Interesting comment Ed West Blog.

“Arab countries are not “nations” as we understand it.”

And neither is Britain! Since going “multi-ethnic” in such a big way.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a NATION is “a large aggregate of people so closely associated with each other by factors such as COMMON DESCENT, language, CULTURE, HISTORY, and occupation of the same territory as to be identified as a DISTINCT PEOPLE” [my capitals].

Also, "ethnic" drives from Greek ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION, making the notion of a “multi-ethnic British nation” an oxymoronic absurdity.

It's an absurdity which the majority of Britain's indigenous (ethnic European) population, are mildly to extremely uncomfortable with (depending on circumstances), but can say, let alone do, nothing about, without being branded and dismissed as “racist” by STATE media (the BBC), which the rest of the media and political elite had to follow, or be branded “racist” themselves, just as anyone deviating from state/church ideology in the Middle Ages was branded a “non-believer”, “heathen” or “heretic”.

Europe’s tribal societies were destroyed by the STATE centuries ago, which then coerced and taught us to identify ITSELF as our tribe or nation, which we owed our powerful (and in times of war, passionate) tribal loyalties to. This made the state extremely powerful and goes a long way to explaining European global dominance.

Only, the British STATE is not a NATION, but merely poses as such, in order to facilitate “society's” self-exploitation (as an artificial environment) to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and now, of course, “talent” (and not just at the BBC). When the principal interest is in “human resources”, “markets” and voters as vassals to the political elite, race and ethnic origins (vital to “human beings” for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, e.g. national, identity) are irrelevant, except as as something to deny the importance of as an expression of “moral superiority” and continued allegiance to the STATE.

Libertarians are hypocrites if they use the NHS?

I saw the following comment on this post on the Libertarian alliance blog. The general point is that Libertarian minded people (in this case Ayn Rand) are hypocrites for using state funded healthcare etc. This comment by C.H. Ingoldgy (below) neatly sums up my take on it.

"A typical example of a dishonest leftist argument.

The State takes money from you by force and imposes a monopoly of medical treatment. If you then have to use that State provided treatment, which you have already been forced to pay for, then somehow this makes you a ‘hypocrite’ if you disagree with this state of affairs.

According to the leftists, for a Libertarian to be true to his principles he should refuse the treatment he has already been forced to pay and instead die.

A perfect enlightening of the warped logic and fundamental dishonesty of the leftists."

What do lefties expect us to do, we are not driven by dogma. That is their concern. Rational self interest is what generally drives me. As Ayn Rand -who is the target of the original article - put it:

"Whenever the welfare-st­ate laws offer them some small restitutio­n, the victims should take it."

Then of course there is always the character in her novel "Atlas Shrugged" called Ragnar Danneskjold: The pirate who stole back taxes and returned them the rightful owners. Oh arrrgh me hearties.

Twitter

I woke up this morning and confronted an issue that has been troubling me for some time: Why am I unable to articulate myself well in the long form of writing? For the first time I am going to post on the internet in a complete stream of conscientiousness. In the real world I have -- I think-- a very good grasp of communicating with people face to face. I find it very easy to start conversations, with anyone, on just about any subject. I am also quite capable of developing arguments and at the same time empathising with those whom I am engaged with. I enjoy verbal communication immensly; I would put it down as the main reason I enjoy going down the pub - beer does help though. So why is it, I am completely useless at articulating myself through writing?

Recently I have become addicted to using the micro-blogging site Twitter. One of Twitters drawbacks is actually an advantage to me personally - and I am certain, many others too. If you only have 140 characters to get your message across then fancy words are not really that important. Another advantage - over essay writing - is simple: I do not need to engage in a lengthy and daunting reply where my writing skills may be used as an argument against my intellect. Argument on Twitter is brilliant; it becomes like a wrestling match, where one person tries their hardest to concede submission from their opponent. This works rather well when there are a number of people (spectators) watching a particular hash tag and cheering you on.

Yes I am crap at writing in the long form; I feel like a hod carrier attempting brain surgery. Who do I blame? Well who else can I blame other than my comprehensive school and my parents. I don't really blame my parents as they were never academic. The only person who had any form of higher education was my uncle (who became a toolmaker and obtained an HND in engineering). My parents didn't have money and there was only one school that was an option. The blame must surely go to St. Birinus School in Didcot. My English language lessons were to a large extent ruled by apathy and anarchy. Some teachers couldn't command respect and the class deteriorated into a scene from the Lord of the flies; other teachers were hard on discipline - to the extent we were shit scared - and unapproachable. How on earth could I become motivated under these conditions? If you didn't get into the A stream you were doomed as far as English language lessons were concerned.

Once I had left school and joined the Army there was no need for writing skills. The telephone was all that was necessary to convey messages. None of the jobs I have had (since I left the Army) have required me to use the written word either. The internet has changed all that. Suddenly, ordinary people can have their voices heard globally. This development is obviously a good thing, because exchange of ideas has an unlimited potential for human development. It is also an incredibly powerful means of protest.

So I will do my very best to improve my writing, but if all else fails, fuck it, Twitter is fucking uber cool for ranting and raving. Long may it continue.

The Story of Your Enslavement

Words of wisdom from Stephan Molyneaux.

Why I don't believe in Democracy.

I enjoy getting into discussions with supporters of the ukuncut movement on Twitter. I do so to highlight, the simple truth, that they defend the use of a system which uses violence to achieve it's aims. I like to point at the Gun in the room.

Last evening, I made it clear that Democracy is nothing more than: the voting in of a Crime syndicate. Here is one response I received:

emily_james Emily James

@Bodderick I like the mob, particularly when it's well informed and not overly manipulated. The oligarchy we have is not a real democracy.

Now, Emily is a fan of the mob, I am not. I believe in the right for the individual to live their life free from tyranny. The most persecuted minority on earth is the individual. Emily believes that an informed collective is a good thing. No doubt it is, for the group, but how does an informed mob act in a democracy when the State is intertwined in every aspect of our lives? Don't believe me, look around your room and find me something that is not regulated by the State?

Well, let us take an informed mob. The mob I will use base their entire understanding of the complexity of humanity on a book written over 1000 years ago. This holy script is a complete guide to life, with laws that have the ultimate punishment of the death penalty. Being that democracy is a numbers game, the only thing stopping them from forcing everyone to abide by their code, is the size of their mob. This scenario becomes quite scary when you look at how many people actually vote in elections and the percentage of these voters required for total control. If you think a totalitarian regime will never happen, you only need to remind yourself of how Hitler and, more recently, Hammas came to power.

So yes, democracy is shit. It is shit because Emily and her mob want to use their collective power to demand that the State use its violent coercive apparatus to enforce compliance (of their agenda) on everyone else, whether they like it or not.

I don't have a problem with collectives (as long as they are voluntary). The power of a group to solve a problem is a good thing. We are living in an age of austerity, but it doesn't have to be a bad thing. It is obvious that the UKUNCUT movement is a force to be reckoned with. Could the energy they have be used in a more productive and voluntary way?

There was a time before Big Government. In 1913 the only contact you had with the State was when you visited the Post Office or met the local Bobby on the beat. By and large, ordinary people were left alone to do as they pleased; the state did not interfere in the everyday goings on of it's citizens. There was no Welfare State; the task of helping people (with social and health provision) was provided by Charity and Friendly societies funded on a voluntary basis. It is often forgot that the main hospitals in London were the result, not of the State, but of private charity and voluntary collectivism. Could UKUNCUT not use these concepts to save the services that they are afraid of losing, instead of demanding that the State use its coercive power?