Wednesday, 8 January 2014

The enemies of civilisation

The enemy exposed

Having seen snippets from this article yesterday I realised a very simple formula. Society will become civilised when we no longer have enemies like this trying to destroy it. Whether Socialist Workers who attack every feature we have spent hundreds of years working to develop to make our lives all better, including theirs if they only realised it, to Muslims around the world, who kill random westerners if their country (or one anywhere) kill a single Muslim, but happy to wipe out thousands of other Muslims themselves when they happen to come from a different tribe.

Taking some of the most extreme examples, I hope you will be able to see both the general position and all lesser examples, as what every one of these individuals and groups has in common is they want to take away or destroy what you have worked to create, and others before you. I will begin by quoting some of the best classics from the article.

Firstly, being socialists, they have jumped on the bandwagon of global warming to promote the policies they have always wanted to undo the world's industry and civilisation under the false blanket of saving the planet. So when the northern hemisphere suffers extreme winters, first in Europe for a few years running and now America, they simply make stuff up "But Arctic weather systems are slipping south into the US because the Arctic is no longer cold enough to keep them there."

Yes, and the average temperature is presumably increasing but while the Arctic air is actually spreading in the north and ice increasing in the south since records began in the 70s, it surely must be rising somewhere else to raise the average overall otherwise these changes could never be driven by global warming. That is actually something many pressure groups have forgotten, since they called it climate change (from global warming) some new arrivals and old hands are now simply looking at climate changes (which are its nature) and blaming them on, er, the climate changing. How scientific.

Then they swiftly follow up with "But our rulers don’t want to talk about the rapidly shrinking ice cap—because turning it around would mean taking on a system that puts profit first." They don't actually go into any more details, which is not surprising, as 90% of the world's ice down south has grown since it was first measured by satellites, something quite unlike the temperature, and while the far thinner and entirely sea ice of the Arctic has indeed shrunk overall, it grew 50% this winter after a record low, as that is what it can do each year in response to local conditions. Then history tells us they navigated the North Pole by sea about 200 years ago which would not be possible today. And similar reports were being published in the 1920s when the polar ice was also very low and temperatures high. And unlike world or local temperature we can all see the ice clearly and they can't adjust its extent to suit the plans.

To give them their credit, they did call it global warming, so scored one point by sheer chance more than intent, which is still ironic as the advantages from warming won't be outweighed by the possible (they don't actually know as we've never witnessed it) disadvantages till it exceeds 2C, which we will never see.

Back to the general point, enmity comes in all shapes and sizes. In the west it usually has a reason to justify its actions, saving the planet or making the world safer or fairer. This justifies road and travel restrictions, to the point of attempting to ban cars altogether. Then raising energy prices so high the poor can freeze and the rest (except the rich) spend most of their income on it, while in the third world they don't need reasons besides either the wrath of God or ancient tribal feuds going back centuries, and just randomly wipe out their neighbours or the president steals their money without the justification of needing to collect carbon taxes. Either way the people suffer unnecessarily, and the freedoms and wealth of everyone involved is put at risk at the justification of a greater cause being sacrificed for. Of course some rulers actually believe removing the money of the better off makes the worse off better off, so feel very noble raising taxes to 75% and more as they feel they are really doing some good. But the reasons for being dangerous are not relevant, as whatever the intentions of a murderer, even if they believe the victim is Satan and they are saving the world by destroying them, an innocent person has still been murdered. If a million people are deluded into believing women are witches and must save the area by killing them, or removing more wealth from those who have worked to collect it, the results are identical and they are no less the enemy than the suicide bombers who have been programmed to believe all westerners or anyone else they target has been ordered to die by Allah and they will be rewarded for doing so.

So, the intentions, like the motivation for a crime, is irrelevant. We have millions of confused people, many in power with the ability to carry out their madness, who are either anything from pure evil, mental or just misguided, who have the common features of doing all they can for their own personal reasons to take away what you and I have. Until we reach a point where such views are the minority and no longer able to have any influence in either politics or warfare, we will not be civilised as a society worldwide, and only when we reach the point where everyone realises there is enough for us all, if others do well it does not mean there is less for everyone else, you cannot succeed by taking what they have for yourself or to give it to others, and attacking others physically is no different to how we were in the stone age.

No matter what form the enmity takes the results are the same. Your freedom and property are at risk. Being told what we can and cannot say or think in the cause of fairness is inexcusable. We all have some opinions others will find obnoxious, but the mark of civilisation is we do not act on them. Our personal tastes and opinions are unique and not subject to an outside authority saying if we even dare to think homosexuality is not normal, even though we do nothing about it and probably have never even said so in public, makes us evil and ideally liable for prosecution is more of a crime than anything they can accuse people of thinking. How many people haven't wanted to kill or hurt someone at times in their lives, but so far thinking bad thoughts has never been illegal as the test of being decent is you do not act on the thoughts everyone has which the indecent do act on. So whether you enjoy being part of an area where English is rarely heard or not, or wonder how any marriage not between a male and female can be considered marriage, let alone equal, it is no one else's place to criminalise you for disagreeing with them. Our personal feelings and preferences are something we witness, and as such are not generally in control of them, but only in control of what we do about them. That is why some people become violent when they are drunk. The alcohol does not change them, it just removes their inhibitions. So unless they were naturally violent and restrained themselves then no amount of alcohol could make it happen. This restraint is what makes people with views and feelings you may not like or are hostile civilised, as everyone has a mixture of them and no one is a saint and believes every single politically correct view they may pretend to in public.

Take the disabled. There is a list in every council in Britain of banned words, cripple, backward, Mongol, spastic, idiot, imbecile etc., all medical words used till the late 20th century until someone decided because some kids used them to insult each other in the playground new words must be used as they were demeaning to the real cripples and spastics. Except if you actually know anyone who is disabled you start to discover they are not personally part of this loop, and some call themselves crippled, handicapped, and far worse, as they have got used to living with these disabilities and are comfortable with them, while the guilty left of north London who are no more disabled than not knowing how to wire a plug, and could probably buy a council block rather than a single flat, decide on other people's behalf what you can and can't think or say about them. They are the enemy, they have patronisingly chosen who they see as the underdogs and made up an entire set of artificial rights for them, which by using their inherent power and connections, can then enforce through a combination of laws and media reporting to make the great majority of society go along with at the penalty of losing your job or worse, while the disabled and immigrants do not want to be treated that way, and Muslims do celebrate Christmas and many immigrants do not want more coming in either.

Emnity comes in infinite forms, but based on a single model. Groups and individuals with or without the power to carry out their wishes whose beliefs mean they think society cannot be as they think it should be without taking something away from others in any way at all. I am not talking about reasonable taxation, but as the overall take reduces when tax rises above around 50% as people leave, stop working or avoid payment, any tax above that simply hurts people for absolutely no benefit for others. Taking a set of opinions and making them the only ones you are allowed to have, whether or not the alleged victims want them themselves is not caring of fairness, but a variation of imposing your own wishes on others on pain of great loss. I don't think many of the furthest of the western extremists condone suicide bombing, although some like George Galloway and Ken Livingstone befriend its promoters and agree with their general causes, and every other element I am describing only vary in degree. Killing a patient as the ambulance can't get to them in time to save them as there are humps on the road is no different to a random religious assassination of an infidel. Just because one is clear and obvious with absolutely no possible justification outside a delusion, and the other is hidden and extremely subtle, the act and intentions behind the act are no better however the killing happens.

We could all cooperate. There is enough for everyone, and the only threat to this is the exponentially growing world population which threatens space and resources being stretched. There is more than enough to feed the world at its current population, and while terrorists kill the opposition in South Sudan simply as they don't like the president and want theirs instead, we are infested with enemies at the most obvious level worldwide while on the subtle levels they either hide their atrocities behind other policies or get other people to do it for them. You must also be able to recognise them, as in the west half the attacks are in the shadows and unless you learn the ways of the silent killers they will become as inherent as a herpes virus which is invisible to our immune system and lives within us for life. Once recognised and understood, you can then read the enemy as well as the white cells can see the known germs arriving and if you can't throttle them like a macrophage can at least recognise them for exactly who they are and not fall for their subtle persuasion many innocent people take on and use to attack the others they are told require it. The bottom line is you can't build by destroying, you can't create freedom by restricting it, and can't enhance life by taking it away from others.

Therefore, as long as we have tribes and religious groups intent on dominating and destroying their enemies, political movements based on the shortage mentality, division and unity (they are actually sides of the same coin), we will be no more mature as a society than the decadent empires of history or the stone age. The division is created by demonising anyone against their views of enforced unity, from Mao's Cultural Revolution where everyone had to dress the same, to the Londonista's view of multicultural diversity we must accept or be sent to re-education camps. In the end diversity and multiculturalism becomes homogenised, as everywhere is an equal mix of races, cultures and types, and by intermarrying in the end there will indeed be no races to speak of as everyone will have mixed together over so many generations that racial differences will have been bred away. Of course many people believe this is a good thing, but many do not, and those are both their opinions, and dare I say equally valid. And anyone who disagrees either opinion is right is the enemy. Get it now?

Having more than a few fringe lunatics operating alone in a society means there is still something wrong with it as a whole. We may not be eating people, making people spend their life in the caste they were born in, or murder widows as people have only a hundred or so years ago, but we still have people boiling animals alive for food in Asia, terrorist bombers worldwide (although nearly all are Muslims, which is just an unfortunate statistic), low interest rates wrecking half the world's economies, subsidies for wind and solar which don't produce more than they cost, massive levels of existing and planned taxation on the rich, planned energy rationing (see the Stern Report and UN documents), reduced pass levels for exams, match fixing, protection for organised criminals (who's been prosecuted for fraud in the Libor fixing or Hillsborough for a start?), and the claims it's colder in the winter due to global warming while Antarctic ice continues to grow every single year which accounts for 90% of the world's ice? However stupid the claims, if people still believe them they will continue. These used to be the exception to the rule, now they are the rule itself. We can't rely on Marx's pendulum to swing the other way, we must be aware of it and root it out at every level.

No comments:

Post a Comment