Showing posts with label Amber Rudd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amber Rudd. Show all posts

Monday, 30 April 2018

Opposition is easy

Well, it’s all change again. Overnight, the resignation (pushed?) of the Home Secretary has delighted the opposition and sent the government into panic. There is nothing which quite exemplifies the opposite of edifying as the sight of Labour’s dogs, snapping at the heels of Amber Rudd, spitting and snarling and sensing blood as they respond to the silent whistle of their master – grievance. We may be witnessing the death of the Conservative Party here; they have nothing to offer but independence.

And this is a big problem for politics generally. Ordinary people really should not be absorbed in the minutiae of governance in the same way government should not meddle in the minutiae of individual lives. Where your product is perfection, then micromanagement of every part of the process is essential. Where your product is in managing the unmanageable – human society – the less visible you are the better. Planned economies are failed economies, planned societies likewise.

I’m not saying you should have no interest in politics, but that interest should be directed at what the administration are doing to keep as far out of your lives as possible, concentrating on the bigger picture. If you look to others to determine your remuneration, your rent, the price you pay for your groceries and your overall spiritual well-being you really would be better off joining a cult. And this is why the Tories are dead in the water.

Nobody wants to hear the cold hard truth that the person who is most responsible for how your life turns out is you. Yes, it would be good if the streets were policed and people followed the rules. And it would be great if everybody had access to an education unfettered by faddish ideals and religious influences. And wouldn’t it be nice if we all earned enough to do what we want, within reason?

What the left - as typified by Corbyn’s crew - offers is to fix all the problems without any viable means of paying for it; they will rob those who produce to pacify those who don’t. And they can offer to do this because those who produce are generally too busy doing what they should be doing. Economies are not created by centralised committees but by the collective will of individual people making their own small decisions. This is what effective people do, all the time, often unaware that they are doing so.

In any economy there are winners and losers, but in strong, market economies the losers are still better off than the majority in planned, socialist economies. Yet this message is lost when you pander to the base instincts of the herd. We want more of this! We want less of that! Help me! Hurt them! And we demand that the person who did exactly what we might have done, no matter what we believed in, under the prevailing circumstances must pay with her career!

Is this really the best we can do?

Labour is the party of eternal opposition. Even in power it really knows only how to oppose. And you can always appeal to the disgruntled to form a mob and harry that which offends you. Want to know why there aren’t counter protests to support President Trump’s July visit when there are thousands ready and willing to go blue in the face screaming out hatred? It’s because being unhappy is easy. Being dissatisfied is a piece of piss. Exploiting people’s natural propensity to dissatisfaction is the lowest form of politics. But it may be all we have left.

Saturday, 28 April 2018

Amber Alert

For those wondering – both of you – where I’ve been, I’ve been banned from Twitter again. The first time it was for calling a soppy cunt a soppy cunt, which I sort of believed was the whole point of Twitter. This time it is for a number of historical ‘offences’ relating to the religion of peas, to wit; three old tweets which mildly criticised and questioned islam’s intentions. Oddly, I wasn’t banned for the multiple occasions on which I have called islam an outright cunt, which of course, it is.

Now I hear that the government is going to spend my money – and yours – in framing a legal definition of islamophobia. Well, I can save us all a lot of money by offering a working definition right now. islamophobia: an entirely rational response to the imposition of third-world cultural norms, the domination of city skylines by alien cult-worshipping structures and subjugation of the native population to religious fervour and barbaric attitudes to any form of opposition. That do you?

But it’s not just islam we should be worrying about. There has been a ‘progressive’ assault on our liberties and identity over the last few decades, propelled by the ludicrous and palpably false dogma that all immigration is good immigration and non-European immigration is the best immigration of all. Not only are we expected to accept and absorb the strictures of islam, but we must also embrace the backward tribal enmities of machete wielding sub-Saharan African ingrates. London is not becoming the murder capital of the developed world because of pretty, young, Swedish exchange students.

And talking of the Nordic races, the Danish immigration minister has dared to say openly a truth that so many of our own politicians are too afraid to confront: Not all immigrants are good people here to contribute. Some lie and cheat and use our tolerance against us and we should not be afraid of calling them out. The muslim community has been playing a long game under our noses and doing exactly that for generations; soon we will have actual blasphemy laws, not just the ersatz ones that got me suspended and have seen a few people jailed.

Yet still, in the midst of clear public anger, fear and incomprehension that our governments cannot see that millions of minimum wage workers with eight kids apiece, living in segregated ghettoes are, far from contributing, creating a huge drain on resources, there is talk of an amnesty for illegal immigrants. An amnesty? For crying out loud, even a huge proportion of legal immigrants are problem enough; start legalising – because you admit defeat on finding and deporting – and where does it all end? How soon before all you need to do is get one person from an African village onto British soil to create a conduit to import all of the rest?

In a ludicrous radio discussion on Radio 4’s PM the other day it was even argued that if an illegal immigrant had been here paying taxes for years they should be given right to remain. What? How are they paying taxes without a National Insurance Number? And how did they get a NI number if they are not legally allowed to be here? And if they are paying taxes, how in hell do we not know who they are? It is little wonder that the general public, we little people, not in possession of all the facts, unable to comment wisely and unwise to comment negatively, are frustrated to boiling point by it all.

 'Alright lads, we're in England. You can come out now!'

So while the Labour Party are angrily trying to force Amber Rudd to resign, for an admittedly clumsy administrative oversight (come on, who reads and remembers every sodding work email they ever received?) they are hoping we will forget they also tried to appeal to the voters by doing the exact, same thing. Read our lips: we want immigration rules controlled, regulated, policed and ultimately enforced. And if that means a ‘hostile’ environment for law-breakers so be it. This is why Amber Rudd should not only stay in office, she should face up to her critics, tell them to fuck off and then do the same with every illegal her resources can uncover.