Civil War by Stealth
Posted 4 December 2008
By embracing 'green' human progress hating politics; by covering up an energy crisis; by fighting wars we have no business being involved in; by introducing a series of 1930s Germany style fascist laws; by interfering in every aspect of our lives; by stealing our right to free health care (including psychiatric and dental); by selling the family silver and jewels; by creating a massive layer of unelected bureaucracy; by allowing unrestrained free-markets to prioritise short term gain; by pandering to the selfish whims of the stupid 'middle' classes; by being ineffective in every aspect of governance; by over-empowering the keepers of the peace; by abandoning industry in favour of service; by lying about educational expectations; by looking after their own best interests; by allowing mis-information and outright lies to dominate our corrupt media, this government and its post war predecessors have been declaring war on its citizens for decades.
We have been too stupid to notice that we, the people, are at war with our leaders and each other. It is a long drawn out, slow fight to the death of our once great nation.
And we are going to lose!
Is democracy dead?
Posted 4 November 2008
Considering the events that lead to Dubya gaining power, can any of us be certain that our vote counts? A scandal surrounding postal voting fraud emerged here, in Blighty, after the last general election.
There are whiners, who don't vote because "They're all the same anyway" and others who don't think their preferred candidate stands a chance, so don't vote.
Worse, there are a huge number of people who vote for a particular party because they always have, like their father and grandfather before them. They then do nothing but complain about their lot for the next four or five years.
Our first-past-the-post system does not provide for true representation or accountability; the same is true in the USA. Until we have a fairer system, I believe that democracy is dying.
In the meantime we have people around the world breathing air through democracy's nostrils and pounding on its chest.
Sammy Wilson gets my vote
Posted 10 September 2008
It's just a pity I don't live in Northern Ireland. I don't care what side of that particular divide he comes from, he is not a coward. Apparently he frequently gets up the Greenies' noses by stating the simple fact that there is no proven anthropogenic link to global warming. He is a rare thing indeed - a well informed politician with integrity. I'm coming over all light-headed.
See how he must also be putting the willies up the energy cartels on his web site's news pages.
World War III (the energy war) has been declared
Posted 14 July 2008
The UN (via the IPCC), the G8 and their Kyoto/Bali puppets have declared war on the global poor and on our future prosperity and advancement.
All the most powerful nations on earth are conspiring to control the distribution of energy. Any excuse for war will do, wherever the target nation has significant energy (or development related) resources.
The anthropegenic global warming lie spread by the media propaganda machines (apparantly now completely in the control of the various states) has stageringly quickly been accepted by the masses. The masses will probably never spot the connections and protest at the cost of each war (in taxes and lives) as they see fit. The fact that the green movement too are so easily manipulated and used by the war-mongers has a certain delicious irony.
Why are we having to fight over energy? To maintain the power distribution status quo. This is the new cold-war; a hot-war (or warm-war) if you will. In order for those of us riding the prosperity wagon to remain in front we have to fend off hitch-hiking free loader nations, apparently. Unfortunately, because this tactic was thought up by an inept spook or military drone, it will be self-defeating.
By taxing us to the hilt, restricting energy use and starving 'supporting' economies, they turn back our own developmental clock and risk handing it all to our perceived enemies on a plate. The rapidly rising Asian economies and fence walking Russia are laughing all the way to a super-power future as we sink up to our necks in a mire of unnecessary bull shit and expense.
The big gamble, with all our lives, will be an inevitable power block stand off. The rising powers on one side, who have not bought into the global warming hype, controlling a significant proportion of resources; and on the other us, the old guard, willing to go nuclear, I've no doubt.
War declared on humanity, by little green wo/men
Posted 8 April 2008
The green movement might as well be aliens. They are winning the current round of their campaign to starve the world's poor and stifle all development and progress. The very progress that gave them the privilege, to do so, that they now enjoy.
Take away all that they hate and you take away their ability to bully the rest of us into mindless submission, worshiping at their hemp sandaled feet. So maybe we should bide our time, fellow advanced (top of the food chain) beings, and wait until they think they've won. Being the species we are, anarchy will ensue and the peace loving greenies will be the first to be squashed. Then we can repair the damage they have done and get on with being human, and progress technologically to beyond the stars.
The planet will be fine, as it always has been and the process of natural selection that got us to this point will continue to roll its dice. Those creatures and plants that can survive in the world of our mutual making will be the antecedants of whatever follows after the next real natural disaster finishes off humanity.
The world will change shape, unecognisably, and the flora and fauna will evolve beyond our imaginings and the religions of old (incluing the bitter, twisted and poisened religion of 21st century science) will not even be visible in any distant archaeological record. The strange objects floating in space might give visitors a bit of a clue about what used to be on this little blue planet but they will find little else.
Because, we truely don't matter and in their distorted morality, narcisistic worshipers of 'environmentalism' have forgotten that we are part of that very same environment. We are natural and, by extension, so is everything we do, absolutely everything we do. Many species of the world create environments, which if they succeeded in becoming dominant, would have a much wider implication for all other life. Why should we ban ourselves from this genetic imperitive? Nothing we acheive can possibly be above and beyond the nature we belong to. Only a weak cowardly tendency to desparately need there to be something bigger than us (because we fear death) allows us to believe that we are bigger than the rest of nature. We are not, except that currently we appear to be a dominant species. That won't last for ever.
So bring it on green bullies and weak politicians, I will survive the anarchy your policies and taxes will lead to. When we have to literally fight for scraps of food and shelter, I won't hesitate to beat the living shite out of you. I might even stop being a vegetarian and eat you! Green is good food, yum.
Scottish drivers to destroy planet, claim WWF
Posted 11 February 2008
In reporting the great news that all tolls have finally been removed from Scottish roads, the BBC have yet again managed to embarrass themselves. They just couldn't resist the opportunity to quote the WWF's claim that this will contribute to man-made Global Warming.
That will be because of the huge increase in traffic taking the shorter routes across the now free bridges instead of driving the long way round, I presume. Or will it be because of the significant increase in business and tourists, as claimed by the SNP, who stayed away before because they couldn't afford the £1 charge; and they say Scots are tight!
Conning the Daft Classes
Posted 8 February 2008
British classrooms are full of poorly educated, over-tested underachievers. It says so here. Of course, they are not wrong but what is really going on with our children? It will not surprise you to know that I am going to enlighten you because I know this is the kind of stuff you spambots are searching for.
Still, undaunted, here's the thing:
Social engineering by the current government and the last lot is at the root of this nonsense. I am not an Icke-like paranoid loon (in my humble opinion) but money rules, OK. The economies of the world are dominated by a smallish group of individuals and conglomerates that control a huge proportion of the wealth and power. Governments have to bow to their will.
You might think I'm talking shite but why else would we force our kids out of the home at such a young age, resulting in damage to their early development? We need their parents to work, that why! THEY have also conspired to force up up house prices for the same reason and it makes them extra money into the bargain. A side benefit of creating generation after generation of poorly educated Daily Mail/Express/Sun reading drones is that they are easily conned into believing an early education is good for the kids. Clearly it is not.
Is anybody out there thinking?
Bashing the Bishop
Posted 8 February 2008
The media has been full of of the high-priest of the loony Christian left's absurd outburst on the subject of Sharia Law.
Why, Rowan, why? Then it dawned on me. He is watching the USA presidential primaries and seeing the massive influence the protestant church has on politics there. There is a very good chance (God help us all) that the Christian Right's candidate will be the next President of the USA.
Rowan must be hankering after the good old days shortly after the reformation when his predecessors word was all but law; when the pilgrim fathers scooted across the pond to set up the perfect protestant nation; and when all other religions were dealt with using as much violence as they pleased. Them were the days, eh!
He is crudely using reverse psychology to wake us all up to the insanity that people, thinking as he describes, will bring about if we don't all scamper quickly to the bosom of the mother church, surely! He cannot be serious, can he?
Here, we are witnessing why the American constitution forbids the intrusion of the inevitable extremism into its legislature and why voting for the Republican in November would be a disaster for the world. We are also witnessing the frantic death throws of a outmoded, outdated cult of fear, which of course is precisely what he is suggesting we inject into our legal framework.
Charlie Wilson's War
Posted 22 January 2008
Now that's a good movie! Last night was Monday so the theatre was hardly packed; perhaps 30 people but they were all at least late twenty something and well behaved.
The Oscar goes, without doubt, to Phillip Seymour Hoffman for his utterly absorbing performance as Gust Avrakotos the principal CIA agent in the plot. Tom Hank excels in a convincing performance as the flamboyant Congressman Charlie Wilson and Julia Roberts is believably camp as the outrageous Texan millionaire Joanne Herring.
This is superb cinema for grown-ups. It makes excellent use of archive news footage and a small amount of terrifyingly believable CGI. We see Soviet helicopter gunship attacks on Afghan villages and towns from the pilots' perspective, a la PS3.
Mike Nichols directs a fabulously believable montage of American political life, covert operations and cold war politics set utterly convincingly in the eighties.
The story, based on George Crile's book, is all the more intriguing because the real Charlie Wilson and Joanne Herring are still alive. These two and Gust Avrakotos (who died in 2005) are, as portrayed, utterly likable people of enormous passion, humour and intellect.
We are asked to believe two potentially provocative theses on the conduct of the cold war, which make this movie borderline propaganda in the context of the 'war-on-terror'. Firstly that America is the Muslim world's friend because they financed the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan; and secondly that Israel helped.
The film ends with white text on a blackened screen confessing that although America made the right decision in Afghanistan in the cold war context, they clearly 'fucked' it up afterwards. The final scenes emphasize Charlie Wilson's alleged frustration at this.
This is not a bad interpretation of recent history and I do buy it but like the film makers imply, we are now paying for the mistakes made afterwards. A huge door has been left open for the sequel - 'Osama the early years'.
I am nobody but I do know how to fix the world.
Posted 18 January 2008
I have decide to single-handedly fix the world's problems by inventing a post-Utopian society structured on the principle of power sharing. You can read about it here as it develops.Qualifications are Dangerous
Posted 17 January 2008
I was recently at a 'drinks party' given by a good friend who works for the Environment Agency where most of the guests were from that or related industries plus a journalist.
They also had all met while doing courses at various levels from ONC to HND (Secondary to 2/3 Tertiary) in environmental management disciplines. They are without exception, apparently, convinced by the IPCC/Kyoto bullshit, not surprisingly.
I stuck my oar in at one point questioning the IPCC's motivations and legitimacy, silencing the group, awkwardly. A few drinks later the room buzzed again, shame!
'Climate Resistance' have done some interesting and revealing research (and here) into the qualifications of the IPCC's high priests.
West Lothian Answer
Posted 7 November 2007
They keep asking the question without properly considering the answer. So here it is: It is political mischief designed to divert attention from real issues and to stir up an inbred English chauvinism that politicians regularly fall back on when they are desperate.
I don’t need to explain why they are desperate (the economy is screwed - debt bubble is about to burst) and it must be somebody else’s fault. They have tried the sick, unemployed, youth, bad parenting, immigrants and terrorists and failed so it must be Scotland’s fault!
I don’t have to repeat here the contribution Scotland made to the development of Britain and its wealth or the Scottish blood spilt in its defence and the protestant population of Ulster, surely.
Instead, I will talk about contracts, agreements, treaties and law. Following the accession of Scotland’s James VI to the English throne in 1603, we had nearly 100 years of relative peace between our nations. We also had a great deal of Scottish nobles investing in England and vice versa. It was a win win century and so it was not difficult to persuade the Scottish people to agree to a full Union in 1707. Note: Scottish peoples’ decision!
The Act of Union was an agreement that enshrined in British law that decsion A few requirements of the Scottish people were included in that perpetually binding contract. We were to keep an independent church, legal and financial systems and we were to have a deliberately excessive number of MPs at Westminster to protect our interests.
We still require that protection until we gain true power over our affairs, ideally with full independence. Any other move to reverse any part of the Act of Union will be a breach of contract, illegal and an act of war, as far as I am concerned. The Scottish people should not treat this as something minor or as a laughing matter.
There needs to be a separate debate on whether we should retain the monarchy in the event of independence. We should also consider whether the SNP’s love of the European Union would put us in a better position than the Swiss, the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Monaco etc. And, without question, THE OIL IS OURS!
An independent, neutral, non-aligned Scotland could only grow. As a powerless English puppet and dumping ground for failed technologies (wind farming) and WDM’s (the whole UK nuclear ‘deterrent’ is based here), Scotland can only continue to shrink.
The English gutter press and Scottish Tory press continue to stir up their mindless, gullible zombie readers with stupid and groundless spending comparisons. It costs more to run Scotland, when taken irrelevantly as a whole, because so much of it is rural and sparsely populated and when it has suffered so much neglect in the past. The same is true of Wales and Northern Ireland or large rural regions of England. The proportion of tax wealth redistributed to areas that are expensive to run is bound to be higher than densely populated English cities and other areas where economies of scale massively reduce costs.
No right thinking individual would ever think it wrong to pay more to build a road in a mountainous area than it does to build or maintain one in a town, for example. Scotland has more public swimming pools because if it didn’t people would have to travel 100s of miles to use one; similarly with hospitals and other public services. The same should be true in England but the blue-rinsed masses of middle England are so obsessed with the value of their houses and their savings that they would rather sacrifice good quality than pay more tax, and then blame Scotland (or anybody else) for their problems.
They do it all the time. They sack their football managers because it can’t possibly be the case that there are not 11 good enough players with the right parentage to win another world cup. The answer to the West Lothian question my southern cousins is this:
It’s all your fault, all your problems, and you will consider interfering further with Scotland’s affairs at your peril!
England is the question. Scotland is the answer!
siding with the enemy
Posted 24 October 2007
Read this definition of hate speech here and let me know what you think.
I think he is right! Free speech is not something enshrined in UK law as in the US but what we do have is being constantly eroded by the politics of fear.
There are many links on this site that will take you to predominantly right-wing (dark side) points of view. There are plenty others that take you to the light side and that has nearly always been where I would naturally position myself, most comfortably. In the seventies I did vote for the right but never since.
So what has that got to do with anything? Change is life and I am struggling with it. I no longer have the patience to solve problems the ‘liberal way’. I’m running out of time. The right offer quick fixes that make more sense in the short-term and we are all here for the short-term, after all. The fearmongers require us to think ahead, to see the bigger picture and to work for the greater good. I am learning daily that this is folly. The future will take care of its own. We are all the future product of somebody else’s past and we managed, and look what they left us with.
Don’t get me wrong. There is no man-made global warming or no real global warming to worry about. I am not talking about that kind of problem. I would be the first to support a project to protect the planet from an asteroid collision and want to do my best to protect as much ecology and habitat as possible. But preserve every building and landscape feature from the past and preserve/conserve as much of the ‘countryside’ as possible - no; that too is folly! There is plenty room for us all to spread out a bit.
None of that is really getting to the point. I have discovered, in my near dotage, that I am more and more aligning with right wing thinking (centre right). They have more solutions that would see beneficial change in my life time. Luckily they are still allowed to express their thoughts reasonably openly but for how much longer?
RIP Royal Society - past greats turn in grave shock
Posted 13 August 2007
I agree wholeheartedly with the ever vigilant Prof Brignal (see ‘A Right Royal Panic‘ on his Number Watch, August 2007 page).
What the fuck is going one?
Here we have the premier UK science body publishing a staggering insult to the process of science, in desparate defence of its establishment position (in the interests of fairness and balance have a look at their simplistic ‘Misleading Arguments‘ PDF). Titling every page ‘Misleading Argument…’ and aswering with ‘What does the science say’ is just about the least scientific, Daily Mail headline guff I’ve ever read. Science never says the other theory is wrong because it is not scientific to do so. There cannot be a definitive right or wrong in systems as complex as this (though you will find many more scientists through the links on this site more convinced by the counter arguments and evidence). Of course they use the form ‘the science’ because they are referring to the specific government sponsored, environmental politics motivated cynical science being conducted by the gravy train riders.
They know that many readers of this extremly misleading document will not make the distinction. They have not said ‘What Science says’ because they know that a great deal of science says there is no (or little) man-mad global warming and that the science behind the arguments the RS are attempting to refute here is more robust and easier to defend than the particular science being hyped here.
The great founders and past members of this once great institution will be turning in their graves. Science is dead, long live the religion of ‘New Science’, no empirical evidence required!
the high church of fear
Posted 9 August 2007
As far as archaeologists can tell, and within the limitations of the historical record, we can be pretty sure that for as long as we have had self-awareness we have been scared of death.
Our entire history, as a species, lurches from one belief system to another or from one variation on the theme to another. All organised belief systems have sought to explain why and how we have come about, how we should live and what happens when we die. They are all systems of control, which appear to be more powerful than the sword, torture or starvation. We have across the globe resisted many forms of control and repression except the religious, until recently that is.
As communications have advanced and we have become better informed, secularly, and generally better educated, we have increasingly abandoned or doubted the teachings and dictats of the ’spiritually’ minded.
This does leave a gap because we still have a natural inclination to fear death. If we don’t believe the hocus-pocus and boogey man, child scaring that constitutes most religions, where does that leave this fear?
It leaves it, good reader, wide open to exploitation by the forces of marketing and politics. If we don’t do X, Y or Z we are bad and we will die. If we are not good and obedient subjects we will suffer and probably die. If we do A, B or C we are bad and we will die.
So, now you know why we have uncontrollable global warming, global terrorism, threats of plagues, identity theft, economic collapse and runaway imigration. They are pushing our rawest, most exposed buttons to make us angry, reactionary and conformist. We are under their control and only they can save us! Free your minds fellow ingrates! Death is for the future and life is for living.
I hope I am wrong but…
Posted 7 August 2007
Something stinks.
I am clearly going mad. The only alternative is that there really is a conspiracy on a global scale and we are all its victims.
Why does our government want us to be scared all the time and why do they engineer events and circumstances to ensure we are?
Have a look at this for example: Prof. Brignell has published a chapter from his excellent ‘Epidemiologists’ on his number watch website. It is a brilliantly researched and thorough essay, exposing the lunacy behind a typical New Labour crisis; in this case Foot and Mouth Disease.
We also have terrorism, the global warming myth, food and health scares on a daily basis, a new cold-war, immigration etc. I have concluded that they must be trying to distract our attention from something far worse than any of these. I just don’t know what.
I prefer alien (the extra terrestrial kind) invasion. We have had a lot of unnecessary reports in recent months telling us UFO sightings are all hoaxes, natural phenomena or otherwise scientifically explainable and identifiable. They have told us that many times before so why remind us now? There is something going, there is you know, mark my words. If you never read this because THEY silence me, you will know I was right. RUN fer fecks sake!
It is also possible that the planet is cooling down rapidly. There are plenty indicators that this is more likely than warming. Maybe, just maybe, the ice-age returneth sooner than expecteth! RUN fer fecks sake, south!
defending the insurers - wtf!
Posted 24 July 2007
Yes. I do feel that that the global legalised pyramid selling scam they call insurance needs to be defended but just this once.
I have heard many people whimpering about their inability to obtain insurance against flood risk following our recent deluge. What they appear to be unhappy about is a commercial organisation, which has to make a profit to stay in business, refusing to throw money at them. What an insensitive, callous, son-of-a-bee-atch I here you yelling!
Here I am (hypothetically) living in a flood-plane or by a river in a house with no intrinsic flood protection and I expect an insurer, for a few hundred quid, to agree to pay out several thousand every time my house is wrecked by water. Despite the fact, as recent events clearly demonstrate, there is a massive probability that it will happen again. This is not joined up thinking. If all insurance was provided on that basis the industry would very quickly be exposed as the legalised pyramid selling scam it so very nearly is.
Imagine if they had to insure your car even if you had no driving licence and despite your car being unroadworthy. There would be carnage on the roads and premiums would cost more than cars. The only way your flood blighted homes could be insured would be if the rest of us had to endure massive premium increases. Alternatively we could endure massive tax increases to pay for a government administered compensation scheme. I don’t necessarily object to the latter but would prefer that the money was used for one off flood defense construction rather than continued hand-outs.
A better alternative is that people living in homes defined as being at risk should be compelled to pay a ‘premium’ into a central compensation fund that benefits different areas on different occasions. Call me what you like but, especially with new builds, its your bed so you lie in it - once it has dried off of course!
post-diluvian witch hunt
Posted 23 July 2007
The media focus following our current spate of dampness will inevitably focus on the speed, quality and effectiveness of responses to the current crisis. This focus will most likely miss the point.
There will also be an inevitable dismissive resignation of clear thinking to the gospel according to the High Church of GAWD (Global Anthropogenic Warming Doom mongers). Our extreme weather is ‘obviously’ yet more evidence of global warming (they don’t even bother to say ‘man-made’ these days).
So what is my point? The first is easy. It is not caused by global warming. Just look at the TV helicopter pictures of medieval churches standing on islands of dry surrounded by floating houses built in later centuries. They knew a thing or two back then you know. I doubt if they had had divinely inspired visions of our decline and attendant retribution. I suspect they knew that the area inevitably gets frequently submerged. They would certainly lament the intellectual decline obvious in our modern choice of building plot.
My second point is the real cause of problems in areas not in obvious flood planes and river valleys. There has been severe flooding in other areas too, not to mention road and rail chaos. Why? Money, that’s why and poor climate/risk assessment modelling. Money is an issue because of modern accounting/management methodologies that inevitably lead to homes and businesses becoming flooded . The beancounters departmentalise everything, dividing up budgets down the hierarchical tree to ever more desperate managers and supervisors. Eventually you get to the manager whose job it is to decide how often to unblock drains or the manager who decides whether to erect or extend flood defences. You can see what happens next, no? My observation is that in areas where council tax is too low or where the hierarchy is top heavy, flooding and its after affects are worse than they should be. QED
muddle class muggles
Posted 13 July 2007
It’s Friday and I feel like ranting but nothing much has grabbed my attention yet so I’ll get out of my pram on my fellow Brits.
What a bunch of saddos we are. Who are this messy mass of Blair voting, square-eyed school chasing, 4×4 desiring loooze-ers who call themselves ‘middle class’?
Middle is so bland.
Pre-industrial, pre-Victorian Britain was easy. You had the upper classes, who were wealthy, often titled and powerful. Then you had everybody else - the working classes. Then entrepreneurs arrived and became very wealthy (very very wealthy). The worried aristocrats coined the term ‘middle class’ so as not to confuse their often wealthier neighbours with the ruling elite. Of course, the new rich soon gained titles and establishment power themselves.
So, how did a phrase used to describe people richer than Bill Gates (pro-rata) come to be used to describe the assortment of ex-council house owning chavs, Daily Mail, Express and Harry Potter-is-good-literature reading, semi-illiterates who appear to have to work for a living?
Just about the only thing the British are particularly good at is tribalism in all its worst forms. We must categorise everybody or we don’t seem to know how to relate to them. It is vital that terms like ‘working class’ are only applied to manual labourers who don’t own their own homes; or people with ‘rough’ regional (anything not south-eastern RP, apparently) accents or people who drive old cars; or whose children get dirty or who are fat or people that watch soap-operas on TV or who have more than one maxed-out store card.
So almost everybody frantically scrambles to classify themselves as something else. They cannot claim to be upper class, so they go for middle class (even upper middle class) despite the fact that at least one (often both) parents in the family have to work to not go bankrupt, by the skin of their teeth, every month. They frequently both have to work to pay for all the things that, they would rush to boast, demonstrate their status.
Giving the idiots the vote was the mistake!
What got me to thinking about this was yet another misleading BBC news item ( - follow up , the original having been removed). I make it clear elsewhere on this site that I do not support the monarchy’s head of stateship but that does not mean I have any personal-level objection to the queen or her often unwise family. I also despise the monarchy/military/church/establishment power block, which clearly can usually manipulate the BBC (and far too much else besides).
All that aside, I did find it outrageously revealing and vindicating (I mistrust all mainstream media) that the Beeb has been so thoroughly exposed. What a disgusting manipulation of the facts. The relevance to this rant is why do we need a fly-on-the-wall, cheapo telly exposé of life in Buckingham Palace. I’ll tell you why, because the bloody stupid self-styled middle classes watch the shit and duly consider themselves informed.
They expose their crass stupidity when they watch without realizing that the Queen is, unlike them, NOT stupid. So they are not seeing anything like what normally goes on at the real top of the class tree.
Royal Mail strike
Posted 12 July 2007
Royal Mail staff will be on strike again from 7:00 p.m. this evening for 24 hours causing delay and mayhem again. Royal Mail management will be burying their heads in the sand and refusing to negotiate.
Whose side am I on. I don’t know!
I am not receiving a pay rise this year in anything like the order the CWU are demanding for their members and I don’t know anybody who is. I also don’t see any evidence that anybody will be forced out of their job. I do see and read regular evidence that our mail system is in chaos. I have absolutely no doubt that the attitudes of the unions and their members plays no small part in that.
On being forced to make changes because this is in fact the 21st century heels are dug in deeply and productivity is slashed. Management has been schooled in modern economics and management techniques so reacts stupidly. Stalemate ensues and the service quality plummets.
So I side with neither and ask that they just grow up and work for a living (both sides).
an unholy stench
Posted 9 July 2007
I want that incredible breed of uniquely selfish fascists, namely smokers, to understand something about this non-smoker’s position on the recent change in the law.
I find it mind-numbingly startling that the legislation allows the police to ignore complaints of continued pollution in enclosed spaces on the grounds that ‘it is an environmental issue for the council to deal with and not a police matter’.
What pile of wank infested dim-shittery allowed that to happen? If you are breaking the law, you are breaking the bloody law, no?
Why does it irk me so, you might ask? Well, I don’t care about the alleged health affect because the science looks dodgy to me. Too many variables in the lives of people to draw such certain conclusions, especially when you bare in mind the psychological make up of a typical smoker, which is the point I will eventually get to.
I have never met a smoker who isn’t cast-iron, premier division, card-carrying selfish from the bottom up, top down and inside out. How else can you explain a willingness to pollute an enclosed, space single-handedly or in groups, so completely with no regard whatsoever for anything or anybody else?
The rudely bald fact is that it STINKS, a particularly foul and rotten stench that impregnates everything it touches. No amount of dangly chemical pine trees can mask it; no amount of ‘Febreze’ can cloak it and no matter how far down wind you get, it is still minging from the very core of your lungs even when you are not smoking.
Smokers use this drug for its psychotropic affects. It changes them, calms them, changes their relationship to food (or physiologically interferes with their metabolism). It makes it easy for them to ‘pull sickies’, drive without regard for life and limb, jump queues, own cats that shit in their neighbours gardens, own dogs that don’t get their shit picked up, claim benefits that cannot possibly pay for their extremely expensive habit, raise the next generation of knife carrying school bullies etc. (you know who I mean).
The exchequer know that the percentage who smoke will never vary too much or they would never have sanctioned this new law. We need that £4 billion because only £1.5 billion is spent on treatment allegedly a direct result of smoking, so that leaves £2.5 billion for the pot and we do need it, especially for our nice shiny new nuclear submarines.
But, my point is, I don’t really care about the money or the health of self-harmers. I care about being made to stink by people with no self-control. Just as I would care about equally psychologically damaged people randomly selecting me for execution because the ‘voices told them to’, or hedonists keeping me awake all night.
It is a good law, which would not be necessary if humanity was as evolved as we like to think we are. I was recently in the north of Engerland (I live in the south for my sins) where I overheard a conversation in a cafe. A customer from Scotland was expressing dismay that the law was not yet in force. She was braver than me because I was merely expressing it quietly to my companion.
It amazed me then, just as it always has, that smokers have the temerity to light-up in such a small space and just a week before the law change. Why not practice or accept defeat gracefully and control yourself for thirty minutes for pity’s sake?
Please, please read this and stop panicking you gullible fools!!!
Posted 30 June 2007
originally posted May 2007
I am soooooo tired of listening to the ‘green’ lobby talking Such Hopeless Irritating Turd-inducing Empty-headed science fiction that I feel moved to raise this backwater blog from its ashes.
Please somebody read this and pass it onto just one friend and ask them to do the same before it is too late. Cheryl Crow can use as little bog paper as she likes. It will not make one tiny dump of a difference to this planet.
There is only one thing you need to know and you will find it between the covers of this book - The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change. At first glance you might be put off by the lousy cover design or the mention of ‘cosmic rays’ and other science fiction sounding elements.
But don’t be, this is very serious science which is being cynically hushed-up, ridiculed and side-lined by the self interests of other scientists and politicians. One of the most important side effects of this irresponsible response, to what is actually the result of more than twenty years of meticulous research, is that the full consequences of the authors efforts are not being researched in turn by those dismissive self-interested scientists.
In a nutshell, the authors have (as near as science ever can - and much much nearer than most science ever does) proved that man made carbon-dioxide does not have any bearing on global warming. I won’t go into why our farts, breath, cars and industry are irrelevant but concentrate on what is actually happening instead.
The sun (and the earth to a much lesser extent) have varying magnetic fields which protect us from all manner of space-borne menaces. Cosmic radiation of many sorts and energy levels is spewed out across the galaxy by exploding stars and always has been. These rays penetrate everything in their path but can sometimes be stopped slowed down or changed. The sun’s magnetic field diverts most of the harmful stuff away from the solar system with varying degrees of effectiveness over time and space as it travels through space, and as its own magnetic activity varies.
The earth’s contribution to this effort is much smaller but it too has a magnetic field protecting us from solar and cosmic radiation, again with varying effectiveness over time and space.
The earth and sun are constantly moving through space both in their orbits about each other and as the solar system orbits within its part of the galaxy and as the galaxy moves through intergalactic space. The upshot of this is that the energy, quality and quantity of cosmic radiation crossing our path varies over time.
As the sun’s magnetic field weakens more rays reach our atmosphere, which leads us on to the clever part:
Cosmic rays are the principal agents in the cloud seeding process where it matters at low levels. As they hit our atmosphere, highly energetic rays bombard molecules and cause effects that, the authors of the above book have demonstrated, lead to cloud formation. That cloud cools the earth by reflecting sun light and by radiating heat out into space. The more cloud the more cooling. So, the weaker the sun’s magnetic field, the more rays, the more low-level cloud and the more cooling.
For the past hundred years or so the sun has been very active, diverting more cosmic radiation and producing less cloud and thus warming the earth by exactly the same amount that ‘mainstream’ climatologists claim is caused by industrial activity over the same period.
The book also demonstrates very neatly why the inconsistencies in
‘mainstream’ climatology can also be explained by solar activity and why ‘mainstream’ climatology’s own data proves this ‘new’ theory.
The big question is WHY ARE THE GREEN LOBBY AND POLITICIANS IGNORING THIS? It is good science, very very good science. The answer is this:
Self-interest. Scientists pay their mortgages off the back of research grants directly or indirectly. Scientists are obsessed with their international prestige and status. Politicians live and die by the power of spin influenced opinion, and more and more use fear as their preferred weapon of mass distraction. They have also discovered (bless their sneaky little hearts) that they can raise taxes based on carbon output. Even more sinister is their obvious desire to slow down the development of newly emerging powers. The ‘Green Lobby’, despite their appearance, are also self-justifying politicians.
Another important read that clarifies a great deal about what is really going on, particularly politically at the UN IPCC and Kyoto level, is ‘Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years’ by Dennis T. Avery and S. Fred Singer.
Have a look too at John Brignal’s (University of Southamton) essay on the religious nature of the ‘green’ movement and his essay on bias and censorship, both on his Number Watch site, to understand why.
Tony Gilland of the Institute of Ideas has an excellent essay on Spiked, that you should not miss, focusing on the IPCC’s dubious role in this unnecessary debate.
Look at the scientific establishment’s reaction to Martin Durkin’s documentary for proof of the terror tactics being used by the climate warming police. The zealous priests of the High Church of Global Anthropogenic Warming Doom-mongers (GAWD) will sink to any level to protect their putrid doctrine.
Visit the Friends of Science website for a glimpse of what science was about before it became a religion and Freeman Dyson’s lesson on joined up thinking in the field of ‘climatology’.
Another dent in the plastic armour of the fear-mongers at CO2 Science.
A nutcase’s manifesto for the UK
Posted 8 June 2007
originally posted January 2005
Who are The Taxpayers Alliance?
I am trying hard to define them from a ‘Team America’perspective.(Don’t miss this cinematographic masterpiece but remember, they are really taking the piss out of us). Are the Taxpoopooers Appliance Pussies, Dicks or Assholes? Why don’t you tell me what you think. I thunk this a couple of days ago:
We should be paying MORE tax!
- Scrap charities because they cost too much to run and simply give, in the natural course of events, everything charities have to struggle (expensively) to raise. Stop defining all the needs they cater for as charity cases and treat them the same way we treat everything else that receives government money. All of them now, without exception!
- Fund the Health Service (this is a UK based blog) so well that private medicine is put out of business, including dentistry.
- Fund education so well that private schools are put out of business.
- Build all the roads we need and stop being precious about the countryside, and stop giving in to noisy NIMBYists!
- Re-build the entire rail network and re-nationalise it and all other public transport, which should then be heavily subsidised.
- Control property prices and rents, starting with a 80% reduction in all current values (maybe compensate those who had to buy at inflated prices but not those who have ‘profited’ by buying at reasonable prices in the past).
- For the next ten years only allow construction of properties to rent and make possession of empty property a crime, after a reasonable period of time. All empty properties defaulting to state ownership if unsold in that time.
- Control bank lending to prevent debt burdens and hold the banks properly accountable for the current levels of lending so that their profits take the brunt of any compensation paid to borrowers.
- Replace ALL regressive taxes with increases in national income tax, in addition to the extra tax needed to fund the above.
- Replace Council Tax with a local income tax collected centrally and redistributed to local authorities. The levels to be set by the locally elected authority with no central interference, initially at a percentage that would match current spending plus 50%.
- Take more stress relieving breaks and fewer stressful ‘holidays’. Replace our cars less often and don’t use them so often (make your precious brats walk or get the bus to school).
- Buy fewer gadgets, crap CDs, DVDs, magazines, and anything else we hardly ever use.
- Spend less money on ‘leisure’ and relax doing free things instead.
I think anybody reading this would class me as an Asshole so that leaves Dick or Pussy for the Taxpoopooers Appliance, you decide.
United Nations, please help
Posted 8 June 2007
originally posted March 2005
Hello, I am a subject in the UK. I am not a citizen because a privileged elite, who inherited their stolen lands and power, rule over me.
Our Queen’s government is continuing to strip away our freedom. Soon we will have new ‘anti-terror’ laws that will allow politicians to lock people up without trial or the need to prove guilt. They will be able to use this law to lock up anybody.
They say it is to protect us from terrorists but it obviously will do no such thing. The same law was introduced in Northern Ireland in the 70s and only helped increase the violence. People who believe they are fighting a just cause will not be put off by this and every one locked up will be replaced, as was the case in Northern Ireland.
What is the threat anyway? Where are the bombers? and how would these measures have stopped them
In Iraq where the western military still rule and the threat is death, there is no reduction in violence. In Israel talk and promises of change are the only historically proven ways of reducing violence. No where on earth are there more draconian laws and so few civil liberties and yet so much continuing violence.
Adolf Hitler (another so called socialist) introduced laws similar to this and others introduced by our government and look where that led! We are being taken down a road well travelled filled with the warning signs of history and we, the voters, are being brainwashed by a well oiled propaganda machine to allow it to happen.
Fellow subjects, please stop reading the gutter press and the TV news. Search for the truth, debate it with decent people and think carefully about how you want to live in the future. Especially, think carefully about it as the coming general election approaches.
I don’t try to pretend that we live in a free country or that we ever did but the trappings of freedom that we are allowed are precious. If the representatives of the world community get a chance to read this before the UK closes its doors, please help.
yours faithfully, the insane voice of reason
Gone to the Dogs
Posted 8 June 2007
originally posted May 2005
After much internal debate I dragged my weary, sick bones to the polling station last Thursday. I was actually ill, so I did have to make a bit of a physical effort but as the polling station is only 50 metres away, I can’t really complain. To be precise, it is 50 metres away as the crow flies, and about 80 metres by Shanks’ pony.
It didn’t exactly go smoothly though. I was first through the door and desperate to get back to bed but I didn’t have my ‘voting card’. I will probably never know whether ‘they’ never attempted to deliver it or if they mis-delivered it. I do worry that some low-life identity thief is trying to figure out how to use the information it contains to bleed me dry.
Anyhoo, back in the local school, the 150 quid a day polling official tried to tell me that as I didn’t have my card I couldn’t vote. ‘So’, I said ‘I am not allowed to exercise my democratic right because you failed to deliver my card?’ She checked and gave me a ballot paper. I asked what would happen if some low-life scus bucket turned up with my card, expecting her to show me the red button she would press, which would activate a squadron of helicopter borne special forces. Au contraire, it turns out that they would be allowed to vote on a pink ballot paper. ‘Bugger me’ I thought.
The question is, what happens to the pink ballot paper at the count, and does anybody investigate this crime?
What about all the other lazy dogs who didn’t vote? If you are not willing to get off your fat arses to vote (even if it for nobody on a spoilt paper) don’t you dare whine about anything you don’t like about this god-forsaken shit-hole excuse for a country.
I’ve done my bit so I reserve the right to whine without restriction. You can shut up. Now!
So what have my fellow ingrate Britons done to themselves this time? Put the same lying, National Socialist back in power. The lessons of history (30s Germany) have still not been learned. Remember, you read it here first. The selfish, greedy self-obsessed, tiny-minded, bigoted, ignorant ingrates have decided that personal possessions, house-prices, tax-levels etc are more important than world peace, starving millions and planetary disaster. I feel all warm and proud.
Click on the Make Poverty History link and do something to make up for it.
Road Charging
Posted 8 June 2007
originally posted june 2005
I don’t disapprove of our glorious 5th Reich’s plans to introduce GPS based road charging over the next decade, providing they make a few things clear:
- How the information is stored and who has access to it.
- They link the system to a ’smart licence’ or ID card system so that the card has to inserted into the device before the vehicle will start. The database should include insurance status of all vehicles or drivers.
- The device should include an alcohol breath analyser that will prevent the car starting on detection. All such attempts should be recorded and the act of attempting this more than twice should be criminalised.
- They make it clear that such a system’s ability to record speeds WILL be used to fine all the murderous idiots on our roads.
- They make it clear that such a system’s ability to note parking infringements WILL be used to fine all the selfish morons in our towns and cities.
- They make it clear that such a system’s ability to record a number of other detectable traffic offences WILL be used to automatically issues fines.
- They include warning devices in the cars that give the driver a chance to slow down or move before starting to record a fine. This will prevent mass loss of drivers’ licences on single journeys.
- They include warning devices that warn when driving closer than 2 seconds to the vehicle in front and they criminalise the act of driving too close.
- They add a special extra high rate for short journeys that include a short stop near any school at the appropriate times and fine any detected associated illegal parking.
- They include optional add-ons that can take advantage of the GPS for navigational purposes.
- They have sensors on ALL roads that detect and photograph ALL cars with no device fitted or with it disabled.
- Even vehicles registered as being off road and exempt from road fund license must have a device fitted.
- They intercept all cars detected on roads that should not be there or that have no valid insurance, MOT etc.
- They exempt one-off long journeys from any charge so as not to discourage UK based holidays.
- All commercial vehicles arriving from overseas must have a temporary device fitted, which is surrendered on departure. Credit card details taken when the device is issued. Private vehicles from overseas, which can demonstrate they are on holiday will be exempt so as to support the tourist industry.
- They include in the built in warning device timely warnings about road blockages ahead.
- They allow the system to detect and record probable collisions so that the perpetrator’s of hit and runs can be detected.
- All public transport users with registered private vehicles receive credits against road charges whenever they use public transport.
- Cyclist should have the option of fitting a device to their bicycles, which will give them credit against road charges if they have a registered vehicle.
- Motorcycles should be exempt from all charges because they contribute in no way to congestion but should have a device fitted for all other purposes.
Charles Kennedy - did he jump or was he pushed?
Posted 8 June 2007
originally posted January 2006
Is it right that an alcoholic should be forced to quit as leader of the Liberal-Democrat party? Yes, and I’ll tell you why and as someone partly qualified to comment; my father died when I was 20, many years ago, as a result of years of alcohol abuse. I have not inherited my father’s so called illness but I do have a clear memory of living with an alcoholic and of seeing how one functions in the working environment. I don’t care how brilliant Charles Kennedy is/was, he cannot be functioning reliably while still struggling to defeat his addiction. His brain and other organs ARE damaged. His judgment IS impaired and his reasoning IS unreliable, and that is all there is to it.
So, is alcoholism an illness? Yes but only in so far as an addiction to a self-harming habit is an illness. It is like all other addictions - a mental illness and is treated as such whatever secondary physical damage has been done or treatment is necessary. This is an important distinction but not because mental illness is a reason to discriminate but because it is an opportunity to emphasise how common mental illness is. We have an appalling attitude to mental illness in this country (in most countries I expect) because the media only ever talks about it in the context of axe wielding maniacs who were ‘mentally ill’ and ‘irresponsibly let loose on a defenceless community’.
The perception is that anyone suffering from a mental illness is therefore an axe wielding maniac.I don’t doubt that if Charles Kennedy was to continue boozing uncontrollably for a couple more decades he could well wind up sleeping under a railway bridge with an axe at his side but right now he simply has an addiction, which therapy or counselling (including AA sessions) would help with. This is equally true of all those with the mental illnesses like phobias such as an irrational fear of spiders, for example. They are unlikely to kill anybody with an axe, unless they throw one at a spider and hit a passing stranger by mistake. They do, however, have a serious and often debilitating mental illness.
I did vote for the man’s party because New Labour have lurched too far towards National Socialism and the Tories have lost the plot. The Lib-Dems do have a radical agenda that could start to heal many of this country’s ills and if they are to stand any chance of improving their still barely influential position, they need to be better than the others.
However, it looks obvious to me that Charles Kennedy has been booted out for other reasons. There appears to be a movement in the Lib-Dems that looks frighteningly familiar. I can see ‘young blood’ rising with the same stench an Blair/Brown/Mandelson about them and that is worrying. Who is pulling these peoples’ strings and why do we keep falling for them? Please Liberal Democrats everywhere, be careful who you vote for. This country does not need another Blair/Brown combination. It’s trendy but it’s not clever!
He was pushed but he should have jumped far sooner but the self-deceit alcoholics become masters of may have permanently destroyed his political career.
Lock up yer wheelie bins!
Posted 8 June 2007
So the Gordon/Tony symbiotic organism thinks it’s a good idea to tax our waste proportionally. I welcome this on the understanding that it is the start of a trend. I assume the GT beast is not simply pandering to the happy-clappy environmentalist/soppy-science lobby who influence most of their voters’ thinking these days.
I say trend because it does need to be. At the moment most car users pay the same to poison the atmosphere no matter how recklessly they do it. If they drive their kids to school they don’t have to pay more tax for example. If they have a TV in every room, driving power stations to distraction, they pay the same towards the BBC as anybody with just one tiny box. I could go on and on and ……………..The poorer people are in this country the larger the proportion they pay for everything, but it is no longer poorer people who keep GT in power.
Questions: who decides how much waste I produce? Who will weigh/measure it? How do I stop my neighbours filling my rubbish bin or my re-cycling bin with their crap? Will there be an extra Christmas tax? Will the GT beast do something about manufacturer’s unnecessary packaging first and tax them for producing it in the first place? Will they make it illegal for my local authority to mix the re-cycling and other waste on their collection rounds? Will they see sense?
Maybe this new initiative will start to reverse the damage started by Maggie and zealously extended by the GT beast. But how will they stay in power. Watch out fellow citizens, they must be planning something.
Politics 101
Posted 1 June 2007
originally published elsewhere at another time
…………….. Things to be clear about: I don’t advocate anarchy; I am not a communist; I don’t support the Head of Stateship of the UK Royal Family, or any other system of inheritance; I don’t believe all ‘dictators’ are bad; I do believe democracy does not equate to freedom.
What is civilisation? Originally it was a way for powerful warlords to bring the unruly peasants under control. They built large towns/cities where all financial transactions/taxes could be controlled and where a close eye could be kept on the majority of their subservient vassals. It was also easier to gather armies from denser populations and to protect all the warlords’ interests if the populations were not scattered far and wide. So what has changed? Not a lot: ‘civilisation’ continues to be a way for a powerful minority to impose a limited view and culture on a weak majority.
Civilisation comes in many forms. Some parts of the world base their civilisations on religious beliefs and rules and others have economic priorities, whether they have self-appointed dictators or democracies. In all cases power over many lies in the hands of the few.
Anarchy is usually presented as the only alternative to civilisation but that is only because history is written by the descendants of those who have benefited from the control strucures inherent in civilisations. A system of global cooperation between groups, individuals and communities could be devised that requires no single power entities to control it. Agreements could be reached across all boundaries on how to administer all processes of cooperation and how to deal with breakdowns without any need to concentrate wealth or power. A good starting point would be for every individual, group and community to agree to abide by the United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The few who do hold the reins of power will never willingly give it up. So, do I advocate revolution? YES, globally but by simply taking the power away from the powermongers. Stop paying them to keep you powerless by buying all the goods, services and luxuries they have brainwashed you to believe you need. Stop believing everything the media they control tells you and remember they always divide and conquer. You can be 99% sure that most of those they portray as ‘evil’ or ‘un-democratic’ or ‘uncivilised’ are simply attempting to wrest some power for themselves, and THEY don’t like that. Having less and doing less = less stress and more happiness. It also equals less power for those who rely on you to keep them rich. It also gives them less warmongering resources and less cause to fight.
So, where does politics come into it? The political layer is the veneer of legitimacy between the controlling elite, which may include some of the politicians, and the masses. The controlling elite (made up of the super-rich, Royal Families, religious leaders and the military) pull all the strings. They can use their wealth and influence to steer politicians in any direction they like. For example: in a democracy where a large global corporation employing tens of thousands of people, objects to a political decision that makes the business more expensive to run, it will be threatened with closure. This also threatens votes. Politics is the culture of persuasion and manipulation used by politicians, the powerful and their media lacqueys to enlist our complicity in our own suppression.
Law and justice systems are the politicians’ preferred weapon of choice against freedom, which would bring about the downfall of their masters and, in their minds, anarchy. The majority of laws are made to ensure the status-quo and to provide income for the underlings in the ruling classes. A simple set of globally understandable, commonsense rules could replace all laws in a world-wide cooperative society, not dependent on ever increasing wealth for its stability. These could be administered by locally chosen and appointed (regulary replaced) individuals taking commonsense decisions, which need not be consistant across boundaries or time.
Politics and religion should never be mixed. We can see the damage this causes in many Islamic states, Israel and in the right-wing Christian domination of US, UK and other European state politics.
But this is only half the story. Exactly how the power mongers maintain their grip on us and why they make the decisions they do is complex. There are limited resources in the world and limited opportunities for economic growth at any one time. In order to sustain levels of growth and relative levels of wealth on behalf of their puppet masters, politicians must manipulate economies globally. Also, since each group of politicians believes its way is best, they must (in democracies) persuade the voters to keep them in power.
They use scientists, the media, lobbying groups and opportunities as they arise to control and manipulate public opinion. If the public can be persuaded that world population is out of control and bad for the environment, we (the voters) will have little sympathy for poverty stricken people in undeveloped countries. The politicians won’t tell us they have approved massive billion dollar loans to these over populated countries to allow them to buy weapons and build hospitals and roads, which we will sell them. When a natural disaster occurs and the countries affected can’t afford to rebuild their countries we will be encouraged to donate huge sums of money so that they can use it to buy things we will sell them. We have to do this because they can’t afford it because they are poor because they are paying back billions of dollars every year to pay for the things they have lost, which we sold them in the first place and lent them the money to pay for, and which we will still expect them to pay off in the fullness of time.
As a side note: I do believe that all charity is an expensive waste and unnecessary way of raising funds to meet clear and obvious needs a truly civilised society would meet as a community automatically, through taxes or other nationally accumulated wealth reserves. Politicians use the charity system as a way of disguising the true cost of being civilised and caring while allowing some of us to feel good about ourselves. They know we are never going to vote for a political system that will donate more to all charity causes than we currently do by raising taxes for all of us by 10%, even though this represents significantly less money than we currently voluntarily donate willingly to charities, and would therefore save most of us money in the long run (on average). It would also force those who currently refuse to help others to do so. Why on earth should anyone with a need served by the existing charity system have to beg for the basic essentials of life, which is what charity is for?
If the public can be persuaded that an evil dictator controlling a major oil producing country, which borders other oil producing countries, is a threat to us and the region, we will go to war to ’save his people’. What we are really doing is preventing the evil dictator controlling the price of oil because that will help ensure the wealthy stay rich and stay in power. We will also benefit from lending huge sums of money to the devastated country so that they can buy what they need from us to rebuild their country. Not to mention the benefits to the share holders of weapons manufacturers.
The rich and powerful countries of the world and the rich and powerful individuals and groups they represent have gained their wealth historically through suppression of the weak (not withstanding the occasional revolution, which always failed in the long term anyway because power was unfairly distributed). At first this was achieved by stronger warlords at local level and then by kings at regional and national level. At every stage the wealth, land and power was kept in the hands of the few while the majority paid for it. Eventually modern political, military and laws enforcement structures were created to manage the maintenance of power on a large and international scale. This has been going on for centuries now and has reached a level of sophistication the masses are encouraged to ignore. The results are still the same: at local, national, regional and global levels the power and wealth is kept in the hands of the few at the expense of the vast majority.
It is a politician’s job to constantly think of new ways to exploit opportunities for economic growth whatever the cost to the majority, while keeping him/her self in a job. As there are limited resources and massive global poverty this growth is always relative. The poor stay poor and the wealthy stay rich, and powerful. Some of them are honest enough to acknowledge that they are consciously looking after their voters’ best interests, whatever the cost to groups and individuals elsewhere in their own country or overseas. Even they will deny that this ultimately only ever really benefits a tiny number of super rich individuals with whom all wealth and power is concentrated.
The true cost of changing all of this would be culturally devastating for those of us who live in rich countries. Individually, on national (and certainly on a global) level we would gain little from taking the wealth from the rich and distributing it between us, but distributing the power in a genuinely fair way would change everything for the better. In such a world it would take centuries to regain all the comfortable paraphernalia of modern living but we would be happier, except for the few who cannot handle sharing power and control that is. Perhaps in a well designed post-political true power sharing community based society, we would eventually lose the wealth/power hungry gene by natural selection. Best do it quick though before the geneticists engineer it into all our offspring on behalf of their pay masters, and consign humanity to another palaeontological extinction footnote for some future earth species or alien visitor to wonder at.
