The financial crisis was staged as part of a plot to transfer power from the developed world to vested interests and to place public funds in the hands of the global corporate elite in order to shape civilisation.
You only get this type of recession when you have massive wealth locked in a fraction of the population. We are experiencing a global crisis of OVERPRODUCTION. But this is a luxury recession. Thanks to industry being shifted to countries with cheap labour there is now too much of everything, and not enough in the Western world to simply be able to survive off the land.
The Orwellian society has continued to grow around us, and like the brutal religious leaders of the past ordinary people are being shaped without realising it. The first stage was to deindustrialise the west, get society addicted to consumerism and make them dependant on exports from other countries and easy credit, then hit them for six through the banking system.
Oil is running out, the global population is exploding and the west is over consuming. Something has to be done without making it overly obvious. We are but pawns to support the powers at hand as they dig their hands in our pockets for decades to come. We are expendable and we must continue to serve our masters and accept this as our fate and demonstrate humility and humbleness.
Unless We The People rise up with a rational exerted effort toward new energy technology and build whatever it takes to manufacture, erect plants, retool machinery there won't be a recovery in society as we know it.
To sum it up a doctor in America told his patient he only had 6 months to live, the patient said he couldnt afford his health bill so the doctor gave him another 6 months.
Tuesday 19 October 2010
Wednesday 13 October 2010
Maggie T's 85th Birthday
It is the Iron Lady's 85th birthday today and I am sick and tired of all my left wing associates talking about dancing over her grave. I am no child of Thatcher (from a philosophical point of view) as I do tend to stay in the centre of politics as much as I can but here is my take on it.
Thatcher was merely there when change was happening. Just as Blair was as well. The difference was (whether you love/hate either) in Thatcher's time, a lot of the change was inevitable. In Blairs, a lot of the decisions were made by them, mistaking the wave of economic success to themselves, precipitating it's terrible downfall.
Margaret Thatcher didn't destroy manufacturing, but restructured the economy including getting rid of the too powerful unions to get the country back on it's feet. The manufacturing that died was inefficient and outdated. Our products were being out made and out priced by countries such as Japan and we just called strikes every five minutes. How can we blame Thatcher personally for that?
For example cheap North Sea Oil coming on line and the miners making the coal situation and the dependent industries face a dead end. Maggie just put the boot in and made the changes.
It's funny how these changes are precisely an interruption in the overall scheme of things. Actually starting up an industry from scratch is pretty tricky.
It is also quite ironic that a lot of staunch Labour supporters were also buying Council houses and doing very well out of it AND then moaning that there were not enough being created as well.
I like to think of the years 1979-1982 as the hangover years
as the UK got back on the straight and narrow after the wild and
anarchistic times of the 1970s.
Blair and Brown could have changed what they inherited, as ‘Thatcherism’ was always supposed to be (in the greater scheme of things) a short term foot in the door, and did not have to continue down the path that they did.
All Thatcher did was become the first PM to view the UK as 'UK PLC'
She looked at various nationalised industries, saw that UK PLC was propping them and said:
'If we are propping it up financially, then its loss making. A loss making business has to be sorted out, otherwise its a pointless drain on the public purse'
So, she did.
I havn't yet met an individual who rails against her who can come up with a convincing argument for why the state should pump money into loss making industries. There is no justification, long term for the state pumping money into loss making outfits. Its a waste, pure and simple, and the result would have been an economy comparable to the Eastern Bloc.
The so called British Worker was the cause of the demise of most of British Industry. Under Callaghan and Wilson before him there was hardly a day went past without some people going out on strike.
Nationalised Industries were costing all taxpayers Billions a year. The steelworkers, Dockers, Shipbuilders, Engineering, even the motor industry were perpetually out on strike.
We lost jobs because no manufacturer could guarantee a delivery date or a price, so orders went overseas. The only ones to blame were the so called workers, and their communist Trade Union leaders. More pay for less and less work. We couldn't keep up with the rest of world and they super seeded us. Hence most of us drive German cars etc etc...
One of the effects of the Carbon Hysteria is to reduce CO2 outputs by shifting to fuels with more favourable C:H ratios. ie:- Oil and Gas.
In practice, I would suggest that this is more closely responsible for coal fading out. I remember about Britain being responsible for alot of acid rain. Our lefty Geography teacher used to go on and on about it.
Perhaps another factor was the decline in steel production in the UK, which is highly energy intensive.
The real trouble is that one just can't hide from the fact that buildings, ships, cars, all take a huge amount of energy to start out with.
For anyone who says that China is moderate in it's use of energy you gotta think again. The buildings, ships, cars, they're all still being made, and the labour is cheap. If these things are happening then the energy is being used somewhere and someone else is losing out.
I find it interesting that many of the people who complain about the environmental toll of mankind are left leaning. Often they are the same people who point the finger at Maggie because of the miners. But there's a contradiction there, no?
Maggie cleaned up the acid rain. And now we're gas fired and looking to become nuclear and renewable. No?
Better than not being fired at all, which is the Labour legacy. Living in the Northeast, Thatcher is still very much hated by the majority working class. Wander into any working class pub or social club on a Sunday afternoon and you will hear that it is Thatchers fault that the country is in the state it is in today. They really do not want to believe the destruction their beloved Labour Party has done to them - they really would not want to hear the truth.
The place really could still be full of pits and mines making sure people are dead by the age of 50 and these people honestly think life would be better.
As for Thatcher killing Manufacturing, well i am sorry to tell you silly people, yes you wont believe it and shall remain in denial, BUT after she closed the pits Maggie Brought you Nissan.
Not many of them know or like to know about that. The company that has basically kept a large area of the North alive was built by the one woman they detest and hate. The company that employs thousands, uses thousands of local suppliers, has improved wages, working conditions and basically brought the area up to date.
BUT
it is impossible to measure the net benefit of certain industries- such as a rail industry. whilst on the face of it it might have been losing money, the net benefit in terms of social wealth, mobility and unaccountable benefits means the equation should be more complicated than just one of state support.
Thatcher was 100% correct to break the unions (see Royal Mail if you want to see the effects of a over-unionised company), it at least gave companies a fighting chance to compete.
Make no mistake, this country is run by companies (most of htem SMEs), its power is commercial, its success dependant on profit. These policies kick started the UK back into life again - but that does not mean it had to continue. The labour government has always thought that the only thing that mattters is "state". In this they will always be wrong, the key is a balance.
Given the growth in public spending that had come before, and that has now come about again and the assumption that it would go on like that for ever, I think holding it almost steady for ten years was a huge achievement.
Of course more could and should have been done, but you're asking for superhuman determination there. Maggie was as tough as they come and even she had to fight every inch.
If Thatcher's influence on the economy was disastrous, we can only guess what adjective we'd have to apply for a continuation of what had gone before.
Thatchers legacy is certainly oversimplified, and probably overrated. She continued to expand government, for instance, during her time in power. Her real contribution was to remove power from the unions. Whether you personally like the approach the powerful unions had to managing the economy is neither here nor there. They were not representative of the people, the existed purely to further the interests of their members, and they should no more have a monopoly of the supply of labour than corporations should have a monopoly of the supply of goods or raw materials.
I have never understood while people who (rightly) fear the power of very large, unaccountable corporations were so happy to have equally large and powerful unions throwing their weight around in much the same way. At least the man in the street can buy shares in any PLC and gain a vote in how it is run. The same is not true of unions.
Credit where it's due - she was the best, and we'll never see her like again.
Thatcher was merely there when change was happening. Just as Blair was as well. The difference was (whether you love/hate either) in Thatcher's time, a lot of the change was inevitable. In Blairs, a lot of the decisions were made by them, mistaking the wave of economic success to themselves, precipitating it's terrible downfall.
Margaret Thatcher didn't destroy manufacturing, but restructured the economy including getting rid of the too powerful unions to get the country back on it's feet. The manufacturing that died was inefficient and outdated. Our products were being out made and out priced by countries such as Japan and we just called strikes every five minutes. How can we blame Thatcher personally for that?
For example cheap North Sea Oil coming on line and the miners making the coal situation and the dependent industries face a dead end. Maggie just put the boot in and made the changes.
It's funny how these changes are precisely an interruption in the overall scheme of things. Actually starting up an industry from scratch is pretty tricky.
It is also quite ironic that a lot of staunch Labour supporters were also buying Council houses and doing very well out of it AND then moaning that there were not enough being created as well.
I like to think of the years 1979-1982 as the hangover years
as the UK got back on the straight and narrow after the wild and
anarchistic times of the 1970s.
Blair and Brown could have changed what they inherited, as ‘Thatcherism’ was always supposed to be (in the greater scheme of things) a short term foot in the door, and did not have to continue down the path that they did.
All Thatcher did was become the first PM to view the UK as 'UK PLC'
She looked at various nationalised industries, saw that UK PLC was propping them and said:
'If we are propping it up financially, then its loss making. A loss making business has to be sorted out, otherwise its a pointless drain on the public purse'
So, she did.
I havn't yet met an individual who rails against her who can come up with a convincing argument for why the state should pump money into loss making industries. There is no justification, long term for the state pumping money into loss making outfits. Its a waste, pure and simple, and the result would have been an economy comparable to the Eastern Bloc.
The so called British Worker was the cause of the demise of most of British Industry. Under Callaghan and Wilson before him there was hardly a day went past without some people going out on strike.
Nationalised Industries were costing all taxpayers Billions a year. The steelworkers, Dockers, Shipbuilders, Engineering, even the motor industry were perpetually out on strike.
We lost jobs because no manufacturer could guarantee a delivery date or a price, so orders went overseas. The only ones to blame were the so called workers, and their communist Trade Union leaders. More pay for less and less work. We couldn't keep up with the rest of world and they super seeded us. Hence most of us drive German cars etc etc...
One of the effects of the Carbon Hysteria is to reduce CO2 outputs by shifting to fuels with more favourable C:H ratios. ie:- Oil and Gas.
In practice, I would suggest that this is more closely responsible for coal fading out. I remember about Britain being responsible for alot of acid rain. Our lefty Geography teacher used to go on and on about it.
Perhaps another factor was the decline in steel production in the UK, which is highly energy intensive.
The real trouble is that one just can't hide from the fact that buildings, ships, cars, all take a huge amount of energy to start out with.
For anyone who says that China is moderate in it's use of energy you gotta think again. The buildings, ships, cars, they're all still being made, and the labour is cheap. If these things are happening then the energy is being used somewhere and someone else is losing out.
I find it interesting that many of the people who complain about the environmental toll of mankind are left leaning. Often they are the same people who point the finger at Maggie because of the miners. But there's a contradiction there, no?
Maggie cleaned up the acid rain. And now we're gas fired and looking to become nuclear and renewable. No?
Better than not being fired at all, which is the Labour legacy. Living in the Northeast, Thatcher is still very much hated by the majority working class. Wander into any working class pub or social club on a Sunday afternoon and you will hear that it is Thatchers fault that the country is in the state it is in today. They really do not want to believe the destruction their beloved Labour Party has done to them - they really would not want to hear the truth.
The place really could still be full of pits and mines making sure people are dead by the age of 50 and these people honestly think life would be better.
As for Thatcher killing Manufacturing, well i am sorry to tell you silly people, yes you wont believe it and shall remain in denial, BUT after she closed the pits Maggie Brought you Nissan.
Not many of them know or like to know about that. The company that has basically kept a large area of the North alive was built by the one woman they detest and hate. The company that employs thousands, uses thousands of local suppliers, has improved wages, working conditions and basically brought the area up to date.
BUT
it is impossible to measure the net benefit of certain industries- such as a rail industry. whilst on the face of it it might have been losing money, the net benefit in terms of social wealth, mobility and unaccountable benefits means the equation should be more complicated than just one of state support.
Thatcher was 100% correct to break the unions (see Royal Mail if you want to see the effects of a over-unionised company), it at least gave companies a fighting chance to compete.
Make no mistake, this country is run by companies (most of htem SMEs), its power is commercial, its success dependant on profit. These policies kick started the UK back into life again - but that does not mean it had to continue. The labour government has always thought that the only thing that mattters is "state". In this they will always be wrong, the key is a balance.
Given the growth in public spending that had come before, and that has now come about again and the assumption that it would go on like that for ever, I think holding it almost steady for ten years was a huge achievement.
Of course more could and should have been done, but you're asking for superhuman determination there. Maggie was as tough as they come and even she had to fight every inch.
If Thatcher's influence on the economy was disastrous, we can only guess what adjective we'd have to apply for a continuation of what had gone before.
Thatchers legacy is certainly oversimplified, and probably overrated. She continued to expand government, for instance, during her time in power. Her real contribution was to remove power from the unions. Whether you personally like the approach the powerful unions had to managing the economy is neither here nor there. They were not representative of the people, the existed purely to further the interests of their members, and they should no more have a monopoly of the supply of labour than corporations should have a monopoly of the supply of goods or raw materials.
I have never understood while people who (rightly) fear the power of very large, unaccountable corporations were so happy to have equally large and powerful unions throwing their weight around in much the same way. At least the man in the street can buy shares in any PLC and gain a vote in how it is run. The same is not true of unions.
Credit where it's due - she was the best, and we'll never see her like again.
Friday 20 August 2010
Pakistan and a moral dilema
I’m concerned for the biosphere, not being compassionate toward disorganized countries that cannot control their birthrates nor the quality of their children through wise reproductive traditions – human lives are secondary to the health of a civilization as the health of a civilization directly affects human lives by default.
There’s two different viewpoints conflicting here; one is that which is represented above and the other is to blindly walk into the abyss due to the post WW2 fixation on moral high ground liberal-esque values. This is either in favour of the biosphere by controlling humanity below the carrying capacity of each territory so that the natural ‘disasters’ are not disasters, such as in Pakistan.
Ok you say that people should be left to make the choice using their own free will? Im afraid when animal urges dictate our very way of thinking that very claim is flawed right from the start.
If the population of any country, not just Pakistan, was reduced to a sustainable level in balance with the biosphere then floods/ natural disasters would not have killed more than perhaps a few hundred, or thousand rather than a few million – that’s why it’s a self inflated natural disaster, it’s part natural but enormously bigger due to there being so many people for it to kill in the first place – population control and building your home wisely is important for it allows the best to rise above the crowd because there is fewer of them to get in the way.
Altruism and compassion from richer countries giving aid are used to domesticate the foreign populations, like pets on a chain of dependency unable to do anything for themselves – all to continue building the Empire bigger and more stupid and to make the problem worse in the future. It doesn’t help the territories that are conquest either, those levels of population cannot continue to be sustained, the food cannot exist after peak oil for anyone let alone the people who are in need at the moment.
The west also continues to import the third world into its territory regardless and ignores problems at home, completely contradicting the ‘war on terror', it is collapsing from within because it doesn't provide strong leadership to the territory it already has. It’s biggest enemy is itself and us in the West dealt with these critical threats, such as globalisation and corporate internal corruption, then they could more easily build the Empire and increase the quality of the territory they conquest rather than ‘develop’ them to death.
Since the dawn of civilisation several countries have missed the boat so to speak, but surely we need to balance the world in more ways than one before it is too late and everybody suffers? Biology and civilization structures interact to create greater things, but we need to face reality and stop being concerned only with the short term social reality because that’s what pays our check. Foreign policy is drugs, high immigration, oil and cheap labour, and look where that has left our economies.
Regardless of numbers, overpopulation exists when you can’t feed your own population, 20 million is 20 million people to feed, if any of them is starving, they’re either religiously anorexic or they’ve fucked each other too much. They’re going to have to bump off undesirables, that is reality, and feeding them with your happy aid is only going to delay the inevitable.
Be aware to me this a moral dilema, I don't want this to happen at all but I cannot see humanity as a whole going down any different path. The vast school of self-important liberals fail to view this current situation in terms of humankind and what would be best for it in the long run. We have a simple fact running throughout the World, thoughtful intelligent people are having few or no children while the masses of ignorant, cultureless weeds continue to breed without concious. What does this say about nurture over nature? Are too many people missing that initial chance? Do we have to accept that not everyone will make the same grade due to their biology? The best solution to the overpopulation problem would not be resolved by trying to educate third world woman, we know thats a pipedream.
The only way to put humankind and the Earth for that matter back on course is to adopt more Draconian methods. Yes to me it seems self defeating trying to save these ignorant breeding monsters, who are way over populated as it is.What may appear horrible at this stage could be beneficial for mankind in the future. I really do hope all these Conspiracy Theories are right and that the Elite are trying to depopulate 3rd World countries. Reckless breeding has gone on too long and need a check, much like a house clean. When the intelligent people have all been out bred out of existence I cant imagine what the world would be like.
Be aware this is evolution happening here - unlike fascism nature will eventually choose which humans are fit to survive in the future. It gives me no pleasure to say this. But cataclysmic change is going to happen, with all its promised attendant devastation, and neither you nor I nor anyone in power is going to do anything about it. People don't fix predictions. People fix problems. And until the Western world truly feels the burn, then overpopulation is a prediction, not a problem, by which time it will be too late, and the human solution to the eventual problem will be brutal, if nature doesn't get there first and make it even more brutal. In fact and again, I'm not enjoying myself here, it's too late now.
The scope of change required from the human race to prevent disaster is so large as to be virtually inconceivable. We can't and won't do it. Overpopulation, our desire to produce young and make sure everybody lives and overconsumption of resources will seal our fate - evolution has made a mistake by trying to combine our animal past with rational thought, the two tear each other apart but the former wins.
It all sounds deeply grim - and it is. But there is an upshot. While human nature is historically selfish and incapable of focusing beyond its own generation, we have two redeeming qualities that should give us a sniff of hope.
One: we're hopeless as a herd but we're quite nice once you get us alone. There's no reason why we can't ease the earth and its inhabitants into their final days with generous levels of palliative care on a small-scale basis.
Our other upstanding behavioural quirk that should console us a little is this: humans are pretty good at snapping into action once messes are made. But that doesn't avoid the fact severe hardship will happen first.
Prof Stephen Hawking, who reckons the human race has a hundred years left if it's lucky, says we should be looking seriously at colonising other planets. Maybe we'll figure out how once we're forced to.
Or maybe when the Earth becomes so clammy and choking that we can barely breathe, we'll invent an ingenious way to sort it out again - one that's far too costly and boring to bother with now. But until then we haven't got a hope in hot, hot hell.
There’s two different viewpoints conflicting here; one is that which is represented above and the other is to blindly walk into the abyss due to the post WW2 fixation on moral high ground liberal-esque values. This is either in favour of the biosphere by controlling humanity below the carrying capacity of each territory so that the natural ‘disasters’ are not disasters, such as in Pakistan.
Ok you say that people should be left to make the choice using their own free will? Im afraid when animal urges dictate our very way of thinking that very claim is flawed right from the start.
If the population of any country, not just Pakistan, was reduced to a sustainable level in balance with the biosphere then floods/ natural disasters would not have killed more than perhaps a few hundred, or thousand rather than a few million – that’s why it’s a self inflated natural disaster, it’s part natural but enormously bigger due to there being so many people for it to kill in the first place – population control and building your home wisely is important for it allows the best to rise above the crowd because there is fewer of them to get in the way.
Altruism and compassion from richer countries giving aid are used to domesticate the foreign populations, like pets on a chain of dependency unable to do anything for themselves – all to continue building the Empire bigger and more stupid and to make the problem worse in the future. It doesn’t help the territories that are conquest either, those levels of population cannot continue to be sustained, the food cannot exist after peak oil for anyone let alone the people who are in need at the moment.
The west also continues to import the third world into its territory regardless and ignores problems at home, completely contradicting the ‘war on terror', it is collapsing from within because it doesn't provide strong leadership to the territory it already has. It’s biggest enemy is itself and us in the West dealt with these critical threats, such as globalisation and corporate internal corruption, then they could more easily build the Empire and increase the quality of the territory they conquest rather than ‘develop’ them to death.
Since the dawn of civilisation several countries have missed the boat so to speak, but surely we need to balance the world in more ways than one before it is too late and everybody suffers? Biology and civilization structures interact to create greater things, but we need to face reality and stop being concerned only with the short term social reality because that’s what pays our check. Foreign policy is drugs, high immigration, oil and cheap labour, and look where that has left our economies.
Regardless of numbers, overpopulation exists when you can’t feed your own population, 20 million is 20 million people to feed, if any of them is starving, they’re either religiously anorexic or they’ve fucked each other too much. They’re going to have to bump off undesirables, that is reality, and feeding them with your happy aid is only going to delay the inevitable.
Be aware to me this a moral dilema, I don't want this to happen at all but I cannot see humanity as a whole going down any different path. The vast school of self-important liberals fail to view this current situation in terms of humankind and what would be best for it in the long run. We have a simple fact running throughout the World, thoughtful intelligent people are having few or no children while the masses of ignorant, cultureless weeds continue to breed without concious. What does this say about nurture over nature? Are too many people missing that initial chance? Do we have to accept that not everyone will make the same grade due to their biology? The best solution to the overpopulation problem would not be resolved by trying to educate third world woman, we know thats a pipedream.
The only way to put humankind and the Earth for that matter back on course is to adopt more Draconian methods. Yes to me it seems self defeating trying to save these ignorant breeding monsters, who are way over populated as it is.What may appear horrible at this stage could be beneficial for mankind in the future. I really do hope all these Conspiracy Theories are right and that the Elite are trying to depopulate 3rd World countries. Reckless breeding has gone on too long and need a check, much like a house clean. When the intelligent people have all been out bred out of existence I cant imagine what the world would be like.
Be aware this is evolution happening here - unlike fascism nature will eventually choose which humans are fit to survive in the future. It gives me no pleasure to say this. But cataclysmic change is going to happen, with all its promised attendant devastation, and neither you nor I nor anyone in power is going to do anything about it. People don't fix predictions. People fix problems. And until the Western world truly feels the burn, then overpopulation is a prediction, not a problem, by which time it will be too late, and the human solution to the eventual problem will be brutal, if nature doesn't get there first and make it even more brutal. In fact and again, I'm not enjoying myself here, it's too late now.
The scope of change required from the human race to prevent disaster is so large as to be virtually inconceivable. We can't and won't do it. Overpopulation, our desire to produce young and make sure everybody lives and overconsumption of resources will seal our fate - evolution has made a mistake by trying to combine our animal past with rational thought, the two tear each other apart but the former wins.
It all sounds deeply grim - and it is. But there is an upshot. While human nature is historically selfish and incapable of focusing beyond its own generation, we have two redeeming qualities that should give us a sniff of hope.
One: we're hopeless as a herd but we're quite nice once you get us alone. There's no reason why we can't ease the earth and its inhabitants into their final days with generous levels of palliative care on a small-scale basis.
Our other upstanding behavioural quirk that should console us a little is this: humans are pretty good at snapping into action once messes are made. But that doesn't avoid the fact severe hardship will happen first.
Prof Stephen Hawking, who reckons the human race has a hundred years left if it's lucky, says we should be looking seriously at colonising other planets. Maybe we'll figure out how once we're forced to.
Or maybe when the Earth becomes so clammy and choking that we can barely breathe, we'll invent an ingenious way to sort it out again - one that's far too costly and boring to bother with now. But until then we haven't got a hope in hot, hot hell.
Thursday 22 July 2010
Oh the humanity…..
Those who are largely criminal, those only fit for menial jobs, those able people who cannot be bothered to get out of bed each day and those not able to think logically and respond maturely to life either need to be given a fighting chance or forgotten about. I went to a park the other day and it was filled with rubbish. The council comes by every once in a while to clean things up. But the locals come in every weekend in the summer and have picnics and even though there are plenty of bins around, they just leave their rubbish behind, but still moan about what a terrible state the country is in. This is an analogy which is comparable to the way most people treat our planet, they expect to maintain a high standard of living in a civilized society but they don’t intend to give anything back. The rich, the poor, the middle class – everyone is to blame whether they can help it or not.
The champagne socialists and the religious zealots will preach back at me saying "I love people, I wanna have more people" or “people should do things under their own free will…hooman rites!” I'd like to visit these people when them and their kids are starving, living an overflowing trash dump, because there's so much overpopulation and incumbent waste and used up land and resources that there's just not enough to go around and I can simply say I told you so. There's a bunch of additional consequences that pretty little holier than thou comments aren't going to make go away, they are just taking a "heart felt" stance, shooting bile towards people stating the obvious in order to create an emotional response. Either that is to make themselves feel superior due to the fact deep down they probably know they are wrong, or they intend to avoid the truth as it is too painful to face up to. Both are acts of intellectual and emotional immaturity due to imperfections of the ego, but it is amazing how many people do it.
I think less people is a good idea. This isn’t about the people who hit hard times through no fault of their own, it is about the people who are either afraid of the bigger picture or oblivious to it even when it is staring them in the face and are not prepared to make any sort of contribution in order, to do anything about it, and we are not talking about money here. I'm sorry, but we need to either help these people become better citizens of the earth or just not have them at all. We need a society where everybody makes a contribution, and you don’t simply have to slog it out at work and pay taxes to make society and the world we live in better, even the disabled and vulnerable people who cannot contribute physically and/or financially to an economy have something to share. Or in other words the world does not owe us, quite the opposite. The lottery of life has provided us with the gift of existence as human beings, but for some reason we want even more.
It doesn't have to be done by actually killing people or punishing them severely, just limit births and change the nature of our education system to make people more aware of how serious the situation is at a younger age. China and India do it out of necessity. Necessity. Just take a look. I don't think that a group of rich people want everyone else dead. Who would they have for slaves? Who would they have to mindlessly buy their crappy products? Who would they have around to compare themselves to so they can know how rich they are? Sorry lefties I know how much you envy the lifestyle of rich and want to bring them down a peg or two but the simple fact is we've got more people than we have the resources and organizational skills to educate, feed and handle properly and sustainably.
So what we end up with is this huge population of uneducated and/or illogical who are too stupid or too ignorant or too thoughtless or simply too wrapped up in their own little bubble to realize that if the billions who live in abject poverty were to come anywhere close to their standard of living our beautiful planet would be wiped out! Infant mortality was so high in the past that people had lots of offspring to overcome this and carry on the bloodline – it is why reproductive urges are so strong and so hardwired into our biology, like every reproducing creature on this planet. The difference now is virtually every new child survives into adulthood, it is a wonderful blessing given to us by science and technology, but we have to realize that this gift cannot be given to us for free, it is off the back of insights provided to us by scientists. If we want low mortality rates, we have to produce less of them. Yes that sounds a little sterile and faceless but it is a simple consequence reducing fact.
You see the human race in general is not that advanced, it is only a tiny tiny percentage of the population that make the so called advances – and that is only an accumulation of knowledge and insight that the newer generations simply consume, distort and abuse. Our advanced way of life is propped up by the insights of these unique people. Put the average human being in the wilderness and they will be dead pretty soon. The average animal can survive a lot longer simply by using its instincts. All we use our instincts for now is to consume modern goods and services, instead of to survive, and our biology is being rewritten towards this trend – simply because we are given the means to, which itself is based on finite natural resources that are destined to run out, and where does that lead us?. The rich know this, they provide us with all these luxuries for us to buy because they are able to abuse our animal instincts so easily. The very essence of our animalist existence is being abused, and it makes so called freewill look like a complete illusion. On top of this, when the natural resources run out they become more expensive, increasing profit margins even further. It just shows how stupid and how short sighted our species really is on both ends of the social scale and how ‘humanity’ has no right to claim that it is superior in any way to dolphins, apes or indeed any of the charismatic creatures that occupy our world who have existed as a species far longer than 2 million years and never caused mass extinction and destruction of its host.
With a few exceptions, every social class of modern man is to blame, although for different reasons of which some are more morally corrupt that others, but the fact is, what is happening cannot be denied – the rich become corrupt and exploit the environment and the poor for profit, the middle class consume blindly to sustain their semi-comfortable, individualist lifestyles, and the poor who feel they have less to live for in this day and age are more prone to criminal acts, excessive procreation, tribalism and destroying the environment due to their sheer weight in numbers for their simple act of survival, and the fact that some of the richer ways of living does trickle down even to them. The irony is everyone is given a brain at birth to develop a sense of reason strong enough to overcome these impulsive cravings and see reality for what it really is. I mentioned blame before not in the sense of right and wrong from a moral point of view but simply that what is happening is happening, or in other words cause and effect.
The class system is self defeating, both the left and right of this simple minded political spectrum are too fixated about status and labels for their own emotional gratification that they eventually go against what they claim to believe is their ideological utopia, which makes me think that this irrational talk of ideology should be ignored and these people who fail to acknowledge simple facts should either be thrown out of an argument or given the chance to develop critical thinking skills and a sense of connection, otherwise I feel these people are simply too inferior to have serious involvement in decision making. Do not gasp, that is not a fascist statement or bigotry, it is simply promoting the fact that reality can only been seen in its truest form when all facts provided are taken at face value without self interest influencing cognitive judgment, of course we are all prone to it but there is such thing as making an effort.
To simply hate the rich or look down on the poor creates a divide which in the long term will be detrimental to the health of mankind and also our planet. In order to save ourselves from potential oblivion we all need a new form of aspiration that will lift us out of our collective infancy, which will raise living standards for everyone yet at the same time will have less of a negative social and environmental impact. Of course living standards cannot be raised if people are too emotionally attached to a certain way of life, which is why convincing people is going to be very difficult. Either they are shown in real terms what the consequences could be for them and their children and are given a choice as to what path they would rather follow, or we start a fresh with their children who have not yet become addicted through the education system, although that depends on how long we have before the tipping point.
We need to look beyond the one dimensional political spectrum and understand that there are many dimensions to this issue, socialism is parasitic and capitalism is cancerous, fascism is irrational, communism is stagnation, the other option, centrism is either abused by the likes of Tony Blair or is misunderstood by unpragmatic people for being indecisive. We need a healthy system that judges issues on their own merit using critical thinking, using a method of reason that will tame our animalistic shortcomings, whilst acknowledging that there are needs that do have to be fulfilled. The only way we can do that is if everyone looks at life in a more pragmatic way, connecting their emotional needs with the material world in a more disciplined and enlightened way, giving us a better understanding of the world and of each other. That is a philosophy; I know that sort of thing will never happen by choice until an appalling tragedy occurs at immense human cost, either by tyranny or by natural causes. It is the only way our species seems to learn anything, for example the tragedy of WW2, or the appalling state of communist Russia . The way things are going that is exactly what will happen, but at the end of the day that is how evolution works, and that is exactly what our global culture needs.
The champagne socialists and the religious zealots will preach back at me saying "I love people, I wanna have more people" or “people should do things under their own free will…hooman rites!” I'd like to visit these people when them and their kids are starving, living an overflowing trash dump, because there's so much overpopulation and incumbent waste and used up land and resources that there's just not enough to go around and I can simply say I told you so. There's a bunch of additional consequences that pretty little holier than thou comments aren't going to make go away, they are just taking a "heart felt" stance, shooting bile towards people stating the obvious in order to create an emotional response. Either that is to make themselves feel superior due to the fact deep down they probably know they are wrong, or they intend to avoid the truth as it is too painful to face up to. Both are acts of intellectual and emotional immaturity due to imperfections of the ego, but it is amazing how many people do it.
I think less people is a good idea. This isn’t about the people who hit hard times through no fault of their own, it is about the people who are either afraid of the bigger picture or oblivious to it even when it is staring them in the face and are not prepared to make any sort of contribution in order, to do anything about it, and we are not talking about money here. I'm sorry, but we need to either help these people become better citizens of the earth or just not have them at all. We need a society where everybody makes a contribution, and you don’t simply have to slog it out at work and pay taxes to make society and the world we live in better, even the disabled and vulnerable people who cannot contribute physically and/or financially to an economy have something to share. Or in other words the world does not owe us, quite the opposite. The lottery of life has provided us with the gift of existence as human beings, but for some reason we want even more.
It doesn't have to be done by actually killing people or punishing them severely, just limit births and change the nature of our education system to make people more aware of how serious the situation is at a younger age. China and India do it out of necessity. Necessity. Just take a look. I don't think that a group of rich people want everyone else dead. Who would they have for slaves? Who would they have to mindlessly buy their crappy products? Who would they have around to compare themselves to so they can know how rich they are? Sorry lefties I know how much you envy the lifestyle of rich and want to bring them down a peg or two but the simple fact is we've got more people than we have the resources and organizational skills to educate, feed and handle properly and sustainably.
So what we end up with is this huge population of uneducated and/or illogical who are too stupid or too ignorant or too thoughtless or simply too wrapped up in their own little bubble to realize that if the billions who live in abject poverty were to come anywhere close to their standard of living our beautiful planet would be wiped out! Infant mortality was so high in the past that people had lots of offspring to overcome this and carry on the bloodline – it is why reproductive urges are so strong and so hardwired into our biology, like every reproducing creature on this planet. The difference now is virtually every new child survives into adulthood, it is a wonderful blessing given to us by science and technology, but we have to realize that this gift cannot be given to us for free, it is off the back of insights provided to us by scientists. If we want low mortality rates, we have to produce less of them. Yes that sounds a little sterile and faceless but it is a simple consequence reducing fact.
You see the human race in general is not that advanced, it is only a tiny tiny percentage of the population that make the so called advances – and that is only an accumulation of knowledge and insight that the newer generations simply consume, distort and abuse. Our advanced way of life is propped up by the insights of these unique people. Put the average human being in the wilderness and they will be dead pretty soon. The average animal can survive a lot longer simply by using its instincts. All we use our instincts for now is to consume modern goods and services, instead of to survive, and our biology is being rewritten towards this trend – simply because we are given the means to, which itself is based on finite natural resources that are destined to run out, and where does that lead us?. The rich know this, they provide us with all these luxuries for us to buy because they are able to abuse our animal instincts so easily. The very essence of our animalist existence is being abused, and it makes so called freewill look like a complete illusion. On top of this, when the natural resources run out they become more expensive, increasing profit margins even further. It just shows how stupid and how short sighted our species really is on both ends of the social scale and how ‘humanity’ has no right to claim that it is superior in any way to dolphins, apes or indeed any of the charismatic creatures that occupy our world who have existed as a species far longer than 2 million years and never caused mass extinction and destruction of its host.
With a few exceptions, every social class of modern man is to blame, although for different reasons of which some are more morally corrupt that others, but the fact is, what is happening cannot be denied – the rich become corrupt and exploit the environment and the poor for profit, the middle class consume blindly to sustain their semi-comfortable, individualist lifestyles, and the poor who feel they have less to live for in this day and age are more prone to criminal acts, excessive procreation, tribalism and destroying the environment due to their sheer weight in numbers for their simple act of survival, and the fact that some of the richer ways of living does trickle down even to them. The irony is everyone is given a brain at birth to develop a sense of reason strong enough to overcome these impulsive cravings and see reality for what it really is. I mentioned blame before not in the sense of right and wrong from a moral point of view but simply that what is happening is happening, or in other words cause and effect.
The class system is self defeating, both the left and right of this simple minded political spectrum are too fixated about status and labels for their own emotional gratification that they eventually go against what they claim to believe is their ideological utopia, which makes me think that this irrational talk of ideology should be ignored and these people who fail to acknowledge simple facts should either be thrown out of an argument or given the chance to develop critical thinking skills and a sense of connection, otherwise I feel these people are simply too inferior to have serious involvement in decision making. Do not gasp, that is not a fascist statement or bigotry, it is simply promoting the fact that reality can only been seen in its truest form when all facts provided are taken at face value without self interest influencing cognitive judgment, of course we are all prone to it but there is such thing as making an effort.
To simply hate the rich or look down on the poor creates a divide which in the long term will be detrimental to the health of mankind and also our planet. In order to save ourselves from potential oblivion we all need a new form of aspiration that will lift us out of our collective infancy, which will raise living standards for everyone yet at the same time will have less of a negative social and environmental impact. Of course living standards cannot be raised if people are too emotionally attached to a certain way of life, which is why convincing people is going to be very difficult. Either they are shown in real terms what the consequences could be for them and their children and are given a choice as to what path they would rather follow, or we start a fresh with their children who have not yet become addicted through the education system, although that depends on how long we have before the tipping point.
We need to look beyond the one dimensional political spectrum and understand that there are many dimensions to this issue, socialism is parasitic and capitalism is cancerous, fascism is irrational, communism is stagnation, the other option, centrism is either abused by the likes of Tony Blair or is misunderstood by unpragmatic people for being indecisive. We need a healthy system that judges issues on their own merit using critical thinking, using a method of reason that will tame our animalistic shortcomings, whilst acknowledging that there are needs that do have to be fulfilled. The only way we can do that is if everyone looks at life in a more pragmatic way, connecting their emotional needs with the material world in a more disciplined and enlightened way, giving us a better understanding of the world and of each other. That is a philosophy; I know that sort of thing will never happen by choice until an appalling tragedy occurs at immense human cost, either by tyranny or by natural causes. It is the only way our species seems to learn anything, for example the tragedy of WW2, or the appalling state of communist Russia . The way things are going that is exactly what will happen, but at the end of the day that is how evolution works, and that is exactly what our global culture needs.
Monday 14 June 2010
Discipline the battle between emotions and reason
How we perceive existence and everything we experience within it depends on our senses and external conditions which are in constant flux with no fixed nature to any condition, which in turn can reduce mental clarity and the ability to focus and will interfere with decision making, changing situations, insightfulness and impartiality. This causes a state of ignorance towards reality, discriminating against circumstance in order to fulfill a craving that is beyond reasoning.
Suffering and negativity within a sentient being is caused by craving, expressed as a deluded clinging to a nurtured sense of existence, selfhood or the things that we have been led to believe is the cause of a positive or negative emotion, then freewill and reality may become an induced illusion, as though it is being controlled by an external force. When it reaches the point where one craves that a certain state of affairs should disappear or change, the illusion is reinforced. Suffering ends when craving ends, which is achieved through a liberated state of mental enlightenment, which in turn leads to clarity and wisdom.
True liberation is not simply freeing a sentient being from suffering, (because that alone will simply push them towards an ongoing cycle of positive and negative situations, which will be difficult to escape from, and will reinforce the craving even further); it is guiding them towards freeing themselves, using a method which is deemed necessary. The negativity (for example greed, hatred and delusion) is a deep rooted affliction of the mind, creating suffering and stress, which needs to be uprooted through internal investigation and discovery, which will reveal the true of one’s self and all things within reach of one’s senses.
A person can only channel this sense of freedom and potential liberation outwards, as the craving has to escape from where it originated in the first place or else it will still manifest, this then leaves a void to be filled by mindfulness, which in turn has the effect of an enlightened perception of reality. Thinking and thought must not be allowed to confine and bind one to rigidity, so a person must learn to regularly mentally ‘detox’ in order maintain a pure mind, and make sure this routine becomes part of who they are. There are many things in life that are beyond our control. However, it is possible to take responsibility for and to change one’s state of mind, as we owe it to ourselves and to the future generations that the human condition can progress beyond the unpredictable and unfocused state it is in right now in order to prove we are beings more advanced than the animals we share this planet with.
Suffering and negativity within a sentient being is caused by craving, expressed as a deluded clinging to a nurtured sense of existence, selfhood or the things that we have been led to believe is the cause of a positive or negative emotion, then freewill and reality may become an induced illusion, as though it is being controlled by an external force. When it reaches the point where one craves that a certain state of affairs should disappear or change, the illusion is reinforced. Suffering ends when craving ends, which is achieved through a liberated state of mental enlightenment, which in turn leads to clarity and wisdom.
True liberation is not simply freeing a sentient being from suffering, (because that alone will simply push them towards an ongoing cycle of positive and negative situations, which will be difficult to escape from, and will reinforce the craving even further); it is guiding them towards freeing themselves, using a method which is deemed necessary. The negativity (for example greed, hatred and delusion) is a deep rooted affliction of the mind, creating suffering and stress, which needs to be uprooted through internal investigation and discovery, which will reveal the true of one’s self and all things within reach of one’s senses.
A person can only channel this sense of freedom and potential liberation outwards, as the craving has to escape from where it originated in the first place or else it will still manifest, this then leaves a void to be filled by mindfulness, which in turn has the effect of an enlightened perception of reality. Thinking and thought must not be allowed to confine and bind one to rigidity, so a person must learn to regularly mentally ‘detox’ in order maintain a pure mind, and make sure this routine becomes part of who they are. There are many things in life that are beyond our control. However, it is possible to take responsibility for and to change one’s state of mind, as we owe it to ourselves and to the future generations that the human condition can progress beyond the unpredictable and unfocused state it is in right now in order to prove we are beings more advanced than the animals we share this planet with.
Wednesday 9 June 2010
Reality check
Population growth is a real difficulty for many developed and developing nations, and it is firmly embedded in the birth to death ratio. Basically too many children are being born and not enough of us are dying quickly enough. That doesn't mean that a few sections of society have too many children per family unit but that too many people have children full stop, and plenty are neglected. The nuclear family is sold to us as the only viable lifestyle choice and there are important economic and social reasons for this but we need to get real now.
Rising crime, over crowded cities, waste, ethnic unrest, lack of resources like power, water, roads, schools, houses etc and no suitable land available to build more on means alot of people are going to lose out as a result. Most island nations have populastion and immigration controls except the UK, it has to change if the children we do have are to have any sort of a decent future.
For the population to decrease we need people to start looking at a 'childless life' as a viable option and this needs to be sustained for a period. Of course it's a natural instinct for human beings to want to procreate and raise offspring but that is normally checked by the harsh realities of the natural world - something we will have to face on a catastrophic scale if we dont address it. We have have almost negated these factors now so we have to make hard choices as a society.
Idiotic governments who say we need overseas labour are fools. We can't keep expanding the UK any more, especially, when everyone knows the vast majority of immigrants are going to claim benefits. Therefore, I would like to know from you brightspark pro-immigrant fans, when do you stop it because it will have to sooner or later?? We are already on the verge of social and financial collapse and as
good as there in one respect.
We should follow Australia, New Zealand and other countries by clamping down on immigration, cutting child benefit to one child only. This would be a great help in solving the problem. People would only have the children they could afford to bring up. Also stop all this fertilisation treatment etc. It sounds harsh but back to nature, she will will punish us alot harsher if we dont act!
An over-riding obsession with racism that has dominated brainless social theory has allowed champions of multiculturalism and diversity, backed by organisations to use immigration as their most potent flagship. Anyone expressing even the mildest pragmatic concern has been labelled a racist.
The economic reasons for immigration - filling vacant jobs and attracting skills - have been exploded by recent figures and its only purpose appears to have been a deliberately engineered cultural revolution by the liberal left to justify their ideological high horse. The population growth we now face is merely one in many of its consequences.
It's a global issue and immigration is a tiny symptom of the real underlying cause. Medical advances and hygiene improvement s have led to an explosion in the human population of the planet - from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.7 billion in 2006 - almost tripled in 50 years! Look at any environmental issue and this is the cause - too many people. And the delight is that we are all taxed to pay for the rampant breeders to carry on making the problem worse. Breeding is no longer a necessity but a self indulgence and it is time the tax system was refined to put an end to its subsidy. Start with IVF - certainly one we don't need to be paying for, then look at all child subsides and move towards individuals being responsible for their own
life choices. And before anyone starts on the "right to have children", yes and you can also have the "right" to expect most of them to die before reaching maturity - that is not a moral desire it is a fact of nature, and too many people cannot seem to tell the difference when they listen to someone who states the obvious.
And before I get slated by let wingers and humanists.. FACT: If you don't adapt and respond to changing circumstances, you will run into problems individually and collevtively. Intelligence is the ability to do this. Ideology is the ability to ignore it. Anyone that doesn't believe that this will not end in massive civil unrest or war needs to take a fucking reality check.
We need to move on from immigration being something only racists and bigots moaned about and global overpopulation that only aloof scientists and malthusians ever talked about and understand that we need to show some restraint before the consequences of our so called 'rights' bite us up the arse.
Rising crime, over crowded cities, waste, ethnic unrest, lack of resources like power, water, roads, schools, houses etc and no suitable land available to build more on means alot of people are going to lose out as a result. Most island nations have populastion and immigration controls except the UK, it has to change if the children we do have are to have any sort of a decent future.
For the population to decrease we need people to start looking at a 'childless life' as a viable option and this needs to be sustained for a period. Of course it's a natural instinct for human beings to want to procreate and raise offspring but that is normally checked by the harsh realities of the natural world - something we will have to face on a catastrophic scale if we dont address it. We have have almost negated these factors now so we have to make hard choices as a society.
Idiotic governments who say we need overseas labour are fools. We can't keep expanding the UK any more, especially, when everyone knows the vast majority of immigrants are going to claim benefits. Therefore, I would like to know from you brightspark pro-immigrant fans, when do you stop it because it will have to sooner or later?? We are already on the verge of social and financial collapse and as
good as there in one respect.
We should follow Australia, New Zealand and other countries by clamping down on immigration, cutting child benefit to one child only. This would be a great help in solving the problem. People would only have the children they could afford to bring up. Also stop all this fertilisation treatment etc. It sounds harsh but back to nature, she will will punish us alot harsher if we dont act!
An over-riding obsession with racism that has dominated brainless social theory has allowed champions of multiculturalism and diversity, backed by organisations to use immigration as their most potent flagship. Anyone expressing even the mildest pragmatic concern has been labelled a racist.
The economic reasons for immigration - filling vacant jobs and attracting skills - have been exploded by recent figures and its only purpose appears to have been a deliberately engineered cultural revolution by the liberal left to justify their ideological high horse. The population growth we now face is merely one in many of its consequences.
It's a global issue and immigration is a tiny symptom of the real underlying cause. Medical advances and hygiene improvement s have led to an explosion in the human population of the planet - from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.7 billion in 2006 - almost tripled in 50 years! Look at any environmental issue and this is the cause - too many people. And the delight is that we are all taxed to pay for the rampant breeders to carry on making the problem worse. Breeding is no longer a necessity but a self indulgence and it is time the tax system was refined to put an end to its subsidy. Start with IVF - certainly one we don't need to be paying for, then look at all child subsides and move towards individuals being responsible for their own
life choices. And before anyone starts on the "right to have children", yes and you can also have the "right" to expect most of them to die before reaching maturity - that is not a moral desire it is a fact of nature, and too many people cannot seem to tell the difference when they listen to someone who states the obvious.
And before I get slated by let wingers and humanists.. FACT: If you don't adapt and respond to changing circumstances, you will run into problems individually and collevtively. Intelligence is the ability to do this. Ideology is the ability to ignore it. Anyone that doesn't believe that this will not end in massive civil unrest or war needs to take a fucking reality check.
We need to move on from immigration being something only racists and bigots moaned about and global overpopulation that only aloof scientists and malthusians ever talked about and understand that we need to show some restraint before the consequences of our so called 'rights' bite us up the arse.
Saturday 8 May 2010
Politics...The election aside... the reality
People have moaned n whined about the pathetic state of this country for years. Then they actually DON'T vote that idiot out.
There seems to be a lot of people with very short memories. Every Time we have had a Labour government we have had a recession. Yeah granted this recession is not down to Brown personally. But it is how to deal with the recession that makes the difference. All of you who feel that Labours ideas of borrowing more money, continuing with waste and not making any cuts are in any way going to bring the country out of the recession are barking.
YOU CANNOT BORROW MORE MONEY TO GET OUT OF DEBT.
Yes the Tories are now to make cuts, but that is because inevitably they follow a Labour government and know that is the only way to pay off debt.
And yes the Tories give tax breaks to the rich....But then the rich have more money then to re-invest into the country providing more jobs.
And on the subject of tax credits and the like. Why should it it deemed right for people to have kids willy-nilly and then look to the government to give them benefit. Should be simple, You want kids, make sure you can support them. You can't support them then use contraception and save the country money. Why should I have to pay to bring your kids up? But please bear in mind this doesnt apply to families who do make the effort but need that little bit of extra help, it is all about the 'career moms' who get twice what I earn through hard work every month in benefits.
People have short memories! Firstly, The Labour government inherited an enviable financial position from John Major when Tony Blair came into power. The tough choices that were made by John Major were unpopular but got the country back in a good fiscal position. But this government have blown that and put us in a position whereby the government are spending £4 for every £3 it receives. If this isn’t sorted soon, then we will end up like Greece. It really is that serious.
A solution will not come from Labour here. They are too entrenched in unions and commitments they cant meet. Regardless of the politics, there are 2 fundamental differences between Labour and the Conservatives. Labour will tax you to the hilt and then spend your money unwisely. Conservatives will tax you less and leave you to spend your money unwisely. I know which choice I would take!
By going with Labour you're saying YES to benefit fraud, mass spenditure at a rate of £5000 a minute minimum, Brussels controlling our laws and regulations, an inevitable joining of the Euro, more uncapped immigration from both inside and outside the EU, an ever decreasing NHS and overcrowded classrooms for our children..
Anyone who has studied history knows that the European experiment is just that - an experiment with a maximum 50 year life expectancy and that is probably generous. The EU would have been far better off staying as a trading club but the Empire builders and would be Napoleons still exist in mainland Europe and they have built an edifice which again will not stand the test of history. Britain always would have been better off living outside this madness but at least it stayed out of the EURO and privately even the pro-EU lobby must be thanking their Gods for that.
Just where all this money comes from to bail out Greece is puzzling, the USA is bankrupt, even Germany has a huge deficit and everyone is borrowing on the strength of taxes yet to be collected 10 years from now. The printing presses must be pumping out Dollars, Pounds and EUROs as fast as they can and has we have seen in the recent crash all the 'funny money' generated by banks and computers is not even as real as toilet paper. Where will it all end? - well its not hard to predict the end of the EURO and the break-up of the EU , we should all welcome that and get back to real life as trading nations and stop wasting money on this club which was only ever designed for the rich bankers and money markets who have shown us very clearly their experiment is a failure and they can't be trusted. Hard times ahead but Britain will benefit in the long run if the idea of the EU is consigned to the history books in the chapter marked 'bad ideas of the last century'.
Mostly oil rich Arab states and the biggest Casino player of all- China will get fatter. If we all default the entire of Europe gets re-planted as paddy fields with the dryer bits used for camel racing. It is competition that shapes winners and losers. The European experiment was a huge success in bringing most countries, with the initial stimulus of the Marshall plan to a pinnacle of prosperity in the '90s. But no system can survive unless its undelying wealth creation apparatus can compete.
If your mind can travel back a century or more when the UK was the workshop of the world, we had unlimited wealth and un-dreamed of international power, but our factory workers in Manchester lived lives of extreme poverty, with no health or education and died in their 40's. We learned over many years to balance the needs of capitalism with the needs of people and the EU enshrined these principles so that we all enjoyed a good long life with minimum wages, access to education and welfare. We simply now have to address the issue of competion with the powers in the East, we have failed to do that for the last 50 or so years, and now look at us.
There seems to be a lot of people with very short memories. Every Time we have had a Labour government we have had a recession. Yeah granted this recession is not down to Brown personally. But it is how to deal with the recession that makes the difference. All of you who feel that Labours ideas of borrowing more money, continuing with waste and not making any cuts are in any way going to bring the country out of the recession are barking.
YOU CANNOT BORROW MORE MONEY TO GET OUT OF DEBT.
Yes the Tories are now to make cuts, but that is because inevitably they follow a Labour government and know that is the only way to pay off debt.
And yes the Tories give tax breaks to the rich....But then the rich have more money then to re-invest into the country providing more jobs.
And on the subject of tax credits and the like. Why should it it deemed right for people to have kids willy-nilly and then look to the government to give them benefit. Should be simple, You want kids, make sure you can support them. You can't support them then use contraception and save the country money. Why should I have to pay to bring your kids up? But please bear in mind this doesnt apply to families who do make the effort but need that little bit of extra help, it is all about the 'career moms' who get twice what I earn through hard work every month in benefits.
People have short memories! Firstly, The Labour government inherited an enviable financial position from John Major when Tony Blair came into power. The tough choices that were made by John Major were unpopular but got the country back in a good fiscal position. But this government have blown that and put us in a position whereby the government are spending £4 for every £3 it receives. If this isn’t sorted soon, then we will end up like Greece. It really is that serious.
A solution will not come from Labour here. They are too entrenched in unions and commitments they cant meet. Regardless of the politics, there are 2 fundamental differences between Labour and the Conservatives. Labour will tax you to the hilt and then spend your money unwisely. Conservatives will tax you less and leave you to spend your money unwisely. I know which choice I would take!
By going with Labour you're saying YES to benefit fraud, mass spenditure at a rate of £5000 a minute minimum, Brussels controlling our laws and regulations, an inevitable joining of the Euro, more uncapped immigration from both inside and outside the EU, an ever decreasing NHS and overcrowded classrooms for our children..
Anyone who has studied history knows that the European experiment is just that - an experiment with a maximum 50 year life expectancy and that is probably generous. The EU would have been far better off staying as a trading club but the Empire builders and would be Napoleons still exist in mainland Europe and they have built an edifice which again will not stand the test of history. Britain always would have been better off living outside this madness but at least it stayed out of the EURO and privately even the pro-EU lobby must be thanking their Gods for that.
Just where all this money comes from to bail out Greece is puzzling, the USA is bankrupt, even Germany has a huge deficit and everyone is borrowing on the strength of taxes yet to be collected 10 years from now. The printing presses must be pumping out Dollars, Pounds and EUROs as fast as they can and has we have seen in the recent crash all the 'funny money' generated by banks and computers is not even as real as toilet paper. Where will it all end? - well its not hard to predict the end of the EURO and the break-up of the EU , we should all welcome that and get back to real life as trading nations and stop wasting money on this club which was only ever designed for the rich bankers and money markets who have shown us very clearly their experiment is a failure and they can't be trusted. Hard times ahead but Britain will benefit in the long run if the idea of the EU is consigned to the history books in the chapter marked 'bad ideas of the last century'.
Mostly oil rich Arab states and the biggest Casino player of all- China will get fatter. If we all default the entire of Europe gets re-planted as paddy fields with the dryer bits used for camel racing. It is competition that shapes winners and losers. The European experiment was a huge success in bringing most countries, with the initial stimulus of the Marshall plan to a pinnacle of prosperity in the '90s. But no system can survive unless its undelying wealth creation apparatus can compete.
If your mind can travel back a century or more when the UK was the workshop of the world, we had unlimited wealth and un-dreamed of international power, but our factory workers in Manchester lived lives of extreme poverty, with no health or education and died in their 40's. We learned over many years to balance the needs of capitalism with the needs of people and the EU enshrined these principles so that we all enjoyed a good long life with minimum wages, access to education and welfare. We simply now have to address the issue of competion with the powers in the East, we have failed to do that for the last 50 or so years, and now look at us.
Wednesday 3 March 2010
A Guided Sleepwalk
Hitler and Stalin would blush with inadequacy at the scale of this revolution fought against the free nations of the world without a shot being fired, engineered with financial weapons and aggressive social engineering. The oh-so-moralistic-on-the-outside socialists jump on anyone who dares to defy them with common sense, yet they are determined to ignore best interests of the majority, bombarding them with lies and deciete just so they are given what they want. That level of greed is on a par with ruthless capitalism.
The tragedy is the so called 'free thinking' public are too succeptable to suggestion, as much as they might resist, and willfully point their arses into the air and gladly accept a good rogering, whether they know it is happening or not. What has gone wrong? Are the real free thinkers becoming too much of a minority to make a difference, or is free thought an illusion? For example, (one of many scenarios) you have to wonder what people think about day to day when their daily lifestyles are directly fueling the extinction of the orangutan. People have become so ingrained into their own little non-world that they are too conditioned to even care. As a result they have deliberately been denied the whole facts that they are supposedly entitled to in a free world in order to maximise profits for the products they consume, which is being done directly and indirectly. Some facts might be there but too many people choose to ignore them because it is easy option, fueling the positive feedback loop.
We have become so complacent regarding personal liberties that the negative consequences are starting to outweigh the benefits on a level unseen in the history of humankind. To forcefully take all power away from the people is just as damaging as giving power to the people. Knowledge IS power, but are the people ready to accept the truth/knowledge, as harsh and as brutal as it is? Not a chance we are too conditioned to accept ambiguity that we are ignoring what really matters. Never has britain and for that matter the whole planet been under so much threat wth such little understanding of realisation.
The tragedy is the so called 'free thinking' public are too succeptable to suggestion, as much as they might resist, and willfully point their arses into the air and gladly accept a good rogering, whether they know it is happening or not. What has gone wrong? Are the real free thinkers becoming too much of a minority to make a difference, or is free thought an illusion? For example, (one of many scenarios) you have to wonder what people think about day to day when their daily lifestyles are directly fueling the extinction of the orangutan. People have become so ingrained into their own little non-world that they are too conditioned to even care. As a result they have deliberately been denied the whole facts that they are supposedly entitled to in a free world in order to maximise profits for the products they consume, which is being done directly and indirectly. Some facts might be there but too many people choose to ignore them because it is easy option, fueling the positive feedback loop.
We have become so complacent regarding personal liberties that the negative consequences are starting to outweigh the benefits on a level unseen in the history of humankind. To forcefully take all power away from the people is just as damaging as giving power to the people. Knowledge IS power, but are the people ready to accept the truth/knowledge, as harsh and as brutal as it is? Not a chance we are too conditioned to accept ambiguity that we are ignoring what really matters. Never has britain and for that matter the whole planet been under so much threat wth such little understanding of realisation.
Thursday 25 February 2010
Socialism is not the answer
We may have been at the mercy of the greedy capitalist bankers recently, but why do left wingers seem to indulge on short sighted issues at the long term expense of the majority? Here’s why, they have no concept of the future or indeed the survival of 'their hive' and the vital decisions that are required. I find that as irresponsible and as uncompassionate as one could possibly get, indulging in assumption, ignorance, passionate indecision and indeed more erroneous decisions as a whole at the expense of real social, technological, ecological, creative, and economical prosperity. They forget that life is cruel to be kind by default, which there have always been winners and losers, eagerly brushing that simple fact under the carpet, pretending it doesn’t exist, at their peril.
The socialist ideal that everybody deserves to win just because they exist, regardless of effort or circumstance will always be countered by an inflated number of losers in practice, unless the true facts of life are accepted. You cannot ignore the facts of natural order, something we depend on for our way of life, not to mention for our very survival. Nothing is above the law, in this case natural law. They appear to be in denial about anything beyond their one dimensional, outdated agenda because they fail to comprehend the insignificance of their own lifespan, or in the case of a democracy their own term in office.
Unlike reckless, capitalistic boom and bust, sustained progress for everybody involves a planned step by step advancement in all areas, in a specific direction, driven by a suppression of impulse and a embracing austerity to fuel the cause, both of which can only ever be driven by either a collective desire to embrace intellect, or by brute force. I know which one I would rather choose, but I also know which one has to be the reality if it is going to happen, and it has to soon because time is running out. You cannot simply put faith in something you cannot control or fully understand (just because it is stirring an animalistic emotion) without eventual consequences that end up going against what they were aiming to prevent in the first place.
Socialism doesn’t work, because it acts, as it must, through the state, and in its interactions with people, there is always at least one party forced to participate who is abused, exploited and not acknowledged according to their circumstances.
Socialism simply satisfies the powerful emotion of envy, exploiting nonconformists like a downtrodden piece of crap.
It is like cancer; it starts out slowly, and grows until it wipes out the host it invaded. Like a religion it purports to offer a solution to human problems and offers people an excuse and a false solace against the inevitable traumas of life, simplified to a point to which the masses are able to comprehend, having it packaged as though it is a miracle solution because in the end people see what they want to see. This over simplification is lethal in practice against a complicated human and ecological world, which exploits every weakness of a flawed system by its very nature.
The concept of socialism isn't how the world works at all and it has never worked that way; it is just a fanciful construct that a few hard-line, supposedly hard done by left-wingers hold onto because reality is far more complicated than they can bare to face.
It’s very political structure denies incentive; innovation and information, which in turn leads to eventual dissatisfaction, laziness, ignorance, waste, inefficient use of resources and possible war. A civilization does not advance like that; the laws of nature which we are effectively dependent on (even in a world of technology) are not compatible with such a concept.
It can never be sustained on a scale larger than a local community such as a tribe or an extended family as everybody needs a reason to participate. Until every single human being willingly cooperates towards a common goal, and sustains it, the system just decays into a complete mess, unless they are forced to, which then goes against the left wing principle. If you leave everything to the common people alone, society will eventually live in caves like beasts, struggling to light a fire, fighting over the scraps, then the capitalistic survival of fittest ruthlessly takes over due to the personal will to exist, resulting in pain and misery on a scale much larger than what the creators of the socialist system wanted to move away from. That is the evil behind it.
The socialist ideal that everybody deserves to win just because they exist, regardless of effort or circumstance will always be countered by an inflated number of losers in practice, unless the true facts of life are accepted. You cannot ignore the facts of natural order, something we depend on for our way of life, not to mention for our very survival. Nothing is above the law, in this case natural law. They appear to be in denial about anything beyond their one dimensional, outdated agenda because they fail to comprehend the insignificance of their own lifespan, or in the case of a democracy their own term in office.
Unlike reckless, capitalistic boom and bust, sustained progress for everybody involves a planned step by step advancement in all areas, in a specific direction, driven by a suppression of impulse and a embracing austerity to fuel the cause, both of which can only ever be driven by either a collective desire to embrace intellect, or by brute force. I know which one I would rather choose, but I also know which one has to be the reality if it is going to happen, and it has to soon because time is running out. You cannot simply put faith in something you cannot control or fully understand (just because it is stirring an animalistic emotion) without eventual consequences that end up going against what they were aiming to prevent in the first place.
Socialism doesn’t work, because it acts, as it must, through the state, and in its interactions with people, there is always at least one party forced to participate who is abused, exploited and not acknowledged according to their circumstances.
Socialism simply satisfies the powerful emotion of envy, exploiting nonconformists like a downtrodden piece of crap.
It is like cancer; it starts out slowly, and grows until it wipes out the host it invaded. Like a religion it purports to offer a solution to human problems and offers people an excuse and a false solace against the inevitable traumas of life, simplified to a point to which the masses are able to comprehend, having it packaged as though it is a miracle solution because in the end people see what they want to see. This over simplification is lethal in practice against a complicated human and ecological world, which exploits every weakness of a flawed system by its very nature.
The concept of socialism isn't how the world works at all and it has never worked that way; it is just a fanciful construct that a few hard-line, supposedly hard done by left-wingers hold onto because reality is far more complicated than they can bare to face.
It’s very political structure denies incentive; innovation and information, which in turn leads to eventual dissatisfaction, laziness, ignorance, waste, inefficient use of resources and possible war. A civilization does not advance like that; the laws of nature which we are effectively dependent on (even in a world of technology) are not compatible with such a concept.
It can never be sustained on a scale larger than a local community such as a tribe or an extended family as everybody needs a reason to participate. Until every single human being willingly cooperates towards a common goal, and sustains it, the system just decays into a complete mess, unless they are forced to, which then goes against the left wing principle. If you leave everything to the common people alone, society will eventually live in caves like beasts, struggling to light a fire, fighting over the scraps, then the capitalistic survival of fittest ruthlessly takes over due to the personal will to exist, resulting in pain and misery on a scale much larger than what the creators of the socialist system wanted to move away from. That is the evil behind it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
