Blog powered by Typepad

« 'The Kraut' wakes up and smells, er, the toilet, actually | Main | The Sunday Rumble: 20.3.16 »

Saturday, 19 March 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Wallace and Grommet got the push time to do the same for Laurel and hardy. Although to be fair to the latter they did support the goals of Pickles, Gove, IDS and Hammond. They should never have given them the push though as they were the ones for the job.

They are also pushing for devolution (maybe that was what DCM meant by localism)which is a good step in the right direction. Although it is somewhat incongruous that as they devolve power and decision making domestically nationally they want to give it away to a foreign power in Brussels. What kind of muddled thinking is that? Very I would say and points to Dave and George being very dim indeed.

IDS is a decent bloke, a Scotsman and an ex Scots Guardsman. His goal was to get people back to work moreso those living in a benefits lifestyle culture.
My personal view is he would never attack the benefits given to the disabled.
It is not in the physchy of British soldiers to attack the weak and disabled. IDS has chosen to follow his Christian values and I agree with him.
I am sure there will be those who say it was all about the EU however the two do not mix.

IDS, Gove, and the Brexit crew are no different from the Jezza fraternity: Both vile gangs have the inviolable self-belief that they can operate whole industries - like education and welfare - when they have not so much as run an effing whelk-stall.

We would never choose these incompetent, psychopathic, pond-lifers given a free market in which they offer their services in open competition; they would fail completely. Instead they only rise to prominence in power based systems, where winning free market competition through competency is irrelevant; rather authoritarianism, monopoly, cheating, rigging, and all the inefficiency, negligence, and abuse that goes with the territory abounds. So we get their rotten products and services foisted upon us in the fake competition of democracy - truly the vilest spin ever devised by mankind was the association of freedom of choice with democracy.

And you lot fall for it time and time again, "that Gove knows what he's doing", "that IDS is an honourable man", etc. etc., and every time they go beyond disappointment to ruinous calamity. And yet you pick yourselves up, dust yourselves down, and start to get excited about the next bunch of psychotic under-performers.

Wasn't it Albert Einstein who said "Madness is repeating the same action and expecting a different result", or similar?

The only politician to be cautiously attentive to is the one who says "I am the problem, not the solution". And we've only had them in charge for one decade in 200, whereupon the rest of the politicians saw the danger, stabbed them in the back, and demonized their memory.

Osborne and Cameron are the only two around in Blighty who, although they won't say it because of the demonization, seem to believe that they are the problem not the solution, that they couldn't run a whelk-stall, and try to remove themselves and their pol-pals from the scene by shrinking the state. In this they are hounded by their pol-pals and the MUPPET voters at every step of the way.

And the only other rapidly evaporating oasis of competitive market understanding and implementation is the Anglo-German influence for competition, reform, and austerity in Brussels.

Which is why keeping Osborne and Cameron joined up with Brussels is of paramount importance. Divided, the last vestiges of Thatcherism will be destroyed in Britain and Europe, and we will be swamped with Goves, IDS's, and Jezza's, all telling us they can run the world, with the MUPPET voters lapping it up.

SoD


Flashback ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ixNPplo-SU

... to a brighter Sunday.

SoD

Sod - good rant, but utter nonsense!

So, can we assume, SoD, that anarchy is the best way forward?

While at Uni I joined only two clubs: The Anarchist Group, and the Tory Libertarian Association.

Neither could believe that someone would want to be a member of both; each considered the other to be on the diametrical opposite of the political spectrum.

In fact, Anarchism and Libertarianism are as close to each other on the spectrum as Ukip-BNP and Labour-Socialism. Just listen to Ronnie's definitive quote in the YouTube link above.

The Anarchist Group was no such thing, it was just another bunch of thugs and splitters from the hard left.

The Tory Libertarian Association were only such because Maggie won them electoral success for three terms on account of nutting the Unions and the Argies. They couldn't spell Friedman and had never heard of Hayek. They'd stick with small state policy until such time as it suited them to drop it i.e. when the battlefield glory and political victories stopped, and the policy started to question the justification of their existence. "If we are the problem, does that mean we have to stop doing politics and get a proper job then?" they asked. "Errr, yes" was the answer. "Well, thanks but no thanks to that!" was their response. They soon reverted to type: The Ukipper-BNP, bossy-boots that they always had been, and re-engaged in the same old way with the Labour-Socialist types i.e. outdoing each other with their cranky, authoritarian schemes to run the economy in the psychotic belief that they can outperform a free and competitive market.

So in the absence of any "We are the problem, not the solution" party or politician, Lady Liberty has only "Bait and Bleed" to fall back on. Unable to defend herself from rape she must rely on the rapists fighting each other for her protection. So long as HMG and the other 27 national governments are locked in combat with the EU, she might find some respite.

It rather reminds me obtusely of that scene from the film "Nymphomaniac", where the subject of the film - a Nymphomaniac, funnily enough - invites two black strangers to shag her. She sits quietly on the bed while they have a row about who will engage forward and who rearward, so to speak. After a while, bored of their bickering, she gets dressed, packs up, and leaves unsated!

It's the rudest scene I've ever seen on mainstream cinema, btw, so don't google it if you're of a nervous disposition.

So while HMG and the EU are rucking about which one will fuck and which one bugger us, they find the time to do neither.

There, in a nutshell: Accidental Liberty by Bait and Bleed.

SoD

Dream on, or, given your film tastes, perhaps nightmare on, is all I can say to that.

The elephant you are wilfully ignoring, Lawrence, is human nature which, since the earliest of times, has always required leadership not least because most people lack the qualities (or faults) required to undertake it. Hence, perhaps, the popularity of blogs where all most of us do most of the time is sit and moan and groan.

Nevertheless, whether you are a stone-age tribe or a modern society, someone has to lead and the rest of us have to follow. It only remains for some system to evolve which allows the leaders to be somewhat controlled by the led. Having the ability to kick the rascals out every five years is as good a system as I have ever seen or read about.

You, by contrast, seem to admire the EU which is a system in which the leaders pay absolutely no attention to your wants or wishes and who are firmly ensconced *for life*! And you seriously believe that they do you no harm! Sucker! Just ask a Greek!

"The elephant you are wilfully ignoring, Lawrence, is human nature which, since the earliest of times, has always required leadership not least because most people lack the qualities (or faults) required to undertake it."

Human nature does not require leadership. Unfortunately, however, at some point in the dim and distant past human nature acquired leadership.

A genetic mutation. And the tribe that acquired it went on to assault and attack with impunity all the other tribes and enslave them, because they didn't have the gene - yet.

As the political gene equipped tribe raped their way through the slave prisoners, so the gene escaped into the enslaved. So they in turn bore leaders who could marshal them to fight back. Combined with the factionalism endemic with the nature of the gene, the erstwhile dominant tribe spawned numerous "splitters" - the very first PFJ's, JPF's, and our old favourite: The Popular Front (he's over there).

So after this birthing period, the world settled into the systematically violent and abusive system we find ourselves in now: -

1. Nobody needs or wants the political gene in the gene pool, due to the violence and abuse it brings (except the pols, who, being infected by it, can't help their opinion that they are "only wanting to serve"; like paedophiles, they are in denial of the harm they cause, and even say "They want it and need it").

2. But nobody can be without the gene in their tribe's gene pool, because without it in their tribe's gene pool, they would have no-one to whip them up to their defence and would quickly be invaded and enslaved by neighbouring tribes in whom the gene is present.

So the only purpose the pol gene serves is to fight itself, manifested in the endless conflict in humanity since the mutation arose.

Meaning that the only way to eradicate it would be to put all politicians into a gas chamber. But the person doing it would likely be a pol themself, and likely not to oblige us by stepping inside and pulling the door to behind them. And with one left out, we would be back to day one of this awful mutation.

Until the gene is located and a pill at birth given to everyone to eradicate it, the only way forward is twofold: -

1. The very minor mitigation of democracy, best thought of as re-elected tyranny.
2. The constant disengagement and disassociation of non-pols from their pol gene infected fellow citizens. A natural blessing, bestowed with all the attributes of mockery, criticism, highlighting of errors, sniffing out of hypocrisy, double standards, graft, incompetence et al. By far the best palliative we have available.

And you threw away number 2 when you crossed the floor and signed up. Now you cling like an overboard refugee to the rubber ring of democracy. Soon you'll be saying "I only want to serve".

SoD

Well at least that's Tyrion Lannister's question answered: -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAOzMs9HbWg

Roll on April 24th - season 6!

SoD

Alas, SoD, I couldn't get the volume up high enough to hear your man speaking, a pity because from the odd excerpt I have heard I could listen to his voice for ever. In any event, instead of watching 'Game of Thrones' you should read 'The Noble Revolt' by John Adamson - that will teach you more about practical politics than anything although it doesn't have many, or even any, sex scenes!

The comments to this entry are closed.