The last 48 hours or so have seen several bloggers take another look at UKIP. Unfortunately for UKIP most of these posts (and the comments) seem to have found their progress wanting. I can't say with 100% certainty but one of the things that is driving some of the commentary is off the back of this article in the Daily Mail.
I've listed all of the articles here and I recommend you take in the some of the observations and have a think about them:
Witterings from Witney
Autonomous Mind
EUReferendum
There are several things that strike me about them but my take on them is that the party is not where it should be in a political environment where UKIP victories should be like shooting fish in a barrel.
On the face of it, it is head scratching but we seem to keep coming back to the same observations on the leadership, the organisation and strategy. These seem to be failings that have punished them in the past and continue to do so, yet there appears no outward sign that these weaknesses are being resolved. I'm not anti UKIP because as I've said before I'd welcome a fourth party just to shake things up. UKIP are about the closest thing right now but they just not ready in all manner of areas which is stupid because its there for the taking. Events in Europe are running away with the mainstream parties and as much as Cameron, Milliband and the other clone tries to pretend - they are not in control.
If this were a poker game we're very close to that point where everyone gets to see each others cards. Events could effectively see UKIP about to be dealt a hand of aces, but right now they don't look ready to play them.
To that end I'm on a bit of a UKIP watch, looking at commentary and exploring it. This was episode one.
Sunday, 30 December 2012
Saturday, 29 December 2012
Someone thought it
Many moons ago as a college student, I was at a college party and to be fair was a little worse for wear. For some reason I needed to cross the dance floor. Just before I did so, the dry ice machine went into overdrive and we ended up with floor to ceiling fog. To make matters worse the strobe lighting also went into overdrive.
As I journeyed across the dance floor the combination of alcohol, fog and strobe lighting was really quite disorientating and nauseating. I had no sense of where I was or direction of travel. The sensory overload was coming from every imaginable direction. It was very surreal and very uncomfortable and it felt inescapable
Unfortunately there was more to come. The DJ was playing New Model Army's 51st State of America and this had prompted everyone who who was up for a bit of "slam dancing" to take to the floor. Slam dancing was in effect, moving around the whole dance floor with your fists flailing around in all directions. I was desperate to get off the floor and as I made for safety, out of the fog, came a dance floor assassin enjoying the madness with one of his flailing fists catching me smack in the face before disappearing into the fog again.
Why do I tell this strange tale of my student days on this blog/ I tell it because it sits for me as a perfect analogy of the seemingly inescapable madness that goes on all around us. It reminds me of the total inversion of common sense and of honesty that grips much of the western world. This inversion sees failure and mediocrity lauded over genuine achievement. It sees tyranny masquerading as open society. It sees obvious lies treated as the truth. It sees thieves as victims and let off and it sees genuine victims treated as corrupt or hung out to dry. There's much much more to this. It's everywhere and its endless. To witness it is to feel like I did all those years ago, drunk and surrounded by fog, disorientating strobe lights and the occasional punch in the face where you come right up against it before it runs off again leaving you reeling. The whole thing is a disorientating nauseating experience from which there seems no escape.
It's biggest manifestation comes in what we often call political correctness. When many of us see the stories on the madness, we often see accompanying comments to it in which the average man and woman in the street say
"This is political correctness gone mad" or something similar.
My first memory of this craziness came in the mid to late 80's when the stories started coming through into the mainstream press. There were stories in which we first got a taste of the madness. It seemed surreal in which everything we had thought nothing odd about was suddenly considered sexist, racist and every other "ist" you could think off. These stories started being discussed by a bewildered population outside of the press typically calling them "crazy". Those conversations started to include things like stories about British nursery rhymes such as bah bah black sheep being banned in parts of the country because of these "ists" amongst other things. Whether the nursery rhyme was actually a true example of something being banned I can't say but the awareness of this madness was very real.
The common comment was that it was madness but we thought it would die down. To a degree it seemed to but what happened in reality was that it diverted into other areas and it is still with us today and is probably even more pervasive than it was back then. We still regard it as madness as we did then. That however is not the really scary bit.
The scary bit is the understanding that is held by the public. The understanding most people have as we did back then is that this political correctness is some kind of mad aberration of thought held by a small lunatic fringe. The common perception it's just some people who've gone off the rails and have become detached from reality with some odd notion and that some other idiots have just fallen for it. The view held by most people is that they are what some of my late relatives would have called "crackpots".
The inference in that thinking is that it's a benign madness that has either taken a temporary hold and has happened by some kind of accident. Right there in that thinking is the danger. Such a perception creates a shrugging of the shoulders in most people who then try to get back on with their daily lives presuming some how of course this "madness" will leave them alone.
Unfortunately that is far from the truth. The real truth is that far from being a bit of aberrant nonsense that bewilders us, it is, in fact, the manifestation of a very deliberate thought process. Some very bright yet malign minds sowed the seeds for this many decades ago, to bring about something very destructive to the way we live our lives. It's aim is not to leave us alone. Its aim is to entwine itself in as many aspects as possible of our daily lives. Shrugging our shoulders is not an option.
Serendipity struck today because as I was writing this post, James Higham over at Nourishing Obscurity also brought the subject up.
Political Correctness is one item in the toolbox of a group of Marxist academics who wanted to bring about a Marxist utopia. Political correctness was not a spontaneous creation running from the 1980's to today. It has been slowly gaining ground inch by inch for decades now. It's original proponents thought endlessly about it. Why? Because it was a means to an end.
James has a nice little 13 minute video within his post that gives a summary of it. Also below is a somewhat dated video that gives a bit more background to it. If you can get past the dated aspect and hear the words it lays out in 20 minutes more background of this seemingly spontaneous madness.
The reason I've posted this is because although it's probably known to most bloggers it's something that passes by most of the non blogging population and I hope that one day they will come upon this post and understand what is really happening around them. I'm struggling to articulate just how dangerous it is that this is a deliberate philosophy as opposed to a spontaneous buffoonery by imbeciles that it is widely regarded as. If people knew the difference, I'm certain they would not be so passive about it's existence.
It was Marcus Tullius Cicero who wrote:
"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”
That was their plan. To get inside and collapse it. It was people like communist revolutionary, Willi Munzenberg who described the strategy of the Frankfurt Institute as thus:
"We will make the west so corrupt that it stinks"
I'm going to end the post here. It's not the end of a direction I'm taking, but, for now, I need you to understand that you're looking at a deliberate philosophy. The madness you see is not an accident. Someone (in fact several someones) thought it up. That should scare us all.
As I journeyed across the dance floor the combination of alcohol, fog and strobe lighting was really quite disorientating and nauseating. I had no sense of where I was or direction of travel. The sensory overload was coming from every imaginable direction. It was very surreal and very uncomfortable and it felt inescapable
Unfortunately there was more to come. The DJ was playing New Model Army's 51st State of America and this had prompted everyone who who was up for a bit of "slam dancing" to take to the floor. Slam dancing was in effect, moving around the whole dance floor with your fists flailing around in all directions. I was desperate to get off the floor and as I made for safety, out of the fog, came a dance floor assassin enjoying the madness with one of his flailing fists catching me smack in the face before disappearing into the fog again.
Why do I tell this strange tale of my student days on this blog/ I tell it because it sits for me as a perfect analogy of the seemingly inescapable madness that goes on all around us. It reminds me of the total inversion of common sense and of honesty that grips much of the western world. This inversion sees failure and mediocrity lauded over genuine achievement. It sees tyranny masquerading as open society. It sees obvious lies treated as the truth. It sees thieves as victims and let off and it sees genuine victims treated as corrupt or hung out to dry. There's much much more to this. It's everywhere and its endless. To witness it is to feel like I did all those years ago, drunk and surrounded by fog, disorientating strobe lights and the occasional punch in the face where you come right up against it before it runs off again leaving you reeling. The whole thing is a disorientating nauseating experience from which there seems no escape.
It's biggest manifestation comes in what we often call political correctness. When many of us see the stories on the madness, we often see accompanying comments to it in which the average man and woman in the street say
"This is political correctness gone mad" or something similar.
My first memory of this craziness came in the mid to late 80's when the stories started coming through into the mainstream press. There were stories in which we first got a taste of the madness. It seemed surreal in which everything we had thought nothing odd about was suddenly considered sexist, racist and every other "ist" you could think off. These stories started being discussed by a bewildered population outside of the press typically calling them "crazy". Those conversations started to include things like stories about British nursery rhymes such as bah bah black sheep being banned in parts of the country because of these "ists" amongst other things. Whether the nursery rhyme was actually a true example of something being banned I can't say but the awareness of this madness was very real.
The common comment was that it was madness but we thought it would die down. To a degree it seemed to but what happened in reality was that it diverted into other areas and it is still with us today and is probably even more pervasive than it was back then. We still regard it as madness as we did then. That however is not the really scary bit.
The scary bit is the understanding that is held by the public. The understanding most people have as we did back then is that this political correctness is some kind of mad aberration of thought held by a small lunatic fringe. The common perception it's just some people who've gone off the rails and have become detached from reality with some odd notion and that some other idiots have just fallen for it. The view held by most people is that they are what some of my late relatives would have called "crackpots".
The inference in that thinking is that it's a benign madness that has either taken a temporary hold and has happened by some kind of accident. Right there in that thinking is the danger. Such a perception creates a shrugging of the shoulders in most people who then try to get back on with their daily lives presuming some how of course this "madness" will leave them alone.
Unfortunately that is far from the truth. The real truth is that far from being a bit of aberrant nonsense that bewilders us, it is, in fact, the manifestation of a very deliberate thought process. Some very bright yet malign minds sowed the seeds for this many decades ago, to bring about something very destructive to the way we live our lives. It's aim is not to leave us alone. Its aim is to entwine itself in as many aspects as possible of our daily lives. Shrugging our shoulders is not an option.
Serendipity struck today because as I was writing this post, James Higham over at Nourishing Obscurity also brought the subject up.
Political Correctness is one item in the toolbox of a group of Marxist academics who wanted to bring about a Marxist utopia. Political correctness was not a spontaneous creation running from the 1980's to today. It has been slowly gaining ground inch by inch for decades now. It's original proponents thought endlessly about it. Why? Because it was a means to an end.
James has a nice little 13 minute video within his post that gives a summary of it. Also below is a somewhat dated video that gives a bit more background to it. If you can get past the dated aspect and hear the words it lays out in 20 minutes more background of this seemingly spontaneous madness.
The reason I've posted this is because although it's probably known to most bloggers it's something that passes by most of the non blogging population and I hope that one day they will come upon this post and understand what is really happening around them. I'm struggling to articulate just how dangerous it is that this is a deliberate philosophy as opposed to a spontaneous buffoonery by imbeciles that it is widely regarded as. If people knew the difference, I'm certain they would not be so passive about it's existence.
It was Marcus Tullius Cicero who wrote:
"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”
That was their plan. To get inside and collapse it. It was people like communist revolutionary, Willi Munzenberg who described the strategy of the Frankfurt Institute as thus:
"We will make the west so corrupt that it stinks"
I'm going to end the post here. It's not the end of a direction I'm taking, but, for now, I need you to understand that you're looking at a deliberate philosophy. The madness you see is not an accident. Someone (in fact several someones) thought it up. That should scare us all.
I won't
Following on from my last post I stumbled upon another piece from our US cousins that applies equally to us and most other nations. I don't watch Judge Judy (which is what this video seems to be) but this is a great example of all that is wrong.
I would say listen to just how wrongheaded the logic is, but there is no logic. The fact that the money is both help and for a specified purpose simply does not register. All this person can see is that it's money and it's "his". In his mind there's no need for accountability.
There's just too much of this It's a thinking that pervades in our society today. Our man here has gone beyond seeing this as welfare. This is now money he's entitled to for whatever he sees fit. It's the "I'm owed" mindset and we can all point to some of this suggesting that its quite a pervasive way of thinking.
Of course in any society there is "I can't" and that is what the welfare state is for. But this video isn't I can't. This video is I won't. I won't eventually generalises into I'm owed because I won't requires you to face up to some stark truths about yourself and that's a bit too close for comfort, so we have to turn it around and make like we're victims of something other than feathering our nests.
The problem is it will cripple us in ways we cannot begin to imagine.
Worse still my notion isn't rocket science. Everyone grasps it because they can see. The only people who won't seem to mention it is politicians and that's for at least two reasons. Firstly there are no votes in it. Secondly and despite their overuse of the word leadership, we simply do not have people running the show with the courage and vision to get this nation on it's feet again.
You / we have to turn this thinking around because without it we will never see a single cut back simply because there are no votes in it. To fail to do so has grave consequences. Endless spending and increases will break the system and whilst the truly vulnerable will lose out, the I can'ts won't know how to cope either and because their first response in all things is to take what's not theirs, the violence will start.
Of course that might suit the advocates of the Cloward Piven strategy just fine
Footnote
Before any trolls decide this video is a race thing - forget it. It isn't and any attempt by such people to claim it is, is just flat out wrong and makes you a disgrace. I don't care what colour a person is. I care about what people do that makes them honest and upright and what they contribute to this nation in order to keep it on the right track. So you can take your Frankfurt School agitprop elsewhere
I would say listen to just how wrongheaded the logic is, but there is no logic. The fact that the money is both help and for a specified purpose simply does not register. All this person can see is that it's money and it's "his". In his mind there's no need for accountability.
There's just too much of this It's a thinking that pervades in our society today. Our man here has gone beyond seeing this as welfare. This is now money he's entitled to for whatever he sees fit. It's the "I'm owed" mindset and we can all point to some of this suggesting that its quite a pervasive way of thinking.
Of course in any society there is "I can't" and that is what the welfare state is for. But this video isn't I can't. This video is I won't. I won't eventually generalises into I'm owed because I won't requires you to face up to some stark truths about yourself and that's a bit too close for comfort, so we have to turn it around and make like we're victims of something other than feathering our nests.
The problem is it will cripple us in ways we cannot begin to imagine.
Worse still my notion isn't rocket science. Everyone grasps it because they can see. The only people who won't seem to mention it is politicians and that's for at least two reasons. Firstly there are no votes in it. Secondly and despite their overuse of the word leadership, we simply do not have people running the show with the courage and vision to get this nation on it's feet again.
You / we have to turn this thinking around because without it we will never see a single cut back simply because there are no votes in it. To fail to do so has grave consequences. Endless spending and increases will break the system and whilst the truly vulnerable will lose out, the I can'ts won't know how to cope either and because their first response in all things is to take what's not theirs, the violence will start.
Of course that might suit the advocates of the Cloward Piven strategy just fine
Footnote
Before any trolls decide this video is a race thing - forget it. It isn't and any attempt by such people to claim it is, is just flat out wrong and makes you a disgrace. I don't care what colour a person is. I care about what people do that makes them honest and upright and what they contribute to this nation in order to keep it on the right track. So you can take your Frankfurt School agitprop elsewhere
Friday, 28 December 2012
Simplify
In Thursday's Express, columnist Leo Mckinstry has written a piece about our the farce that is our welfare state. Unfortunately I can't place a link as it does not appear to have made it to their website yet.
One of the most telling lines within it is that Ed Milliband has denounced every single one of the coalition proposals for welfare reform.
I would agree with this and McKinstry doesn't push this narrative too far further. Ordinarily I might take the unsaid things to task, but today I won't. Sometimes it is vital that a message is made simple so that everyone can get it and get angry about it because they bloody well should.
So here's something I found. Again it's from across the pond but it speaks as much for most governments and tells in beautiful clarity why welfare reform is everyone's business.
please note I do not claim any credit or copyright for this image. If the owner wishes a credit or removal, please contact me.
One of the most telling lines within it is that Ed Milliband has denounced every single one of the coalition proposals for welfare reform.
I would agree with this and McKinstry doesn't push this narrative too far further. Ordinarily I might take the unsaid things to task, but today I won't. Sometimes it is vital that a message is made simple so that everyone can get it and get angry about it because they bloody well should.
So here's something I found. Again it's from across the pond but it speaks as much for most governments and tells in beautiful clarity why welfare reform is everyone's business.
Tuesday, 25 December 2012
If perchance...
... you have stumbled here, I would like to remind you it is Christmas Day.
May I wish you and your family all the joys of the day. I hope that on this day you see nothing but love and laughter and enjoy each others company. Even if you're not religious, today remains a day to enjoy family and friends.
Choose wisely what you do, watch and listen to. Pick only those things that will make you happy. Stay away from the peddlers of misery today.
Be with one another and enjoy their company while they are with us.
Merry Christmas everyone.
May I wish you and your family all the joys of the day. I hope that on this day you see nothing but love and laughter and enjoy each others company. Even if you're not religious, today remains a day to enjoy family and friends.
Choose wisely what you do, watch and listen to. Pick only those things that will make you happy. Stay away from the peddlers of misery today.
Be with one another and enjoy their company while they are with us.
Merry Christmas everyone.
Sunday, 23 December 2012
Christmas Warmth
As a 43 year old, I should just be from about the right point in time to enjoy, the more modern Christmas songs and I do. The trouble is that radio stations are clearly relying on the usual suspects and as such I confess to feeling a little bit saturated by Fairytale of New York.
So with that in mind I've gone back a little bit further. Today I've picked a tune that played in the background during my childhood in the 1970s. I don't really recall thinking I like this as a child, but it was there every time Christmas came around. It has linked itself to the pleasant memories of Christmas such as walking around all wrapped up in the local town when all the Christmas decorations were out and the local Salvation Army band was playing to an appreciative crowd. It was a time when it felt Christmassy and everyone joined in as opposed to being servants of their smart phones and generally detached from the human race.
So I give you today a song from a warm sounding voice singing a song about hope (real hope and not a campaign slogan).
Enjoy.
So with that in mind I've gone back a little bit further. Today I've picked a tune that played in the background during my childhood in the 1970s. I don't really recall thinking I like this as a child, but it was there every time Christmas came around. It has linked itself to the pleasant memories of Christmas such as walking around all wrapped up in the local town when all the Christmas decorations were out and the local Salvation Army band was playing to an appreciative crowd. It was a time when it felt Christmassy and everyone joined in as opposed to being servants of their smart phones and generally detached from the human race.
So I give you today a song from a warm sounding voice singing a song about hope (real hope and not a campaign slogan).
Enjoy.
Saturday, 22 December 2012
Back to business
Well, as should be obvious by now, we didn't go bang. For those thinking the Mayans got it wrong I will defend them and say they didn't. They didn't say anything about going bang - they just ended their "calendar". It was the rest of us that filled in the gaps. There were a lot of clues that suggested we might not be in for the end. The biggest clue being that none of our publicity seeking politicians called for an enquiry or seemed to have anything to say on the subject in general.
So we're back to getting on with the business of Christmas. It's a good job too, because in her column in the Mail, Amanda Platell comments on a survey that suggests most people no longer know the words to Christmas carols. You'll have to scroll down to the bottom if you want to read it.
So I'm doing my bit. Below is a video from Kings College Cambridge. It will become obvious that Platell's story is about not knowing the words and yet there are no subtitles in this video. However, unlike the nanny state I will credit your ability to work out for yourself that all you need to do to learn the words is to listen to these fine voices. It will add to your enjoyment too.
ps - as with all other video and photographs on this site, I claim no copyright. Should the owners wish me to acknowledge or remove the content, I will do so.
So we're back to getting on with the business of Christmas. It's a good job too, because in her column in the Mail, Amanda Platell comments on a survey that suggests most people no longer know the words to Christmas carols. You'll have to scroll down to the bottom if you want to read it.
So I'm doing my bit. Below is a video from Kings College Cambridge. It will become obvious that Platell's story is about not knowing the words and yet there are no subtitles in this video. However, unlike the nanny state I will credit your ability to work out for yourself that all you need to do to learn the words is to listen to these fine voices. It will add to your enjoyment too.
ps - as with all other video and photographs on this site, I claim no copyright. Should the owners wish me to acknowledge or remove the content, I will do so.
Tuesday, 18 December 2012
Speaking for us all
Here's Bill Whittle again with a crisp clear narrative of what's happening. You could play this video in virtually any western nation, swap the images and the names for those you recognise and it would still hit the nail on the head.
"Unacceptable"
Probably every one of us can tell a tale that shows how far we have fallen as a nation. Most of us can probably tell such a tale where we encounter the businesses that contribute to the economy or where we encounter bits of the states apparatus.
I was reminded of one this morning when I learned that the National Audit Office has issued a report on dealing with the Inland Revenue in which it has been scathing about the service and the cost that those service failings cost the public.
My story was having been made redundant some years ago, I was due a tax rebate at the end of my redundancy. Bear in mind I had been without this money for almost a year. I sent off my paperwork (originals of course as no copies were permitted)
What followed over the next few months was a Keystone Cops routine of phone calls and letters. These calls and letters. These phone calls and letters revealed a system in chaos. First they hadn't got it (post room backlogs). Then they had the letter but it wasn't on the system. Then we had the letters telling me I hadn't sent through various documents. That in reality meant they had lost them because they had all been in the envelope. It was only the states obsession with triplicate or more forms which saved me on that front.
Eventually I rang and spoke to someone who started to take a bit of a tone with me in that sort of "what are you doing contacting us, don't you know you're just supposed to wait until we contact you". She obviously didn't say that, but it was in the tone.
What she told me was that following confirmation that my case was on the system and having been told they had a three week window to call me back. Having been round the houses with these people already I decided to test the waters.
"Okay. If nobody calls me in the three week window and I call again, might I have to wait another 3 weeks before someone is required to contact me"
"Yes" came the answer.
Now you and I can immediately see what's wrong with this. It's a meaningless service level. They can fail to contact me and me reminding them they've failed puts me to the back of the queue again - marvellous.
It was at this point I pointed out that such an arrangement was "unacceptable" to which came the answer that pointed out precisely where some servants of the state think they sit in the grand scheme of things - and I quote
"It's not a question of you think is acceptable Mr....."
It didn't go to well for her after that and eventually I managed to get the situation escalated and my refund calculation resolved by the end of the same day.
Today's news made me smile as the memory came back. I wonder if the Inland Revenue will tell the NAO that "it's not a case of what you think is acceptable."
I was reminded of one this morning when I learned that the National Audit Office has issued a report on dealing with the Inland Revenue in which it has been scathing about the service and the cost that those service failings cost the public.
My story was having been made redundant some years ago, I was due a tax rebate at the end of my redundancy. Bear in mind I had been without this money for almost a year. I sent off my paperwork (originals of course as no copies were permitted)
What followed over the next few months was a Keystone Cops routine of phone calls and letters. These calls and letters. These phone calls and letters revealed a system in chaos. First they hadn't got it (post room backlogs). Then they had the letter but it wasn't on the system. Then we had the letters telling me I hadn't sent through various documents. That in reality meant they had lost them because they had all been in the envelope. It was only the states obsession with triplicate or more forms which saved me on that front.
Eventually I rang and spoke to someone who started to take a bit of a tone with me in that sort of "what are you doing contacting us, don't you know you're just supposed to wait until we contact you". She obviously didn't say that, but it was in the tone.
What she told me was that following confirmation that my case was on the system and having been told they had a three week window to call me back. Having been round the houses with these people already I decided to test the waters.
"Okay. If nobody calls me in the three week window and I call again, might I have to wait another 3 weeks before someone is required to contact me"
"Yes" came the answer.
Now you and I can immediately see what's wrong with this. It's a meaningless service level. They can fail to contact me and me reminding them they've failed puts me to the back of the queue again - marvellous.
It was at this point I pointed out that such an arrangement was "unacceptable" to which came the answer that pointed out precisely where some servants of the state think they sit in the grand scheme of things - and I quote
"It's not a question of you think is acceptable Mr....."
It didn't go to well for her after that and eventually I managed to get the situation escalated and my refund calculation resolved by the end of the same day.
Today's news made me smile as the memory came back. I wonder if the Inland Revenue will tell the NAO that "it's not a case of what you think is acceptable."
Sunday, 9 December 2012
Touching Your Soul
A change of tack today (and maybe for the rest of the month), thanks to a strange train of thought.
I'm a big critic of the BBC in it's current form, especially it's news output which I take to be left leaning and as such manipulative. That said when they get it right they make some wonderful television. On Friday I happened to catch their fly on the wall documentary about Westminster Abbey and listening to the work of the choir.
Personally I am a believer in the Christian faith. I don't much worry if others are not as long as they are honest people with a personal code of ethics to live an honourable life and to on the whole, do the right thing. It's a choice for each and every one of us. That's all I'm going to offer on the matter.
What I particularly enjoyed was listening to the beauty of the choir singing in such fantastic architecture. It's a hugely powerful combination.
It got me thinking about content for the blog at this time of year. There's endless corruption and inversion of the truth to keep me writing endlessly 24/7 and it's something I'm not even making a dent it.
With that in mind I decided to have a change of tack. I'm going for uplifting. As such I give you this video of a Christmas flash mob. I thought it was a lovely juxtaposition. Set in the middle of a shopping centre (mall for my US cousins), it seemed apt that something so fine should reach into the belly of mammon and uplift the lives of people lost to modern times.
As you watch it, listen to those voices and look at the faces of the young. I've watched this video for a couple of years now and each time, it reaches right in to me and touches my soul. Right there you see people worth saving. Look at the parents, explaining lovingly. Look at the recognition in the eyes of the people that our lives can be a thing of wonder. It's a thing of pure beauty. Forget all the bread and circus cr*p that gets shovelled into our minds.
Enjoy
I'm a big critic of the BBC in it's current form, especially it's news output which I take to be left leaning and as such manipulative. That said when they get it right they make some wonderful television. On Friday I happened to catch their fly on the wall documentary about Westminster Abbey and listening to the work of the choir.
Personally I am a believer in the Christian faith. I don't much worry if others are not as long as they are honest people with a personal code of ethics to live an honourable life and to on the whole, do the right thing. It's a choice for each and every one of us. That's all I'm going to offer on the matter.
What I particularly enjoyed was listening to the beauty of the choir singing in such fantastic architecture. It's a hugely powerful combination.
It got me thinking about content for the blog at this time of year. There's endless corruption and inversion of the truth to keep me writing endlessly 24/7 and it's something I'm not even making a dent it.
With that in mind I decided to have a change of tack. I'm going for uplifting. As such I give you this video of a Christmas flash mob. I thought it was a lovely juxtaposition. Set in the middle of a shopping centre (mall for my US cousins), it seemed apt that something so fine should reach into the belly of mammon and uplift the lives of people lost to modern times.
As you watch it, listen to those voices and look at the faces of the young. I've watched this video for a couple of years now and each time, it reaches right in to me and touches my soul. Right there you see people worth saving. Look at the parents, explaining lovingly. Look at the recognition in the eyes of the people that our lives can be a thing of wonder. It's a thing of pure beauty. Forget all the bread and circus cr*p that gets shovelled into our minds.
Enjoy
Thursday, 6 December 2012
That Autumn Statement
Don't worry, I'm not an economist and I'm not going to bore you with economics despite what it looks like at the beginning.
I didn't catch too much of the autumn statement yesterday when it was broadcast live. I didn't really need to. Governments announcing news to Parliament has become something of a farce (then again what hasn't become a farce where Parliament's concerned?) as we typically get it "leaked" around 10-11pm the evening before. Much of what I was supposed to learn on Wednesday became news on Tuesday evening.
We're skint and we were going to be skint for the foreseeable future. Even me as a bear of small brain knew that before George announced it. Where I (and too many others to consider it any sort of achievement) are smarter than George is that we know if he carries on doing what he's been doing, we will be skint for a damn sight longer than her predicts.
I came to watch the debate just as Ed Balls was having his own little Chernobyl moment as he went into meltdown as he tried to get across the notion that the Government had failed. I watched that and then I watch Georgie come back at him and it was at that point the really worrying bit hit me.
I watched as Ed Balls criticised our performance as a nation and used the claim that it was less than 1/10th of that of the G20. For some reason that set off a little alarm bell in my head. I had a quick look and although it's not certain which precise set of figure he is using, the set I found suggested that was broadly right. But it wasn't whether such a claim was accurate that made me wonder. It was the question of what made him pick the G20. Why not the G7 say. Of course it doesn't take a lot to work that out. Once you use the G20 as opposed to the G7 you include the BRICS nations in your stats. Take a quick look at the chart on this OECD release and you'll see what it does. It puts a different scale on it that wouldn't be there if the G7 was your comparison.
It was that which tells you all you need to know and it's not about the economic argument. In fact what this shows is that yesterday in Parliament was about anything but the economic argument and it wasn't just Balls. The reality was that all Balls was interested along with his cohorts was about sticking it to the Government by making them look bad and making them look as bad as it was possible to do by using stats that paint the bleakest possible picture. He let Osborne have it both barrels and Osborne responded in kind. The press made as much of the exchanges in the house as the statement itself.
"So what?" you might ask. Westminster is always a pantomime such as this and I would agree. The problem is the press continued to suggest that this was a serious debate about the economy and the state of the country. My point is I believe it was anything but. The economy just happened to be the tool at hand. Arguing with the other was what it was all about. Solving the issue of our dire financial straits, played no part in that debate because they're simply not interested in it. If they were there would have been a proper debate, but there wasn't. The Tories, took a leaf out of the elusive Gordon Brown's playbook and throw endless confusing statistics out their to hide what was going wrong and Labour went with their "out of touch toffs" line backed up by numbers specifically to frame the position as failure on the largest possible scale.
Our economy is in a truly perilous state and it needed a debate that reflected that. It needed a government to say that and an opposition to say where they thought better strategies lay and where they would cooperate with the government. But no, we had none of that. What we really got was a wrestling match driven by nothing more than a lust for power. There is some effort to look like they're doing something, but the reality is none of them are serious about this problem. If they were they would look really hard at what really is working and what really isn't and sell it to the British people. But we don't get that. We get a power struggle masquerading as a debate by those who only want their hands on the reins because they get to sit on the slightly more comfortable seats in an already luxurious ride compared to what the rest of us have to put up with. It wasn't a debate about what's going to stop 60 million people crashing onto the rocks. It was a bun fight in which the only people being considered were those in the two chambers.
We're in a mess. A real big stinking mess. One that needs serious men and women to bring some real gravity to public life who can tell it like it is and sell the much needed hard work to the nation. We need leaders who can tell the lobbyists that the party is over.
We got none of that yesterday. We got posturing by effetes and dilettantes yesterday. 60 million people got sold down the river in something that was nothing more than a disgrace.
I didn't catch too much of the autumn statement yesterday when it was broadcast live. I didn't really need to. Governments announcing news to Parliament has become something of a farce (then again what hasn't become a farce where Parliament's concerned?) as we typically get it "leaked" around 10-11pm the evening before. Much of what I was supposed to learn on Wednesday became news on Tuesday evening.
We're skint and we were going to be skint for the foreseeable future. Even me as a bear of small brain knew that before George announced it. Where I (and too many others to consider it any sort of achievement) are smarter than George is that we know if he carries on doing what he's been doing, we will be skint for a damn sight longer than her predicts.
I came to watch the debate just as Ed Balls was having his own little Chernobyl moment as he went into meltdown as he tried to get across the notion that the Government had failed. I watched that and then I watch Georgie come back at him and it was at that point the really worrying bit hit me.
I watched as Ed Balls criticised our performance as a nation and used the claim that it was less than 1/10th of that of the G20. For some reason that set off a little alarm bell in my head. I had a quick look and although it's not certain which precise set of figure he is using, the set I found suggested that was broadly right. But it wasn't whether such a claim was accurate that made me wonder. It was the question of what made him pick the G20. Why not the G7 say. Of course it doesn't take a lot to work that out. Once you use the G20 as opposed to the G7 you include the BRICS nations in your stats. Take a quick look at the chart on this OECD release and you'll see what it does. It puts a different scale on it that wouldn't be there if the G7 was your comparison.
It was that which tells you all you need to know and it's not about the economic argument. In fact what this shows is that yesterday in Parliament was about anything but the economic argument and it wasn't just Balls. The reality was that all Balls was interested along with his cohorts was about sticking it to the Government by making them look bad and making them look as bad as it was possible to do by using stats that paint the bleakest possible picture. He let Osborne have it both barrels and Osborne responded in kind. The press made as much of the exchanges in the house as the statement itself.
"So what?" you might ask. Westminster is always a pantomime such as this and I would agree. The problem is the press continued to suggest that this was a serious debate about the economy and the state of the country. My point is I believe it was anything but. The economy just happened to be the tool at hand. Arguing with the other was what it was all about. Solving the issue of our dire financial straits, played no part in that debate because they're simply not interested in it. If they were there would have been a proper debate, but there wasn't. The Tories, took a leaf out of the elusive Gordon Brown's playbook and throw endless confusing statistics out their to hide what was going wrong and Labour went with their "out of touch toffs" line backed up by numbers specifically to frame the position as failure on the largest possible scale.
Our economy is in a truly perilous state and it needed a debate that reflected that. It needed a government to say that and an opposition to say where they thought better strategies lay and where they would cooperate with the government. But no, we had none of that. What we really got was a wrestling match driven by nothing more than a lust for power. There is some effort to look like they're doing something, but the reality is none of them are serious about this problem. If they were they would look really hard at what really is working and what really isn't and sell it to the British people. But we don't get that. We get a power struggle masquerading as a debate by those who only want their hands on the reins because they get to sit on the slightly more comfortable seats in an already luxurious ride compared to what the rest of us have to put up with. It wasn't a debate about what's going to stop 60 million people crashing onto the rocks. It was a bun fight in which the only people being considered were those in the two chambers.
We're in a mess. A real big stinking mess. One that needs serious men and women to bring some real gravity to public life who can tell it like it is and sell the much needed hard work to the nation. We need leaders who can tell the lobbyists that the party is over.
We got none of that yesterday. We got posturing by effetes and dilettantes yesterday. 60 million people got sold down the river in something that was nothing more than a disgrace.
Sunday, 2 December 2012
Missing a sitter
There's an interesting debate going on in this post over at Witterings from Witney. The main thrust of David's post and that of other bloggers is that whilst UKIP are making a big thing of their achievement in the Rotherham by-election there's a big question of whether it is anything like the crowning achievement it's being painted as. As both WfW and EUReferendum observe, UKIP have effectively (to use a football parallel) missed a sitter in front of an open goal. Officially they've come second in the race but if we include what Helen over at Your Freedom and Ours calls the sod off party, they came third.
I'm inclined to agree with their analysis if you take a cold hard look at it. They were handed virtually every advantage they're going to get in a bid for a seat. An election forced by an MP standing down in disgrace, their biggest threats about as popular as a fart in a space suit and some timely publicity that put UKIP on the front page of most national newspapers. Any political strategist worth his salt would probably have been considered this the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Furthermore given what we subsequently learned was another paltry turnout all of those advantages should have been magnified and as such more people should be asking the questions of UKIP than just Witterings from Witney, EUReferendum and other bloggers. The mainstream media should ask why they keep coming up short.
I don't plan on dwelling on it, but in short it should have been better and if they genuinely have ambition (either with or without Farage) someone needs to wake up and smell the coffee. The political landscape right now is about as fertile as Kansas for making headway from an organised UKIP. What's more although there are agendas progressing such as the Harrogate Agenda (HA), there is a need for a new force such as UKIP in the political arena even if it's just to show the electorate that something has changed and that the other three donkeys in the derby should be on notice. It needs something of that nature just to get the people of Britain looking around at options such as HA and giving them serious thought as to what's wrong with what we have now and what should be done about it
As the comments reveal however in WfW's post, the organisation both local and national is is the nub of the problem and it would seem David speaks from personal experience of having tried to help UKIP locally. Following on from that comment I took another look at UKIPs site and went to the local section.
When I got there I found three things. A name of the chairman, a phone number and an email address. Nothing more. It would also seem by googling the name, the chairman is also the candidate for the seat.
I almost don't know where to begin with this one. Not only does the available information suggest a one man band, there's just no suggestion anything is going on that points to organisation. There's nothing to suggest UKIP are active in my constituency let alone gaining any traction. It's a schoolboy error to not be getting your grassroots going and raising its profile, especially for UKIP. The common view is UKIP is a home for disgruntled Tories. If that we true, wouldn't you be making more of your local activity at a time when call me Dave appears hell bent on disgruntling his local Conservative parties? It would be like a siren call to them tempting them to jump ship.
They should have had a plan, especially with Rotherham. If they genuinely expected to make ground in Rotherham they should have had local groups across the nation on standby to start signing up newly interested people and their website should have been shouting that from the rooftops. Voting is a funny thing, in that many people will only start voting for a group when it looks like it's going places. They didn't make the most of it and they should have. It's not just my local group. I clicked on several other groups across the country and saw just as little from each of them.
The other schoolboy error is their social media strategy. I'm sure it's an effort to woo the younger UKIPer, which they probably see as vital if they want to lose their golf club image and increase their profile as having something for all age groups. Part of that I would presume is the bit on their homepage pointing towards Facebook and Twitter. I decided to click on the facebook logo to go to the UKIP page and see how switched on they were there.
It doesn't take you to the UKIP Facebook page. It takes you to what I presume to be Nigel Farage's personal facebook page. If you're like me who hears the constant rumour that the problem with UKIP is it's all about Nigel, this would only seem to underline such a rumour. If I were just another ordinary Joe I probably wouldn't go any further. When the button says "Do You Know Nigel - ask him to be your friend" - the reality for many is that this is a big stop button. You don't know Nigel. He isn't your friend in the old school mate sense, so you walk away. Added to which what I saw didn't look up to date.
At the very least that Facebook icon should have gone to a UKIP page. Even better UKIP should be developing a page for each constituency.
Local is where the future is at. There should be an edict coming of of UKIP HQ for every constituency to build a local presence. They need to gather volunteers, build a profile and start telling stories and getting involved. They need to tell a better story than the press are telling about them. If they don't start now they'll find themselves nowhere at the next General Election. If they do it right though, they could take some very large political scalps given the level of apathy in returning some of these folk to Westminster. You can't be 21 days away from an election and then decide to come out of the gates. It's no good. You need to have a plan to start now. The goal will never be as wide open as it is now
I'm inclined to agree with their analysis if you take a cold hard look at it. They were handed virtually every advantage they're going to get in a bid for a seat. An election forced by an MP standing down in disgrace, their biggest threats about as popular as a fart in a space suit and some timely publicity that put UKIP on the front page of most national newspapers. Any political strategist worth his salt would probably have been considered this the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Furthermore given what we subsequently learned was another paltry turnout all of those advantages should have been magnified and as such more people should be asking the questions of UKIP than just Witterings from Witney, EUReferendum and other bloggers. The mainstream media should ask why they keep coming up short.
I don't plan on dwelling on it, but in short it should have been better and if they genuinely have ambition (either with or without Farage) someone needs to wake up and smell the coffee. The political landscape right now is about as fertile as Kansas for making headway from an organised UKIP. What's more although there are agendas progressing such as the Harrogate Agenda (HA), there is a need for a new force such as UKIP in the political arena even if it's just to show the electorate that something has changed and that the other three donkeys in the derby should be on notice. It needs something of that nature just to get the people of Britain looking around at options such as HA and giving them serious thought as to what's wrong with what we have now and what should be done about it
As the comments reveal however in WfW's post, the organisation both local and national is is the nub of the problem and it would seem David speaks from personal experience of having tried to help UKIP locally. Following on from that comment I took another look at UKIPs site and went to the local section.
When I got there I found three things. A name of the chairman, a phone number and an email address. Nothing more. It would also seem by googling the name, the chairman is also the candidate for the seat.
I almost don't know where to begin with this one. Not only does the available information suggest a one man band, there's just no suggestion anything is going on that points to organisation. There's nothing to suggest UKIP are active in my constituency let alone gaining any traction. It's a schoolboy error to not be getting your grassroots going and raising its profile, especially for UKIP. The common view is UKIP is a home for disgruntled Tories. If that we true, wouldn't you be making more of your local activity at a time when call me Dave appears hell bent on disgruntling his local Conservative parties? It would be like a siren call to them tempting them to jump ship.
They should have had a plan, especially with Rotherham. If they genuinely expected to make ground in Rotherham they should have had local groups across the nation on standby to start signing up newly interested people and their website should have been shouting that from the rooftops. Voting is a funny thing, in that many people will only start voting for a group when it looks like it's going places. They didn't make the most of it and they should have. It's not just my local group. I clicked on several other groups across the country and saw just as little from each of them.
The other schoolboy error is their social media strategy. I'm sure it's an effort to woo the younger UKIPer, which they probably see as vital if they want to lose their golf club image and increase their profile as having something for all age groups. Part of that I would presume is the bit on their homepage pointing towards Facebook and Twitter. I decided to click on the facebook logo to go to the UKIP page and see how switched on they were there.
It doesn't take you to the UKIP Facebook page. It takes you to what I presume to be Nigel Farage's personal facebook page. If you're like me who hears the constant rumour that the problem with UKIP is it's all about Nigel, this would only seem to underline such a rumour. If I were just another ordinary Joe I probably wouldn't go any further. When the button says "Do You Know Nigel - ask him to be your friend" - the reality for many is that this is a big stop button. You don't know Nigel. He isn't your friend in the old school mate sense, so you walk away. Added to which what I saw didn't look up to date.
At the very least that Facebook icon should have gone to a UKIP page. Even better UKIP should be developing a page for each constituency.
Local is where the future is at. There should be an edict coming of of UKIP HQ for every constituency to build a local presence. They need to gather volunteers, build a profile and start telling stories and getting involved. They need to tell a better story than the press are telling about them. If they don't start now they'll find themselves nowhere at the next General Election. If they do it right though, they could take some very large political scalps given the level of apathy in returning some of these folk to Westminster. You can't be 21 days away from an election and then decide to come out of the gates. It's no good. You need to have a plan to start now. The goal will never be as wide open as it is now
Saturday, 1 December 2012
Hair Trigger
Here's a video I put out there with some caution, because I'm not quite sure what to make of the message
within it.
An SGTreport.com Micro Documentary, in association with TheLibertyMill.com (H/t Mac Slavo at shtfplan.com)
Now I hesitate because it contains some messages I'm not certain where I am on them, but I put it out there to let people think about what they make of it. The other reason is that it gives a bit of an insight as to what's worrying me. Many of my fellow bloggers are concerned about spending, especially the unfettered spending that has become the hallmark of modern Britain. I don't mind useful spending but what we have now can hardly be classed as useful. We've had decades of it yet if anything we're going backwards. The reason for that is twofold and there is a causal relationship between the two:
1) The politicians and their state apparatus are spending money to do nothing more than garner further votes to keep their place at the taxpayer funded trough.
2) The population has learned that this relationship enables them to vote for money for themselves.
That puts us in a dangerous situation for all kinds of reasons, but they all lead to one thing if unchecked and we fail to reverse it.
We run out of money.
You see the problem with the two points above is that that cash requirement is never static. Once you start it, more and more people want to get in on the act. The people enjoying it very rarely want to stay at the same level of cash. They soon learn to need more to have the same level of "enjoyment" and tend to grow ambitious in terms of other things they want. Politicians learn that this behaviour gets them votes so doing it for more people will get them more votes. More votes equals greater security at the trough.
Unchecked, this takes us down the dark path of preparing to run out of money.
Now as I mention many of us in the blogging world are screaming stop the bus. Yes we're angry and it's a bit of a cathartic rant but it's much more also. We've seen where this ends if you play it out to it's ultimate result and it is a dark, dark place.
The bit I wanted to you to see in that video was the madness that takes place for what are effectively pointless doodads. They're not really needed but we're locked into a psychology of greed, avarice and "me, me, me". Look at the level of violence involved for this junk.
Now imagine how that would look for food, water and medicine.
You're possibly thinking I've lost the plot and that we're in to tin foil hat territory here. I'm not saying this is inevitable. I'm looking at the voracious demand for more spending from everyone. You might be thinking that the fact that it's an American video and has no relevance to the UK, but let me bring some other things into play to prompt you to think again. We're more connected than people know in one particular area - finance. The money we're relying on is all interconnected. The banks that move it about are global banks. If one bank takes a hit, there is a knock on effect. Geographically this video is thousands of miles but financially it's on our doorstep.
You might be saying, "yeah but the banks will be alright". My question is will they? It doesn't take much of a search outside of the lame efforts of the legacy media to show you they're in a right pickle. It's happening all over Europe and look at the calibre of the politicians supposedly trying to fix it. They're struggling to manage the simple stuff never mind the big stuff.
We're in a time for serious brains with a capacity for telling us the truth to be running the show yet all we have are peacocks strutting their stuff, demonstrating they're pure lightweights posturing on pointless initiatives to look good to a crowd they've dumbed down. Events over take them day after day.
You might be thinking that we're not like those people in the video. My question is are we sure? I don't think we all are but here's some food for thought. Think back to the riots of 2010. That was a domino effect in action. One incident kicked off a riot. Many of them had no connection to Mark Duggan, yet they couldn't wait to get out there and let rip. It soon became not about anger, but a free for all robbery and a thumping for anyone they just didn't happen to like the look of for that moment.
Look at where we were earlier in 2012 when there was the mere suggestion that there might be a fuel strike. We started panic buying at the pumps. The country almost came to stop over something that didn't happen because too many of us are operating on a hair trigger level when it comes to what we want for ourselves.
Too many of us have little or no tolerance for a downturn in our lifestyles. I Understand that. We've had decades which by and large today has been better than yesterday in terms of overall lifestyle. Today is more comfortable than yesterday was. There is more abundance today than there was yesterday. I have more "stuff" today than I had yesterday. We have become reliant on the notion that today is better than yesterday and that in all likelihood, tomorrow will be better still and so on and so on. Those who lived closer to the war years, have more awareness of tough times, but for people like me whose teenage years were the 80's and onwards we have no real notion of hard times and going without. I'm not talking about going without computer games, two cars and all that stuff. I'm talking about making food for two go around four. I'm talking about staying warm and keeping the lights on. I'm talking about the stuff right at the base of Maslow's Hierarchy of Need.
That brings me to the last point and almost brings me full circle. The petrol "shortage" incident of 2012 demonstrated something that wasn't really commented on at the time and we take for granted. We presume that something will always be there. Because we've had decades of better times the dominant thinking is that it will always continue. But we nearly ran out of fuel where we needed it, in the pumps. This is because so many of our businesses operate on "just in time" basis. The fuel deliveries to the station. The food deliveries to the supermarket. The drug deliveries to the chemist and the hospital. They all operate on a finely balanced just in time system, driven by computers and schedules. It's a constant never ending stream of delivery to keep things topped up. It's designed to cope with a certain level of demand. It can accommodate some fluctuations, mostly seasonal, but there is a limit. Hit it hard like we did with the fuel strike that never was and we expose its fundamental flaw. That flaw is we run out if we hit it with sustained excessive demand. Excessive demand that comes from pure self interest.
It's this sort of demand that will see the supermarkets empty very quickly along with the chemist and the petrol station. That would be the petrol that the power station workers use to get to work to keep the lights on and the boiler running. What's worse, when it gets to this point the prices start shooting through the roof and stuff begins to cost money we won't have and money government won't have and can no longer borrow have. It's a horrible dark and downward spiral.
We're fortunate. The lights are still on. The boiler is still getting electricity and gas and there is still food in the supermarkets
So when bloggers are talking about need to cut down on the excesses of state spending, it's this spiral we're really trying to prevent so that everything stays at a level we're able to cope with in these here modern times. We do it because down the path is an unimaginable darkness for all of us.
within it.
An SGTreport.com Micro Documentary, in association with TheLibertyMill.com (H/t Mac Slavo at shtfplan.com)
Now I hesitate because it contains some messages I'm not certain where I am on them, but I put it out there to let people think about what they make of it. The other reason is that it gives a bit of an insight as to what's worrying me. Many of my fellow bloggers are concerned about spending, especially the unfettered spending that has become the hallmark of modern Britain. I don't mind useful spending but what we have now can hardly be classed as useful. We've had decades of it yet if anything we're going backwards. The reason for that is twofold and there is a causal relationship between the two:
1) The politicians and their state apparatus are spending money to do nothing more than garner further votes to keep their place at the taxpayer funded trough.
2) The population has learned that this relationship enables them to vote for money for themselves.
That puts us in a dangerous situation for all kinds of reasons, but they all lead to one thing if unchecked and we fail to reverse it.
We run out of money.
You see the problem with the two points above is that that cash requirement is never static. Once you start it, more and more people want to get in on the act. The people enjoying it very rarely want to stay at the same level of cash. They soon learn to need more to have the same level of "enjoyment" and tend to grow ambitious in terms of other things they want. Politicians learn that this behaviour gets them votes so doing it for more people will get them more votes. More votes equals greater security at the trough.
Unchecked, this takes us down the dark path of preparing to run out of money.
Now as I mention many of us in the blogging world are screaming stop the bus. Yes we're angry and it's a bit of a cathartic rant but it's much more also. We've seen where this ends if you play it out to it's ultimate result and it is a dark, dark place.
The bit I wanted to you to see in that video was the madness that takes place for what are effectively pointless doodads. They're not really needed but we're locked into a psychology of greed, avarice and "me, me, me". Look at the level of violence involved for this junk.
Now imagine how that would look for food, water and medicine.
You're possibly thinking I've lost the plot and that we're in to tin foil hat territory here. I'm not saying this is inevitable. I'm looking at the voracious demand for more spending from everyone. You might be thinking that the fact that it's an American video and has no relevance to the UK, but let me bring some other things into play to prompt you to think again. We're more connected than people know in one particular area - finance. The money we're relying on is all interconnected. The banks that move it about are global banks. If one bank takes a hit, there is a knock on effect. Geographically this video is thousands of miles but financially it's on our doorstep.
You might be saying, "yeah but the banks will be alright". My question is will they? It doesn't take much of a search outside of the lame efforts of the legacy media to show you they're in a right pickle. It's happening all over Europe and look at the calibre of the politicians supposedly trying to fix it. They're struggling to manage the simple stuff never mind the big stuff.
We're in a time for serious brains with a capacity for telling us the truth to be running the show yet all we have are peacocks strutting their stuff, demonstrating they're pure lightweights posturing on pointless initiatives to look good to a crowd they've dumbed down. Events over take them day after day.
You might be thinking that we're not like those people in the video. My question is are we sure? I don't think we all are but here's some food for thought. Think back to the riots of 2010. That was a domino effect in action. One incident kicked off a riot. Many of them had no connection to Mark Duggan, yet they couldn't wait to get out there and let rip. It soon became not about anger, but a free for all robbery and a thumping for anyone they just didn't happen to like the look of for that moment.
Look at where we were earlier in 2012 when there was the mere suggestion that there might be a fuel strike. We started panic buying at the pumps. The country almost came to stop over something that didn't happen because too many of us are operating on a hair trigger level when it comes to what we want for ourselves.
Too many of us have little or no tolerance for a downturn in our lifestyles. I Understand that. We've had decades which by and large today has been better than yesterday in terms of overall lifestyle. Today is more comfortable than yesterday was. There is more abundance today than there was yesterday. I have more "stuff" today than I had yesterday. We have become reliant on the notion that today is better than yesterday and that in all likelihood, tomorrow will be better still and so on and so on. Those who lived closer to the war years, have more awareness of tough times, but for people like me whose teenage years were the 80's and onwards we have no real notion of hard times and going without. I'm not talking about going without computer games, two cars and all that stuff. I'm talking about making food for two go around four. I'm talking about staying warm and keeping the lights on. I'm talking about the stuff right at the base of Maslow's Hierarchy of Need.
That brings me to the last point and almost brings me full circle. The petrol "shortage" incident of 2012 demonstrated something that wasn't really commented on at the time and we take for granted. We presume that something will always be there. Because we've had decades of better times the dominant thinking is that it will always continue. But we nearly ran out of fuel where we needed it, in the pumps. This is because so many of our businesses operate on "just in time" basis. The fuel deliveries to the station. The food deliveries to the supermarket. The drug deliveries to the chemist and the hospital. They all operate on a finely balanced just in time system, driven by computers and schedules. It's a constant never ending stream of delivery to keep things topped up. It's designed to cope with a certain level of demand. It can accommodate some fluctuations, mostly seasonal, but there is a limit. Hit it hard like we did with the fuel strike that never was and we expose its fundamental flaw. That flaw is we run out if we hit it with sustained excessive demand. Excessive demand that comes from pure self interest.
It's this sort of demand that will see the supermarkets empty very quickly along with the chemist and the petrol station. That would be the petrol that the power station workers use to get to work to keep the lights on and the boiler running. What's worse, when it gets to this point the prices start shooting through the roof and stuff begins to cost money we won't have and money government won't have and can no longer borrow have. It's a horrible dark and downward spiral.
We're fortunate. The lights are still on. The boiler is still getting electricity and gas and there is still food in the supermarkets
So when bloggers are talking about need to cut down on the excesses of state spending, it's this spiral we're really trying to prevent so that everything stays at a level we're able to cope with in these here modern times. We do it because down the path is an unimaginable darkness for all of us.
Saturday, 17 November 2012
They're just not that into you
For those of you with a masochistic streak in them, Thursday evening's Question Time was very telling about our political class and even more so about one particular party.
Someone among the audience asked the question around the notion of should we boycott those corporations who pay a very low rate of tax in the UK. The response was first offered to Labour's Harriet Harman who slightly danced around it, but somewhere in there put out something about how they should pay their fair share. Then Chris Grayling offered something a bit weaselly as well in which he threw in a "I don't drink at Starbucks".
Smiling wryly through all of this was Nigel Farage. He started to point out the Euro angle to this which seemed originally to be met with groans suggestive of "here we go again", but his finish was quite revealing about the others.
In his reply he essentially pointed out the gaping hole in their arguments when he stated that these corporations were only taking advantage of a EU wide agreement that permits them to choose which EU member state they pay their corporation tax to. He further explained that's why so many organisations choose either Ireland or Luxembourg because they've priced theirs to attract business.
Now this post is not about Farage, the EU or the rights and wrongs of tax payments of international corporations.
It's about politicians. It's about the fact that Farage wasn't the only one on that panel who knew what the arrangement was for these companies. They pretty much all knew it. If they didn't, well that's a whole new issue. In reality they will have known, yet when asked the question, not one of them (excepting Farage) gave the audience the honest answer. They danced around it with grandstanding pronouncements that give the impression they too are outraged are efforts to wriggle out of paying the British Exchequer what it's owed. They could have told you straight but they didn't. Anything but the truth was fine by them when answering to the public.
It was bad of all of them to omit this, but worse still I think for Labour. Regular readers will know I am scornful of Labour in their pretence to stand for the "working" man and woman which they wear like a cloak to hide all manner of views that run counter to such a philosophy. Harman knew the answer as well as Farage and Grayling did, but she carried on the pretence to promote herself and her party with the notion of taking the fight to big bad business. The truth was secondary to that need.
My point? It's this. They're just not that into you whatever their window dressing might suggest. In fact the more they suggest they're for the everyday man and woman, the more it seems the counter is true. Telling you what's real and letting you decide doesn't even come in to it because their need is more power for them. You're little people. When they want your opinion they'll give it to you, so you just sit down sonny and wait until you're told what to do. You don't matter to them except for the fact that you're currency, a down payment on their place at the trough. The only time they really want you is when they want your vote. They'll roll their meaningless manifesto in a bit of fairy dust, grab your vote and crack on with what they wanted to do in the first place. they don't care about you because you have given them permission to.
Now I don't say that to depress you. I don't want you to decide it's all pointless return to the electronic mogadon in the corner of your lounge. That's the worse thing you can do. Those we think of as "in charge" are being overtaken by events across the world. We've seen they're not really cut out for responsibility. They ballsing up the simple things so let's have a think about how well they're really managing the difficult stuff. Well, one example of how they handle it is evidenced in the QT example that leads this post. They tell a different story altogether and hope you don't notice. Returning to your comfy chair however is the worst thing you can do. You see they're breaking things so badly that if they're left unchecked, or we don't find leaders who are cut out for handling serious issues, the whole thing is going to go bang. When I say go bang, I mean break, shatter, collapse. If you think it's bad now, wait till it goes bang then you'll see a definition of bad.
If it goes that wrong, you won't be watching riots like they have in Greece and Spain on your television, you'll be watching them from your lounge window.
Have a think about that and decide whether it's back to the television or if you need to think about what you can do to put this nation back on the right track to prosperity and liberty.
Someone among the audience asked the question around the notion of should we boycott those corporations who pay a very low rate of tax in the UK. The response was first offered to Labour's Harriet Harman who slightly danced around it, but somewhere in there put out something about how they should pay their fair share. Then Chris Grayling offered something a bit weaselly as well in which he threw in a "I don't drink at Starbucks".
Smiling wryly through all of this was Nigel Farage. He started to point out the Euro angle to this which seemed originally to be met with groans suggestive of "here we go again", but his finish was quite revealing about the others.
In his reply he essentially pointed out the gaping hole in their arguments when he stated that these corporations were only taking advantage of a EU wide agreement that permits them to choose which EU member state they pay their corporation tax to. He further explained that's why so many organisations choose either Ireland or Luxembourg because they've priced theirs to attract business.
Now this post is not about Farage, the EU or the rights and wrongs of tax payments of international corporations.
It's about politicians. It's about the fact that Farage wasn't the only one on that panel who knew what the arrangement was for these companies. They pretty much all knew it. If they didn't, well that's a whole new issue. In reality they will have known, yet when asked the question, not one of them (excepting Farage) gave the audience the honest answer. They danced around it with grandstanding pronouncements that give the impression they too are outraged are efforts to wriggle out of paying the British Exchequer what it's owed. They could have told you straight but they didn't. Anything but the truth was fine by them when answering to the public.
It was bad of all of them to omit this, but worse still I think for Labour. Regular readers will know I am scornful of Labour in their pretence to stand for the "working" man and woman which they wear like a cloak to hide all manner of views that run counter to such a philosophy. Harman knew the answer as well as Farage and Grayling did, but she carried on the pretence to promote herself and her party with the notion of taking the fight to big bad business. The truth was secondary to that need.
My point? It's this. They're just not that into you whatever their window dressing might suggest. In fact the more they suggest they're for the everyday man and woman, the more it seems the counter is true. Telling you what's real and letting you decide doesn't even come in to it because their need is more power for them. You're little people. When they want your opinion they'll give it to you, so you just sit down sonny and wait until you're told what to do. You don't matter to them except for the fact that you're currency, a down payment on their place at the trough. The only time they really want you is when they want your vote. They'll roll their meaningless manifesto in a bit of fairy dust, grab your vote and crack on with what they wanted to do in the first place. they don't care about you because you have given them permission to.
Now I don't say that to depress you. I don't want you to decide it's all pointless return to the electronic mogadon in the corner of your lounge. That's the worse thing you can do. Those we think of as "in charge" are being overtaken by events across the world. We've seen they're not really cut out for responsibility. They ballsing up the simple things so let's have a think about how well they're really managing the difficult stuff. Well, one example of how they handle it is evidenced in the QT example that leads this post. They tell a different story altogether and hope you don't notice. Returning to your comfy chair however is the worst thing you can do. You see they're breaking things so badly that if they're left unchecked, or we don't find leaders who are cut out for handling serious issues, the whole thing is going to go bang. When I say go bang, I mean break, shatter, collapse. If you think it's bad now, wait till it goes bang then you'll see a definition of bad.
If it goes that wrong, you won't be watching riots like they have in Greece and Spain on your television, you'll be watching them from your lounge window.
Have a think about that and decide whether it's back to the television or if you need to think about what you can do to put this nation back on the right track to prosperity and liberty.
Sunday, 4 November 2012
Counterattack
One of the things I've being thinking about and trying to do with this blog is to get large numbers of every day people to take action to get Britain off the track it appears to be on and back onto a track that has a better long term future for all. Its a numbers game. I believe the mess we currently find ourselves in is down to a campaign that has been in action over several decades. As such it has riddled our institutes and therefore the people we have running them. Turning this around therefore takes numbers. I believe the numbers are out there but they're either slumbering or overwhelmed by the organisation of it all, made worse by everyday "useful idiots" who enable their narrative.
The result is I try to think about how I can use this blog to give practical advice to everyday folk, to counter it and push back. Hopefully I've found something to help with that.
One such area of that philosophy is man made global warming(AGW). Yes I know, I've got the words wrong. It now doesn't get called that. The new phrase is man made climate change. I'm sticking with my term for this article because this is what its proponents are still really arguing, they're just trying to dress it up in confusing language (note to self - post some entries on Propaganda) so they can claim any piece of odd weather is evidence for their claim.
AGW is all pervading. When you hear about it, it's often positioned as a subject in which "The Science is Settled". The truth of the matter their version of the science is settled at all. In fact (and I wish I could find the link), that science is settled phrase was a recommendation in a strategy document by a PR agency that did a lot of work for pro AGW bodies. The science isn't settled. It's possible to learn if you do some background in to it that the AGW story is a tale of manipulation, fudge, lies and corruption of science. If it was so self evident why would this manipulation need to take place?
As I say it's all pervading. Everything you see about nature has a reference to it. It runs through our institutions and includes the indoctrination of our children with junk science so that they develop an entrenched mindset about it in which they are unable to question the orthodoxy.
I have to concede this to those advocates. They've been very successful in turning logic on its head. They've even got the man and woman in the street trotting out their nonsense without really knowing whether it's true or not. I say that because they simply repeat the orthodoxy, without having questioned it. These people are what Lenin termed "useful idiots".
Some of them however I suspect aren't really sure. They kind of laugh it off with a air of resignation in the same way we did about political correctness in the 80's. They laugh it off because they still see the contradictions so know something isn't right, but because it's all they hear they eventually become lost to the orthodoxy and get in line like the rest of the herd.
So here's what I have. If you're one of those who aren't sure go over to this site and have a quick learn or download the PDF file. It's a nice boiled down version of facts to rebut the tosh that's trotted out day after day to progress the AGW narrative. It's a great little read.
Don't worry about the simplicity because that's what makes it perfect for me. The average man and woman in the street isn't bothered abut the complex science. Keeping it complex helps the AGW advocates. It gives them a cloak to hide behind. I believe the complexity argument helps the sheep get into line and swallow the narrative. That's how the the herd reconcile the contradictions they see all around the story as they presume these contradictions must be explainable by something a bit complicated and only the AGW scientists understand, so what they say must be true (see how it works?).
Simplicity is the key. Despite being in the list of all time reprehensible list of characters, Adolf Hitler did make one astute observation. If you want a message to gather traction amongst the masses, you have to simplify it to the point that even the least clever amongst us can grasp it. The site I mentioned enables you to do that, It's pitched at a level you need to see the flaws in the AGW argument so that you can counter the onslaught that's thrown at you each and every day.
So take it and use it to push back with simple clear arguments. The advocates who push the narrative for malign reasons need the useful idiots. Losing these useful idiots is the first step in the erosion of their narrative. They're relying on being unchallenged or in such small numbers as to be insignificant. So use it and take back some ground and then take back a bit more and a bit more.
Talk to people and politely correct them and show them where they've been had and been conned. Eventually you'll find someone who sees the light. Then there will be two of you pushing back and before you know it there will be four pushing back and so on. Eventually you'll come across one of the corrupt and there will be enough of you to send them running for the hills because like all bullies, they're not after a challenge, they're after a victim.
Push back and bring your mates along. They don't like that and they're not ready for it. Let them know the day of the dog is here.
The result is I try to think about how I can use this blog to give practical advice to everyday folk, to counter it and push back. Hopefully I've found something to help with that.
One such area of that philosophy is man made global warming(AGW). Yes I know, I've got the words wrong. It now doesn't get called that. The new phrase is man made climate change. I'm sticking with my term for this article because this is what its proponents are still really arguing, they're just trying to dress it up in confusing language (note to self - post some entries on Propaganda) so they can claim any piece of odd weather is evidence for their claim.
AGW is all pervading. When you hear about it, it's often positioned as a subject in which "The Science is Settled". The truth of the matter their version of the science is settled at all. In fact (and I wish I could find the link), that science is settled phrase was a recommendation in a strategy document by a PR agency that did a lot of work for pro AGW bodies. The science isn't settled. It's possible to learn if you do some background in to it that the AGW story is a tale of manipulation, fudge, lies and corruption of science. If it was so self evident why would this manipulation need to take place?
As I say it's all pervading. Everything you see about nature has a reference to it. It runs through our institutions and includes the indoctrination of our children with junk science so that they develop an entrenched mindset about it in which they are unable to question the orthodoxy.
I have to concede this to those advocates. They've been very successful in turning logic on its head. They've even got the man and woman in the street trotting out their nonsense without really knowing whether it's true or not. I say that because they simply repeat the orthodoxy, without having questioned it. These people are what Lenin termed "useful idiots".
Some of them however I suspect aren't really sure. They kind of laugh it off with a air of resignation in the same way we did about political correctness in the 80's. They laugh it off because they still see the contradictions so know something isn't right, but because it's all they hear they eventually become lost to the orthodoxy and get in line like the rest of the herd.
So here's what I have. If you're one of those who aren't sure go over to this site and have a quick learn or download the PDF file. It's a nice boiled down version of facts to rebut the tosh that's trotted out day after day to progress the AGW narrative. It's a great little read.
Don't worry about the simplicity because that's what makes it perfect for me. The average man and woman in the street isn't bothered abut the complex science. Keeping it complex helps the AGW advocates. It gives them a cloak to hide behind. I believe the complexity argument helps the sheep get into line and swallow the narrative. That's how the the herd reconcile the contradictions they see all around the story as they presume these contradictions must be explainable by something a bit complicated and only the AGW scientists understand, so what they say must be true (see how it works?).
Simplicity is the key. Despite being in the list of all time reprehensible list of characters, Adolf Hitler did make one astute observation. If you want a message to gather traction amongst the masses, you have to simplify it to the point that even the least clever amongst us can grasp it. The site I mentioned enables you to do that, It's pitched at a level you need to see the flaws in the AGW argument so that you can counter the onslaught that's thrown at you each and every day.
So take it and use it to push back with simple clear arguments. The advocates who push the narrative for malign reasons need the useful idiots. Losing these useful idiots is the first step in the erosion of their narrative. They're relying on being unchallenged or in such small numbers as to be insignificant. So use it and take back some ground and then take back a bit more and a bit more.
Talk to people and politely correct them and show them where they've been had and been conned. Eventually you'll find someone who sees the light. Then there will be two of you pushing back and before you know it there will be four pushing back and so on. Eventually you'll come across one of the corrupt and there will be enough of you to send them running for the hills because like all bullies, they're not after a challenge, they're after a victim.
Push back and bring your mates along. They don't like that and they're not ready for it. Let them know the day of the dog is here.
Friday, 2 November 2012
A Change of Theme
Regular readers might notice the imagery has changed. I've decided to go with a poppy theme.
It felt so apt given that it's November. It felt apt for a blog that laments what has become of a nation that so many laid down their lives for.
One wonders if they had possesed the ability to see into the future, they would have refused to go into battle because they would have decided we weren't worth their sacrifice given what Britain has become.
Some of us still want to say thank you and hope that we too can one day give you the nation you died to protect.
It felt so apt given that it's November. It felt apt for a blog that laments what has become of a nation that so many laid down their lives for.
One wonders if they had possesed the ability to see into the future, they would have refused to go into battle because they would have decided we weren't worth their sacrifice given what Britain has become.
Some of us still want to say thank you and hope that we too can one day give you the nation you died to protect.
Experimenting
I'm trying a small experiment. I don't know which way it will go and some might think it a bit odd for someone whose blogging can be a bit erratic to say the least.
As readers will know I've been going on about local voting blocs. My premise is that that is where the real power base of the electorate lies. Local crops up time and time again. Richard North over at EUreferendum writes about local "battlegrounds" and I know David over at Witterings from Witney has a fair bit to say on the matter as well, to name just a few. I've written numerous entries calling on people to get themselves involved on establishing their local power base. I even offered to list their blogs in the sidebar of Restoring Britain. Unfortunately such calls have gone nowhere
Because of that I'm running a small experiment. There's a new sister blog to Restoring Britain now starting. I'm calling it Restoring Nottingham (how imaginative). Strangely enough it bring the focus from the national level to the local level aimed at the people of Nottinghamshire.
The reason is that sometimes I wonder if because as bloggers, we comment on things of a national / international level, people don't always see the connection them despite our efforts to tell them exactly how it applies to them.
So I'm going to try and put my money where my mouth is (so to speak) and begin something to try and wake the people of Nottinghamshire up. It might work but it might fall flat on its face with the only thing passing through being an empty Stella can.
It won't just be politics. I'm also looking at commenting on other things. Things that strike me as being potentially beneficial to the place as a place to live and visit. My comment is going to try and appeal to the people that live there. Nottingham won't change if the people don't change. If the people do what they did yesterday, they'll get what they got today. That applies to their lives and their politics. National or local, it's a numbers game. I'll also try and bring some of those national / international things into their homes and help them to see that it's not something out there and unrelated to them, but is pushing them around. Hopefully some of them will decide it's time to establish their own long march through the institutions.
I hope ultimately they get it and that some of the things we've talked about here such as local voting blocs start to take hold where I live for their sake and for their children's sakes. I'm also hoping to introduce them to things like the Harrogate agenda to move the debate out of the blogsphere into everyday homes.
Restoring Britain won't be disappearing. I'm going to try both blogs and see where we go. Hopefully new bloggers will come to the fore to spread the word. The offer still stands to link to local blogs as well (as long as they keep it legal). I still intend to find practical advice for those who want to become our Mia Love and make a difference as well as getting the whole local movement going.
Let's hope the folk of Nottingham are ready for it and they find my little blog.
As readers will know I've been going on about local voting blocs. My premise is that that is where the real power base of the electorate lies. Local crops up time and time again. Richard North over at EUreferendum writes about local "battlegrounds" and I know David over at Witterings from Witney has a fair bit to say on the matter as well, to name just a few. I've written numerous entries calling on people to get themselves involved on establishing their local power base. I even offered to list their blogs in the sidebar of Restoring Britain. Unfortunately such calls have gone nowhere
Because of that I'm running a small experiment. There's a new sister blog to Restoring Britain now starting. I'm calling it Restoring Nottingham (how imaginative). Strangely enough it bring the focus from the national level to the local level aimed at the people of Nottinghamshire.
The reason is that sometimes I wonder if because as bloggers, we comment on things of a national / international level, people don't always see the connection them despite our efforts to tell them exactly how it applies to them.
So I'm going to try and put my money where my mouth is (so to speak) and begin something to try and wake the people of Nottinghamshire up. It might work but it might fall flat on its face with the only thing passing through being an empty Stella can.
It won't just be politics. I'm also looking at commenting on other things. Things that strike me as being potentially beneficial to the place as a place to live and visit. My comment is going to try and appeal to the people that live there. Nottingham won't change if the people don't change. If the people do what they did yesterday, they'll get what they got today. That applies to their lives and their politics. National or local, it's a numbers game. I'll also try and bring some of those national / international things into their homes and help them to see that it's not something out there and unrelated to them, but is pushing them around. Hopefully some of them will decide it's time to establish their own long march through the institutions.
I hope ultimately they get it and that some of the things we've talked about here such as local voting blocs start to take hold where I live for their sake and for their children's sakes. I'm also hoping to introduce them to things like the Harrogate agenda to move the debate out of the blogsphere into everyday homes.
Restoring Britain won't be disappearing. I'm going to try both blogs and see where we go. Hopefully new bloggers will come to the fore to spread the word. The offer still stands to link to local blogs as well (as long as they keep it legal). I still intend to find practical advice for those who want to become our Mia Love and make a difference as well as getting the whole local movement going.
Let's hope the folk of Nottingham are ready for it and they find my little blog.
Tuesday, 23 October 2012
Make It Go Away
Last night my wife and I lounged on our sofas and found ourselves watching Panorama's special Jimmy Savile episode. It wasn't comfortable viewing for a whole host of reasons. Not just for the vile stories and the constant failure to put a stop to it, but also for the faint allusion that the lid is about to come right off this thing. I see veteran DJ Paul Gambucini has made particularly stomach churning claims on a live radio show today, that has certainly taken it up a notch from his observations in yesterday's documentary. One really gets the sense that this thing has picked up a momentum that will make it not easy to control and that somehow we might learn some things that a part of our national psyche is going to wish we didn't know about.
As I watched it, I marvelled at how many people seemed to know about this man and his cohorts hiding in plain sight. ITheir knowledge and inaction was dressed up in all manner of weasely words. I think some of the worst of it was this notion of it being a different time. I'm sorry, but that's bollocks. Yes, the 70's in Britain was a different time but different in such a way that the opposite outcome should have been the result. We had a tendency to be more judgemental in the 70's. People we considered "strange" stood out more whether our viewpoint of them was justified or not. People who the local populace felt were taking what they perceived to be an unhealthy interest in youngsters were more readily pounced on. In other words, society was more likely to spot them as opposed to letting them continue their nefarious business as is being claimed about the inexplicable approach to the Savile situation.
I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that if all of this is true, this justification for missing him and his ilk is down to something very different than is being claimed and it isn't isolated. This would add to two other scandals that have come to light this year that I think also contain seeds of the same issue. Those two issues are the Rotherham and Rochdale abuse scandals, the reports of which were released a few months ago.
For me, the perpetrators though they disgust me, are not what I focused on. What has struck me in all three cases are those who saw and who knew, yet did nothing. We will learn more on Savile in the future but I suspect we are going to learn about that what we have learned about Rotherham and Rochdale. There were lots of people who could have done something, but didn't. They can bleat and plead all they like but their hear no evil see no evil approach puts them right at the heart of the scandals and not just as witnesses.
At the heart of all three stories of all three failures to protect the youngsters involved is self interest. The overriding motivation behind non action by those who could have said something but didn't was their concern for themselves. Just like a child in a difficult situation, they effectively held their head in their hands and wished that the problem would go away. The police wished for it along with social services in the Rotherham cases. Such people found themselves in a place and time where there was something they just didn't want to deal because to do so would have led to greater discomfort and they needed to avoid it. Rather than deal with it, they lashed out at the vulnerable. How else do you explain the situation in Rotherham in which the family of one of the victims are arrested by the police for trying to stop it. The pain of dealing with the real issue is greater than the scandal of abusing the innocent. They wished it would go away because to deal with it would have upset the relatively cosy arrangement that was their everyday life.
Horrible isn't it? I just hope that somewhere they get to be honest with themselves, acknowledge their shame (even if only to themselves) and atone for their inaction.
As I watched it, I marvelled at how many people seemed to know about this man and his cohorts hiding in plain sight. ITheir knowledge and inaction was dressed up in all manner of weasely words. I think some of the worst of it was this notion of it being a different time. I'm sorry, but that's bollocks. Yes, the 70's in Britain was a different time but different in such a way that the opposite outcome should have been the result. We had a tendency to be more judgemental in the 70's. People we considered "strange" stood out more whether our viewpoint of them was justified or not. People who the local populace felt were taking what they perceived to be an unhealthy interest in youngsters were more readily pounced on. In other words, society was more likely to spot them as opposed to letting them continue their nefarious business as is being claimed about the inexplicable approach to the Savile situation.
I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that if all of this is true, this justification for missing him and his ilk is down to something very different than is being claimed and it isn't isolated. This would add to two other scandals that have come to light this year that I think also contain seeds of the same issue. Those two issues are the Rotherham and Rochdale abuse scandals, the reports of which were released a few months ago.
For me, the perpetrators though they disgust me, are not what I focused on. What has struck me in all three cases are those who saw and who knew, yet did nothing. We will learn more on Savile in the future but I suspect we are going to learn about that what we have learned about Rotherham and Rochdale. There were lots of people who could have done something, but didn't. They can bleat and plead all they like but their hear no evil see no evil approach puts them right at the heart of the scandals and not just as witnesses.
At the heart of all three stories of all three failures to protect the youngsters involved is self interest. The overriding motivation behind non action by those who could have said something but didn't was their concern for themselves. Just like a child in a difficult situation, they effectively held their head in their hands and wished that the problem would go away. The police wished for it along with social services in the Rotherham cases. Such people found themselves in a place and time where there was something they just didn't want to deal because to do so would have led to greater discomfort and they needed to avoid it. Rather than deal with it, they lashed out at the vulnerable. How else do you explain the situation in Rotherham in which the family of one of the victims are arrested by the police for trying to stop it. The pain of dealing with the real issue is greater than the scandal of abusing the innocent. They wished it would go away because to deal with it would have upset the relatively cosy arrangement that was their everyday life.
Horrible isn't it? I just hope that somewhere they get to be honest with themselves, acknowledge their shame (even if only to themselves) and atone for their inaction.
Sunday, 21 October 2012
Shame
Readers will know that by my absence of posting that I am one of those who Witterings from Witney correctly identified as hitting the wall. I've been absent, not because of the lack of anger but more due to the idea that we as a people and a nation are surrounded by detritus that those who spread it have the gall to call public service. It seems to come from all angles and to the relatively small number of bloggers trying to engage the 60 odd million people of this island to wake up, it can be an energy sapping experience.
David's kind words to me yesterday got me back into the saddle and I find myself on a second post in two days. I thank David for encouraging me to get back into the fray.
Surrounded as we are by a torrent of self interest and corruption I started thinking about positive aspects about the apparent dominance of those for whom nothing matters but craven self interest. It came to me after stumbling across a few seemingly unrelated stories.
First up was an article that I thought when opening was going to be a bit of a short piece. How wrong I was. The article in question was a suggestion that Jimmy Savile was the tip of the iceberg. To read it is truly scary when you read about the efforts to cover up any attempts to get to heart of what happened on Jersey. The other article was about the efforts by the speaker of the House of Commons to avoid releasing details of MPs expenses. This was dressed up in the premise that such obfuscation was for security reasons which does not really seem to stand up to scrutiny and looked to those examining it, that it was more about hiding something.
On the face of the two seem about as unrelated as it is possible to get and I would agree if taken at face value. There is no suggestion on my part that the ongoing criminal investigation of Savile is connected with Westminster (just so we're clear). There is however a common denominator on another level. For me that common denominator is about keeping something hidden from the eyes of the public. To a point those taking the p*ss are brazen, but once the attention of the majority focus on them they look to hide it. In the Jersey case, although efforts to thwart the investigators initially succeeded, the end result was that certain individuals allegedly connected to the sabotage efforts were caught red handed and committed suicide.
Please do not mistake this post as one taking pleasure in the loss of life. It is far from that. I use the example to illustrate a point and it is this. If there is something positive it is that even amongst the most craven and most vile of actions, shame still exists. Shame exists because we see it every day. It dresses up as cover ups, lies, buck passing, sabotage - you name it. Every effort to deflect attention from wrong doing to somewhere else is a behaviour that has its roots in the shame of the perpetrator. In other words they have a fear of being found out. We can find it when we saw the wriggling of our PM around his cast iron guarantee of a referendum on the EU and in all the claptrap about repatriation of powers back to Britain currently found in the verbal dysentery from those in Westminster. We can find it in the lies of one Edward Heath in the joining of the common market. We can find it wherever a public servant conveniently leaves something out of a statement that would leave their credibility on an issue lying in tatters if it were known by the public.
Is that a positive? I say yes. In some things they are seemingly brazen but their dominant behaviour is to dance around the truth. They will not stand and make a case to you on what they truly believe and that should tell you the whole story. What it should tell you is that having what they do laid bare for examination scares them. They fear accountability. They fear examination. They fear their lies being exposed to the wider public. They know that there is a power in your hands that they do not have. They know that you, yes you has the power to remove them from their place at the trough filled by the public purse and it scares them. They fear shame which is something that can be attached to them by the public and the people of this nation.
Reread that last sentence - because you are the nation and you are the public. Wake up!
David's kind words to me yesterday got me back into the saddle and I find myself on a second post in two days. I thank David for encouraging me to get back into the fray.
Surrounded as we are by a torrent of self interest and corruption I started thinking about positive aspects about the apparent dominance of those for whom nothing matters but craven self interest. It came to me after stumbling across a few seemingly unrelated stories.
First up was an article that I thought when opening was going to be a bit of a short piece. How wrong I was. The article in question was a suggestion that Jimmy Savile was the tip of the iceberg. To read it is truly scary when you read about the efforts to cover up any attempts to get to heart of what happened on Jersey. The other article was about the efforts by the speaker of the House of Commons to avoid releasing details of MPs expenses. This was dressed up in the premise that such obfuscation was for security reasons which does not really seem to stand up to scrutiny and looked to those examining it, that it was more about hiding something.
On the face of the two seem about as unrelated as it is possible to get and I would agree if taken at face value. There is no suggestion on my part that the ongoing criminal investigation of Savile is connected with Westminster (just so we're clear). There is however a common denominator on another level. For me that common denominator is about keeping something hidden from the eyes of the public. To a point those taking the p*ss are brazen, but once the attention of the majority focus on them they look to hide it. In the Jersey case, although efforts to thwart the investigators initially succeeded, the end result was that certain individuals allegedly connected to the sabotage efforts were caught red handed and committed suicide.
Please do not mistake this post as one taking pleasure in the loss of life. It is far from that. I use the example to illustrate a point and it is this. If there is something positive it is that even amongst the most craven and most vile of actions, shame still exists. Shame exists because we see it every day. It dresses up as cover ups, lies, buck passing, sabotage - you name it. Every effort to deflect attention from wrong doing to somewhere else is a behaviour that has its roots in the shame of the perpetrator. In other words they have a fear of being found out. We can find it when we saw the wriggling of our PM around his cast iron guarantee of a referendum on the EU and in all the claptrap about repatriation of powers back to Britain currently found in the verbal dysentery from those in Westminster. We can find it in the lies of one Edward Heath in the joining of the common market. We can find it wherever a public servant conveniently leaves something out of a statement that would leave their credibility on an issue lying in tatters if it were known by the public.
Is that a positive? I say yes. In some things they are seemingly brazen but their dominant behaviour is to dance around the truth. They will not stand and make a case to you on what they truly believe and that should tell you the whole story. What it should tell you is that having what they do laid bare for examination scares them. They fear accountability. They fear examination. They fear their lies being exposed to the wider public. They know that there is a power in your hands that they do not have. They know that you, yes you has the power to remove them from their place at the trough filled by the public purse and it scares them. They fear shame which is something that can be attached to them by the public and the people of this nation.
Reread that last sentence - because you are the nation and you are the public. Wake up!
Saturday, 20 October 2012
My Two Pence Worth
Fraser Nelson has written his view on the battle for Elected Police Commissioners. In his eyes it's becoming something of a balls up with very few suitably qualified candidates. As Nelson cites, it has attracted the big political parties or other people for whom it's not clear what they will bring to the table.
Personally I'm not surprised. It's window dressing for me from a man and a political process that isn't really interested in lifting a nation off its knees. It's a misdirection. An attempt to make you think that that they're looking to take the fight to the criminals, something I have concluded they are not really interested in.
Why? Well you only have to talk to serving police officers as I do with my friends. One thing you will often get told is how they arrest people, often catching them bang to rights or with what should be an overwhelming amount of evidence, only to have the CPS decide not to proceed further. One of my serving friends often refers to them as the Criminal Protection Service or Couldn't Prosecute Satan. That is where the pinch point lies. The police seem to be serving up a ready amount of work for them but for some reason they don't seem to have an appetite for it.
I'm sure there are fine people within the organisation but there's got to be something wrong when you pick up stories like this.
If you're looking to elect a role in the judicial process, you might want to consider the merits of electing a regional or district crown prosecutor. Labour tinkered with a similar notion in their 1997 election manifesto when they said the public would know who their regional head of the CPS was. We never did learn that but I believe Witterings from Witney did a recent post that referenced the farce of Labour's Election Manifesto with the observation that people shouldn't take a manifesto of a genuine indication of what they would do once in power.
Probably the reason they didn't tell us who our regional crown prosecutor was probably had something to do with accountability and if there's one thing I've learned is that accountability is like Kryptonite to our political class.
That for me is why the Police Commissioner thing is a farce and pure window dressing. It was give the illusion on tackling crime with actually having to tackle crime. The real power on tackling crime lies elsewhere and they certainly don't want you having some power over that.
Personally I'm not surprised. It's window dressing for me from a man and a political process that isn't really interested in lifting a nation off its knees. It's a misdirection. An attempt to make you think that that they're looking to take the fight to the criminals, something I have concluded they are not really interested in.
Why? Well you only have to talk to serving police officers as I do with my friends. One thing you will often get told is how they arrest people, often catching them bang to rights or with what should be an overwhelming amount of evidence, only to have the CPS decide not to proceed further. One of my serving friends often refers to them as the Criminal Protection Service or Couldn't Prosecute Satan. That is where the pinch point lies. The police seem to be serving up a ready amount of work for them but for some reason they don't seem to have an appetite for it.
I'm sure there are fine people within the organisation but there's got to be something wrong when you pick up stories like this.
If you're looking to elect a role in the judicial process, you might want to consider the merits of electing a regional or district crown prosecutor. Labour tinkered with a similar notion in their 1997 election manifesto when they said the public would know who their regional head of the CPS was. We never did learn that but I believe Witterings from Witney did a recent post that referenced the farce of Labour's Election Manifesto with the observation that people shouldn't take a manifesto of a genuine indication of what they would do once in power.
Probably the reason they didn't tell us who our regional crown prosecutor was probably had something to do with accountability and if there's one thing I've learned is that accountability is like Kryptonite to our political class.
That for me is why the Police Commissioner thing is a farce and pure window dressing. It was give the illusion on tackling crime with actually having to tackle crime. The real power on tackling crime lies elsewhere and they certainly don't want you having some power over that.
Thursday, 30 August 2012
Betrayal - A Janet & John Explanation
Yesterday I posted about Nick Clegg's new soak the rich
strategy and why I thought it was, to say the least, stupid. I questioned the 'why' having admitting to be
perplexed as to whether it was political posturing, a genuine plan or a
combination of both. I remain confused
even after the latest revelation that he seems to have checked his plan out
with none of his advisers and that the absence of analysis on their part means
it is no more a plan than a pipe dream.
It should worry us all that a man who holds such high office and who
seems to have such sway on the PM sees no issue with opening his mouth and
letting the wind blow his tongue around.
It does not surprise, but it worries me.
There is something else in Clegg's 'strategy' that speaks
volumes and shows his betrayal to whole swathes of the population including
those because long term his plan can only end in disaster for all. His thinking will run all of us aboard HMS
Great Britain onto the rocks, but not before throwing the genuinely
disadvantaged overboard.
Clegg's 'proposal' , along with all those politicians who
agree with it is flawed from the outset.
It works from the presumption that there is a revenue problem.
There isn't a revenue problem but there is a spending
problem
Westminster has a spending problem, pure and simple. Even if they took every penny this year, next
year they would want it all again and more. They year after that would be the
same. It's their answer to everything
and there's a reason. In these modern times we have professional politicians
running the country as opposed to leaders and statesmen. Leaders work and statesman focus on the
national interest. Professional
politicians operate in the self interest.
At the heart of their strategy is what is best for them as opposed to
what is best for you. Their trick
however is to dress their self interest up in the notion that they are doing
good deeds for you and they do it through spending.
But there's a problem.
It's one deep down that they know about, regardless of their
ideology. They know about it and they
know they need to do something, but the fact that they won't because it will
hurt them in the short term is precisely why I titled this post betrayal.
Firstly they have handed out money through welfare schemes
and such like. Slowly year by year, this
group of recipients has grown.
"Eligibility" and "Entitlement" has grown, year on
year, decade on decade. more and more
people become recipients of the state's generosity. That takes more and more money. Eventually as we have now, politicians come
to realise that not enough tax can be generated from the population so it has
to borrow money from elsewhere.
In reality this spending needs to be rolled back, slowed
down and cut down for reasons. Modern
politicians won't do it however.
They've been so generous that we've lost sight of what we need as a nation,
families and individuals. We've had years of conditioning that we're entitled
to the fruits of the tree for no effort whatsoever and that we should have
these fruits year after year after year.
This generosity has gone on for so long that we have been conditioned to
see it as normal. Therefore any attempt
to roll it back and curb spending is seen as evil and draconian. They've created addicts of us all and we've
gone along with it. Politicians won't
try to roll it back because if they do, the blow back threatens their feathered
nest, which they will not compromise on.
But now we have another problem - those sources of borrowed
cash are drying up. In other words this
charade cannot continue forever. There
are too many countries playing exactly the same game our politicians are
playing, effectively buying votes. No
matter how much they want it to continue politicians know we're running out of
money for the game and we have nothing more to hock.
Keep going and it will go bang!
It's at this point the nightmare begins. Any nation repeatedly conditioned to be fed,
clothed and watered ( and plasma tv'd and top end sports weared and annual
all-inclusive holdayed) by the state on such a large scale sees too many people
become absolutely dependent on the outside sources. Conversely any self reliance they had simply
disappears. So when the whole thing goes
bang, they will have no notion of what to do to feed and clothe their
family.
First they'll turn to the politicians who will turn their
back on them. Despite politicians
breeding this problem, they will accept no responsibility for it. They will leave the dependents to solve it
for themselves. The genuinely poor,
needy and desperate will be the first to go under. Those who took to the welfare state because
they were struck with the curse of idleness will be the next to go. When they go under, we'll see violence as the
repeated indulgence of that idleness will first see them take from those nearby
who still retain some self reliance.
When that starts we are in dark days indeed.
This is why I call this betrayal. This self interest and continued spending in
Westminster ends up in a very dark place indeed. Those who will suffer it the first and to the
harshest degree will be those whom the welfare state was supposed to be for in
the first place. It has become like a
disease that devours everything and that when everything is gone it can only
devour itself and will be forced to.
Soaking the rich will not solve this problem and is no
strategy. Another path is needed, one
that frees people from dependency and gives those who can, the means to
strengthen their resolve, their self reliance and the capacity to make
something genuine of their lives. We
have to have a strategy that can fund only those who can't and not those who
won't.
What other word can there be for any other path than this by
our politicians but betrayal?
What I've written here is not a revelation so some might
question why I've written it at all, not least in such Janet & John
language. I've written it and in this
fashion, because this is something that needs telling across the country, time
and time again. It should be in the
forefront of their mind when they hear any politician continue to peddle more
money on more schemes to "help" more people. It needs telling till it sinks in. It needs telling by any fourth force (or
third if if the Lib Dems face the collapse anticipated for them) in the nations
politics in every marginal seat they look to contest.
It needs telling because the big lie that has been told for
so long needs to be stopped once and for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)