Friday, 2 September 2011

Get Off Your Land!

The BBC’s coverage of the traveller eviction at Dale Farm was so biased this morning I nearly brought up my breakfast. What the presenters seemed to be forgetting as they harangued the leader of the local council was that part of the site was built illegally, which is why the council have been fighting to evict it. It’s a common traveller tactic to buy land which is designated as Green Belt (meaning no dwelling, temporary or permanent can legally be built on it), build houses and park their caravans on it, then apply for planning permission retrospectively. When this is inevitably denied they keep appealing through the courts while bleating about their “human rights” to anyone who will listen.
“It’s our land, why shouldn’t we be allowed to live on it” is their cry. The point is, the only reason they can afford to buy that land is because it has been designated Green Belt, there is nothing you can do with Green Belt land except walk around on it enjoying the view so it is dirt cheap. The same acreage that you can buy for a few thousand pounds would cost you millions, if there was any chance of getting planning permission to build residential property on it. All the liberals and anarchists who flock to support the travellers’ cause would be singing a very different tune if some millionaire tried to buy up Green Belt land to turn into a luxury resort but it’s exactly the same law that applies here. If the travellers were allowed to stay it would set a legal precedent and no Green Belt land would be safe.
As to where the travellers should go when they are evicted from Dale Farm and other illegal sites, as far as I’m concerned that is their problem. They choose their lifestyle, it is up to each individual to take responsibility for their lifestyle choice, it’s not the taxpayer’s responsibility to fund those choices. If you want to live an “alternative lifestyle” fine, but pay for it out of your own pocket and live within the law, don’t expect the rest of us to fund your choices and don’t expect the law of the land to bend to accommodate you!

Wednesday, 24 August 2011

Welfare State Reform

The original idea of the Welfare State was as a safety net, to help people through periods of unemployment until they got back on their feet and found a new job. Unfortunately years of liberal administration has seen it morph into a taxpayer-funded teat that anyone too lazy to work can suckle at for as long as they choose. Since we were sold out to the European Union and our borders were thrown open, Britain, and England in particular have become a haven for the work-shy and useless from all over Europe and beyond, as a result those of us with the gumption to get up off our arses and work find ourselves paying more and more tax while our services such as health and education get poorer and poorer. The Welfare State needs sorting out desperately!

If I was in charge the first thing I would do is make services paid for by the British taxpayer, such as benefits, council housing and NHS treatment available to British citizens only. Still, there are plenty of British born freeloaders abusing the system, in order to sort them out I would make the total amount of benefit a person is entitled to be directly linked to how much they have paid in income tax and national insurance. With all tax records computerised it would be easy for the system, on a daily basis, to calculate exactly how much total benefit a person would be entitled to in the event of them losing their job.

Then if a person did become unemployed through no fault of their own, they would be able to choose between various weekly rates – someone living in a large house with high bills would probably want a higher weekly rate than someone living in a small flat. The caveat is that no one would be entitled to receive more than their entitlement, so there would be a massive incentive to find a new job as soon as possible. Of course people who have never worked and so never paid any income tax or national insurance (and those who find themselves out of work through their own fault) would be entitled to nothing except the place in the gutter their idleness or incompetence has earned them!

I would also stop the ludicrous practice of encouraging people to breed like rats by giving them extra benefits/bigger council houses for each kid they have – why should my taxes pay for the upbringing of children I have not fathered? Of course there will always be those who find it preferable to steal from others, rather than work to acquire their own possessions. I would channel a good part of the money saved from the welfare bill into providing a properly manned and properly ARMED police force, with full administrative back-up so officers don’t have to waste valuable time on paper work. Those who choose a life of crime rather than work would soon find themselves either rotting in jail or face down in the gutter with a policeman’s bullet lodged in the back of their skull – preferably the latter.

The Big Green Swindle

The green/climate change movement is a total con, designed to soften us up with guilt so that we will accept ever higher taxes without too much complaint. There is one major reason why the environment is getting destroyed and that is there are simply too many people on this planet. Any movement to save the environment that does not put population reduction at the top of the agenda is at best deluded, more likely deliberately deceptive.

Climate change is being used to make us feel guilty for our “consumerist” lifestyles. The hope is that we will be willing to pay higher taxes on things like fuel or air travel or “offset our carbon” to assuage our guilt. Of course much of the revenue raised will then be used to encourage people to breed, making the problem of environmental destruction even worse, and so the vicious cycle continues.

Reducing the population would not require anything drastic like a cull (desirable though that would be in many instances!). People are being born and dying all the time, as more people are being born than are dying the population increases. A few simple measures would kick the pendulum in the other direction. When people on low/no incomes choose to breed, simply don’t give them any extra benefits, not only would this bring the birthrate down but it would be in line with the law of natural selection. If by the time someone reaches their forties they have not attained a level of wealth to support children, there is obviously something wrong with them, most likely they are either lazy, stupid or both. Lazy and stupid people should not be encouraged to pollute the gene pool!

The same holds true for the third world. The population increases beyond a level the land can support, famine strikes, and instead of sitting back and letting nature do it’s work by weeding out the weak, we send over millions of pounds worth of aid. Reducing the foreign aid budget to a nice round figure (ie zero) would not only do wonders for population control (and therefore the environment), but also for the western nations’ economies.

Of course all this is theoretical – no politician with any career ambition is ever going to seriously address the issue of population reduction. To be a successful politician, one needs support from the general public, and also from big business. For the corporations, more people equals more consumers which in turn equals more profit.

With the general public it’s a bit more complicated. It is a basic human need to want to leave some mark behind after we’re gone, something to say we were here. I believe it is this instinct that drives musicians, artists, writers etc to create. Unfortuantely most humans are uncreative drones, the only thing they are capable of leaving behind are offspring. People have got used to the idea that they have the right to have as many children as they like, and if they can’t afford to bring them up themselves, that the State (ie us taxpayers) has a responsibility towards them. Any challenge to this will simply not be tolerated.

All is not lost though. I believe nature will eventually find a way restoring balance. Perhaps some major pandemic will wipe out a large part of the earth’s population, perhaps WWIII will rid the planet of it’s human louse infestation completely. Who knows? I am pretty confident that I will be long gone by the time the population has increased to crisis levels so I don’t care, the second I die the universe will cease to exist. Until then I shall continue to enjoy every second of my carnal existence, unfetterd by false guilts or limp-wristed sentimentality.

My View Of Politics

The left/right dichotomy that dominates our party politics is a game for fools. A diversion to dupe the sheeple into believing they actually have some influence over how the country is governed, while the real power holders, those who control the wealth, continue to rule as they have always ruled.

The political spectrum is like a long open cess-pit, with the occasional pearl of wisdom scattered here and there. The fool adopts a label (communist, nazi, liberal, conservative etc), picks his spot and dives in and spends his time floundering around in the excrement.

The wise man, the individual, the Satanist, walks the entire length of the cess-pit from one extreme to another with a peg on his nose to keep out the stench and a long-handled net to pick out the pearls as he goes on his way.

Time For Some Natural Selection!

All species evolve. Evolution is driven forward by the process of natural selection. Over a period of generations the members of a species best equipped for survival will be the ones that tend to survive to mating age so their superior genes will be passed on to the next generation. The slow, the weak the feeble, the “runts of the litter” will tend to either fall victim to predators or starve, so the defective genetic strains are weeded out.

This is why when a film crew goes out into the wilderness to document, say, a group of lion cubs, they do not interfere with the natural selection process. If one cub is weaker than the rest and can’t compete with the others for food, they won’t take pity and feed it, they will let it weaken and eventually die. This is not because they are heartless, on the contrary, to artificially preserve the life of the “runt of the litter” would be an act of cruelty. It would eventually mate and pass on whatever defective genetic code had made it the runt to the next generation, thereby infecting the genetic pool and weakening the species as a whole.

Sadly this logic is not applied to the human herd. Because we live in a society founded on christian values, where wretchedness and failure are seen as virtues and wealth and success are seen as vices (from the Bible: “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”.), over the last 2 millenia a system has evolved where the weak and incapable are nurtured at the expense of the strong and capable.

Even worse, in Britain when people dependant on State benefits decide to breed rather than seek employment, instead of being penalised for their irresponsibility, they are rewarded with extra benefits. In the deprived parts of our cities it is not uncommon to see women in their 20s and 30s of borderline mongoloid intelligence with 4 or 5 young children in tow (often obviously from different fathers), all paid for by the taxpayer. On the other hand intelligent working people are increasingly putting off childbearing until later in life (or permanently) because of the financial burden.

This would explain why each new generation is more illiterate and crime-ridden than the preceding one, by effectively paying the runts of the human litter to piss in the gene pool we are putting the natural selection process into reverse and consequently evolution is going into reverse too. If this is allowed to continue, in a few generations time the famous diagram showing the ascent of mankind from crawling ape to upright homo sapien may start to resemble a hump-back bridge, as the human race gradually degenerates back to the simian. In fact, looking at some of the denizens of South London, that process would appear to be well-advanced!

Some Thoughts On Authority

Long before I read the Satanic Bible I used to define my personal outlook on life as “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”. In other words I recognised no authority other than that of my own will and I lived as far as possible according to laws, morals, timescales and aesthetic standards made by myself in accordance with my own will. This was what lead me to getting involved with the anarchist movement for a while, before I realised what a cesspit of christian morality it was, and still is!

However even back then I recognised the authority of superior physical force. Whatever my feelings towards the police at the time, I would obey a policeman, simply because he had a baton and pepper spray, while I didn’t and I realised it was wise to obey the laws of the land because the State had an army of policmen (and the armed forces if need be) to enforce it’s dictats.

Similary if I walked into an unfamiliar pub and a group of tough looking locals said “we don’t want your sort in here”, I wouldn’t point out the fact that I had just as much right as them to be there and that they had no authority to ask me to leave. That would have just got me a trip to the local casualty ward, their might gave them the right to tell me to get lost!

Superior physical force is the main way that authority manifests itself. The mace that many kings and queens still carry is symbolic of the club that the kings in ancient days used to bash out the brains of any dissenters. It is no coincidence that the sword appears in the symbol of justice, all authority and hierarchy was enforced by the blade.

Authority can also manifest itself when one party consents to be governed by the other, even though that other party’s authority is not backed up by physical might. The workplace is the classic example; unless you are the head of the company you work for, you give your consent for those above you to wield their authority over you.

However, what is freely given can also be taken away. Whereas authority backed by superior might can be wielded at the discretion of the stronger party for as long as they remain the stronger, the other kind can only be wielded for as long as the ‘subordinate’ party gives it’s consent. Should the authority of my manager at work become onerous to me, for example if he told me I have to work through my lunchbreak, I would simply withdraw my consent to be ‘subordinate’ and go to lunch at my usual time.

This is why I find the topic of “workplace bullying” (currently a big issue here in the Civil Serivce) rather puzzling. Bullying is simply authority overstepping it’s mark. Obviously schoolyard bullying is authority manifested through physical force going too far. Stronger/older kids pick on the weaker/younger ones, the only way to combat it is either to become stronger yourself (learn to fight better or wait til your growth catches up with that of your tormentors’) or find someone tougher to fight for you like an older brother. The victim does not consent to be bullied in these cases.

Workplace bullying however is consensual authority going too far, so surely the first step in combatting it is to withdraw your consent? A classic example given is managers giving their staff unreasonable workloads or unrealistic deadlines. In those situations I would just say “I shall do what I can today, if it isn’t finished by the end of the day then I shall finish it tomorrow”. I would not feel pressurised into working through the lunch break I am legally entitled to or taking work home with me, as often happens here.

I think the problem is that too many people are both stupid and weak. They are too stupid to realise that the authority their ‘superiors’ at work wield over them depends on THEIR consent, which they have the power to withdraw at any time should it overstep it’s mark. I have seen people quaking with fear when confronted by someone of a higher grade, allowing themselves to be talked to as if they were misbehaving toddlers, not adults. Their inherent weakness makes them crumble at the merest whiff of authority, without stopping to analyse and determine whether they have any control over the situation.

Of course in these kind of cases resistance can lead to consequences ranging from being labelled “bolshie” and having your career blacklisted to even losing your job, if you are too forceful. However, having known people whose health has been adversely affected (including in one case a fatal heart attack) by workplace stress, I would say the consequences of NOT standing up for oneself are potentially far worse, both for one’s health and one’s pride and self respect.