anyway, apparently he has been speaking in Luton on the subject of multiculturalism and is reported as having said that he "embraced multiculturalism as a way of “welcoming diversity and resisting division” in society." and that he "defined multiculturalism as “a process by which people respect and communicate with each other, rather than build walls between each other".
What Clegg needs to appreciate is that generally the British people may welcome diversity - what they do not welcome - and will not accept - is the 'division' that certain religions and races bring with them by their demands for special treatment; treatment which politicians seem in indecent haste to grant.
If Clegg wishes to discuss multiculturalism, then let us do just that! Setting to one side the question of religion and race, let us consider the divide that exists between the culture of our political elite and the electorate. At the moment neither side in this particular divide has any respect for each other due to the political elite building walls that separate them from those they are supposed to serve.
Clegg may well believe that it is not possible to win a fight if you don't stay in the ring - let us see that belief when the hempen 'ring' is placed around his neck!
Update: For those that can be bothered, text of his speech can be read here.
Update: For those that can be bothered, text of his speech can be read here.
Parasites
This post draws together several pieces of information from other bloggers to whom, needless to say, I offer my thanks for their hard work. For some time now I believe that it has been obvious there exist various 'movements' each with their own agenda and who's individual agenda is but part of a giant jigsaw designed to break down the individualism not only of people, but of nation states. This will result in people being 'conditioned', or 'moulded', in order that they become submissive and robotic where thought, word and deed form one behavourial pattern.
Sue (Muffled Vociferation), via twitter, alerted me to this post from American Thinker, who writes on the matter of the mammoth wasp (Megascolia maculate). American Thinker uses the following analogy to explain the spread of militant Islamism, which it is argued is eating away at the heart of European nation states:
"Its method of perpetuating its species is sure to freeze the blood in the veins of any impressionable person. The female of the species searches for the larva of a dung beetle or rhinoceros beetle. Once the prey is spotted, the wasp paralyzes it with one venomous sting and then lays her egg on its outer skin. On hatching, the larva of the Mammoth wasp equipped with sharp hook-like jaws bites through the helpless host's integument and proceeds to munch away on its soft tissues in a rigorously defined sequence, starting with the least vital organs, such as muscle, blood or fat, and leaving the crucial nervous system for dessert. By extending the life of the host as long as possible, the predator ensures for itself a supply of "live canned food" which stays fresh till the very end."
Next, let us turn to this post by nourishing obscurity on the subject of SRI International and the 'thought processes' that are employed:
"A nation could be programmed to change and become so accustomed to such planned changes that it would hardly be noticeable when profound changes did occur. The book title of Willis Harmon’s technical paper was The Aquarian Conspiracy and it foresaw a society where divorce drew no further stigma, suicide was at an all time high, raising few eyebrows, social deviations from the norm and sexual aberrations, once unmentionable in decent circles, would now be commonplace and excite no special protest. They would, in fact, be prescribed in law and protest outlawed, on pain of heavy penalties. The literature of government instrumentalities would include such aberrations under acceptable names such as Equality and Diversity."
Both posts show how we, the people, are being firstly 'conditioned' and then, secondly 'moulded' into a form of behaviour 'acceptable' to those 'in power'. H.L. Mencken is quoted as saying that the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. Such 'programmes' were illustrated - and expertly deconstructed - in a book: "Scared to Death" by Richard North and Christopher Booker. On the same theme an American columnist, Charley Reese, is quoted describing politics: "Here's your enemy for this week, the government says. And some gullible Americans click their heels and salute - often without knowing who or even where the enemy of the week is."
The words of both Mencken and Reese are applicable to our nation today as we have in our midst a cancer that is multiplying and destroying its heart. I allude to our quisling politicians who are content to pass our ability to decide our own laws and our own way of life to an unelected body, who operate an idealogy based on the creed of totalitarianism, situated in a foreign country. I allude to those bureaucrats employed in quangos, ngos and fake charities who seem infected with what may be described as a 'common purpose', the one aim of which is to 'order' our lives thus stifling any individual choice in that. By altering the demographic make-up of our society; by control of the education system, thus being able to 'groom' the adults of the future; by ensuring an individual's dependency on the state for cures to all the 'wrongs' we suffer; by maintaining control of what is supposed to be a free press by dictating what and how news is presented, the people of our nation are being led into a state of apathy.
Returning to the post by American Thinker and applying his analogy of the wasp, it is possible to equate that behaviour with that of the European Union. In this regard I can but reproduce part of a comment by Weekend Yachtsman on one of my posts:
"The EU are past masters at leaving the existing symbols and institutions in place and apparently functioning, while hollowing them out from behind and usurping all their powers. This is how they have got so far.
Why do you think we still have the Westminster parliament, general elections, our "own" diplomatic service, ministers "running" this that and the next thing?
All window-dressing, all of it meaningless. None of them runs anything. But they have to stay there, to keep up the pretence.
Nothing will be done obviously and openly - it never is."
The condition of apathy to which I alluded is indeed taking hold, in that we accept politicians continually informing us that they 'assume power' - they do no such thing, they 'assume office' and do so to represent the views of their electorates. Apathy has caused the people of this nation to forget that politicians only assume - and remain in - office with our consent; and that consent can be withdrawn at any time, it does not have to wait for a general election.
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
A humourous post
It is not that often that a post appears which is pertinent, witty and extremely well written.
Mindless, or mind-controlled, voters?
"For every credibility gap there is a gullibility gap."
Richard Cobden
Daniel Knowles, Daily Telegraph, blogs on an assumption that were Labour to come up with an credible answer to the 'deficit reduction', that young families might be Ed Miliband's salvation. His opinion is based on the fact that he argues the Coalition's plans targets those with young families. Acknowledging that Labour are polling at 43 per cent and also acknowledging that Labour caused the structural deficit, Knowles highlights just what is wrong with politics in this country today.
It is beyond understanding that the electorate - knowing Labour had mismanaged the economy, had engaged in social engineering by means of unlimited immigration, had covered the country with quangos, ngos and fake charities all of whom were engaged in 'ordering' our society, had totally wrecked what remained of our education system - would even consider letting those same politicians ever again hold the levers of power.
Not only are Labour politicians the only ones to whom the reins of power should never again be handed. The Conservative Party have more than sufficient politicians who have made mistakes yet, like those of Labour, they are continually re-elected in order that they may have a second and third attempt at wrecking our country. Now that the Liberal Democrats are 'in power', we will be able to add their politicians to the long list of failed Labour and Conservatives that should not be trusted again!
Election after election the three main parties come before the electorate with what is called a manifesto, something which in fact is a contract they are asking the electorate to sign/endorse, in which they set out their intentions as to how we are to be governed - and time and time again they break that contract. Examples are here, here and here. Not yet a year old and already the Coalition has broken promises and 'U' turns almost as long as the 'proverbial arm' - to which can be added Clegg's admission today in the House of Commons that the recall system for MPs will not happen any time soon.
That this country has a problem with it's democracy is, I believe, now beyond any reasonable doubt and I have posted on this previously here and here. It is a problem that is going to have to be addressed - and the sooner the better! Nothing exemplifies this better than a tweet from IanPJ on Politics today, on the occasion of a debate on the Freedom Bill in the HoC (a Bill that may as well have been written by Genghis Khan in that the freedoms it offers are 'meaningless'), when it is noted in a previous tweet that the HoC is virtually empty, to which IPJ adds the comment that "MPs only care about liberty when it affects them" - a comment which is so true!
And still the electorate vote for these venal, vacuous, self-centred 'representatives'! This problem can, I believe, be laid at the door of our education system when, yonks ago, children ceased to be 'educated' but were instead 'groomed' to become the compliant, mindless and robotic adults that they have indeed become - and it is a policy even more self-evident today. An example of that accusation can best be illustrated by a tweet posted as I write:
"@DanielFurrUK Never thought I'd hear myself say this as a LibDem, but I'm proud our Prime Minister is David Cameron"If that is an example of the political understanding today, then those of us, like myself, who are trying to educate the public through our blogs, truly are banging our heads against the proverbial brick wall!
Update: Just for once I can find agreement with a post by Douglas Carswell!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
