RSS

Category Archives: Uncategorized

NK: The Horror Continues

And still it goes on ….. innocent children massacred …… unbelievable.

Isugans Past & Present

I find it hard to forgive China for supporting this disgusting regime.

Now Kim Jong-Un executes his late uncle’s entire family to prevent ‘mutiny’ – including women, children and the ambassadors to Cuba and Malaysia

Sources told the Yonhap News Agency it is unclear exactly when the family members were killed, but they are believed to have been put to death after Jang’s execution on December 12.

‘Some relatives were shot to death by pistol in front of other people if they resisted while being dragged out of their apartment homes,’ a source told Yonhap.Among those allegedly executed were Jang’s sister Jang Kye-Sun, her husband and Ambassador to Cuba Jon Yong-Jin and Jang’s nephew and Ambassador to Malaysia Jang Yong-Chol, as well as his two sons.

The children and grandchildren of Jang’s two brothers are also said to have been killed. One source told the news agency, which is publicly…

View original post 22 more words

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 29, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

The Responsibility Pact in Realspeak

 I have had time to think about Hollande’s 180° U-turn, now espousing policies that Mrs Thatcher herself would have been proud of. However, a politician’s words are (since Churchill at least, and after him Thatcher) always detached from reality to some extent or other.

So, the backroom boys have come up with a translation of Hollande’s programme, which if you remember was:

  • create some committees

  • identify possibly savings

  • implement them

  • reduce taxes

  • make life and costs easier for employers

Wonderful, inspiring stuff. The translation below, however, gives us a somewhat more realistic interpretation:

“As part of their ‘Responsibility Pact’, employers will take on millions of workers NOW (even if they are busy staving off bankruptcy) and we will set up lots of committees to see how we might make life easier and cheaper for companies sometime in the future, but not before 2017 at least. We will also find ways to cut state spending to the tune of 50 BILLION euros by 2017, and this will be done without sacking a single civil-servant (because they vote for us). Don’t ask me how we will save this money; that is the task of one of our committees, and if they don’t find a way it will of course be their fault.

It’s true that we socialists have no experience of downsizing the state, cutting bureaucracy or reducing taxes, but we work fast. For example, it is only 18 months since the election and yet next month we set up our first committees to investigate where we might be able to save money. We may even – eventually – be able to cancel some of the new tax increases planned on top of the over 74 new or increased taxes since I was elected. And in any case, by the time the committees report, growth in the economy will make any implementation of their conclusions unnecessary. Either that, or Germany will have paid off our debts to save the euro. You may therefore ask why we are bothering with the committees if :

A) they will only report years from now and

B) we will ignore them anyway and

C) even if we try to implement cuts the unions will bring the country to a standstill

D) sustained and massive growth will cure all the problems so that we can carry on as before

Well, in answer to your question, “What is the point of this charade?”, please remember that we in the French political elite specialize in charades, and this one is intended to give the impression that I am doing something useful during daylight hours, the only time I am available of course.

VIVE LA FRANCE!”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 22, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Britain’s Eternal Disgrace

This is an old topic, but it will not go away. Today we read this headline in “The Daily Telegraph”:

Home buying will be out of reach for an ‘entire generation’

Average prices in London will soar by more than 43pc to £650,000, research by the National Housing Federation and Oxford Economics warns.

There are four fundamental elements which any civilised society must organize for its people:

  • food
  • shelter & clothing
  • defence
  • health

Of course, none of these can be easily provided without education, so that could be a fifth, and transportation & infrastructure to facilitate all the others a sixth.

Britain does OK on food and clothing in general, but defence, health and education are decidedly wobbly and housing is a total disaster, a disgrace, a shameful blot – so appalling that we can hardly call ourselves “developed”.

As a benchmark, we could consider so-called “primitive” societies, such as:

  • Eskimoes
  • “Red” Indians from North America
  • Other “Indians” and natives from all corners of the Earth: Borneo, Brazil etc
  • Africans
  • Arabic nomadsand of course
  • cavemen

To my knowledge, ALL the above races/peoples manage(d) to provide shelter for their people, and moreover shelter which BELONGS or BELONGED TO THE DWELLERS. Have you ever seen a homeless Red Indian dossing outside a tipi?

Yet in Britain, we not only have the TRULY homeless who sleep rough, but a rapidly-increasing non-propertied class that does not own and thus control its own dwelling. The housing market in our nation has reached shameful and appalling heights of “unfairness”. Some people do not like the word “fair”, but it is in fact the essence of “socialism” in the truest sense. And by this I do not mean the absurd and nonsensical anti wealth-destroying and class-hatred  poverty served up by the so-called “Labour” Party, but the kind seen in Scandinavia to a large extent where the encouragement of wealth-creation goes hand in hand with commonsense fairness allied to rigour in preventing abuse.

The number of families in Britain owning their own dwelling is declining as property prices hit the roof, this being due to government lunacy. Housing should be almost number 1 priority. Of course, one has to eat and avoid dying of cold, but there is not a lot of point in fantastic health and education provision if you have to sleep under a bridge OR indeed pay a large proportion of your income to a landlord.

Instead of which, what do we have?

A) VAST immigration and

B) APPALLING insufficiency of house-building

C) The encouragement given to LANDLORDS, who have an unearned income at someone else’s expense – just as in feudal times, the word “landlord” being wonderfully appropriate

D) Government GLEE at rising house prices and the corresponding “feel-good factor” for themselves and the propertied. (The “feel-bad factor” for the non-propertied is irrelevant it seems.)

“Landlords”? And there was me hoping they might have died out in the early Middle-Ages, with the abolition of feudalism. No such luck: we even still have Lords – Mandelscum for a start. In essence, landlords are no better than their feudal counterparts. Merely because they own a property THEY DO NOT NEED FOR THEMSELVES they can exploit the housing needs of someone else. And of course, landlords will screw the MAXIMUM out of people that they can, this being part of the “free market” and grateful acceptance of “the market price”.

Anyone suggesting we apply the same principles to HEALTH would be scorned as a 19th century capitalist, yet we seem happy to allow “the market” to take away many people’s dreams of ever owning their own dwelling. And the latter gives a completely different perspective on society than for those who rent. As a tenant, your life is forever precarious. You feel temporary – living in someone else’s property. And what happens when you get old? You pay rent for years and have nothing to show for it at the end. FINE – if it is a choice, but as the article makes clear, there practically IS NO LONGER A CHOICE for millions.

The free market: Personally, I believe the free market is essential for the creation of wealth. everywhere the free market in goods has been abolished in favour of some lunatic form of Marxism it has resulted in poverty and usually oppression. The latter is of course because a controlled economy is nonsense and impoverishes people,  who in the end revolt and have to be controlled in their turn.

However – as one of the fundamentals – housing cannot be subject to the same kind of free market as is involved in flogging tins of beans, since – as we are now seeing – this simply means that many people will be priced out of a home or end up paying a ludicrous proportion of their income in rent to someone who DOES NOT HAVE TO WORK to get this money.

“Ah, but being a landlord DOES involve work.” Pls do not insult my intelligence. This is not “work” as we know it. Many landlords have multiple properties with huge incomes which are essentially unearned.

This is of course immoral, unfair, selfish and will lead to revolution. In recent years, the rich-poor gap has been increasing at an insane rate and the hyper-rich group moving stratospherically away from the rest, ESPECIALLY those who do not own a property. It is now getting to the point where an ordinary citizen with no property to inherit can NEVER aspire to own his or her dwelling unless they move to somewhere north of Leeds where there is no work. No society with immense gaps in wealth has survived as a democratic entity; it always degenerates into revolution and subsequent dictatorship of either “left” or “right” depending on who prevails, but in either case it is essentially the same thing.

Unearned income: At the same time, those who DO own a property see their wealth accumulate through NO EFFORT OF THEIR OWN. The mortgage-free element of the propertied classes can use their ENTIRE income on whatever they like, while even those who OWN a house but have a large mortgage spend much of their lives paying a very large proportion of their income to finance it. The non-propertied of course pay an even larger part of their income on rent and have NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT AFTER DECADES of payment. Meanwhile the landlord not only has had the rent but has seen the value of his property rocket out of sight.

This is all totally immoral. Apart from the financial aspect, living in a place you can call your OWN is a totally different feeling from living in someone ELSE’S dwelling. This ALSO is not “fair”.

The last Labour government did not have a clue what to do about this of course, despite calling itself (can this still be true?) the party of “the working class” (how Blair fits in here is a mystery, having just bought one of his sons a three million quid flat). The last Labour government actually FAVOURED “Buy-to-let”, the most selfish and odious policy I can remember in my entire life.

The main point is that it USED to be possible for a couple to work hard and save up for a few years to scrape enough cash together for a deposit on a house,. This is now becoming impossible for “ordinary” people.

OK, so there is a big problem and it is getting worse. It is always easy to define a problem, but less so to propose an effective solution. One of the MAIN problems here is that those who MAKE our policies are almost ALL in the propertied class. Do you know any MPs who do not own their own dwelling? Every time house prices rise they are laughing – not in public of course – there are lots of crocodile tears – but in private they must be rubbing their hands in glee as their net worth rockets WITHOUT THEIR HAVING TO LIFT A FINGER. Blair’s flat must be worth near to a MILLION QUID more than he paid for it a short time ago. It is all like the casino of the stock market.

This the problem we face; politicians will pay lip-service to the need for “more housing”, but NOTHING RADICAL IS EVER DONE and the problem gets WORSE AND WORSE whoever is in power. They really ARE “all in this together”, but THIS IS NO WAY TO RUN A HOUSING POLICY.

What to do? The solutions I propose will hurt some people. However, just like a serious cancer, you can’t cure it with a sticking-plaster.

A Moral Housing Policy

A) All housing shall ultimately belong to the state. However, citizens may buy and sell dwellings according to the principles below.

B) NOBODY shall own MORE than one dwelling until ALL those over 25 own ONE (if they want their own dwelling of course – they may prefer to live with someone else, in which case they do not HAVE a dwelling of their own and certainly not one to rent out. All single people 25 or older may own a dwelling (provided they LIVE in it), but if they marry, one of the parties must sell it. If they separate, they must buy their own dwelling once again (if they prefer), the payment going to the state.

C) NOBODY shall live in a dwelling with more than 10 times the average floorspace per inhabitant of that dwelling than the average for the country as a whole. It is completely immoral for a rich oligarch to live in a vast palace while thousands of native Britons are homeless or live in rabbit-hutches. Large mansions must be divided up into flats of different sizes, luxuries and values as indicated below. The Royal Family shall be an exception to this law except that they may only have ONE “super-dwelling”, either Windsor, Buckingham Palace, Sandringham or Balmoral: the other palaces must be divided up into multiple separate dwellings. Obviously they may have their OWN dwellings like all other citizens as described in these articles – always within the floorspace regulations.

D) The price of dwellings will depend not on “the free market” but fixed by the state. The actual price of a dwelling shall depend on a combination of 1) its size (see B above) 2) its location (decided much as now) and 3) as a proportion of the average earnings of the population. The value of housing shall rise in strict accordance with the average rise in earnings.

This will retain elements of the “free market” (which of course is not free at all to those excluded from it) but avoid the excesses, bubbles and for millions hopelessness of the present anarchy.

E) Dwellings may be passed on to offspring, but IF SO, the new occupier must pay a mortgage to the state (unless they have already paid one for another house). In other words, NOBODY may live in a dwelling which they have not paid for. Wealth accumulated elsewhere (or given by a friend or relative) may not be used to purchase a dwelling. In this way, all citizens will be on the same foot; they will all pay the going-rate for their dwelling. However, IF a citizen has PAID for ONE dwelling but then has to move, he or she will not have to pay for their NEW one.

F) Owners may decorate and/or modify their dwellings as they like, but plans for major works shall be submitted for approval as is the current practice.

No doubt this system will need some fine-tuning, as I do not have an army of geniuses working out the detail. HOWEVER, NOTHING like it will EVER be put into place because as I made clear earlier,. it is NOT IN THE LONG OR SHORT-TERM INTERESTS OF THE CURRENTLY-PROPERTIED, and this latter group includes almost ALL the political, financial and business establishment elite which controls everything.

But, IF it is not implemented then the rich-poor gap will increase FOR EVER, especially because of the pernicious effect of inheritance. The latter is like crisps, burgers and of course alcohol; you know that too much will be bad for you in the long run but you go on consuming them ANYWAY.

QED

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 29, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

Politics, Trade and Immorality

cameron-seriousDavid Cameron (the current British Prime Minister!) recently took some flak for endangering Britain’s trade with China, specifically possible inward investment in infrastructure that the Chinnese might make in Britain. Let’s leave aside for the moment the fact that this makes us resemble some quasi-colonised African state and consider some facts. Our Great Leader’s sin was to have met the Dalai Lama, who as we know the Chinese government consider to be an unperson. Three facts spring to mind, all pretty much indisputable I think.

A) North Korea is virtually a gigantic concentration camp, but worse, since the people are brainwashed as well as being subject to oppression and frequent death by famine while the leaders live in luxury.

B) China has supported the country practically and politically for decades. Without China’s help this loathsome family dictatorship – first among equals on the planet – would have collapsed decades ago.

C) China is one of our biggest and most important trading partners.

To make it even clearer, we do a massive amount of business with a country that is accomplice to and facilitator of oppression and mass-murder on a horrendous scale. The vast scale of this business allows the Chinese government to maintain its dictatorship and build up its armed forces, launching periodic bellicose threats towards Taiwan and other sovereign territories in the region.

The Western world seems quite happy with this state of affairs, or if not exactly “happy” then certainly accepting and of course profiting from it.

CONCLUSION: The entire western world is utterly immoral.

Please note that I have tried to be logical, though the last point is obviously a value-judgement.

What is puzzling about all this is that we seemed to adopt a moral high-horse at some cost to ourselves when it came to apartheid in South Africa, but not when it comes to North Korea, where people are in fact treated much worse. This could I suppose be because it was the Europeans who colonised most of Africa and so we felt a special guilt and had a special responsibility to try to put things right. But – being logical once more – “No man is an island.”, it seems bizarre to treat one group of oppressed and suffering humans differently from another. Brutal oppression is the same everywhere, and if globalisation is right for business then why not for the fight against human suffering at the hands of mass-murdering criminal family gangs?

Our Great Leader should tell the Chinese government to stick it. If it comes to a boycott of their goods (fat chance – we are too greedy), THEY would be the ones to suffer. And in the west, our unemployed workers could start making toasters and stuff again. Or a boycott would boost other third-world countries much worse off than China.

Whatever, it all leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

North Korea – FURTHER READING:

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 9, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

Let’s Break the Law, shall we?

I’ve just realized something that seems to have gone unnoticed.

A) Some months ago, the UK and The Czech Republic refused to sign the Fiscal Pact and thus submit an element of control over their finances to an extermal power. This was the so-called Cameron veto.

B) Though without effect (what a surprise there …) the UK got a tsunami of insults and slagging-off from the core-EU powers – we were (are) selfish, un-European and so on.

C) NOW the French President wants to rip up the pact that Sarko signed. This is in essence the SAME STANCE that wse took, but WHERE IS THE MUD-SLINGING that we were subject to

Funny old world, innit.

OH – Hollande et al want the Germans to mutualize debt by issuing eurobonds. That is is AGAINST THE GERMAN CONSTITUTION – or if you prefer it in blunt language – ILLEGAL.

C) He also wants the ECB to give money directly to governments. That is AGAINST the ECB rules.

So, the new white knight of Europe wants two totally illegal acts to be committed.

Well done, Sir. A jolly good start. He is of course supported by the EU establishment, especially ex-Trotskyist Borroso ….

What a load of utter tossers they are.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 25, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

EuroFarce Round-up

  • Lagarde AGAIN! “She added that “somebody has to pay the price” of Greece’s unmanageable debts.”

    This staggering assumption – WHY must “someone pay”? And if she is right, then the CREDITORS must pay. Does she live in a parallel universe?

    I think what she means is “Totally innocent plebs must pay.” Yes, that’s about it.

  • “Michael Meister, a member of Mrs Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union party, said there was nothing to stop France and Italy from going it alone on common bonds.”

    This would be great. Franco-Italian Bonds. (FIBS)

    And why not  Spanish, Portuguese, Irish and Greek Bonds bonds? (SPIGBOS).

    They could be created in their millions and go immediately to junk status to save time …..

    But poor old Herr Meister just doesn’t get it. The only POINT of “eurobonds” is to get your grubby hands on German money ……

  • “Worryingly, new French President François Hollande

    says he’s unaware of any memo asking countries to develop a contingency plan
    at all.”

    ????!!!!?? Any government NOT making contingency plans for a Greek exit for MONTHS now is three legs short of a table. Why the HELL do they need a MEMO?

    Hollande is turning out to be a serial buffoon.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 23, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , ,

Aside

DOCTORS BLAME THE GOVERNMENT FOR OBESITY

For God’s Sake – IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF GOVERNMENT.

Why don’t ALL the party leaders do a joint press conference where they say:

“Many of you are obscenely FAT, BUT

THIS IS YOUR FAULT.

WORSE, you make your KIDS fat and condemn them to lives of ill health and general degraded quality.

And THEN you expect the state to fix your problems? YOU ARE DELUDED, DERANGED, MORALLY BANKRUPT and CRETINOUS.

Have you NO self-respect? NO consideration for others? Why should the rest of us have to put up with your slobbish lack of self-discipline?

The parties have jointly agreed that anyone over a certain BMI will get no benefits or medical treatment whatsoever and will have their kids taken away and sent to health farms on the basis of cruelty by their parents.”

THAT might have an effect, but government measures WON’T. ONLY a return to self-respect and the end of the “Someone owes me a living” and “I can do what the fuck I like” mentality are going to get us out of this unbelievable and appalling morass of moral decrepitude.

God knows I blame the government for enough things, but obesity? STOP BLAMING OTHERS FOR YOUR OWN GENERAL MORAL TURPITUDE.

DOCTORS BLAME T…

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 15, 2012 in Uncategorized