This is a bit of a lightweight post that takes me into a world I rarely enter.  But you’d have to live in a faraway galaxy not to have heard this week about Susan Boyle.  Todate, sentimentally-minded YouTubers everywhere have fought back the tears at least 40 million times as overnight this stout and frumpy 47 year old spinster, an unemployed church volunteer, has become Scotland’s least likely superstar.

Since the age of twelve Miss Boyle has hoped to do justice to the gift of a wonderful voice.  The high-point of her efforts was a track she recorded for a charity CD in 1999.  Her chance finally arrived in January at an audition for Simon Cowell’s Britain‘s Got Talent, and this was the show that aired on ITV last Saturday.  Now she has a huge fan base, a fansite, a Sony contract in the offing, and this commendation from Les Miserables producer Cameron Mackintosh, commenting on her rendition of I dreamed a dream:

“Vocally it is one of the best versions of the song I’ve ever heard.  Touching, thrilling and uplifting.  I do hope she gets to sing it for the Queen.”

Singing in front of Her Majesty the Queen, it should be said, is the reward for the winner of BGT every year.  The chances this year of that not being Miss Boyle are negligible to non-existent, and probably less than that.

Well, a lot of clever folks have wiseacred in the world’s press about why this curious little episode has wrought such an enormous emotional impact, particularly in America.  Of course, it’s never enough to say the obvious: that it’s simply a heart-warming and uplifting story, which it plainly is.  No, we’ve been treated to everything from a new anti-capitalist sensibility in these recessionary times to protest against the cult of celebrity to the love of the underdog to the fulfilment of the American Dream.  A particularly viperous Jewish feminist in the Guardian even took the opportunity to berate “us” (in whom it is not at all clear that she included herself) for judging women by appearances.

So I thought I’d also reject the heart-warming and uplifting scenario, and join this motley throng with a few observations of my own.

READ MORE...

by Happy Cracker

Trying to summarize for myself the difference between left and right, here are some ideas I came up with.

The difference between left and right is the question of the right of the struggle for existence to exist. (source: a Soren Renner speech). More precisely, it is a debate of the proper boundaries in which this struggle should be contained.

Both left and right can be broken down into two camps: principled devotees and unprincipled devotees. Either side could be said to have a principle around which it is organized.

The principle of the right is: life is necessarily a struggle to exist.

It follows from that that no intervention is necessary to change that reality. It is the prerogative of the family to ameliorate that struggle - not of the state. The right would merely retain the struggle for existence within it’s ancient boundaries, pre-nation-state. Some exponents of rightist thought would use the state as a means to further pursue the conflicts inherent in this struggle (i.e. the ones the left is seeking to ameliorate).

The principle of the left is: life is either unjustly or unnecessarily a struggle to exist.

It follows from that that intervention is necessary to change that reality. The nearest available mechanism to accomplish that intervention is the modern nation state, and it is the prerogative of the state to ameliorate that struggle - not the prerogative of the family (i.e. citizens and ethny left to themselves). The left seeks to contain the struggle for existence, so that inequality and competition between groups, ethnies and families or classes is contained by the “balancing” (leveling) action of the state.

The Superstate, the Welfare-state, the Command economy, are the result of this principle.

READ MORE...

By David Hamilton

Edmund Burke believed that politics should take account of human nature.  The dominant ideologies today completely go against that and try to stifle natural expressions of common sense.  In his greatest speech made in response to calls for him to be prosecuted under the 1976 Race Relations Act, The Uniform of Colour, Enoch gave an insight into how human nature operates:

“In understanding this matter, the beginning of wisdom is to grasp the law that in human societies power is never left unclaimed and unused.  It does not blow about, like wastepaper on the streets, owner-less and inert.  Men’s nature is not only, as Thucydides long ago asserted, to exert power where they have it; men cannot help themselves from exerting power where they have it, whether they want to or not.

The coloured population of over two million in England, a population which grows at the rate of nearly 100,000 a year while the remainder diminishes, a population which is predominantly concentrated in the central areas of the metropolis and other key urban and industrial centers of England, does possess—simply by reason of segregation and differentiation—a power which would not accrue to a mere random sample of two million persons similarly located but not perceived or perceiving themselves as distinct from the rest”.

The Sun of 10 November 2006 quoted Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller predicting waves of terrorist bombings, possibly with chemical and biological devices.

“At this moment, at least 30 attacks are being actively planned and 1,600 suicidal young terrorists are under surveillance. Round-the-clock vigilance by security services has thwarted five major conspiracies and saved countless lives.  There are plenty more outrages being planned.”

There is another aspect of the war being waged against us in our own country by people the elites who are bringing here. In an exposé of public interest the Daily Mail of 6 April 2009 reported:

Migrant workers and illegal immigrants (asylum seekers) were responsible for up to a third of all sex attacks in some areas.  Greater London was worst affected, with foreigners charged in connection with a third of rapes.  To get the figures the Express had to make a Freedom of Information request.

READ MORE...

Although this isn’t addressing the primary cause of the loss of legitimacy—immigration enforced on the states with integration enforced on citizens—this is a very positive development.  The primary danger here is that some “higher power”, such as a North American Union if not the United Nations, will attempt to disintermediate the relationship between the States and the Federal Government—using this crisis as an opportunity to increase the de facto centralization while, in effect, nullifying the US Constitution. 

In any case, the time is coming for action.

By exPF

Refute (or counter) the following.

You have made a statement - it could be any statement - about non-whites generally, and the reply comes back:

That’s racist! Its fundamentally racist, what you’re saying.

One of the most common arguments used in real life. I’m curious to see what ideas you have for turning this one around with minimal argumentation.

... some retain the ability to surprise. 

John Redwood is a senior Conservative politician and former minister who is currently co-chairman of the party’s Policy Review Group on Economic Competitiveness.  His blog is here.  If you scroll right down the thread you will eventually get to the point of my post now, which is a terse 33-word statement from Redwood in the form of a reply to my, as usual, lengthy missive.

That’s all I need to know.  I’ve posted a (mercifully brief) sign-off to the interchange, but it’s yet to be moderated.

The time is coming for action.  Legitimate government is nonexistent anywhere in the Eurosphere for the simple reason that men would not agree to sign a social contract that entailed a “peace” consisting of the invasion of their territory by an overpopulated world.  The fact that invasion is enforced on unwilling locales through “integration” laws is also, by itself, sufficient to remove legitimacy.  This lack of legitimacy is increasingly obvious as the pathologies, caused by enforced invasion, erupt in symptoms that threaten subsistence due to economic “crises”.

To create property rights beyond those that would exist in the state of nature and to ensure the social stability of said property rights, the following actuarial militia is proposed to operate in locales occupied by no more than a few thousand people:

To minimize tactical voting and the resulting political parties, all votes are under the approval voting system (you can “approve” of more than one candidate). To minimize campaigning all voting is continuous—a running tally of approval is maintained at all times. The militia members accept new members at the 2/3 approval threshold and reject existing members at the 2/3 disapproval threshold. Militia members invite someone to be their leader with a 2/3 approval, ties are broken by degree of approval. Leaders are rejected at 2/3 disapproval of militia members.

By mutual consent with customers, renewed annually, the militia accepts insurance premiums in an amount set by actuarial calculations based on any information deemed appropriate by the militia, and paid in militia-issued scrip, for protection of property rights, and for their indemnification in the event of loss due to criminal act, including impositions by illegitimate governments.

Militia members are:

1) not charged for coverage of their homestead property rights (home and means of supporting their family),

2) paid dividends as equal holders of voting shares, and

3) expected to self-equip under principles similar to those intended in the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Militia scrip enters circulation via dividends to the members and is removed from circulation by withholding militia dividends.

From a real one-issue blog that I hadn’t heard of until today:-

The UK Telegraph is the only main stream media to run something about Goldman Sachs’ threat to file a lawsuit against me. That’s pretty standard for the U.S. press and media to ignore the stinky and powerful Oger in the room. In fact, the U.S. main stream media, with a few exceptions, only runs stories about Goldman Sachs that seem either written by or approved by the Goldman Sachs Public Relations Department.

Why have none of the major papers or news programs not dared to ruffle a feather at Goldman Sachs, when this company is ripe for reporting. A simple look at who comes out of Goldman and where they go is enough to make for a full length movie. In any event, here is the U.K. Telegraph article ...

And here’s the meat of the Telegraph story:-

Goldman Sachs hires law firm to shut blogger’s site

Goldman Sachs is attempting to shut down a dissident blogger who is extremely critical of the investment bank, its board members and its practices. The bank has instructed Wall Street law firm Chadbourne & Parke to pursue blogger Mike Morgan, warning him in a recent cease-and-desist letter that he may face legal action if he does not close down his website.

Florida-based Mr Morgan began a blog entitled “Facts about Goldman Sachs” – the web address for which is goldmansachs666.com – just a few weeks ago. In that time Mr Morgan, a registered investment adviser, has added a number of posts to the site, including one entitled “Does Goldman Sachs run the world?”. However, many of the posts relate to other Wall Street firms and issues.

According to Chadbourne & Parke’s letter, dated April 8, the bank is rattled because the site “violates several of Goldman Sachs’ intellectual property rights” and also “implies a relationship” with the bank itself.

GS is the supplier of bankers for senior federal government positions.  But it also sits at the heart of the web of global financial power.  As Mike Morgan says, “Yes, I am short Goldman Sachs stock. I believe this company is evil and should not exist. We need to begin to break up companies that have as much control over world finances as Goldman Sachs.”