Sunday, October 27, 2013

Scots Missed?

Not optimistic about the referendum on Scotland if the debates so far are anything to go by.A country's bid for independence is too important to be put to a referendum and the latter should only be used for relatively unimportant technical matters not potentially seismic ones which should be settled at general elections .If there is to be a referendum it should include English voters as we here have as much to gain or lose by this historically and politically momentous event.Do we English want a defacto Cuba in our backyard,one with control of our nuclear capabilites? And our oil too?The Scottish like the Arabs were opposed to oil drilling and had to have their mouths stuffed with gold to allow it so they are a backward incestuous people who rely moreover on english taxes for their very existence.They may like to indulge their Braveheart cultural posturing but most Scots know which side their welfare bread is buttered on hence the polls showing reluctance to vote yes.

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Welfare Forever

Once a welfare state is introduced it is there forever as entrenched vested interests forming a powerful client state voting block depend on its perpetuation and represent a critical mass of the electorate which it is impossible to challenge through the ballot box.Unless someone is earning over 40.000 pa they get more out of the benefit system than they put in and seeing those who earn over that amount are in the minority do the math and it is obvious the wealthy elites are being shafted daily by the tax system and are effectively vassals in a modern welfare slave state in effective indentured servitude to the non productive masses.It is no use appealing to the entrepreneurial class to oppose this tyranny as most of them have bought into the masochistic ideology that it is their duty to pay royalties in the form of taxes to the non productive low wage masses so for this reason it is hard to see a way out of this impasse.The intellectual classes certainly cannot be appealed to as they are the authors and originators of this madness and they have the commanding heights of the intellectual sphere,colonising and prempting the field.Revolution is out because unless a coherent alternative is first presented it would leave a vacuum into which would step anarchists,nihilists,terrorists,criminals,communists,fascists leaving the country at the mercy of stray gangs and gangsters and thus far worse than the present existing lamentable state.So I guess that the slow painstaking work of education and disemination of ideas has to continue - if we have the time of course.A mixed economy is a precarious state,an interim period between either freedom or tyranny.It has a tendency to go more towards the latter as each government intervention begets another on the slow long and winding road to serfdom.

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Republicans Get Some Cojones Next Time

They fell at the last hurdle.They blinked and America is the worst for it.They should have gone for default because all they have done is postpone the inevitable as the US is tens of trillions in debt and bankrupt with only a printing press as figleaf over its destitute self.This is the Socialist endgame mirroring Greece into decline as all collectivist states collapse upon the indebtedness of their fiscal recklessness and debauchery.

Friday, October 11, 2013

Pernicous notion of Hate Crime

Under a system of objective law there would be no such phenomena as a hate crime.A crime is a crime regardless of the motivation behind it.To elevate some crimes as being more morally despicable than others because of the motivation behind them is the height of irrationality and arbitrariness and is demonstrably unjust and brings the whole law into disrepute.To illustrate the absurdity of the idea of hate crime we can take for example two cases of murder.The first is a person who is murdered by someone who does so to steal their money.The second murder is committed by someone who does not like the race of the person they murder.The first case is characterised as a murder,the second a hate crime and by extension worthy of a more severe sentence.In both cases murder has been committed but the murder of a person for financial gain is not considered as heinous as murder on racial grounds.Whether a person is killed because the murderer wanted to steal their money or because the murderer did not like the colour of the victim's skin or the clothes they were wearing or their religion should have no bearing on the sentence which should soley depend on the fac that the person has committed an act of murder.The instigation of force that leads to murder is the crime,not the motivation of the murderer.Just as pernicous if not more is the notion of hate crime to characterise anyone making derogatory offensive remarks about another person's race or religion which takes us into an Orwellian world of thoughtcrime.Being at risk of arrest for expressing politically incorrect views is a road map to tyranny.

Prisons Crime and Punishment

Prisons should be spartan regimes and not places where the inmates can access the internet,playstations,alcohol,drugs,cigarettes and television.Work should be done by all inmates for small extras.There should be no so called 'life sentences' which are the opposite of life and can be as little as 10 years and are a cynical attempt to hoodwink the public into thinking that sentencing is rigorous and harsh when it is in fact liberal and derisory.Life should mean life.There should be no reductions of sentence for 'good behaviour' as good behaviour should be the expected default norm,not something inmates are rewarded for with reduced sentences.A criminal is in jail for a crime he has committed and the length of his sentence should not be influenced by his subsequent good behaviour when in jail although if he goes on to commit a crime whilst in jail he will be subject to an extension of sentence after the due process of additional prosecution is effected.Parole and probation services should be scrapped for the above reason.All prisoners should serve their sentence in jail not hospital on the grounds of mental disorder and there should be no involvement of social workers and psychiatrists in the prison system as these are invariably vehicles to facilitate fraud and deception allowing criminals to escape justice by having excuses made for their behaviour on pseudo scientific grounds.Prisons require statutory oversight but this does not mean they should not be run by private businesses and indeed they should be.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Foreign Policy re War

The sole purpose of war for a nation is to defeat the enemy in self defence observing the principle of non initiation of force.It is not to provide social services to the enemy,to 'win hearts and minds' and all such liberal mush that passes for a foreign policy these days.A nation's sole priority and objective is to protect national self interest,not to play global altruist in some act of Blairist delusional post empire liberal interventionism.

All out war to defeat the enemy at all costs in the shortest time should be the objective not some long drawn out politically correct war such as in the middle east which effectively places our our soldiers in danger,exposing them to the enemy for shooting practice,serving as sacrificial lambs to fulfill some misbegotten liberal idea about duty and sacrifice.

Such is the moral obscenity of foreign policy to date and the Freedom Party would oppose all such doomed ventures in humanitarian self sacrifice.Proxy wars would be discontinued and the enemy named and exposed ie in the middle east, Iran.This rogue state would be given one month to dismantle its nuclear assets or face nuclear attack to take out its installations.

Burqha Ban

Banning the wearing of the burka in public places is justified as the adoption of this head and face cover is clearly a symbolic gesture of political Islam.This dress is not even worn in many middle eastern countries and is a symbol and statement of outright hostility to western values of freedom liberty and self autonomy.

The liberal left are as usual inconsistent and dishonest in their support of women's right to wear the burka and their position is the height of double standards and hypocrisy.Whilst they would not tolerate for one second even the verbal expression of misogynist views or chauvinistic comments,let alone the outright opression and suppression of women if these were coming from white right wing hidebound groups they willingly accept and support the same attitudes and behaviour from muslim ones.

If it is correct to ban the burka as people concealing their identities and faces in public arouse natural suspicion in the light of all the terrorist atrocities caused by muslims the question arises would it not also be legitimate to ban mosques?The Freedom Party has not got a definitive position on this at present and it invites those in favour of liberty and individual rights to weigh in on this but it does seem a compelling argument for the following reason.Mosques are obvious symbols of Islam which is a political as well as religious construct.Many atrocities and terrorist outrages have their intellectual if not physical provenance in British mosques as the inmams give intellectual birth sustenance and succor to such ideas,justifying jihad etc and giving it their moral and religious imprimatur.For this reason mosques have become recruiting grounds for jihad and operate as command and control centres of terrorism.

The fact that a religion is centuries old does not give it immunity to scrutiny,criticism and condemnation if its actions warrant it as Islam at least in its recent and present form clearly does.

This is not necessarily an exclusive Islamicentric argument,for if christians or jews were blowing themselves up and threatening to impose their religion globally via the sword or bomb the banning of churches and synagogues would be equally justified and apropriate but this is not the case and the threat is coming soley from Islam not those other religions.


The argument for protection of the environment shares its irrationality with the argument for animal rights in that once again human beings are to be sacrificed to the interests of the un human,in this case of nature itself.An assault on human values so overt and extreme cannot be an accident and is planned systematic and explicit in the environmentalist argument.

Environmentalism has its roots in the anti capitalist Left and seeks to replace whatever residues of the capitalist system remain with a planned centralist command economy placing burdensome regulation, bureaucracy and taxation on business to render its continuation impractical and financially prohibitive thus driving out free enterprise system and replacing it with totalitarian socialist command.In order to achieve this nefarious end science itself with its reliance on objective provable analysis and methodology has been systematically corrupted and co opted by dishonest and politically sympathetic scientists invariably in the government pay ie university employed researchers on a stipend to service and facilitate the environmentalist objectives.

The Freedom Party would disempower the environmentalist movement by having a separation of science and State,privatising universities and liberating them from the oppressive asphixiating death grip of Marxist thought.Scientific discovery and research will be free from political influence to pursue truth rather than political objectives masked in pseudo science and junk science which characterisies environmentalism.

Animal Rights

The concept of animal rights is an obvious absurdity as rights are a human concept pertaining exclusively to human beings and cannot be plucked and wrenched out of context and transposed arbitrarily onto animals.Animals therfor have no legal protection and even where they are abused by callous humans albeit regrettably - and those who do so are morally reprehensible - animals, falling outside the realm of rights cannot be protected by them.

The attempt to ascribe rights to animals is part of the anthromorphising of animals and actually undermines the whole concept of rights and devalues them reducing humans to the same level as animals. Rights are a human construct designed to protect people form the initiation of force by others.Humans are not animals living in an evolutionary survival of the fittest system where the strong can use force against the weak.How would the rights of a mouse be protected from the attentions of a cat?Would the cat have to go to court to face charges?To ask the question is to see the absurdity of the animal right's advocate's claim.

The concept of rights is an intellectual construct and part of a hierachy of knowledge in a chain of cognition and is the end product of centuries pursuit of knowledge and application of philosophy contributing to human progress.Animals are non conceptual creatures and it would make as much sense to apply rights to them as it would to a piece of wood protecting it from being used by humans to build a house.When animals can produce philosophical treatises on politics and law they can have rights.

To confer rights on animals is a deliberate attempt to undermine rights of human beings by trivialising the concept and depriving them of the necessary protection required for a free civilized society.The Freedom Party would abolish all legislation and laws protecting animals and negate and reject the very concept of animal rights.


Immigration is a thorny issue because under a capitalist system there would be no border controls and there would be a free flow of goods and people into the country but in a mixed economy as we have at present unfettered immigration must be checked because New Labour clearly used the flooding of millions of immigants into the UK as a political tool to ensure there would never be a Conservative government again as immigrants gravitate towards Labour as being the obvious natural immigrant/immigrant welfare friendly party.So until Capitalism is established the Freedom Party would have checks on immigration only permitting skilled profesional people in.

Saturday, October 05, 2013

Free press

The Left hates the free press because it shines a searchlight onto government programmes in general,exposing the flaws and the corruption endemic in big government.It would like statutory control of the press citing public interest which is a flimsy cover for protection and immunity from criticism this would afford them the politicians and the State enabling it to carry out its operation free from exposure and ridicule.The Left thin skinned rats as they are cannot tolerate criticism and would like to turn the press into a carbon copy of the BBC:pro statist,pro government control of everything and everybody.The latest Milliband furore with the Daily Mail and the Left's assault on it shows today's direction of travel namely a curb on the press and state censorship.Not only would the Freedom Party reject all state control of the press but it would seek privatisation of the BBC and freeing up the airwaves ensuring the same freedom of speech as presently exists in the printed media.

Friday, October 04, 2013

Collectivism's Evil Twins

John Prescott really thought he had the daily Mail on the ropes re the Milliband furore when he dredged up an old cutting from the 1930's showing the paper defending Hitler and Fascism.But what the Left suffers historical amnesia over is the Nazi Soviet pact which saw the Fascists and Communists in bed together and which cosy arrangement was only ended when Hitler reneged on the deal.So we see these two collectivist creeds are two peas in the same pod -except that Communism killed many more people and went on a lot longer.Here we come to the heart of the hypocrisy and double standards of all this.Whilst it is still considered respectable to defend academic Marxism and the teaching therof as Tony Benn was doing today,appropriately some would say, on the BBC and which ideology led directly to the mass murder of a hundred million people under Communism, it would be considered a moral outrage to try and defend Fascism and its tenets and no leader of the conservative party would hold that position if it were know that his father taught Fascism in a university.The Freedom Party rejects all variants of collectivism be they communism or fascism as equally immoral and abhorrent and evil and holds that they should be treated as two horns on the same ugly goat of collectivism

Housing versus the State

There is nothing more nauseating and comical than the inverted snobbery of the liberal left intelligentsia.Will Self was the latest exponent on ch 4 the other day sneering at the property owning folk who have the temerity to aspire to own their own houses.He laments the passing of the municipalist spirit of social housing and berates Thatcherism for giving the lower orders ideas above their station in the selling of council houses.With the typical double standards of the Left Self who no doubt own a house if not houses strikes a Marie Antoinett pose and says effectively 'let them have council houses'.He rails at the subletting entrepreneur who lets out 4 bedrooms per house as 'Rackmanesque'.This man lectures at British universities and one can only have pity on those unfortunate students who have their heads filled with his loopy sub Marxist nonsense.The Freedom Party needless to say would oppose all State involvement in houses and would remove the oppressive planning laws.