Thursday, 6 May 2021

Who are the ‘Bed Blockers’ to political reform?

The answer is the liberal elite, who have infected and now dominate our politics, civil service, police, military, show business and the rest of the ‘Establishment’. They have held sway for some time and are assisted and supported by the likes of the corrupt and bias BBC and other media sources. The common denominator they all share is the belief in the virtues of ‘Liberalism’.

Let me be very clear, before I go any further, that I accept some liberal initiatives have been good for society but the consequences of far too many have been damaging and the irony is that in continuing to support and promote a liberal agenda these elites are increasingly Liberal In Name Only (LINO).

The word ‘liberal’ comes from the Latin word ‘liber’ meaning free. Freedom lies at the heart of liberalism: freedom to do as you want based on the belief, now proven false, that we are born good and corrupted by society hence the increasingly soft nature of our justice and penal system due to the belief that criminals are corrupted by society.

Another key aspect which LINOs push is to be free of the past and our traditions which can stand in the way of their relentless drive for ‘progress’. This is now self-evident in the campaigns against historic figures and their statues.

The trouble is LINOs extend freedom to their own advantage but their general ‘free for all’ seriously disadvantages the rest of us and especially the poor. LINOs seldom if ever have to face the consequences of their liberal policies.  

These LINOs are also the type who support the principles of Epistocracy over Democracy and are totally against allowing the people to have any more say in the way they are governed. Brexit of course was a total shock to LINOs, as they had expected to win, so I would think they would now be more determined than ever to ignore any political reform, that curbed their influence and power, by giving greater power to the people by a recognition of their inherent sovereignty.

Another strange but revealing aspect of LINOs, over the years and especially in the past, is their reluctance to condemn communism, which has been responsible for over 100 million deaths, yet always turn their fire on Hitler’s Fascism and are all too ready to label anyone that disagrees with their liberal point of view as Right-Wing Fascists. Again, the irony is that while most if not all LINOs would be opposed to capital punishment, they generally have not condemned the endless purges and executions in the USSR. Likewise, they were critical and publicised the Bengal famine in India that killed 3 million while ignoring or concealing a similar number of deaths due to a famine, 10 years earlier, in Ukraine. 

So, these brief examples typify the thinking of LINOs who hold so much influence and power over us and are not readily going to give up either. If you want to find out more as to how and why Liberalism has impacted on our lives, I highly recommend the book by John Marsh called ‘The Liberal Delusion’.

In conclusion there is only one solution to this predicament which is to go over the heads of the LINOs and appeal directly to the people even though we have to accept that currently they are understandably preoccupied with keeping their jobs and their families safe.

The people, when given a chance, spoke over Brexit and they will do so again and when they do the damaging impact of LINO’s liberal convictions and philosophy will be challenged.

As I’ve said before the future is in the people’s hands.  

 

 

 

 

Wednesday, 28 April 2021

What say do the people have on Climate Change policy?

 I recently read an article in the Spectator about COP26, which is scheduled to be held in Glasgow in early November and according to the article, the once climate sceptic, Boris Johnson is now an enthusiastic supporter of this gathering no doubt encouraged by his 'Green' fiancée Carrie Symonds and also his father who has brought into the current ‘Green’ agenda.

 COP 26 stands for Conference of the Parties, and will be attended by countries that signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) - a treaty agreed in 1994. The 2021 meeting will be the 26th meeting hence COP26.

Climate Change was once called Global Warming, until our planet didn’t warm as predicted despite an increase in CO2. This is a topic I feel I know something about having read 17 books on the subject. The link with THA is that for a major policy issue, there is no bigger in terms of costs, the decisions are being made by previous and the recent government, pressured by the well organised and financed Green Movement, while completely ignoring the views of the public. This, as with many issues, increasing shows the gap between politicians and the people.

The Green priority and current fad involve a push for 'Net Zero' in carbon emissions which our government has committed us to achieve by 2045 with an estimated cost of £3 trillion. Three trillion is a huge number so what exactly does it look like?

The now universal definition of million is one thousand thousand. A billion is one thousand million and a trillion is a thousand billion.

Another way to look at this figure of three trillion is to consider how long in time three trillion seconds is. So, for example: -

 A million seconds = 11 days

A billion seconds = 32 years

A trillion seconds = 32,000 years so three trillion = 96,000 years

A final measure or comparison is to consider the government’s budget expenditure for 2020 which was around 928 billion so nearly £1 trillion.

By any measure you care to consider £3 trillion is a huge figure and I believe unsustainable but supported and bandied about by most of the out of touch, incompetent, impressionable, ignorant, supine and self-seeking politicians.

Now it is very important to realise, for those who may not be aware, that with regards media coverage of CC the BBC held a secret meeting in 2006 which decided that the debate was settled and beyond dispute and they issued an instruction to all employees that they should only report CC in the context of being 'man-made'. You only have to observe all the media's output on CC to realise they nearly all follow the same line.

Interestingly despite the media's pro man-made CC stance the public's opinion on the matter, despite at least 20 years of pro media coverage, is far from unanimous as this survey illustrates albeit the question asked is very simplistic.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/426733/united-kingdom-uk-concern-about-climate-change/

The two points I would make are first that while 35% are very concerned that makes 65%, a clear majority, only fairly or not very concerned and second imagine how many more would not be concerned if the media coverage was more balanced and allowed a fair share of the coverage to come from Climate Realists. Interestingly CC advocates call sceptics ‘Deniers’ to tar them with the same brush as ‘Holocaust Deniers’ a tactic that currently works quite well for them.

The big issue is where in this debate is the public’s view considered and the answer is that it isn’t and the government forges ahead on the out pouring’s of CC alarmists although it should be note that not one previous doomsday prediction about our climate, form those associated with the CC industry has ever come true as seen here - https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

Finally our fourth demand would allow the people, if enough of them wished it, to have their say in an advisory referendum with the official campaign having to allow equal time for both sides of the debate and that I believe is far more democratic than the current situation where an increasing discredited PM can, under the influence of his fiancée, commit our country to spend £3 trillion to achieve ‘Net Zero’ which I and an increasing contingent in the scientific community believe to be almost entirely unnecessary.    

Wednesday, 21 April 2021

Understanding history is the ultimate passport to the future.

Studying history gives us the opportunity to learn from others' past mistakes. It helps us understand the many reasons why people may behave the way they do. As a result, it should help decision-makers become more impartial. The only trouble is that history seems to prove, time and time again, that we don’t learn from history!

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about Sir John Glubb’s research that showed how in the past all nations go through six stages ending with a decline into ‘Decadence’. Having written his essay ‘The Fate of Empires’ he was inundated with letters which prompted him to write a follow up essay ‘Search for Survival’ in which he analysed the reasons for our decline in more detail and proposed a remedy.

I had not read his second essay for a few years now, so whether subconsciously or not, I had also come to the same conclusions as to how we could at worse soften our decline and at best start a revival in our fortunes.

This is what his summary said:-

“The object of my first essay was not to moan that ‘the end is nigh’, rather the reverse. Our decline is due not to external forces over which we have no control, but to our own greed, selfishness and immortality, and to our loss of courage and energy, ‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves, that we are underlings.’ These failings which each one of us can help to rectify.

Our duty is therefore, to inaugurate movements for the reversal of these trends; scrupulously to carry out our duties to our families; to work as hard as we possibly can, and to carry our subordinates with us, through comradeship and personal relation; to seize every opportunity to speak and to write in favour of self-sacrifice, service and unselfishness. It is above all, the revival of our spirit which will transform our situation and guarantee our future.

Our country is obsessed by the grudging spirit of ‘why should I?’ We need leaders to inspire us once again with the spirit of selfless service. But if our leaders are incapable of setting us such an example, we must do it ourselves.

We need the spirit of the prophet who, when he heard that hard service was needed, cried joyfully, “Here am I! Send me!”

So, if our leaders won’t lead the way then we must do it ourselves and for me that means a peaceful mass movement providing relentless pressure on our politicians demanding they up their game and listen and react to their concerns. The BIG question is when will the people wake up to reality and then, importantly do something about it? It is because I believe reform to our system of governance, with the key recognition of the people’s inherent sovereignty, is a vital part of our renewal that I promote our agenda.

Finally, I would like to address those, who from the comfort of their mod con homes and life styles, believe that this age of ‘Decadence’ is grossly overstated and the ‘Liberal’ age in which we live has brought nothing but benefits. I would like to recommend that you read ‘Liberal Delusion – The roots of our current moral crisis’ by John Marsh and you might view things differently.

In conclusion it is certainly true that in the 10 years I have been promoting THA it has been a hard sell, which is because most people are still too comfortable, but as things get worse the people will demand change. When change comes it will not be one single ‘Big Bang’ improvement that will address our decline but hundreds of little changes that will set us on the course for our revival.