Twelve Months Later

It has been a year since I last scribbled here.  Reason?  A distraction caused by the disloyal actions of a trustee!  What is the value of loyalty?

Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values.

The proof of loyalty is the achievement of happiness.  Loyalty is not painful or self indulgent.  Loyalty is integral to the moral self worth.  Being disloyal, therefore, is immoral and causes pain and unhappiness. So why do people, in my case a trustee, wish to cause me harm, pain, unhappiness and devalue their own personal morality?


My values are not self serving, they are self determining.  I would never be disloyal, I would never be participating in something that I knew would constructively or destructively result in the removal of someone else's self worth, value or happiness.  Why should I, what would I gain?  So why do others do it it to me?


I cannot be responsible for their morality, I simply have to accept it but never trust them again.; they are no longer a trustee.  If a friend, do I remove them as such and un-befriend them.  As a lover, do I hate them?  No neither, better to be unaffected by their immoral attitude towards themselves or me.  Perhaps better for me to adopt an a-plastic response.  Feel nothing.  Love is the reverse of hate; to feel nothing is an incitement of their failure as as person. The disloyal, therefore, are banished to a nothingness.

The Morning After

The only purpose of a constitution is to protect the individual from abuse by government.  

From that point of departure how can democracy be anything other than a hijacked constitution? 

What became apparent over recent weeks is that the UK version of democracy and the attempts to constitutionalise reform through a referendum has, once again, afforded the rabble-rousers, the busy-bodies and those seeking socialist dogma an opportunity to create chaos. Democracy tends to kleptocracy and chaos.  Anarchy, presumed to be a chaotic structure, is in fact the only intellectually stable form of society, whereby the individual's rights are paramount.

The call from the left has always been to seek reform and control.  Reforming what exactly?  The blame for the recession and the economic slow down has been blamed on the free market.  Not so, the blame for the chaos in the UK at least is the taxation of success and the use of that money - our money - to reward failure and create a kleptocracy of public sector. Only governments can cause economic depressions and funny money. Lower tax rates, a reduction in the burden of government, and elimination of kleptocracy are the only way to boost growth. The only purpose of government is to protect citizens from criminals. Public services should be abolished.

But what would replace public services? Entrepreneurs, innovators and free thinking free markets are the proper replacement.

Today, the morning after, demonstrates what exactly?  Will the UK have AV or not?  Are the main political groups rejoicing or weeping? What is for sure is that because of ineptitude, socialism and left wing dogma, the UK is still in austerity measures, and still trying to recover from an overindulged public sector that creates what exactly?

Multiculturalism - The New Racism

David Cameron has garnered high praise and volumes of positive reaction to his statements made on Sunday Feb 5th regarding Europe, Britain, Diversity and Multiculturalism. It is being hailed as a Prime Ministerial dumping of shackles of political correctness. Many analysts and social commentators have long been fearful that the diversity and inclusion debate, which sit at the heart of multiculturalism, have single handed created paralysis in debate and prevented any comment that might question the efficacy of multiculturalism. The fear, of course, is to be labelled as a fascist or, at best a racist and pilloried for even considering such a notion. The new liberal dogma of anti-liberal debate (just in case it offends) has been exposed as a “naked emperor” for some time. It seems now, at least for the moment, that the Prime Minister has decided it is safe to state the “bleeding obvious”.

The Prime Minister is quite correct when he identifies multiculturalism as an important problem because it has eroded common British values and identity. If we wish to live in the liberal utopia of being an inclusive and diverse culture which embraces and celebrates difference then we must recognise that there need to be differences and the eroded and perhaps absent British identity does not afford differences. In fact it only ensures a new racism to emerge. The British identity must be submersed at all costs and replaced with lots of variable identities. These variables demand nothing from anyone; they have no structure, no social cohesion and certainly tolerate nothing. As such no group, community or individual can feel bound in a shared national project. Worse still, because it has no common intellectual identity, it affords a schizophrenic response and legitimises a lethal set of double standards.

What this creates is a society which is fragmented, nobody is sure what they can or cannot believe or say. The disenfranchised young Asian men, whom some enjoy to target and stigmatise, also find it hard to identify with Britain. Not because white Britain does not tolerate them; far from it, but because white Britain has allowed the weakening of a collective British identity. The result is staggering; when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views for instance, they are rightly condemned. However, when equally unacceptable views or practices come from someone who isn’t white, a fear creeps in and there is no such condemnation. Caution and fear creates an inertia which in turn creates a dualism of morality and fails to stand up to something that is objectionable and racist by equal comparison. The failure, for instance, of society to challenge arranged or forced marriages where young women are bullied and on occasion abducted overseas in order to marry someone when they don’t want to, is a case in point. The attitude adopted by the neo-liberal, illiberal, politically correct elite that tolerates such an abomination only goes to reinforce that cohesion and diversity has become dualism and contradiction.

But what are the implications of ending the nonsense of multiculturalism? Just as a starter the Muslim Association of Britain but the supposedly more mainstream Muslim Council of Britain, along with most if not all of its affiliates, would now be considered as illegitimate. The Muslim Parliament would be declared illegal – the British Parliament would be the one source of prima-facia value and identity. The assorted groups preaching jihadi subversion on our University campuses would be thrown into prison and the Saudi funding of mosques and university Islamic studies departments would end. The inclusion of sharia law in Britain would be stopped and removed along with the sharia commercial financing that affords small Asian businesses to start and grow. 

But what of elsewhere?  In the United States, affirmative action (equal opportunity) is also beginning to run out of steam. The very country where only a black person may call another black person a “N****R” because if a white person were to do so they would be shot on site – yet strangely a black person is quite able to call a white person “whitey” without any sanction.

For the last generation at least affirmative action has been at the heart of education; thus forming the mainstream thought for the educated middle classes as they graduate and assume control over the society that has spawned them. However, the diversity and inclusion agenda is clearly the purpose of affirmative action is now under attack. From some quarters there is growing concern that far from being an “essential” to a college or university education, such diversity is ploughing a road to its destruction. The argument goes that diversity – particularly ethnic diversity - is merely racism in a politically correct disguise.  As I said above, perhaps the naked Emperor is now visibly so.

In our liberal, democratic Western Society, racism to most is perceived to be a belief that one race is superior to another. However, it is much more than that. It is a fundamental (and completely wrong) view of human nature. Racism has become the notion that race determines identity. This understanding then proceeds further as it promotes a view that a person’s convictions, values and character are determined not by intellectual judgement but by blood and genetics. Therefore, people can only be condemned (or praised) based on their racial membership.

The spread of racism requires the destruction of an individual's confidence and belief in his own intellectual ability. Such an individual then will look elsewhere for a sense of belonging or identity in a group. David Cameron suggests that the disenfranchised young Asian men who become Muslim extremists are such individuals. They seek a sense of identity. Perhaps first in the identity of the culture in which they live – a multi racial British identity – and when that fails (because of its dilution or absence) by clinging to some other group, thus abandoning their autonomy and their rights and allow an fundamentally singularly focussed ethnic group or an extremist part of that group dictate what to believe and think. Because they now think of themselves as a racial entity, they now are only free to feel themselves as individuals amongst others of the same race. They become a collective of separatists, choosing friends—and enemies—based exclusively on ethnicity.

To return to the United States, this separatism has resulted in the spectacle of student-segregated dormitories and segregated graduations. Ghettoism, imposed by self inflicted, de-personalisation, effected by a neo-liberal flim-flam of false dogma and fear in being confident in one’s own skin.  For us in the United Kingdom, whole urban villages have become stigmatised with being a "no go area" for Whites, or Indians or Caribbean's. What is so awful is that this ghettoism is the result of the Western Liberal diversity movement which claims to have as its Key Performance Indicator a goal to extinguish racism and build a society of tolerance of celebrated differences. It is a total sham.

The extension of the argument depends on a cultural curriculum that teaches us that our identity is determined by skin colour. The multiculturalism policy deliberately prevents us from seeing each other as individual human beings. There is an immediate expectation that we should consider ourselves as part of an ethnic group. It is impossible to preach the need for self-esteem while destroying the faculty which makes it possible: reason. One cannot teach collective identity and expect any of us to have self-esteem. Collective identity will only afford members of that group an identity only while the group exists. If it changes, becomes more aggressive, more radical then the individual will have to become aggressive and radicalised in order to maintain their identity. All evidence of self esteem and personal intellectual identity will have been removed.

The Cameron speech has begun a debate, a much over due debate, on the efficacy of multiculturalism and diversity. It can only now be suggested that the advocates of multiculturalism and diversity are the true racists in the basic meaning of that term. It is they who see the world through glasses coloured by race. To the multiculturalists, race and ethnicity are what count. They are the touchstone for values, thinking, rationality, morality and human identity. If there is ever an argument to explain why racism is increasing it must be that people are no longer allowed to treat each other as individuals; to multiculturalists, they are not.

The advocates of multiculturalism promote toleration and celebration of difference. The differences they have in mind are racial. What they are actually suggesting, I propose, is the ghettoisation of our societies into clear racial or ethnic groups. That is segregation. That is racism.

These same advocates of multiculturalism claim that because the world is a diverse group of racial groups; our societies should be cosmopolitan and reflect that fact. But why should a given individual society within any racial group reflect that global diversity? To impose ethnic diversity is to impose the supremacy of one ethnic group over another. That surely is racism? This racism, and not any meaningful sense of diversity, guides today's intellectuals. The educationally significant diversity that exists in our society is intellectual diversity; that is the diversity of ideas. However, such diversity—far from being sought after—is virtually a forbidden topic of debate. The existence of socially engineered "political correctness" rides roughshod over our freedom to engage at valuing real diversity. What they want is abject conformity.

If Britain wishes to be a diverse, inclusive and culturally rich society reflecting the wealth of its history then it must eradicate racism. This means it must eradicate multiculturalism wholesale. In so doing it will be forced to scrap racist programmes and the philosophic ideas that feed racism. It will afford the individual the right to value their own reason and feel secure in a national identity. It will accept that multi racial does not mean multi cultural and that race does not mean identity. 

All The Old Ones..................

Reflective

Things happen, shit happens, from time to time anything can happen.  How random is that, can that, will that happen?  Apparently, if you toss a coin 100 times, it is expected that you will get 50 Heads and 50 tails.  Not so though, as the variances of "flick" or "toss"  will have an impact on the percentage returns of expectation.  So it is, I think, with life in general.

I do not do "determinism" in any of its variations or forms; but have an inherent belief in the randomness, perhaps chaotic, theory of "free will", or to lovers of silliness, "free willy".  We are totally free to choose, select, opt in and out of or for; indulge or un-indulge with or without consequence.  Thecuriousness of our opportunity is not necessarily dependant on our faith structure - do we, or don't we believe in a God - and is totally open to our human condition.  I was once told that my ideal in freedom of choice was like playing Russian Roulette.  Not so, that is and has a predetermination based on the number of empty chambers in the barrel.  My concept of free will is based on an infinite number of chambers.

There is a weird predilection of some who value their own variety of free will.  Yes we are free to do what we want within reason.  Not so, we are free, we must be free to do what we want regardless.  To restrict our freedom to choose and to do is not just an imposition against our human rights to "do" but is a clear attack on our unique humanness to "be".  Any attempt to restrict is a an act of determinism, bullying and enforced anti human activity.

There are people on this Earth who play this game with others.  They deceive, bully, and cowardly disrupt another persons life to such an extent that the oppressed becomes devoid of choice and has to respond in a particular way.  Women are good at this - misogynistic and sexists as it may seem (tough shit if you don't like that) it is something women tend to gloat over, how they can manipulate their man, wind him up and down at will.  Well fuck em - literally and metaphorically speaking - fuck em!  Indeed fuck all of those who want to manipulate, deceive, cheat, lie and manipulate another for the permanent removal of their rights or ideas or work.  This is theft on a grand scale and we approve it? 

Allow others the freedom to be, allow me the freedom to be and I will allow you the freedom to be in return.  Harm me and I will destroy you - shimples!  Is this not a fair and reasonable compromise, arrangement or deal?  Leave me and I will allow others the freedom to be free to be left too.  Too many frees,  No, we have to be free to allow freedom.  The simple anarchistic, laissez fairargument of the Libertarian.

Be free, do not determine others and do not allow others to determine you.

Life Moves.........

It has been sometime since I was moved to reflect on my thoughts in written form. I have had too much time to speak; and as I do not know what I think until I hear myself say it, I cannot possibly be accused of going off half cocked or of being tardy in my reflections. It is just that my blog has been less than informed or informative if you like.

Consequences are less talked about today than perhaps when I was younger. What I mean by that is the inevitability of a reaction following some sort of action. For example, if I push some half witted troll from the backwoods of Pennington off of the kerb and in front of an oncoming 56A Bus going to Beaulieu then the result of my action, the reaction that is, is a squashed troll and huge savings by the Government from the demise of the scrounging little shit. Net benefit from my action. So the consequences I refer to are the results, direct or indirect, that occur as a reaction to my action. Why do we fail to recognise that there are consequences?

Much has been posted here and elsewhere on the consequences of debt, greed and the failings of capitalism - most of it bollocks as I blame pluralism and not extremism. If left to its own devices Capitalism will always succeed as will Communism and Fascism......just as long as they do not exist in the same world or universe at the same time! But pluralism, the woolly minded liberal attempt at keeping everyone happy at the same time will never work. Compromise is a failed concept, always was and always will be. But I digress. As I said, much has been written about greed and debt and capitalism and markets and laissez faire being the roots of all evils and being the causes of our current folly and failure of the world economies. As I said...bollocks, but it has at least reintroduced the notion of cause and effect and the effects or consequences of actions into a world, a culture that was beginning to get too carried away with its own importance. Up until now, many of us had begun to believe we are fire proof. Nothing can touch us. Our actions had somehow become consequence free.

For me at least, I have never doubted that there would one day be a reckoning, a balance sheet opportunity to map out the consequences of my actions or inactions. There are many who, like me, share a desire to see the "come upp'ance" of a certain Magistrate in Southampton who appears to get away with outrageous behaviour and be "consequence free". Well soon dear lady, soon. But for the rest of us mere mortals who live in the shadow of "getting caught" or "catching it" or running out of money" or even......"death" ; we, those of us who play by the rules and get pissed on, will one day rise up and ensure that those who do not believe in consequences, and I do not mean in the divination of punishment, be nailing their colours to the mast and ensuring that the consequences will be meted out.

People cannot be allowed to get away with things. As a Libertarian I believe firmly in chaos and anarchy. But that does not mean in the freedom to hurt others! No, No, No; anarchy is the freedom to be, to do, to exist in any way just so long as it does not have a consequence on others. If I hurt others then I have become a brute, a bully. People cannot be allowed to get away with hurting others, with bullying others, with damaging others without recognition that there is a consequence.

Now if all this sounds like I have become a revolutionary and born again vigilante ...........well I have never not been so, so I cannot, unable to be identified as thus; born again.

There is nothing wrong with taking the law into ones own hands, just as long as one realises that the consequences of doing so might not be a pain free future. With that in mind, let us bring back testicle crushing for rapists and dunking in hot oil for thieves! Any problems please write to my lawyers.....

But what of life and death and love? The consequences of falling in love seem to me, to be representative of loosing all forms of personal choice and opportunity. The moment the penny drops, the gong sounds, the heart leaps; that's it, all over, no more freedom. Why is that? The consequence for me at the moment is measured by falling in love. Not the idea of being in love but the notion of being in love. Something I actively pursued not to do, something I was duped into being by a momentary lapse of sanity. How did I manage this? God knows, because I do jot. And the cost of love?

Can I imagine life without her...............? NO!

The Whole Issue Of Loyalty

It does appear that there is today far less of an understanding of what it is to be loyal than when I was a child. Basic protection of one's friends and neighbours, a loyalty and defence of family, friends, teams, class, clubs and thoughts. All things I took for granted but now, sadly not the case any more. Loyalty, it seems, is a not something that one can expect from an one. It is not a prerequisite of any relationship. It is not something that goes with the territory of, say, friendship, family or even lovers. Loyalty has now become something at odds with the modern freedoms won so popularly through emancipation and sharing the franchise.

Today, loyalty; the concept, the ideal and even the very notion of trust and togetherness, has been replaced by something far more socially valuable: Equality.

Equality is the new black. Equality is the new social measuring stick as to whether or not someone is OK or not. OK as in acceptable at North London dinner parties. Yet I would suggest that this very new populist paragon has created far more inequality as a direct result of its implementation into the new middle class value system. The term, you see, is all embracing. Equality - it sounds so dogmatic and without charm. It is a word of edict and control. It is an imposition and therefore implies a right to be equal regardless. This therefore means that the village idiot, while harmless and valuable in the community; now has equal rights afforded him in everything. Now what a jolly good thing it is too, some say; but not all. Because some of us have realised that in order for this dimwit to be afforded say, equality in a classroom, less time is offered by a finite resource to quick witted children who will go on and prosper through learning and education. Equality, in this respect, has reduced achievement in some to mediocrity and raised an unrealistic expectation to achieve in the dimwit. Both have been patronised by an adherence to the notion of equality.

Now this sounds all rather right wing, and I suppose it is; but lets look at how perhaps the ideal could have been better employed. Rather than equality, lets use the term egalitarian. That looks the same and sounds similar but if offers a deeper perception of the notion of equality. Egalitarianism affords the opportunity equally, but based upon our ability take that opportunity. Terms of relevance are realised and the realistic approach to achievement and goal setting are clearly stated. Nobody has a right to be anything, but they do have the right to find the opportunity to achieve to become whatever they wish.

The so called equality lobby has had its day. The ideal of creating a classless society where we would all be equal has failed terribly. It has created more classes and more division. The woolly liberals have created a worse hell hole than we have ever had in a class driven society. The trouble is now, nobody understands the pecking order; who is on top: the Meritocracy? The Aristocracy? The Bureaucracy? The Polyglots? or dare I say the journalists? Who and where in our liberal democracy has equality in our class ridden society now? And once we have discovered that, should we be loyal to them or should we, out of a sense of equality, be loyal to everyone regardless?

Objectivism.....my view

I was asked this morning to explain what I understood by Objectivism. Well it would be simpler for me to drop a link to the Ayn Rand Institute's web site, but failing that I need some cerebral exercise to take my mind of this bloody headache.

So first then...........;

My philosophy, Objectivism, argues that there are three supreme values which govern a person's life:
Reason, Purpose, and Self-esteem.

Reason, is the only tool of knowledge; it encompases perceived and learnt knowledge. It is the ability to think freely without governance and control.
Purpose, is the choice of happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve. Each person has the right to purpose, personal defined self purpose not imposed or proscribed.
Self-esteem, this inviolate certainty that the mind is competent to think and the person is worthy of happiness, which means the person is worthy of living and value. This certainty gives us the ability to understand the needs of others and be of use in our society to the needs of others (not to be confused with ultruism this certainty is the only tool which enables us to assist others in their personal journeys and we do so out of sense of purpose)
These three values imply and require all virtues and all virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness and pride.

Further, there is more to explore. Reality, for example, only exists as an objective absolute — facts are facts, after all and while facts can be challenged, they remain absolute until dis proven and replaced with other absolutes. So, reality is an absolute that is not dependent on a man or woman's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. We cannot control or tamper with reality, because even if reality changes we have no control over the change or over the reality of the facts as they are and as they are perceived by the individual. Man can only perceive reality throughReason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) which his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

Man—every man and woman—is an end in him or herself. Men or woamn, the individual is not the means to the ends of others. Men and women do not exist in order to allow others to exist. He or she must exist for his or her own sake, neithersacrificing him or herself to others nor sacrificing others to him or herself. The pursuit of personal rational self-interest and of personal happinessis the highest moral purpose of his or her life.

For an Objectivist, the only political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system which is totally egalitarian. It is a system wherby real equality exists. Men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but astraders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of .

Libertarian's view of government is finely dran against an Objectivist view. The Libertarian would prefer no government and a pure form of anarchy to exist. For an Objectivist, if government is necessary then government must only act as a policeman that protects the rightsof man - as outlined above. Government can onlyuse physical force in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders.

In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics. It is not the role of government to interfere in economics or the market. There is no middle ground. Either governments have total control of the economic state, as in some sort of Stalinist model, or none at all. Any intrusion, any attempt at pluralism will lead to a complete breakdown of the market. I propose that the intrusions made by global governments into the activities of global capitalism have in themselves been responsible for the failure of the global economic system. It is not capitalisms fault but the intrusions of governments into how capitalism works. Free Markets - laissez-faire - means free markets, not almost free, or regulated but totally free. This is as true for the economic-political model as it is for the relationship between state and church. The Church is supposed to be a free thinking group of independent believers. If there is attachment to the State then this freedom disappears and the Church becomes a tool, a moral mouthpiece for the State. Likewise, for a pluralist economy, one where state and capitalism are combined in any way; there can only be a manipulated market created by a manipulated capitalism. There will be no free market.

So, that summarises my position. If you want more.......