"Sticks and Stones..."

A lot of what happens in today's world just calls for some intervention from Athena (or whatever other entity embodies reason and wisdom in mythologies). Yesterday I was watching Match of the Day on the BBC and during the highlights of a game I saw one of the players stomp on another's face. In another incident, another player elbowed one of his opponents in the head. Now I'm not one to take sports very seriously, but these two guys didn't even get a card. And they're not going to get any other penalty from the Football Association even after everyone can see this stuff on TV replays. Meanwhile a couple weeks ago the FA handed Luis Suarez an unprecedented eight match ban and £40,000 fine for allegedly calling another player a bad racist name during a game.
Am I the only one who is thinking of the old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"? I thought all children knew this stuff. But, apparently, adults don't. Nowadays it is considered a great offense to call someone a name, but kicking, beating, and other types of violence are just dandy. The football example is a silly one, of course, but it illustrates the situation as it exists in the wider society. A stupid prejudice like racism is just that - stupid. But we seem to care more about eradicating it than preserving people's rights in their person and property. A racist can't really hurt anyone. He (or she) just talks nonsense. The reason people pay more attention to the words is because they have to have something to distract them from the obvious 'sticks and stones' which beat us down in our everyday lives.
People choose not to see the fact that all services which are provided for them by the state are not 'public' services, but rather 'coercive services'. The naked force behind all government programs is so plain and apparent that we really need a lot of distractions and make a great effort not to see this. What I am worried about though, is the way this double standard of morals is starting to slip into the private realm. Already most people I talk to are nihilists of one kind or another. The football example is quite a good guide in this regard - why are a couple nasty shouts being penalized much harsher than physical violence which could do serious harm to the victim?
Maybe soon in kindergartens across the West we'll be hearing a new version of the rhyme? "Sticks and stones strengthen our bones, but words can really kill us" perhaps?

Creepy Poppy Day - Spencer is right, as always

The "British people" (i.e. the tax serfs of the UK government) have been celebrating the memory of their military dead (i.e. the government's cannon fodder), especially those who died in recent interventions in the Middle East (i.e. genocidal expeditions of Mr. Tony Blair). To be honest I have had enough of seeing people all wearing poppy flowers on all their clothes, cars, and other property. I guess the poppy has a similar function to the ribbon in the USA. In that both are symbollic ways of glorifying mass murder. Maybe it is something about being raised in a Polish family, I don't know, but I have a thourough disgust for war. Even warlike rhetoric sickens me. I have no respect for any soldiers who died on missions in the Middle East in recent years. They were guns-for-hire who lost their gamble. And if these wars consisted of states fighting states, I may have a neutral stance here. After all, why would I favor one mafia ahead of another? But currently all I see is state (i.e. mafia) armies (i.e. groups of goons) attacking innocent civilian populations. Furthermore, the American government has created concentration camps (we don't know how many in total, but one of them is actually official - Guantanamo) where Afghani goat-herds are being kept and tortured for months and years at a time. The people who freed the Nazi extermination camps after World War II are now establishing similar facilities themselves (maybe not designed for mass murder, but certainly designed for kidnapping, torture, and sometimes probably assassinations).
Just because a man puts on a silly uniform does not mean he is not required to abide by the basic rules of ethics. Green or blue clothes do not entitle you or me to shoot, kill, kidnap, murder, enslave, steal, rape, pillage, or occupy. But the government seems to think it does. Maybe someone should show up at Tony Blair's house wearing green-yellow camo and show him what waterboarding feels like?

To all British citizens I raise this appeal: Think carefully before you put on that poppy. Remember the millions of dead men, women, and children in Iraq and Afghanistan. And remember what probably the greatest British citizen ever, Herbert Spencer, once said of British soldiers who took part in the British-Afghan War in the 19th Century: "When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves."

Is Abp. Rowan Williams really a Christian?

Since moving back to America, I have observed quite a few people wearing all kinds of small items (usually bracelets) with the letters "WWJD" on them. I found out this abbreviation stands for "What would Jesus do?". It is a way of reminding people who claim to be Christian about the importance of their religion in making everyday decisions. You are faced with a problem and you ask yourself - what would Jesus do? Now I'm pretty sure members of the clergy shouldn't need little bracelets to be able to think like this, they are supposed to be thinking about Jesus all the time anyway. So I was very surprised the other day when I heard that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, spoke out in support of the Occupy Movement protesters who argue for higher taxes on the rich and on the finance industry. I don't really know why he would support such a thing, any economist worth his salt knows this kind of motion will cripple the industry, increase intrest rates and prices across the board, and drive jobs overseas. But there is also an important moral question here (which has nothing to do with the Archbishop's apparent ignorance of basic economics).
Namely, the question is: What would Jesus do?
Now I was raised Catholic and I've read the New Testament quite a few times - and nowhere in there did I see any reference to Jesus telling people they should take the property of others in the name of justice. And this is exactly what the new tax would do. In fact, even its proponents acknowledge this. They call the tax the "Robin Hood Tax", and we all know that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor (after taking a certain comfortable provision for himself, of course). Abp. Williams should be able to explain to me how he can defend stealing. Thou shalt not steal was still in the Decalogue the last time I checked. Maybe the Archbishop needs to order a little "WWJD" bracelet for himself.
Jesus was a great man, and his followers, Christians, built a great civilization. Christians are generous and they respect human rights, such as the right of property. Christians do not coerce others and they have a respect for the Law (The Law as Frederick Bastiat defined it). This is why their civilization grew so great, it was peaceful and prosperous when compared to other cultures on this Earth. Jesus told others to give their property to the deserving poor - he did not instruct anyone to steal in order to support themselves or others who had less material wealth. Jesus was the patron of beggars, not of robbers. I hope all Christians who still claim to be faithful to him remember this one day.

To quote the Jesus himself: "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." (Matthew 19:21).
Sacrificing oneself for the sake of others is often a great virtue (when not taken to extremes). But sacrificing others for the sake of the poor is akin to human sacrifice, something Jesus would never be able to condone - he was a pacifist.

I can't believe I'm protecting Traveller Gypsies...

So the big news story in the UK recently is the eviction, by the County Council, of Irish gypsy travellers from Dale Farm in Essex. The whole operation will cost over £17 million (and this is a conservative estimate). Now in my whole life so far, I have never said a positive word about these gypsies. They are widely known as the lowest lowlives in England (sorry for the generalization, but that's just how it is). Some of their hobbies include: beating people up, robbing people, stealing people's cars and blowing them up, and, recently, keeping and selling slaves. The one positive thing I can say is that their children don't go to government schools (on the down side, the children don't go to any school at all and spend their time vandalizing local communities). But here in Dale Farm I have to stand up for the rights of the poor gypsies. And I don't mean any 'human rights' of decency or whatever the lefties have been going on about for the last couple days. I mean their private property rights!
I have always said that government land - land owned by any organ of the government, whether national or local - is illegitimately owned. No homesteading process took place when the state acquired that land. In England it can be argued that some property is owned by the Queen and the Royal Family, but the Shire Councils have no long-standing history of ownership or homesteading in any area (as far as I know). Now these gypsies simply found an empty field and settled there with their families. They didn't harm anyone in the process, nor did they steal anyone's property. No one was living there or using the land. Now, many years later, they are being forced out.
I would like to remind the Her Majesty's Government that this state (the UK) is supposed to be founded on Liberal principles as explained by the likes of John Locke or Lord Blackstone. The travellers may not the be the best of people and the police may have reasons to go after them, but that is to be done on an individual basis. The police have no right to evict the gypsies from legitimately homesteaded property. Homesteading is a principle I have envoked many times on this blog, and I will continue to do so. It is the process upon which all property rights are based. If the Council wants to evict the settlers, they have to present proof that the land was being used and occuped by some of their agents who 'mixed their labour' with the land before the travellers built their homes.

So, as Locke wrote about Man: "The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property."
Who was the one mixing his labour with the land in this case? I can't be exactly sure, but on the face of it all I see is a settlemend being torn down by aggressors...

Are current Governments 'throwing in the towel'?

Has anyone else noticed that during this campaign rooting for the opposition has been much easier than usual? I am involved in politics actively here in Poland (through volunteering and other support), but I also participate in a minor role when it comes to the USA and the UK. And I have observed a few frightening trends. In Poland and in the US, the current ruling elite is, according to me, going to simply give up! Now, they are not going to do it in the straight-forward stepping-up-to-the-plate sort of way, like Mr. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero did in Spain (his Socialist government has been such a gigantic failure that he simply said he will not try for re-election). So here is what's happening.
In the US, President Barack Hussein Obama II has destroyed the economy completely. His Keynesian stimulus has made the country poorer and the collapse of the US Dollar is imminent. That great nation is on the brink of economic collapse because of what Mr. Obama and Mr. Bernanke have been doing. It is their fault - it's as simple as that. If either of these men understood basic economics, they were in position to save the United States from the result of terrible governance under Alan Greenspan and George Bush (these two cronies I will not even grace with the honorific title of 'Mr'). Sadly, Obama and Bernanke simply made things much, much, much worse. So what now? I think the Democrats are going to throw in the towel and let the Republicans take the blame for the coming crash. The US will either make absolutely massive cuts next year and raise interest rates to record levels (I predict 20%) or it will collapse and the Dollar will hyper inflate. The next administration will therefore have to make a decision - entire total collapse or huge US recession? Both A and B are terrible choices! Mr. Obama and the Democrats are likely to just let the Republicans and their man (Perry, or maybe Romney...?) make the tough call. When it comes to the easy stuff, like spending other people's money, Democrats will always shout that they are your best choice. But when it comes to cuts and savings - have the Lefties ever been able to do those things?
In Poland, meanwhile, the Parliamentary elections are coming up sooner - next month. And here I also observed a similar tendency. The government (PO and PSL), instead of laughing at the opposition (PiS and SLD and RPP) in their usual manner, are warning the nation that the opposition have a good chance of winning! This despite the fact that PO is leading PiS by 10-15% in the polls! The Prime Minister is simply waving his white flag already. And why? Similar reasons to those in the US. The current government know that a recession is coming and other vital decisions are soon to be made. For example, Poland is about to participate in the new European Union budgetary negotiations. The government is already saying they would be able to get up to 300billion Euro in subsidies for Poland at the negotiations (a ludicrous and unrealistic sum). So if PiS win and negotiate anything less (which is sure to happen) then PO will simply say they are terrible negotiators! Also, the future government will be forced to deal with unprecedented public debt levels (which the current government, PO, created). PO don't want to deal with that, they will just sit back and condemn future governments for cuts and thrift...
Thank God the United Kingdom, as bad as the situation is there, is still holding on to normalcy. All the more reason for me to praise Mr. David Cameron for a job well done.

Why Britain?

Britain. I have publicly declared that perhaps I will apply for the citizenship of the United Kingdom. Even since then, people have bombarded me with questions. Usually they say that the UK is just as bad as America (it sent troops to all USA mission, i.e. colloquially speaking it is USA's 'bitch') or that it is much more socialist than other countries I have permanently been in (USA or Poland). But the truth is that I respect the UK for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it is independent. Under David Cameron the UK is a much stronger nation. Yes, it invaded Libya without any coherent purpose, but so did every other NATO country (including Poland). Britain is the only country which, in the current depression, actually has a decent government. Cameron's cabinet is not all-good and not all-free-market, but it is much better than anything the Obama administration can provide, and it is much better than anything a Mitt Romney administrations could provide. Once upon a time I did not support the Conservatives because I thought they were not Thatchetist enough, and now I still don't think they are doing enough, but they are going in the right direction.

As the great William Pitt said: "England has saved herself by her exertions, and will, I trust, save Europe by herself." This was a statement against Napoleon and the first European Union (the second one being Adolf Hitler's). Maybe I can also participate in saving Europe from the current crazy greed-driven socialist frenzy?

I agree with Jacek Rostowski, FOR ONCE!

In a recent speech in the European Parliament the Polish Finance Minister, Mr. Jan Vincent-Rostowski (aka. Jacek Rostowski), said that an upheaval in the Eurozone meant that war might occur 'within 10 years' and that he was seriously considering getting his children an American Green Card because of this. I have always said that a global economic crisis can lead to two options: global intellectual sobriety and deregulation or, most likely, nationalism and war. This (nationalism and war) is what happened after the 1930's depression, so there is no historical reason to suspect otherwise. Mr. Rostowski is actually considering that the Euro has a future, which is a highly doubtful concept to me. The US Dollar, of course, is much more likely to collapse soon, but the Euro is sure to follow. The Euro has a chance right now to shape up - the politicians could (if they wanted to) make the Euro a non-inflationary currency. It is still possible to link this currency to gold or silver, though it would take substantial reserves to achieve this. Europe is on the brink. We will either go the Adolf Hitler way (creating a union which is despotic and dependant on internal subsidies to industry, via Germany of course) or the free way. The freedom way allows for deregulation, localism, and economic freedom.
Seeing as the next speaker of the European Parliament is meant to be the Leninist Martin Schulz, I don't see the future in flowery colours. Rather, like Mr. Rostowski, I see a horrible scene of mass crime, revolution, and warfare. I don't know about all the readers of this blog, but I, myself, will be applying for British citizenship within this year (Britain is the only sane country to have stayed out the of the Eurozone and they still sport a fairly liberal democratic government - led by good neo-liberals like Mr. David Cameron).

I feel like Edmund Burke must have felt...

Friedrich August von Hayek used to describe himself as an "Old Whig" and that is distinctly how I feel in regard to all the recent debates about the UK Riots. As strange as it may seem, I know some Lefties who are quite good at criticizing the government from an anarchist perspective. Some of them even run interesting (though rather confused) blogs. Philosophically even within the anarcho-capitalist movement there is a a so-called 'left-wing' variety. This includes pretty much all the people who call themselves 'free-market anarchists' (such as Roderick Long or Charles Johnson - who annoys me with the use of the word 'she' in his writings with which he replaced the traditional 'he').
A few of these friends of mine who approach anarchism from a egalitarian perspective (which I believe is wrong) are actually speaking out in support of the rioters. This debate I've been having with them clearly reflects the one over the French Revolution which broke apart the British Whigs in the 18th Century. The Old Whigs, led by the The Right Honourable Edmund Burke based their opposition to the revolution on Burke's great work: Reflections on the Revolution in France. The reason I feel like Burke is that I have been using arguments similar to Burke's in my opposition to the riots. That is, I support traditional order, Rule of Law, and anti-egalitarianism. Both the means and the ends of the rioters are, in my opinion, evil and wrong.
Meanwhile, the New Whigs, led by The Honourable Charles James Fox, supported the French Revolution on principle (anti-royalism and egalitarianism). In fact many of them, such as Fox himself, supported the revolution even after it degenerated into the famous Reign of Terror under Robespierre. Many Rothbardian anarchists of the 'left' variety have been using rhetoric similar to Fox's when arguing their case with me in their pro-Riot view.

Another thing I notice here is that the pro-Riot opinion seems to be highly reminiscient of 'Propaganda by the Deed' talk. Personally I am more in favour of education and peaceful resistance than violence, as I think I have discussed often enough on this blog. As the great Edmund Burke wrote in those Reflections: "Our patience will achieve more than our force".

British "Riots" or whatever

I really have to write at least one post about these crazy things which have been happening in Britain lately. Since I treat Britain as one of my homelands (the other two being Poland and the United States) and much of my family lives there, I follow these things quite carefully. First let's deal not with the reason why all these low-lives (recepients of benefits and other welfare/socialism queens) are looting and raiding or, as they claim, protesting, but with their means of doing so. I find all their behaviour to be entirely inappropriate and I would like some serious action to be taken in order to prevent any further attacks. This is what the army, police, or military police (if such a thing exists in England) are for. Any violent protests should be stopped by any means possible. In this way I hearken back to my blog post about the famous Generalissimo Franco. Authoritarian heads-of-state usually have one good thing about them; they use all means possible to supress any socialist disorder or other evil movements. I think these violent criminals on the streets of England should be "taken care of" by whatever means required aside from simply using live rounds to kill them (that would be a bit excessive for the ones who are in the streets, but would be fully permitted in case of any obvious looters). In case any democratic member of society reads this, I vindicate my seemingly violent position by a link to the following article.
But what about these supposed protesters (i.e. simple gang of looters)? I find their credentials quite questionable because most of the areas they vandalize are retail stores, electronic-device stores, and banks. Clearly, they just want to steal stuff. But let's suppose for a moment they were genuine protesters struggling against the injustice committed against them by the state - what should their plan of action be? Well, as far as I can tell, they should be protesting against the state! I am all in favour of that (always and everywhere)! So what should they do? Attack STATE PROPERTY! So far, however, I have seen no pictures of people burning down state buildings. They seem to be focused on private property. If I was in their place I would be burning down public schools, administration offices, government bureaus, council housing and property, or any other industries that I know are subsidized heavily by the government (good job for burning banks, just don't rob them - it gives the wrong impression!).
So why have these so-called protesters not done any of these things? Because they are on benefits and they are therefore on the government's payroll! These people are government employees rioting because their wages were cut! The welfare-age of Labour is over, the Conservatives have come and finally done some good. I was always very sceptical of the Conservative power take-over but as it turns out they are doing all the right things. To put it simply (as my sister clearly pointed out to me the other day), "the rioters are not burning down Council Houses because they live in them!". And, of course, all these people were actaully educated in public schools. So it seems these people are just disgruntled fledgelings of the Labour Party movement - socialist demagogues and hedonist primitives in the making. We all know what makes criminals criminals (their high time-preference). So now I think the goals of the Cameron cabinet should be to kill off this particular movement and to reform the education system and the welfare system. We cannot have such extreme hedonism tolerated by society. I have always adovcated moderate hedonism (in the Epicurean or Catholic traditions), but all-out hedonism can cause nothing but destruction of capital, authority, and nation.

It is important to know your place. I don't mean this in a sense where we all subject ourselves to the rule of others, but I mean the position we all occupy in society by voluntary choice according to reason. Low time-preferance being the key to reasonability, of course.
"Order is Heaven's first law; and this confess,
Some are and must be greater than the rest."
Thus writes Alexander Pope and thus, I must confess, lie my own thoughts...

"Animal Rights" Breach Human Rights - But Be Careful!

Just when you think you find a newspaper blogosphere which is more or less acceptable, this happens. Some people have labeled me as an unofficial lobbyist for the Daily Telegraph and I really don't mind that title. It is by far and wide the only readable newspaper in Britain and very intelligent people (such as Daniel Hannan) are regular bloggers on their site. They usually advocate a conservative state (that is to say a classical liberal, small, Burkean one) and nonintervention abroad in military terms (although there are some exceptions of course). Nonetheless I do find articles like the one linked above - full of advocating all kinds of coercive government interventions into people's personal lives or business initiatives.
Now I will not deny the sentiment behind most of these calls for intervention is noble. Anyone who knows me will understand how important the question of eliminating animal cruelty is to me. I even think the use of animals for food should be reduced to a bare minimum. I find animal cruelty utterly unacceptable and I will never associate myself with anyone who even as much as patronizes a business which engages in such behaviour. But we have to understand that as much as we all love and cherish our animal friends, they have no rights as humans have because they are not persons. In a sense, we are allowed to have animal slaves or hinder animal movement ("liberty"). We are also allowed to eat animals and own them. This is because animals do not posses reason or language. Would anyone in their right mind give animals homesteading rights or property rights?! They cannot even comprehend such rights. On the other hand we can make a normative value judgement here - about sentience and the necessity versus undesirability of pain. Animals have to be treated well not because they have a right to being treated as such, but ethics is more than just determining and enforcing rights. However, only rights are actually enforceable. This means that I cannot and should not be allowed to interfere in the relationship between other people and their animals in any aggressive manner. And this is what the author of the article proposes!
Furthermore he quotes a ridiculous number, 94.5%, as if "numbers make right". I'm pretty sure Herbert Spencer destroyed this argument centuries ago...

We must understand that once we were "animals" also. We still are in a way. Potentiality does not cease to exist once potential has been reached. We must be careful with our treatment of animals because one day we may find ourselves (to paraphrase Orwell) "[looking] from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it [will be] impossible to say which [is] which." And who knows, maybe science will soon teach us a lot more about animals and we'll have many more variables in our ethical equation... Didn't we, foolish white men, at one time equate savages from Africa and the Americas with animals? Lesson learned.

Government In Your Bedroom

Recently I read an absolutely shocking story coming out of the UK. I have known for years that Her Majesty's Homeland is the world's leader in socialism and social engineering. I did not, however, think that we have moved into the sphere of complete tyranny in personal life. The UK's social-democratic and socialist movements have always been very accepting of all sorts of strange practices especially when they involved a person's sexuality. Homophobia was unheard of among the elites - something I've always admired about the British. In this case though, I don't know whether to laugh (at its absurdity) or cry (because of the awful human rights violation).
As I said multiple times on this blog, the only decent newspaper worth reading in the UK is the Daily Telegraph. You would not believe my shock when I went on the Telegraph website a few days back and found this. The title of said article really says it all: "Court bans man with low IQ from having sex". This adult human being has been restricted - the government's goons will now monitor the inside of his house 24/7 to see that he follows the court ruling. This poor guy was in a homosexual relationship at the time and is quoted as saying that the relationship makes him feel happy. Apparently one of his problems is that he has a vigorous sex drive and doesn't know the dangers sex poses (i.e. pregnancy). So what can we learn from this precedent?
Well, I think we should put a camera in the bedroom of every 14 year old! In England teenage pregnancy figures happen to be the extremely high - maybe all those children don't know the consequences of their actions? And believe me, low IQ has nothing to do with having a vigorous sex drive, little teenagers suffer from that more than anyone. I therefore posit that such a law is passed immediately! We also need to conduct mandatory IQ tests for every person in the country and if they fall below a certain line - let's say 60 - we ban them from having sex forever!
I think I don't have to mention this ruling not only legitimizes the existence of a Police State, but also legitimizes eugenics. The said Telegraph article also mentions on what basis this man is being abused: "Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, its judges have the power to make life or death decisions for people deemed to lack the intelligence to make them for themselves – such as ordering that they undergo surgery, have forced abortions, have life-support switched off or be forced to use contraception." Obviously eugenics has been brought in through the back door. We can now perform abortions and euthanize people who we deem "mentally unstable" or whatever. Life and death decisions at the whim of bureaucrats. This is disgusting beyond belief.

It is clear to me that in this modern "civilized" world we have replaced natural selection with eugenics. It is eugenics to prevent this man from enjoying his freedom just in case he might get someone pregnant (which seems silly considering he is a homosexual...). But it was also eugenics-policy to keep this man alive in government-provided housing and force general taxpayers to pay for his survival. I have been a long-time follower of the doctrines of Darwin and Spencer, and their position is best summed up in the following quote from Sir Francis Galton: "One of the effects of civilisation is to diminish the rigour of the application of the law of natural selection. It preserves weakly lives that would have perished in barbarous lands."

Sorry Americans! (Damn you, Europe!)

I think I need to apologize to some people. Not because I was wrong or said something inappropriate, but because my priorities weren't straight. For the past couple weeks I've been relentlessly bashing the modern version of the USA and its current power structures. I don't take back anything I've said, but I must say maybe I overstated the issues. America is still the best place to be for libertarians.
What I realized is that since I live here now, I haven't been following the European news as closely. Europe, of course, is the new USSR (as the great Daniel Hannan recently pointed out here), not the United States. The recent Davos economic summit of European leaders snapped me out of my "America-centered-mindset". I read about the summit and watched many news reports about it before coming to the conclusion that European leftists are just the same as their American counterparts, if not worse. Yes, it is possible to be worse than Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, or Mr. Gore. How, a principled American libertarian might ask? Well, American politicians are populists above everything. And the American people still have the American mindset (although it is starting to weaken...). Liberty and rights are still cherished here, even when they are not precisely defined and not actually understood. For example when Mr. Obama realized that the American people are starting to hear the message about deregulation he actually spoke about it positively. He did the same with regard to tax cuts stimulating job growth. He completely flip-flopped 180 degrees on both these issues because if he had not done so he would have been digging his own political grave.
In Europe things are completely different. There politicians are completely not accountable to any constituency. The EU is ruled by 27 Commissars (yes, they are called the same as in the Soviet Union) who form a sizable Politburo. The EU Parliament then just gives the Politburo credibility. No matter how the people vote, these stooges will remain in power. Furthermore, the EU does not even respect the votes of its members - we all remember that when Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty they were forced to re-vote on the issue again. I have never seen such an incident in all of the history of democracy; it was a farce plain and simple.
On top of all this was Mr. Sarkozy's Davos speech. He showed how militant European leaders really are (a real modern Robespierre!). In an aggressive speech he completely rejected any opposition to the Euro. He denounced "speculators" and said things like "We will never - you hear me, never - let the Euro collapse" (he spoke of himself and German Chancellor Angela Merkel). He also said that "The disappearance of the euro would be so cataclysmic that we cannot even toy with the idea". Sounds totalitarian to me. Destruction of all other local currencies is imminent, I'm afraid. Let's hope Britain holds out with the pound, at least!

That crazy maniac, Maximilien Robespierre, once said this: "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs."
Remind you of anyone? I would say maybe... Nicolas Sarkozy?

Supporting Useless "Monarchs"

Lately in the UK people have been getting more and more angry at the Windsor posse. Now, being a Monarchist I have come under some heavy fire on this issue. After all considering the tax hikes, benefit cuts, and now the ever so loud university tuition increases in the UK, being part of the royal family is starting to look like a sweet deal. A bunch of pampered celebs are getting supported directly by taxpayer money! I mean at least the bankers have to cheat and steal for their money - the Windsors do literally nothing! How can anyone support such intolerable actions? Well, I certainly don't. I have stated many times before that even though I have great respect for the Queen and her family because of their rich tradition and heritage, they are pretty much parasites in my mind. Everyone knows that they no longer are Monarchs in anything but name. PM's and MP's are the real rulers of the United "Kingdom" and the citizens are its real owners. And I say, in a fully capitalist and Darwinist way, useless parts must be subjected to the forces of nature so that they are eliminated. If the Monarchs were real Monarchs I would fully support their rights. If the Monarchs were respectable and didn't cause people offence I would support their usefulness. But when they have neither, what is there to support? Taxpayers should no longer have the obligation of paying their royal family's salary. I'm sure the Monarchy could support itself from voluntary donations. That would at the very least diffuse its image as a parasitic phenomenon.

Heinlein wrote that "A monarch's neck should always have a noose around it. It keeps him upright." Again a fiction author seems to know more about the real world than all the intellectuals of this planet...

Greatest Prime Minister Ever?

This is a difficult question indeed! Many inspirational individuals held the post of British PM over the last centuries. They lived and worked in different times under different circumstances and different conditions. But it is easy to tell who are the worst. The ones who inherited the country great and left it in absolute shambles. There are a few men like that and, unsurprisingly, they were all Lefties! Despite the fact this cannot be challenged (all the Lefties bankrupted the United Kingdom over and over again) the intellectual class remain aloof. In the lastest University of Leeds poll of British intellectuals who are affiliated with the study of British politics/history, all the bad guys came out right on top. Back in 2004 as well as now in 2010 the poll found that in the 20th Century the greatest PM was Clement Attlee. Yes, Clement Attlee, the biggest socialist to ever rule Britain. Just once more for emphasis - the intellectuals chose Clement Attlee! What lunatic would do such a thing! The man is known chiefly for bankrupting the country through enormous entitlement reform, Keynesian devaluation of the Pound Sterling, rampant nationalization of all major industries and services, and creation of the National Health Service. All the worst policies and reforms in 20th Century Britain took place under this guy's nose, and they picked him as #1! I cannot think of a worse PM in all of British history! But - we all know how intellectual intellectuals really are... And where was the Iron Lady Thatcher, undoubtedly the greatest PM of the 20th Century, if not the greatest world leader of that century? A distant 4th behind the likes of Tony Blair...
Looking at the lists of greatest PM's reminds me somewhat of looking at lists of greatest US Presidents. Just as Attlee, Blair, and Lloyd George feature highly on British lists, so do Lincoln, F.D.Roosevelt, and T.Roosevelt on the American ones.
Just for the purpose of expressing my own personal opinion, here is my own ranking of the top 5 British PM's of all time:

1. William Ewart Gladstone
2. Margaret Thatcher
3. Robert Peel
4. Charles Watson-Wentworth
5. Arthur Wellesley

Bad DNA, why do we protect it?

I like playing Devil's Advocate, and this subject is perfect for such a role. Here is the story. Lately many British newspapers have reported about a man named Keith Macdonald who has been labeled 'Britain's Worst Father'. Apparently the man (now 25) already has 9 children by 9 different women and is expecting a 10th by his 10th girlfriend. Mr.Macdonald had his first child at 15 and, crucially, he does not pay any money for child support (He is himself on a £44 a week unemployment benefit, so he is supported by the state). It is expected his children will cost the British taxpayers £1.5 million in benefits and childcare. Meanwhile he has publicly stated that he will never use condoms (which has some people calling for a forced vasectomy).
The question I want to ask about this story has nothing to do with the actions of this man or any action the state may or should take against him. I do not want to discuss any of his former girlfriends (who are clearly welfare-lovers) either. Rather, I want to ask a more fundamental question: Why are this man's children our business? It seems by supporting them we are bailing him and his lovers out. They completely avoided the consequences of their actions!
Now most people would reply: It's for the children! They are innocent in this scenario and we as a society must help them.
To that I answer - why? Indeed they are innocent children, but we did not harm them. It would be nice of us to help them, but we don't have to do it. The children have parents to take care of them. If the parents fail - so be it. May I just remind everyone - these children are the offspring of their parents. They are carrying their obviously inferior genetic material. Now what happens when we support not only psychological inferiority (helping the lazy and the stupid), but also genetic inferiority (helping the children of the lazy and the stupid)? It must also be pointed out we are helping these kids at the expense of others, whose parents were not irresponsible and actually make money. So we are in fact subsidizing fools and their children (who are more than likely to end up fools themselves) by taking away from intelligent people and their children (who will most likely be successful). Is this in any way fair or just? Does this in any way help society progress? It feels good to help, and it feels right to help, but is it right? Deep question - think about it.
Interestingly, it is written in the Bible that "the sins of the parents are visited on the children to the third or fourth generation". This means that if the parents are sinners (do not take care of their responsibilities) then the children will have poorer lives. It is an obvious statement which many people fail to grasp. So, would it be just to alleviate the consequences placed upon people by the Law? The Law of Nature, the Law created by God?

The Amazing British!

Mr.David William Donald Cameron is currently one of my heroes. He is finally cleaning up Britain in a way Baroness Thatcher would be proud of. The new budget includes £16 billion in savings and crucial cuts in welfare. Of course I would argue for elimination of all welfare and benefits entirely, but £16 billion is a great start. Especially if this is compared to the rest of the world. The USA, for example, is heading in the opposite direction under socialist leadership of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. I cannot praise the British enough for this achievement in today's eurosocialist European society and a overall leftist worldview of most people.
On the other hand I also read a couple of articles in the Daily Telegraph lately about all these cuts. I like reading the Telegraph. It is usually good at covering the viewpoint of all sides while having a certain Conservative bias in terms of the issues covered. The one that really caught my attention was an article about a report by some lefty named Frank Field. Some people would call this gentleman a respected member of the British elite and Labour Party politician. I would call him a 'Looney-Tune'. You can read the article here. Now let's review some ideas which are being propagated by this man and his party (just to justify referring to him and them as loonies):
1. Pay women £25,000 for having a baby.
2. Abolish summer holidays in schools.
Why are these things crazy? It's pretty self-explanatory...
1. Paying someone for having a baby?! What has this world come to?! Having babies is a privilege, not a right! If you want a child, pay for it yourself rather than stealing my money to pay for it!
2. You want more time to indoctrinate my children with you socialist and immoral views? Why don't you just take them away from me and then pay me the £25,000? Oh wait... selling children is illegal...
Apparently Labour want to give you money to raise your children (so now you don't have to work), but they also want to raise your children for you. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. But it does to greedy, lazy, and stupid people. Those three groups put together make up something like 90% of society, so in a democratic election the 10% of normal people don't stand a chance.

But the most astonishing quote of the article comes near the end from Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne. Namely this quote here: "Mr Osborne last week revealed that the welfare bill will be cut by another £4 billion on top of £16 billion of savings already announced as he seeks to limit the "lifestyle choices" of those who prefer to stay at home on benefit rather than work." Now what in the world is that supposed to mean?! Does that mean that people have a choice and can actually stay at home, be lazy, and still live is society as normal citizens? I really never knew British mentality and morality have degenerated to such a sad state! Staying at home on benefits is the same 'lifestyle choice' as that of a thief. The mentality which asks the question 'why work when others can do it for me and I just take their stuff' is that of a thief. But look what the world has come to after 200 years of leftist propaganda by men like Karl Marx or Frank Field...

Three Cheers for Mr.Cameron! (The Young Monarchist is Back!)

Back in March I wrote about the British public debt and the need to reduce it drastically. Now we see that something is finally being done about it. PM David Cameron is getting rid of 40% of government employees (wow!). Finally it seems the breakthrough long known in medicine has reached the political economy sphere. If someone is sick, it is no reason to put leeches onto them. In fact, removing the leaches might do the organism a world of good. Any economy burdened by too many governmental leeches will fail. These people do nothing productive whatsoever; instead they take useful capital away from the private sector and relocate it (usually poorly) to wherever they want. From what I understand most Brits accept this until they themselves are affected directly or unless they are commies (readers of the Morning Star, etc.). Sadly this process is not taking place in the United States where socialists have control of both Congress and the White House. But again - congratulations to the Conservatives! At their victory I was worried that Thatcherism might be a thing of the past, but I see it has still retained enough potency to bring some sense into Tory reform.

I know the blog has been silent for over a month now. This was due to my move to America where I went on various awesome road trips and had a lot of other things on my mind. This month I making up for it; touring America can be very intellectually stimulating!

British Election Frenzy!

Here in the UK it seems politics has suddenly become popular - I think it has passed the Weather Report popularty-wise, but it is still behind the ever present favourite, sports (but who can compete with the Premier League?!). So far I continue to remain neutral, I cannot vote here and, quite frankly, I don't see anyone worth voting for. I have written positive things about David Cameron and the Conservative Party and Nigel Farage and his UKIP on this blog before, but I don't consider even them good enough. The Conservatives have some issues: for example, even though the have a plan to cut spending, they want to increase NHS (National Health Service) spending! UKIP - they want to introduce a gargantuan 31% flat income tax and freeze all immigration for 5 years. Unfortunately there is no genuine small government party anywhere in sight right now.
As I walk around Cambridge I see three other parties with a lot of support - Labour, the LibDems, and the Greens. I won't even talk about these lefties, they all pretty much disgust me.

So this is my advice to all UK citizens and residents: Sell out and move to Hong Kong people!

The Big Debate

My blog has been silent for a respectful week after the tragic death of many Polish officials in Smolensk, Russia. Now it is time to return to the mundane business of everyday politics. And already a big subject is looming: the UK pre-election debate. The Three Stooges participating were Gordon Brown (the Commie), David Cameron (the wimpy Conservative), and Nick Clegg (the Populist). Voters are going to have to go for the lesser Evil on this one I think. What really surprised me is the debate verdict I saw on the news last night; people seem to think that Clegg actually did well and that the LibDems are a good choice! This is a ludicrous point of view! I have heard (on numerous occasions before this election debate) the Liberal Democrats contradict themselves most of the times they discuss important issues. Take spending, for example - it is definitely true that massive government spending cuts will be necessary to revive the UK economy and curb socialism. Among the three main parties only the Conservatives have said they will do this (and even they not to the extent I consider necessary). Labour, as usual, just want to enlarge spending! Any Labour rhetoric about cuts is plain nonsense, they have never cut any spending in any way since they first got into power in the 1920's. I don't know even one respectable economist (or political theorist for that matter) who would say that the governments of Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan in the 1950, 60's, and 70's as well as the "New Labour" under Blair and Brown, were anything but DISASTROUS! Labour is famous for initiating socialist and welfare state policies which systematically bankrupt the British Government and the British People themselves. The Conservatives are always voted into office to fix and patch things up, and they have done quite well at it (especially under the immense Baroness Thatcher!). The LibDems, however, have said that they will deliver sweeping spending cuts, and on other occasions I heard them say "all spending cuts will have to be agreed to by the people who we cut money from." This is blatantly ridiculous. It is apparent that NOBODY will agree to have money taken from them, so there will be NO spending cuts. Also, the LibDem rhetoric of "fairness" and punishing the rich sounds distinctly Leninesque. "You are rich - you need to give us your money in the interest of fairness and equality you bourgeois dogs!"
Thirdly, the Liberal Democrats have never been in power at all. Supposedly this is to work to their advantage (I don't see how...). Nick Clegg's message is basically this: "The other two have already messed things up and had their chance, now give me a crack at it!". Of course in this sense I could also apply for the job of British PM, I've never tried it either... Who knows, maybe I'd do well? I daresay I would definitely do better than Nick Clegg! But this is how democracy works - even the most loony populists can get power if they can somehow appeal to the people (it doesn't matter how much they lie in the process).
All in all, I see something very disturbing on the horizon in Britain (and I don't mean that giant volcanic cloud...). I am in no way endorsing the Conservative Party, however. I sincerely hoped that more political parties would be invited to the debate, including UKIP, the Scottish National Party, or the BNP. The British have to make up their mind on who to vote for, and they really need to get it right this time!

The Prince is in Poland

HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, is visiting Poland this week. I truly hope he enjoys himself (after all, it's the most beautiful country in the world!) One of these days I promise to write a blog entry about the British Royal Family and the Monarchy in Britain in general. For now it sufficient to say that the United Kingdom is no Kingdom at all. It is, in fact, probably the most disgustingly social-democratic state in Europe (or at the very least it's in the top three with France and Sweden). Prince Charles himself has become inevitably possessed by the Democratic Demon and acts as a more or less unofficial lobbyist for all kinds of legislature. Worst of all, of course, he is an environmentalist. I have little respect for people who cherish Planet Earth more than Humanity, and in particular fanatics who love animals and hate human beings. I can only hope that some miracle change someplace else in the world will help the British Monarchy grow a backbone.