Saturday 30 June 2007

Why They Don't Like Bloggers

Tony Blair didn't like Bloggers. That should tell you all we're on the right lines.

This is actually a serious point. We hear much moaning from the powers that be about the nasty spiteful voices on the bloggosphere.

And the reason why is plain.

They've forgotten what it was like in the days when there was such a thing as informed public opinion.
Intelligent conversation that takes place amongst the people.
The man on the Clapham Omnibus.

And the reason why they've forgotten it, is because for a while now it hasn't existed.

People in our societies had stopped interacting with real people as much, and had their opinions pumped to them by a one way medium, television.

Very easy to think it's all OK if your views on life come from Soaps.
Oh sure, they deal with 'social issues', but have you ever heard them discuss politics in the Vic?

And now they hear voices again, voices of people discussing things again.
Things that matter.
And not people approved by them to disseminate opinion.

So that's why they don't like us.

They know where they can stick it, too.

So carry on spreading whatever it is you spread, say whatever it is you blog to say.
The rest of us want you, as much as our dear leaders don't.
You give something of you for the rest of us to share on a regular basis.
That's a good thing to do.
Which has already led this far.

Friday 29 June 2007

Stop the Whispers, Harry. Do a DNA Test.

It may well be that the monarchy will not long survive our present monarch.

Partly this is due to the Queen herself. However archaic the insitution might appear, you have to admit she has done the job very well for the last fifty odd years. She hasn't really put a foot wrong.
It's not actually that people respect the monarchy, they respect the way she does the job.
People look at the potential Presidents we'd get, and the idea of monarchy looks OK.

It won't the day after she's gone.

First we have the man who talks to plants appearing on our banknotes to look forward too.
Then it's the turn of the boyband Prince, the stuff of Hello! gossip columns, but a hell of a comedown from her Maj, in terms of dignity.

Like her or loathe her, she managed to remind us of something very big we were once part of. Something in the nostalgaic side of our national psyche, that she encapsulated.

A living, breathing Merchant-Ivory Film resident in central London.

But, consider this.

What if William was to die in a plane crash, without leaving heirs?

Who then becomes King?

If we bother to use this way of choosing our figurehead, then we have to at least be sure that is actually what we're doing.
The whole point is, that it's supposed to be hereditary.

If we were going to start having Hewitts as Kings, why bother with the idea?

The fact is, the whole nation talks about this.
It's not even a whisper.

It's one of the stock pub jokes.

There's only one way to settle this once and for all.
And it has be done openly so the people have no doubt.

Thursday 28 June 2007

The Wise Man on The Hill

I met a wise man on a hill.
He bade me be silent, he bade me be still.
I sat in silence, deep in thought
and then I told him the answer I sought;
'Wise man, you know our minds and souls,
you know our desires, our failings, our goals.
We could build a paradise, but tell me why,
it is the destiny of all men to die?'

The dusk came down upon the hill.
He bade me be silent, he bade me be still.
He sat in silence, deep in thought
and then he gave me the answer I sought;
'Young man, in your dreams of youth,
asking your questions, yet missing the truth,
if you had eternity on this earth,
would you take the time to find it's worth?'

The wise man left me on the hill.
The night was calm, the night was still.
I sat in silence, deep in thought
and this is the answer I realised I sought.
The tale is old, yet man is young,
his tale the greatest that will ever be sung.
We each have our time to play our part,
which means tomorrow is too late to start.

To Pan, Bragi, and Calliope.

Wednesday 27 June 2007

Something for the Weekend, Sir?

I've been asked to publicise a certain event taking place this weekend on the internet.
The event sounds like it is going to be a worthwhile event that deserves publicity.

Indeed someone has spent a good deal of effort making sure this event is a success.

But I thought it would be fair to give you an idea of another splendid use of your time as well.
Either choice is worthwhile.

First up, we have the Creation Evidences Museum, Glen Rose, Texas.
A visit to this place will firmly convince you that evolution NEVER HAPPENED.

No, really. Scientists just made it up.

Let me show you some of the proofs on display...

First, we have these obviously human footprints found in Cretaceous rock by the Paluxy river. Human footprints from the time of dinosaurs. No really, they are human. It's only those sneaky evolutionists who say they are actually just dinosaur footprints.
Look CLOSER. Can't you see how HUMAN they are?

This one, the Burdick print definitely looks human, doesn't it. These nasty scientists say it's not actually a fossil, it's a carving, but Carl Baugh has evidence to prove it is genuine. Well actually, he doesn't as such, but just take his word on it, it's a fossil.

Best of all though, is the London artifact, proof that evolution never happened...

This was found in Cretaceaous rock apparently, or near it. It LOOKS just like a miner's hammer that might just have fallen down a crevice, but...
Well, if you want a laugh, go and look.

Otherwise, you can come to the Blogpower Awards on Sunday at 1.00 PM, held at Tom Paine's luxury home in Second Life.

A lot of prestigous bloggers will be there.
You can see the lovely Ruthie...

The highly suspicious Bag...

And everyone's favorite, Delicolor...

It promises to be quite an event.

I may see you there myself, I can't promise anything yet, but I'm sure all who attend will have a good time. I think from what I gather, that James Higham aside, everyone will be there who needs to be there.
But the more that can come and show support for this the better.

So promise me this, friends. Promise to visit either Carl Baugh's Creation Evidences Museum, or go to the Blogpower Awards.
Or go to both.

But it will have been a wasted weekend if you do neither.

Tuesday 26 June 2007

Did a Russian Spy Get The Top Job?

I have already expressed my dislike of conspiracy theories.

So I'm not going to give you any theories here, simply facts.
I'll let you join the dots.
To me, they're fairly glaring in themselves.

What we are looking at is something that would harm the national psyche of this country to admit.
But nevertheless, the truth about Harold Wilson may not yet have been acknowledged.

When Anatoliy Golitsyn defected to the west in 1961, he provided information which led to the final nail being driven into the coffin of Kim Philby's career as a double agent. His information also led to the unmasking of the fourth of the Cambridge Five, Alistair Blunt.
His information also led to MI5 getting close to finding the fifth.

In 1964, progress in that field stopped.

Golitsyn also provided a list of ten senior Labour MPs, who he alleged were paid via the Czechs.
In 1964, when Blunt confessed, he named the same ten.

Let us look at that list.

1. Will Owen. In his case, MI5 proved the allegations. He was tried and convicted
2. Bernard Floud. He was interviewed once by MI5, before committing suicide.
3. John Stonehouse. Famous for other reasons, notably his faked disappearance. Nevertheless, it is known now that he was a Czech agent.
4. Tom Driberg. Again, it is pretty much proven now that Driberg was paid from Prague. As an aside, he was also provided with 'male company' by the Krays.
5. Stephen Swingler. Resigned from parliament when he realised he was the subject of an MI5 investigation.
6. Niall McDermot. Resigned from his ministerial post and stood down at the subsequent election.
7. Judith Hart. Her involvement with Russian recruiters at Oxford is pretty much proven.
8. Barnett Stross. Nothing ever proven.
9. John Diamond. Nothing ever proven.

One might say there is a pattern here. Certainly, it does seem that the list of ten was surprisingly accurate.

Some have sought to downplay this list, pointing out that only Owen was ever tried.


I'm sure you can all guess the tenth name on the list.

Golitsyn also revealed that in 1963 the KGB had been involved in a plan to assassinate a western European politician, with a view to putting 'their man' in a prominent position.

In 1963, Hugh Gaitskell, leader of the Labour Party, died suddenly. He died of lupus disseminata, a fungal condition almost unknown in Europe.
Harold Wilson succeeded him as Labour leader, becoming Prime Minister in 1964.

Figures close to Wilson during his career included Robert Maxwell and Joseph Kagan.

Both came to this country from Eastern Europe during the war. Both had more than one version of their life histories.
Both were later known to have received money from Prague at some point.

Wilson raised Kagan to the peerage in his retirement honours list- the notorious lavendar list.
Kagan was subsequently sent down for fraud.

Wilson resigned unexpectedly, without explanation in 1976.

Many MI5 officers remained convinced he was a Russian spy. From 1968 onwards senior political figures, including Cecil King the Newspaper baron and others discussed removing him by force if necessary.
After he won the 1974 election, pressure resumed amongst certain elements to remove him.

It remains hard to point to anything that Wilson personally did that aided the diplomatic relations of the West.
If MI5's suspicions were true, it is hard to assess the damage his eight years of office might have acheived. What might his paymasters have instructed him to do?

Even if he no longer actively assisted them at this point, but was merely a university recruit, he could have been blackmailed to follow soviet requests when needed.

Like many other recruits, he may well have regretted the choices he made when young, but was stuck in a web of his own making.

In this case there is too much smoke, too much circumstantial evidence, too many people in a position to know who took the possibility seriously, for us not to.

We do have a right to know- the powers that be know the answer for sure by now.
But it may be a while before the truth about Harold Wilson reaches our ears.

Monday 25 June 2007

It's Weekly Poll Time Again...

It's Monday night and I know you've all been waiting patiently.
I know you all want to know the results of last weeks's poll.

Well it seems that traditionalists amongst you predominate.

We had fourteen votes for the idea that marriage still had some relevance, with ten thinking it was time to say goodbye to it.

It would be interesting to know the male/female breakdown on that, but unfortunately, I don't have that information.

Food for thought.

This week's issue is an issue which will divide, I'm sure. I think it's an issue on which everyone has an opinion, and I think there will be strong views on either side.

There does seem to be an increasing amount of hostility to legalising the 'holy herb', a variety of medical/social factors being brought into play by the nay-sayers.
I had hoped that after his cannabis smoking admission, Cameron would show some signs of at least looking at the possibility of sensible policies on the subject.

But the argument that 'It might possibly, we don't really know, but it MIGHT harm someone, somehow' is ridiculous, when White Cider is available at two litres for two pounds in most off-licences.

I have yet to see cannabis causing the total devastation of Broad Street on a Friday Night.

I'll admit in advance, I'm partial to a joint or two myself from time to time. I think the majority of people under forty in the western world have smoked it, and many do so throughout their lives.

It is estimated that there are two and a half million regular cannabis smokers in the UK, most of them otherwise law abiding people.
Far more smoke it on an occasional basis.

Cigarette smokers are now coming under the same mindless persecution.

Personally, I think all drug prohibition causes more harm than good in a social sense, but in the case of this 'drug', the cogent arguments for its criminal status seem minimal.
Partly they date back from the time when ill informed US Prohbitionists confused it with Opium.

I'm not for one moment saying smoking cannabis is good for you, or has health benefits, but then, nor does tea or chocolate.

I've not heard of anyone die from a Pot overdose.

Anyway, I'll be interested to see how you all vote on this one.
For once, I'll actually vote first, to get you all started.

Have your say.

Sunday 24 June 2007

Goodbye Tony. It's Been...Interesting.

And so ten years of Tony draws to a close...

He goes, less with a bang, more of a whimper.

Tony may be musing now on exactly what his legacy will be, what is it that will capture the imagination of future historians?

What were the defining acheivements of the Blair years?

Back in 1997, I guess people were hoping for an end to sleaze, scandal, corruption, cronyism...

Moving on...

The main slogans that we heard back then were 'Cool Britannia', 'The Rebranding of Britain' and other such drivel. Obviously, these actually didn't have much meaning, but we were less used to the full on spin than we are now. The cynicism, whilst there, had not reached saturation point.

There was this genuine sense that a new era had begun, an era of new ideas unconditioned by the old ideological divides.
This was Thatcherism with a Conscience.

OK, stop laughing, people believed it then.

They'd not read Tony's original election address at Beaconsfield in 1982, where he pledged himself to Unilateral Nuclear disarmament and EEC withdrawal. I guess he forgot about that too.

We had the New Deal, that was going to end unemployment and tackle the causes of crime.

We had the much trumpeted Lords Reform, that started...

We had elected Mayors which were introduced in a few places, before that idea hit the back burner.

We had Czars for drugs, police, knitting... But then Putin became unfashionable, and so did Czars.

We had... Jesus, I forget. There's been so many of these policies and none of them lasted long.

Oh they DID ban fox hunting. And smoking in public places.
Our lives are better for that.

Indeed anyone could be forgiven for thinking that New Labour had a lot of slogans, but no actual ideas how to implement their supposed policies.

Except devolution, of course. That was quite well thought out. It certainly put the relations of the constituent parts of the UK on a much more secure and satisfactory footing.
Actually, thinking about that again...

OK, so New Labour's policies have been ill thought out, piecemeal and often contradictory, thought up on the back of a napkin in Islington Coffee shops, mainly in response to whichever pressure group has been loudest at the time.

Thankfully for Tony however, his record need not rely on this.

He is saved from this.

Luckily for Tony, he's got his record in Foreign Policy to be remembered for!

Saturday 23 June 2007

They're Everywhere...They Control Everything

So runs the conspiracy theory.

Which conspiracy theory, you ask?

To be honest, it doesn't much matter. They're all much the same.
Many of them lift elements from eachother and just change the names.
But the tune remains the same.

Most conspiracy theories have their roots in solid facts somewhere. It's just the connecting lines between the facts that are somewhat tenuous. Often conspiracy theories themselves are joined together by super-conspiracists to create super-conspiracies which, were they to be true would show that a small number of highly intelligent people have been hoodwinking a lot of very stupid people for a very long time.

For example, the observation that the Freemasons are a group of secretive, suspicous types whose reach is long and powerful is accurate.
That the police forces of the UK and other parts of the english speaking world are dominated by masons is indisputable.

That the Masons have a higher eschelon called the Illuminati who maintain the current world order, especially having near perpetual control over the US executive, is something that seems possible when you hear a conspiracy theorist talk, but in fact, is unlikely in the extreme.

Other theories are not just ridiculous, they border on offensive.
The fake Moon landing theory is one such.
The fact that the Russians surely tracked all the Apollo missions closely seems to have escaped the lunatic fringe in this case.
If it was fake, the Russians wouldn't have let them get away with it.

And were the Americans sick enough to fake Apollo 13?

The conspiracy nuts who support this one should be ashamed of themselves.

Then of course, we have the wealth of Alien conspiracy stuff. Sometimes they're just abducting people. For some, the US government is in league with them. For some the Illuminati, who have controlled all governments since Roman times have long been in alliance with extra-terrestial masters.

Oh, and if you really want to delve into theories that are literally out of this world, there's always David Icke.

I think why these sorts of theories make me angry, is what underlies them.

Most are some sort of acknowledgement that something's wrong somewhere, but instead of looking at solutions, they look for spurious explanations.

Instead of realising that millions of people are exploited, simply because that's how the system works, the theorists decide it's designed with that result in mind.

Rather than assuming that those who've found themselves benefitting from our current arrangements simply realise, looking down, that things as they are suit them very nicely, and screw the rest of us, the theorists have them in on a secret passed down within inner circles that were founded long ago in the mists of time.

It comforts. Because if you believe this, then the system is too powerful for you to do anything about. And the enemy who keeps you down is something sinister, maybe not even human, rather than people who think and breathe much like you, who have inherited the reins of a messed up world, but had only a small part in getting it this way.

So at best, conspiracy theories hold us back. They divert our anger and our wish to better the world into a defeatist attempt to invent excuses for it's state.

But there is a dark side. When I compare a lot of UFO literature and conspiracy theory generally I find whole passages which are almost word for word identical to passages in The Protocols of The Elders of Zion.
The forgery that sent shock waves across Europe, that made most Germans and Central Europeans- and Henry Ford- believe that the Jews of the World really were out to get the Gentiles.
That was read fervently by a young housepainter in Vienna.

And when Germany lost the War and suffered hyperinflation, it was all too easy for Germans to see one group which still seemed to be doing OK.

And to believe the conspiracy theory.

And to vote accordingly.

Conspiracy Theory is the attempt to blame someone, somewhere in the past for us not living in Eden today.
It is backward, negative thinking, completely unprofitable, because it never proposes real solutions.

It is usually discrimination and hatred hiding itself as a respectable idea.

There are no grey aliens, no illuminati, no elders of Zion.

There ARE unprincipled people who are happy to make use of a system which benefits them, even if it does involve trampling on the rest of us.

Friday 22 June 2007

OK, Phish. Just For You

Phishez challenged me to find a non-sexualised image to prove the point I was making in my last post.

Here you go. The lovely June Sarpong.

Whilst I have no problem just posting pics of pretty girls, I suspect everyone else might get bored, so Saturday Evening's post will move away from this theme completely.

It's a shame I have no pictures of Phish I can post you- but if you look at the pics in her archives, she's a bit of a stunner herself!!

Thursday 21 June 2007

Racist or Red Blooded Male? You Can't be Both

In earlier posts, I may have implied that support for the Far Right is linked to repressed homosexuality.

Well here, I'm stating it further.

You want to live in an all white Britain?

You despise a multi-cultural Britain, do you?

A multicultural Britain that give us this?

And this?

And this?

What planet are you on, you horrible nasty little racists?

I really do not want to live in your nasty, all white little land!

Thank God, we live in a country where beauties like this live and breathe...

If you do not find girls like this beautiful, and thank God that we live in a multi-cultural society, where girls like this share our soil, then there really is no hope for you.

Go back and live with your Mum, where you belong.

Let me you show a girl from Uganda- One of those 'asylum seekers'...

You use your aggressive male energy to shave your head and sing your silly slogans...

I know what most red blooded males think when they see these girls!

Oh, before I go...

If you tell me you don't find this girl a babe, then my point stands,

Grow up, you sad racist misfits.

Dedicated to Welshcakes, who misses drunken posts (This had seven Guinesses in it's origin) and Theo Spark.

Wednesday 20 June 2007

The Social Contract

We have been quite light hearted here of late, but I'm being shamed into returning to the murky waters of our oppressed existence. Electro-Kevin has been doing posts on society and government without me, David Anthony seems to think it's time to get thinking again and Ruthie has started posting about philosophers too.

Perhaps it's time to get back to basics and wrestle with what the social contract itself is all about.
For that, we need to go to Rousseau, who really unravelled everything, going further then Hobbes or Locke did, and penetrated far deeper.

Here he outlines the social contract;

'MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.

If I took into account only force, and the effects derived from it, I should say: "As long as a people is compelled to obey, and obeys, it does well; as soon as it can shake off the yoke, and shakes it off, it does still better; for, regaining its liberty by the same right as took it away, either it is justified in resuming it, or there was no justification for those who took it away." But the social order is a sacred right which is the basis of all other rights. Nevertheless, this right does not come from nature, and must therefore be founded on conventions. Before coming to that, I have to prove what I have just asserted.

THE most ancient of all societies, and the only one that is natural, is the family: and even so the children remain attached to the father only so long as they need him for their preservation. As soon as this need ceases, the natural bond is dissolved. The children, released from the obedience they owed to the father, and the father, released from the care he owed his children, return equally to independence. If they remain united, they continue so no longer naturally, but voluntarily; and the family itself is then maintained only by convention.

This common liberty results from the nature of man. His first law is to provide for his own preservation, his first cares are those which he owes to himself; and, as soon as he reaches years of discretion, he is the sole judge of the proper means of preserving himself, and consequently becomes his own master.

The family then may be called the first model of political societies: the ruler corresponds to the father, and the people to the children; and all, being born free and equal, alienate their liberty only for their own advantage. The whole difference is that, in the family, the love of the father for his children repays him for the care he takes of them, while, in the State, the pleasure of commanding takes the place of the love which the chief cannot have for the peoples under him....

....THE strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty. Hence the right of the strongest, which, though to all seeming meant ironically, is really laid down as a fundamental principle. But are we never to have an explanation of this phrase? Force is a physical power, and I fail to see what moral effect it can have. To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will — at the most, an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?

Suppose for a moment that this so-called "right" exists. I maintain that the sole result is a mass of inexplicable nonsense. For, if force creates right, the effect changes with the cause: every force that is greater than the first succeeds to its right. As soon as it is possible to disobey with impunity, disobedience is legitimate; and, the strongest being always in the right, the only thing that matters is to act so as to become the strongest. But what kind of right is that which perishes when force fails? If we must obey perforce, there is no need to obey because we ought; and if we are not forced to obey, we are under no obligation to do so. Clearly, the word "right" adds nothing to force: in this connection, it means absolutely nothing.

Obey the powers that be. If this means yield to force, it is a good precept, but superfluous: I can answer for its never being violated. All power comes from God, I admit; but so does all sickness: does that mean that we are forbidden to call in the doctor? A brigand surprises me at the edge of a wood: must I not merely surrender my purse on compulsion; but, even if I could withhold it, am I in conscience bound to give it up? For certainly the pistol he holds is also a power.

Let us then admit that force does not create right, and that we are obliged to obey only legitimate powers. In that case, my original question recurs....

...EVEN if I granted all that I have been refuting, the friends of despotism would be no better off. There will always be a great difference between subduing a multitude and ruling a society. Even if scattered individuals were successively enslaved by one man, however numerous they might be, I still see no more than a master and his slaves, and certainly not a people and its ruler; I see what may be termed an aggregation, but not an association; there is as yet neither public good nor body politic. The man in question, even if he has enslaved half the world, is still only an individual; his interest, apart from that of others, is still a purely private interest. If this same man comes to die, his empire, after him, remains scattered and without unity, as an oak falls and dissolves into a heap of ashes when the fire has consumed it.

A people, says Grotius, can give itself to a king. Then, according to Grotius, a people is a people before it gives itself. The gift is itself a civil act, and implies public deliberation. It would be better, before examining the act by which a people gives itself to a king, to examine that by which it has become a people; for this act, being necessarily prior to the other, is the true foundation of society.

Indeed, if there were no prior convention, where, unless the election were unanimous, would be the obligation on the minority to submit to the choice of the majority? How have a hundred men who wish for a master the right to vote on behalf of ten who do not? The law of majority voting is itself something established by convention, and presupposes unanimity, on one occasion at least.

I SUPPOSE men to have reached the point at which the obstacles in the way of their preservation in the state of nature show their power of resistance to be greater than the resources at the disposal of each individual for his maintenance in that state. That primitive condition can then subsist no longer; and the human race would perish unless it changed its manner of existence.

But, as men cannot engender new forces, but only unite and direct existing ones, they have no other means of preserving themselves than the formation, by aggregation, of a sum of forces great enough to overcome the resistance. These they have to bring into play by means of a single motive power, and cause to act in concert.

This sum of forces can arise only where several persons come together: but, as the force and liberty of each man are the chief instruments of his self-preservation, how can he pledge them without harming his own interests, and neglecting the care he owes to himself? This difficulty, in its bearing on my present subject, may be stated in the following terms:

"The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before." This is the fundamental problem of which the Social Contract provides the solution.

The clauses of this contract are so determined by the nature of the act that the slightest modification would make them vain and ineffective; so that, although they have perhaps never been formally set forth, they are everywhere the same and everywhere tacitly admitted and recognised, until, on the violation of the social compact, each regains his original rights and resumes his natural liberty, while losing the conventional liberty in favour of which he renounced it.

These clauses, properly understood, may be reduced to one — the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community; for, in the first place, as each gives himself absolutely, the conditions are the same for all; and, this being so, no one has any interest in making them burdensome to others.

Moreover, the alienation being without reserve, the union is as perfect as it can be, and no associate has anything more to demand: for, if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.

Finally, each man, in giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody; and as there is no associate over whom he does not acquire the same right as he yields others over himself, he gains an equivalent for everything he loses, and an increase of force for the preservation of what he has.

If then we discard from the social compact what is not of its essence, we shall find that it reduces itself to the following terms:

"Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole."

At once, in place of the individual personality of each contracting party, this act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving from this act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took the name of city, and now takes that of Republic or body politic; it is called by its members State when passive. Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State. But these terms are often confused and taken one for another: it is enough to know how to distinguish them when they are being used with precision.

THIS formula shows us that the act of association comprises a mutual undertaking between the public and the individuals, and that each individual, in making a contract, as we may say, with himself, is bound in a double capacity; as a member of the Sovereign he is bound to the individuals, and as a member of the State to the Sovereign. But the maxim of civil right, that no one is bound by undertakings made to himself, does not apply in this case; for there is a great difference between incurring an obligation to yourself and incurring one to a whole of which you form a part.

Attention must further be called to the fact that public deliberation, while competent to bind all the subjects to the Sovereign, because of the two different capacities in which each of them may be regarded, cannot, for the opposite reason, bind the Sovereign to itself; and that it is consequently against the nature of the body politic for the Sovereign to impose on itself a law which it cannot infringe. Being able to regard itself in only one capacity, it is in the position of an individual who makes a contract with himself; and this makes it clear that there neither is nor can be any kind of fundamental law binding on the body of the people — not even the social contract itself. This does not mean that the body politic cannot enter into undertakings with others, provided the contract is not infringed by them; for in relation to what is external to it, it becomes a simple being, an individual.

But the body politic or the Sovereign, drawing its being wholly from the sanctity of the contract, can never bind itself, even to an outsider, to do anything derogatory to the original act, for instance, to alienate any part of itself, or to submit to another Sovereign. Violation of the act by which it exists would be self-annihilation; and that which is itself nothing can create nothing.

As soon as this multitude is so united in one body, it is impossible to offend against one of the members without attacking the body, and still more to offend against the body without the members resenting it. Duty and interest therefore equally oblige the two contracting parties to give each other help; and the same men should seek to combine, in their double capacity, all the advantages dependent upon that capacity.

Again, the Sovereign, being formed wholly of the individuals who compose it, neither has nor can have any interest contrary to theirs; and consequently the sovereign power need give no guarantee to its subjects, because it is impossible for the body to wish to hurt all its members. We shall also see later on that it cannot hurt any in particular. The Sovereign, merely by virtue of what it is, is always what it should be.

This, however, is not the case with the relation of the subjects to the Sovereign, which, despite the common interest, would have no security that they would fulfil their undertakings, unless it found means to assure itself of their fidelity.

In fact, each individual, as a man, may have a particular will contrary or dissimilar to the general will which he has as a citizen. His particular interest may speak to him quite differently from the common interest: his absolute and naturally independent existence may make him look upon what he owes to the common cause as a gratuitous contribution, the loss of which will do less harm to others than the payment of it is burdensome to himself; and, regarding the moral person which constitutes the State as a persona ficta, because not a man, he may wish to enjoy the rights of citizenship without being ready to fulfil the duties of a subject. The continuance of such an injustice could not but prove the undoing of the body politic.

In order then that the social compact may not be an empty formula, it tacitly includes the undertaking, which alone can give force to the rest, that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence. In this lies the key to the working of the political machine; this alone legitimises civil undertakings, which, without it, would be absurd, tyrannical, and liable to the most frightful abuses.'

Powerful ideas of course, and ideas which had their moment and were to have an impact on The Age of Reason, and indirectly the revolutions of America and France.

But here you find the clearest explanation of the true and proper relationship between government and people, a contract which should never move away from its proper balance.

When it does YOU are the loser.

So, looking at our society now, looking at the social contract, are we being ripped off in the power stakes?

Are we free?

The Thinkers Amongst You

I've been tagged by David Anthony to name five thinking blogs.

Hmmm. I'm thinking...

No, seriously, it wasn't that hard really. There are quite a few thoughtful blogs around. So here are my philosophical five;

1. Well, first had to be James Higham. He probably escapes by virtue of being on a blogging hiatus (some excuse about a flat refurbishment), but he is a man who sets a good example on his blog.

2. Bel can't deny she's a thinker. She's ALWAYS thinking. Every time you go round, she's thinking. Never stops, that girl.

3. Ruthie is a self confessed philosophy lover. Her place on this list was guaranteed. And pretty with it!

4. Step up, Raffi of CitiZENMINDful. A man with a different take on life and one worth looking at.

5. Every so often you come upon a new blog that is a real pleasure to have stumbled across. One such blog is Alexys Fairfield, at Unraveling the Spiritual Mystique, obviously a blogger who puts thought into her words and has a very good life philosophy. Only discovered it the other day. Well worth the find.

So if you're not on the list and you've not checked all five of those blogs, what are you still doing here?

If you ARE on the list, don't go running off- here are your tasks...

Lifted from The Thinking Blog;
Should you choose to participate, please make sure you pass this list of rules to the blogs you are tagging. I thought it would be appropriate to include them with the meme.

The participation rules are simple:

1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think,
2. Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme,
3. Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote (here is an alternative silver version if gold doesn't fit your blog).

Tuesday 19 June 2007

I Made it to Second Life!!!

As those of you who are members of Blogpower, or who kindly supported this blog in the recent awards will know, there is a presentation ceremony on July 1st.

With a difference.

Appropriately, the venue is in cyberspace.
Or to be more exact, it's in Second Life.

For those of you who don't already know, this is a virtual reality world which exists in a kind of parallel dimension to our own but is accessible through magic portals, a bit like Narnia, but without the talking lions, etc.

Yes, I'll admit I was a bit sceptical too, but last night I took the plunge.
Fortunately, I was in good company. Our erudite host, Tom Paine, was there to help visitors settle in . There's no denying he has a good spread.
What's even better, Second Life seems doesn't seem to be run by the same people who run First Life, which can only be a good thing.

As you see, I'm kind of getting the hang of it. I now have a Second Life avatar that actually looks like me, though I haven't been able to get him a crucifix yet.

Well, it should all be a lot of fun meeting fellow bloggers in a reality simulation for the afternoon.
Also it's a good chance to showcase some of the positives that are going on within the bloggosphere. We hear too much about the negatives.

I look forward to seeing some of you there!

Monday 18 June 2007

This Week's Big Issue

The results of last weeks poll were reasonably conclusive.

I'm not going to discuss the issue, because there is a consensus that it should not be discussed at this minute in time.

So I won't.

The results were;
Yes 18
No 9

This week, we're looking at social issues.

These days, less than half of us decide to tie the knot some day.
Some say the institution of marriage is in decline. David Cameron thinks we should strengthen it.

Others would say it is an archaic throwback from the days when women were treated as property, and that marriage has it's origin in the purchase by a man, of a women from her family.

Should we really cherish marriage?
Is it really a good thing that so many girls still aspire to a fairytale wedding?

Or does it still have relevance, as the deepest bond that two people in love can forge?

Have your say.

A Wake Up Call

I took this test just now over at CitiZENMINDful.
I don't think the results shocked me too much.

Time ticks by, but the lethargy is hard to shake...

So how do you fare?

You Can Change Your Life, But It Won't Be Easy

You really, truly want to change. You're just not sure that you can do it.
You need a solid plan, supportive friends, and a strong will.
Think about times you've made hard changes, and what you did to get through them.
A change is in your future - you just need a little help getting started.

Sunday 17 June 2007

An Underappreciated City

If you look at a list of places of natural beauty in the dear old UK, Birmingham will not be on that list.

Londoners look down on Brummies, but then Londoners look down on any city outside London. Northerners don't like Brummies much either, associating Birmingham with the greater prosperity of the south.

Birmingham is Britain's second city, home to a million people. Aside from London, it is the only major city outside the north, and as such, it is unique. Like all Britain's former industrial cities, the remains of the past can be seen- especially around Digbeth and Deritend, the archaeological remains almost, of the Workshop of the World.

But Birmingham has transformed in a way Northern cities have been slower to do. Partly this is because the Midlands ARE closer to the south of England in terms of lifestyle, affluence and outlook. Birmingham is often called the city of the motor car, and it is geared to the motorist in a way no other city in Britain is. It is only in Brum you can see the likes of Spaghetti Junction. Some say this contributes to the city's soullessness, that it is a city where people come second.
But it is part of what the city is.

I do like some of the northern cities. The centre of Manchester is fast becoming one of the nicest in Britain. Sheffield too has a friendly feel.
Birmingham, on the other hand, will never be pretty. It is the city in the UK with the least open spaces in its Centre.

But if you really want to see a vision of exactly what a stunningly beautiful array of glass and concrete should be, just approach the centre of Birmingham from the north, coming down the Aston Expressway. Just take a look at the Mailbox, or Millenium Point. These show the world that Birmingham is still a great city.

I won't comment on the monstrosity that is the new Selfridge's.

Amongst other lesser known facts about Birmingham, it is the city in the world with the most miles of canals- easily exceeding Venice.

The other thing that people often think about Brum, is that is a city of ethnic tension and gun crime.
I would be lying if I said that both of these don't exist in Birmingham. Aston, Nechells and Washwood Heath are pretty much no go areas if you have any sense. But these aren't actually the areas of greatest ethnic mix. Small Heath, Sparkhill and Selly Oak are great places to live- and get a great balti- as long as you respect other cultures. Bearing in mind that Birmingham is only 53% white, I think Brummies do a very good job in leading the way in race relations.

Those who say Birmingham has no soul, merely mean that they have never let Birmingham in. The inner beauty of this city does not stare you in the face.

But as an example of how a million people can live together and make their common home work, Birmingham acquits itself very well indeed.

Where it all Began for Mutley

I did promise some time ago to show early film footage of Mutley before he retired to Bridport.

Quite what happened to Dick Dastardly, I don't know. Maybe he does the Christmas pantomime at Morecambe or something.

Mutley's racing career was not a success. But he has made up for that now by acheiving success elsewhere.

Who knows, one day he may race again...

Saturday 16 June 2007

An Anthem For Crushed by Ingsoc

David Anthony asked recently what song would sum up this blog. I pondered.
Obviously, there was a certain inevitability, I would choose something by Depeche Mode. I suppose this is the obvious choice, both in terms of lyrics, but also for another reason.
Friends have often joked that one of the reasons I love this band is due to a slight superficial ressemblence by myself to David Gahan. At the time this video was made, then they have a point. He would also be about my age at this time.
So for those who say I never give you any personal info...

Friday 15 June 2007

In Memory of the Tin Drummer July 2006- June 2007

Goodbyes are always sad. That's no less true when the farewell is to a pseudonym which you had come to know and like, not so much a friendly face, as a friendly avatar.

The Tin Drummer wrote his blog primarily for himself, I think. It was primarily an outlet for his own musings, which could be various. Sometimes it was cricket, sometimes Dr Who, sometimes the joys of a career in education.

But it was never dull and he had a loyal dedicated following who gained something from his thoughts. Here's an example;

'As regular readers of my blog will know, but perhaps not care greatly about, I am a sceptic who wishes he wasn't. I look for patterns and sense in the world, as well as for things to counter my limited view of reality - the strange, the unaccounted for, and so on. You might also remember that I've mentioned in the past my disappointment that these things have failed to turn up in my life. Technically I suppose it is unreasonable or irrational to want there to be other things than I can see, but there are three main elements (rather than reasons) behind my belief:
1. I cannot believe that the perception of such a limited creature as myself should bear any resemblance to the great truths of reality or existence;
2. I do not want our cultural arrogance to turn out in fact to be the case;
3. I would like there to be purpose to life, irrespective of whether we can or choose to give meaning to it.'

Or this;
'I'm currently listening to World in Motion by New Order and it reminds me of two things: one, how England throughout my life has been either washed up, failing, divided, and violent; or, it has been the subject of constant attacks by its own elites and rulers. No-one can take an innocent pleasure in England, it seems (except XTC, maybe), whereas even Germany has managed to resurrect a kind of unthreatening national pride. Perhaps it comes down to comprehensive defeat, and whether England needs that before it can rebuild its legitimacy (via the end of the union, maybe) - I don't know.
But the song, World in Motion provides exactly that sense of innocent pride, despite popularising the expression "Eng-er-land", partly through John Barnes's rap, and partly through the lovely samples: "a beauty scored by Bobby Charlton"; "we want goals" etc - even if it is hopelessly naive for New Order to tie football to love, especially in 1990.'

The Drummer was one of the first blogs I used to read in the day when posts on this blog were sporadic and unread (except for by me). I was a little perturbed to log in on day and see '1 comment' by my latest post (my fourth, I think).
It was the Tin Drummer.
Indeed for a while, he was my only commenter. That changed, but it was the Tin Drummer who got posts rolling here.
I can truly say that if anyone deserves credit for getting me started, it was my drumming friend.

Now he has hung up his drum for good, he says. He leaves us with tantalising hints about a possible return in a new guise. I think many of us await with interest.

I'll miss him.

Thanks for everything, Tin Drummer!

Thursday 14 June 2007

Moving On

I've doing a bit of taking stock and I feel it's only fair to include you all in the conclusions I have come to regarding this blog and it's future.

This not an excercise in navel gazing. I simply think this is a good time to invite your opinions on certain topics, because I like to think that this blog belongs 50% to me and 50% to it's readers.

Firstly, regarding subjects for discussion over at Blogpower, which all of you can follow, there are a set of principles which led to Blogpower being formed. These are very good principles indeed. These principles, put simply, are that when people care strongly enough about what they think and feel to set up a blog to share those views with the world, they generally do so because, in their own way, they think those opinions are worth sharing. Sometimes those opinions may not be to out taste. In some cases most of us find those opinions wrong. They may even offend us. But if we know that site may offend us, we don't have to click that link.

I think most people who read this site get an idea of my stance generally. And you know I disagree with certain viewpoints. But that's not the issue here.
For every one of you who agrees with my ideas and opinions, there will be ten who don't. I'm quite sure there are people in Blogpower who would object to sharing a blogroll with me.
But Blogpower is bigger than that.

Blogpower represents the chance to replace the term 'violently oppose' with 'discuss rationally'. It is a positive development in the bloggosphere.

None of us are aiming at the destruction of the human race. We all want a brighter future, by our own lights. We all just seek a voice.

Just as I think Holocaust Denial Laws are counter-productive, I would rather share a blogroll with, and discuss with, those I oppose, than lose that chance to find common ground, because humanity generally has wasted too much time in bitterness and hatred.
We don't have time for that in the bloggosphere.

We shouldn't discriminate against the discriminators, or what exactly is so superior about our philosophy?

Now on to matters affecting this blog. Monday already seems to have become Site poll day, so that will stay. A new feature, which I'd like to make regular, is Guest Post Day. I'm thinking of making it Wednesday. I think it's time we opened up here to anyone who has a view to offer.
All offers welcome.
I have a few ideas already, some of which may surprise you...

Secondly, I'm thinking of doing some upgrades, possibly to the banner, maybe elsewhere, but I have no clear ideas yet. I thought I'd get some feedback from readers first.

Ideas anyone?

This really is one of these posts where I am asking all of you what you want from this blog, because I do think, as I said it belongs 50% to me, and 50% to it's readers.

I REALLY DO welcome as much input here as is offered.

Yes, This Conversation Did Take Place

I think we need a light hearted post tonight. So I'm going to share with you a conversation that took place at the weekend between myself and The Chimney Sweep.

The Chimney Sweep is one of the best you could hope for in a friend, he really is, but logic is not his strong point.
He tried to convince me that some stones about two miles from Coventry City Centre were part of the ancient city walls and defended this theory obstinately for about ten minutes before conceding it's unlikelihood.

But this little journey to reality is a Chimney Sweep classic. Since the conversation is fresh in my head, I would say you are reading it 95% as it actually happened. Apologies to believers in UFOs.

Chimney Sweep: I did think that I saw a UFO once.

Crushed by Ingsoc: I see. Why does that not surprise me? When ?

Chimney Sweep: When I was in Goa.

Crushed by Ingsoc: OK. The last two words there are kind of leading me to a theory already, but carry on.

Chimney Sweep: No, I know what you're going to say...

Crushed by Ingsoc: If you tell me you WEREN'T mashed, I will be less than convinced. Or was there a bloke stood behind you with a frisbee on the end of a fishing rod?

Chimney Sweep: (puzzled silence) I don't get that.

Crushed by Ingsoc: Never mind.

Chimney Sweep: It wasn't just me though, this lad, Brummie John, from Birmingham..

Crushed by Ingsoc: You shock me there, with a name like that, you'd have thought he was a Scouser...

Chimney Sweep: But he saw it too! We were on the beach at about three in the morning. The other lads didn't see it...

Crushed by Ingsoc: Because they were holding the fishing rod and laughing at you. Sorry, carry on.

Chimney Sweep: It was like a flashing light. And then it was gone.

Crushed by Ingsoc: OK. Let's look at the possibilities. a) Helicopter. b) Landing lights of Plane coming into Goa Airport. c) Craft from Outer Space. In terms of likelihood, what probability would you accord to each of those options?

Chimney Sweep: Ah but no, it was completely still! It was like a star, only bigger!

Crushed by Ingsoc: So, what you are saying, is that in a sky full of stars, you saw a star like object that didn't move. I think I might be able to explain your UFO...

Chimney Sweep: But then it disappeared!

Crushed by Ingsoc: Ever heard of clouds?

Chimney Sweep: But there were no clouds that night.

Crushed by Ingsoc: Can you be sure?

Chimney Sweep: Well, but it FLASHED, then it pulsated- then it was gone.

Crushed by Ingsoc: In which case, you are one of the few people lucky enough to have seen a supernova with the naked eye. Or a meteor.

Chimney Sweep: You think?

Crushed by Ingsoc: Look, one simple point, one I make to anyone who says they have seen a UFO. UFO means exactly that. Unidentified. Flying. Object. Just because something is in the sky and you can't work out what it is, doesn't mean it's from another world. Look at it logically, a lot of UFOs were reported in 1947, as saucer shapes. They were just American attempts to see if German blueprints for the saucer shaped V7 was any good. They weren't. In the sixties, true, lots of craft in the sky that defied the laws of flight as then known. But they weren't piloted by creatures from another world. They were early prototype Aurora stealth bombers.

Put it this way, no matter how strange the craft, we only KNOW for sure of one species in one world that has acheived aerodynamic flight. If any craft of any sort is seen in the skies of the home world of that species, do you not think it most likely that the pilots of such craft belong to that species?

Chimney Sweep: I guess so.

Crushed by Ingsoc: So, back to the begining. Do you actually think you saw a craft from another world?

Chimney Sweep: Well, now you put it that way, probably not.

If only the rest of the UFO nut community could see it that way...

Wednesday 13 June 2007

Thankyou For Voting

Especially those who supported Crushed by Ingsoc. For full results see here.
I think we need a musical interlude from Depeche Mode, as a break from all this seriousness.
Thanks again, everyone.

David Dimbleby Time

So we await the final results due in the Blogpower Awards.
If you've not yet voted today, or you want to do some more vote stacking before polls close, do so now and then come back and finish reading this. Of course if polls have already closed, don't bother.

It's been an interesting week. Whether James Higham regrets undertaking this, I don't know. I suspect not, deep down. There were some negatives, but there have been many positives.

On the negative side, it does seem that every loophole that can be taken has been taken, and some elements have tried to exploit this ruthlessly. Fortunately, there does seem to have been a fightback from supporters of deserving bloggers.

In my opinion, yes there has been some unfair goings on, but the fact remains that once this was noticed, popular support, in it's own mysterious way, seems to have evened things out. I really would like to see a Single Transferrable Vote next time over say, five days, with votes genuinely kept to one vote per person as far as possible.

On the positive side, many bloggers have realised that the best way to campaign is not by over publicising their own candidature, but by showing people daily why their blogs deserved the merit they were in line to win. I don't want to bring James up again- you'll think I'm his agent- but he demonstrates the point. So does Sicily Scene.

It's also good to see some new faces gain recognition, like Captain Smack. It's good that bloggers of the succint wisdom of Bel get the applause they deserve.

For my own part, it's worth me saying that I am very touched that so many of you- many more than I thought possible- have showed that you do appreciate this blog. It's worth me saying that I was bright and early getting my nominations in, and actually only nominated long established bloggers.
My nomination for Best Little Blogger and Most Underrated Blogger was actually the Blogpower member who made the first ever comment on this blog. I won't embarrass him now, but I really hope he gets back into blogging in a big way, because I miss his wit.

When I set up this blog, it was only as a home to visit other blogs from and pour out the occasional strange thought I had.
But then you guys started coming to visit and it developed a life of it's own. I don't regret that. This blog has grown in ways I never thought it would.
For that many of you deserve thanks.

I know that there has been a little behind the scenes campaign to support this blog in these awards and I'm not going to embarrass those involved.
I can safely say that those who were rooting for me have fought pretty fair, for which I am very grateful.

Now let's all sit down, with David Dimbleby in the studio, as those long awaited results come in.

Tuesday 12 June 2007

The Totalitarian Impulse

It remains an oddity of the human condition that there does seem to lie embedded in us all, a curious yearning towards totalitarian systems.
They seem at once to fascinate and repell us, stirring up a curious mixture of emotions that defies intellect.

Human history is littered with examples over and over again which attest to the strength of the ovine impulse to be a part of the machine.

Should we be surprised or alarmed?

Surprised, possibly not.
Alarmed, well that is the question that needs resolving.

I think the resentment that most of us feel towards our sham democracies is partly due to the fact that we have the worst of both worlds. We get the negative feelings of oppression, without the psychological benefits that totalitarian systems are built on.

The word totalitarian itself, is a word we owe to Benito Mussolini. By it, he meant a system that was all encompassing, thus you could have Fascist Economics, Fascist Art, Fascist Literature, Fascist Agriculture, you name it, the ideological system could be applied to anything.
Or so the theory ran.
It's unrealistic of course, and provides for a very narrow range of vision, but it does at least bring a strange sense of social cohesiveness, which is the whole idea.

And this is why totalitarian systems attract. We can hand over responsibility for thinking to a kind of thought approval body, who can always tell us the right opinion, in the context of the ideological system.
But for such a system of ideas to flourish, it needs to tap into something deeper than that.

Deeply ingrained instincts within us, that make us feel at home in such a culture.

We are pack animals, that evolved to hunt as a unit, fight as a unit, die as a unit. We find our instincts satisfied by the shouting and baying of slogans, by the blind rage of the mob.
We love the sense of being part of a unified whole.

I know this myself, for two of the most satisfying experiences for me have their psychological roots in exactly that.
One is the part of the Mass I feel most uplifting, the recitation of the creed.
The other is being part of the shouting, singing, jeering crowd at a football game.

Both are communal chantings, where the sense of being subsumed into the greater body is paramount. You are not an individual here, you are part of a force, something a hundred times more powerful than you as an individual, with a hundred times your constructive- and destructive- powers.

It is the adrenalin rush of hunting Homo Erectus.

We watch footage of Nazi Party Rallies and Communist Party demonstrations with a secret kind of mesmerised awe, shocked at the blind faith of the devotees, yet aware that if we were there, we would be shouting too.
And not only that, but we would feel euphoric doing so.

This is of course, how such systems work.

And herein lies the problem.

However much we condemn these systems and sneer at 'mob mentality', the fact remains we are programmed that way.
Most people will sieze the chance to be part of a mass demonstration, or watch a group live, no matter how bad they perform.

And we kid ourselves if it is not partly being part of that tribal solidarity, that blending of yourself into the greater body.

If we are to move beyond the totalitarian urge, we must find ways of harnessing these instincts in a free society, to create the sense of unity, the sense of being part of something bigger that we crave so much, so much so that people will sell their souls to rigid ideologies to get that satisfaction.

We need to acknowledge that in the long term, the greatest enemy to our freedom is the individualism we all seek to escape from.

Because the escape route needs to lead to something better, not worse.

Typographical Errors in Previous Post

The Bournemouth Nationalist has pointed out to me, and I think he may be right, that a fair old comedy of errors seems to have taken place involving tired, mutually suspicious bloggers last night.

He has pointed out- and e mails to myself from bloggers who certainly DO NOT support his views have suggested how this might have happened- that his hyperlink was intended to be just that- but that he made an error.

He also observed- and he may have a point- that the post I made at the time was possibly equally erroneous.

Indeed, in the light of fresh information, I can spot many typographical errors which need correcting.
So here goes.

'Intimidate', both in the title and in the line below, should read 'comment'.

The words 'Shut down this blog by attempting to gain the password to it, via' should be excised from the sentence.

'dirty and nasty' should read 'competitively'.

'nasty these misfits' should read 'dedicated these nice people'.

'suspicious' should read 'linking'.

'sinister' should read 'politically opposed'.

Sorry for the unusually high level of typographical errors contained therein. It seems that our friend from the south coast is not actually a hostile internet foe, but merely came here with the sincere intention of discussing his opinions. Which is what is the bloggosphere is all about.

Having read the article now that he says he was trying to link, and which I will include for you here, I have one comment to make on it.

I dislike that lot too, Mr Bournemouth. Not as much as I dislike the BNP, but I dislike them.
As with Wayne, I don't regard holders of opposing political views as being personal enemies, so your views are welcome here.

As I said at Central News, where readers can see more of the slow process of enlightenment (and mutual distrust), I really hope there is some return to normalcy here after the polls finish tomorrow. Whilst I quite like having healthy discussions with bloggers of opposing views, the current situation is clearly having an effect on the way we view other bloggers which is not good for any of us.

None of this alters my opinions regarding UK News and Politics and their place in these polls.

Now go vote in the Blogpower Awards.

Monday 11 June 2007

Attempts to Intimidate

A serious attempt to intimidate my blog and it's readers was kindly made by The Bournemouth Nationalist last night.

A deliberate attempt was made to shut down this blog by attempting to gain the password to it, via a hyperlink.

Be warned, these guys are fighting dirty and nasty now.
To these guys, these aren't just awards and I really have seen how nasty these misfits can be.

EVERYBODY, watch your blogs.
Watch suspicious commentors.

There are sinister forces in the bloggosphere.


Polling Update.

I am happy to announce that the most accurate opinion polls known concerning voting intentions at the next election are available for the first time at this site.

Mutley The Dog, Leader of the United Morris Dancing Party was the favoured choice for Prime Minister at 83%. Gordon Brown trailed behind at 10%.

David Cameron and Menzies Campbell vied for third place.

Assuming a Uniform National Swing at the next General Election, Mutley is on course to win a stunning landslide majority of 516 seats.

I'm sure that on the basis of this poll, Mutley will be looking to appoint his front bench team soon.
It's possible that the UMDP will be looking to test its strength, should a by election arise.

So now the people of Britain really do have a chance for a change.

However this time, the slogan will not be 'Things can only get better.'

The United Morris Dancing Party shall fight for office with the slogan 'Things can't get much f***ing worse.'

Vote UMDP- For a more interesting Britain.

This weeks poll question is put more in sorrow than mirth.
But I think your views will be appreciated.
It will stay up till the following Monday, so you will still be able to vote while the issue is investigated by the movers and shakers of Blogpower.

A Guest Post From Our Far Right Friends

As voting hots up in the Blogpower Awards, I thought I would allow a broadcast here from the supporters of UK News and Politics.

As you see, it has actually been made by the sockpuppets who trashed Mutley's blog.

These guys- or their fellow travellers- could score a real propaganda coup here.

Or you could go and vote for other blogs, whom you believe deserve to win.

Many of the other options are very good blogs which deserve recognition.

You can even vote for Crushed by Ingsoc if you want.

Sunday 10 June 2007

Do Not Let This Be the Face of Blogpower

Voting continues in the Blogpower Awards. If you are reading this blog, you have the right to vote. You will all of you know several of the blogs in each category. There are a few you won't know at all. Some of them are supported by people who wish to use these awards for political purposes. To score a political point for their views. So consider, do you want Blogpower being used to promote THESE GUYS?

Now go vote in the blogpower awards.

Friday 8 June 2007

They Must be Lobotomising People

This is the only sensible conclusion I can reach.

We have seen this government continue the work of the previous government in removing basic rights of the citizen to a degree that the Normans would have balked at.
We have police forces in this country with the powers of, and mentality of, those found in Soviet satellites.
And 75% of the population think we should give them more powers.

I kid ye not.

We're back to the Terror threat, again.

OK, I don't deny there are terrorists.
I don't deny these terrorists don't much like us.

But I see more police wondering round than terrorists, and frankly, I'd rather risk the odd bomb here and there than introduce internment without trial for ninety days, unlimited stop-and-search powers, and fines for refusing to answer questions.

In 1933, weeks after Hitler had been appointed Chancellor by the aging German President, Paul Von Hindenburg, The Reichstag burned down.
No one will really know the truth of what happened. The general consensus seems to be that it was started by a mentally challenged Dutch Communist, but it certainly suited the Nazis.

A Communist plot was created in the minds of the public.
All Communists and Social Democrats were rounded up and concentrated in a camp. The first of such camps. Dachau.

The Nazis then proceeded to push a bill through the Reichstag- emptied of it's leftist elements.
This Bill became notorious as the Enabling Act.
It gave complete executive Powers to the Chancellor (A.Hitler) for a Four Year period.
In other words, Hitler could now pass any law he liked, without the need for the Reichstag.
I'd like to say the other parties voted against it.
They didn't.

Needless to say, four years later, a Reichstag convened especially for the purpose, and containing only Nazis, renewed the Act.

And that's how easy it was done.

So when I see the British people clamouring to hand over any guarantees they have of their liberty to the armed thugs of a thinly veiled dictatorship, I can only assume that over the last ten years, the powers that be have been going round slowly and methodically, lobotomising our people in their sleep.

Wake up, Britain!

You're only truly safe and secure in a cage.

Do you want to be that safe?

One for All, and All For One

Today Dumas is one of my favourite authors. That journey started over twenty years ago with this cartoon.
Children's TV in the eighties wasn't all good, but I think it was a LOT better than the poor little mites get given today.