Framework 8/24 to rebalance Economies of East and West Europe

Retro-digitize 1992

The purpose of “The Retro-digitize 1992 Single Market Campaign” is to make available via photo, text and video sharing services all the original publicity created by the Conservative government leading up to the 1992 Single Market. This is so people can be better informed how much the agenda has moved on or “strayed”, depending on the point of view.

Knowledge of the history of the DTI Know-How fund and the role of such organisations as The Tide2000 Business Club during the early 1990s East-West technology transfer is an important step towards imposing tougher restrictions upon economic migrants from Eastern. Understanding this background history better helps explain how a new European Marshall Plan for Eastern Europe could provide a sensible alternative to fund capital transfers by the old ways, rather than by migrant remittances to Eastern Europe.

Proposed E-Democracy Clause for European Parliament

The proposal is that the European Parliament establishes a working party to collate in electronic format a comprehensive index of all published information on “electronic democracy” and other keywords of similar meaning. That appropriate weight is given under this index classification to observe Europe’s inheritance of democratic traditions to function both as monarchies and republics. To recognise within this appraisal process that Europe’s future path towards a more inclusive electronic democracy process cannot be safely done without proper consideration of how such traditions afford nations political safeguards. To apply the indexing and updating process so it identifies and highlights areas where protection of democratic freedoms may require the dual provision of statutory clauses in any proposed future European constitution.

Should all else fail…

Foundation of the West European Nationalist Party

We affirm the singularity of purpose behind the European Single Market of 1992 and supports the aims of the West European Nationalists to create a new semi-autonomous union for all the East European nations outside of the “Single Market”, to terminate within due process of the law all leases for the stationing of American military bases in Western Europe and to lobby NATO to immediately desist from further satellite shield building aggressions against Russia under threat of subsequent motion for its dissolution.

An 8/24 Proposal for Western Europe

This proposes a European flag/languages ratio conversion from the current 9/12 ratio to 8/24. The reduction of the number of languages to 8 is specifically targeted at removing English as an official language. While this might seem counter-intuitive, it obviously is the only language that could be removed without prejudice. English remains unique in the world through the American position of economic powerhouse and only vague illusion would confer on Britain any current position in maintaining its preferred use as second language amongst other European nations. The benefits to removing English as an official language are multiple:

 

  1. Europe will be less inclined to protective measures against cultural erosion, protected behind natural language barriers that are not threatened by global necessity. France’s leading position in fighting to preserve the authenticity of its language syntax need not do so with such fervour once the fear of encroachment of Americanism’s is not added to by a natural rivalry with the British and Irish.
  2. Budgetary costs will be dramatically saved by the reduction in just one official language. Such translation as is necessary can be re-directed through Canada, the French Canadians being the solution to any translation needs from French. Translators are a costly and scarce resource, not more so than in the discipline of the English language and these translators will be easily mopped up the general global business community. Translation costs saved, operating costs within the European and global business community will fall.
  3. Parliamentary candidates from Britain to the European Parliament will come to reflect a more genuine European social and cultural outlook. Pre-selection will mainly determine that elected candidates can express themselves in one of the remaining 8 official languages, and Europe will spared the English embarrassment of being a second rate political route for parliamentary failures. With time, the European Parliament could evolve so that the use of English within it was indeed forbidden by social convention. Thus for example bilingual Scotsmen would represent Scotland with a sophisticated European outlook that matched their non-English speaking counterparts. This can never happen while English remains the first language of America and every candidate with English as the mother tongue holds special status as a free language tutor in the business language of first choice.
  4. Such arrangements as current with the 9 official languages, while seeming fair, only serve to exacerbate cultural distances by allowing the English language to dominate through the an accidental consequence of distant colonial history. Without change, Britain will retain in a peculiar and uncomfortable position vis-à-vis Europe. This is far beyond any treatment warranted that the status of land not adjoining a continent could be. It also serves to exaggerate the democratic deficit when the European Parliament or The Commission easily becomes a welcoming bolt-hole for failed or retired UK politicians with the gift of the gab.

The advantage of 24 stars in the European flag rather than 12 is not concrete. However it is a commitment to the expansion of the number of European states within the European Union (which has been above 12 for some time). The actual expansion of the number of states above the existing number may not be desirable, but at least the doubling of the symbolic representation of states involved by a flag improvement would meet with approval from the external nations and onlookers in general. Since some type of expansion began occurring with the amplification of 2004, hostility to reversing some of these changes can be mitigated with the use of such symbolism. The West European Nationalist Party looks forward to a time when East-West integration will take place without wage exploitation, something possible only once equivalent standards of living are attained.

Pro-abortion arguments can support higher birth rates of specific groups

Introduction

As someone generally in support of all progress in medical science, greater restrictions on abortion are not one of those areas in principle that I favour. To me it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The sledgehammer is used to attack scientific progress and the nut is a dysfunctional, low birth-rate, West European society.

When the printing press came along (a scientific development) one reaction was to oppose it because of the damage such an explosion of access to reading brought to society (I’m simplifying things). The aims of the anti-abortion movement will not turn around decreasing birth rates in the long term, because the “cat is out of the bag” in respect to this new science.

My “pro-abortion” policy arguments to support higher birth rates are as follows:

  1. The population of Saudi Arabia has increased from 5 million to 25 million in the 40 years from 1965. America has pursued a non-colonial policy of letting the Arabs keep their oil and paying the costs of defending it. That cannot go on. Britain was forced to make India part of the Empire precisely because paying twice (to defend supply and then buy the supply) is unsustainable in the long-term for all sorts of reasons. As a consequence of that windfall income Saudi Arabia has massively grown in population and promoted globally a growing religious divide in the customary treatment of the “weaker sex” – women. One obvious factor behind the population growth is the high level of unearned income enjoyed by Saudi Arabians. Even the most ardent non-Muslim anti-abortionist would not advocate treating West European women in the same restrictive way. Therefore the obvious factor, the exploitation of trade systems to generate large unearned incomes remains for us the primary way to population growth.
  2. New, unearned income is not easily achievable for West European societies because exploitation of the global trade system is already regarded as imbalanced in our favour. The difference between earned and unearned is however important. Encouraging most women to earn a living and permitting free market policies to champion an elite few enjoying “unearned income” (in as much as a man cannot really “earn” a salary of millions) increases our national income, but not our unearned income. That situation could be tackled by new economic policy which would not require additional exploitation of the global trade system. However would new economic policy, coupled with restrictions on women’s rights (as anti-abortion movements inherently are), be counter-productive? This essay attempts to answer that. The conclusion is that the biggest threat to prosperity is paganism and that the anti-abortion movements are unintentionally stimulating paganism. Therefore the most successful combination of economic and social policy to return West European societies to high birth rates is an economic policy to share more widely “unearned income” and a social policy that defends with vigour the feminist movement’s new scientific values: pro-abortion.
  3. Fertility treatments of older women, who have pursued a career over motherhood, are equivalent to the medical value of cosmetic surgery. It has a grotesque element behind it since the medical procedure is being used to support a deliberate choice of empowerment. This is not the same as with abortion where a mistake was made and the woman has repented of the error. It is also not the same as treating smokers or other addicts for health problems. The grotesque element here is related to social rules reminiscent of Nietzsche’s philosophy of Superman, females pushing bodies and careers to new limits. Without new intervention this is the direction Western European Society is heading in. It will increase the birth rate marginally so.
  4. On a wider issue, workplaces could be more paternal and the state less maternal for a variety of reasons. Employers could be free to discriminate against the employment of homosexuals if that is done as part of a policy of fostering an environment of stable employment for men with duties to provide for a family. That is obviously a controversial argument and beyond the scope of the discussion of the pro-abortion argument here.
  5. Increasing the UK population by adopting babies from abroad (paid or otherwise) is likely to be seen as a modern form of slavery by future generations. Without new intervention this is the direction Western European Society is heading in. It will increase the population by as much as we are prepared to sanction this type of exploitation.
  6. The genetics of the UK is made up of many racial groups absorbed over hundreds of years. However this absorption was done via military conquest (up to and including 1066). The fact the UK genetic makeup is derived from being defeated by stronger racial groups in the past, is not evidence each new or threatened absorption is a natural or evolutionary event for the UK in the future. Permitting hundreds of thousands of East Europeans to settle and raise children in the UK will change our genetic makeup forever. The British stood up as a matter of principle to defend Poland by declaring war on Hitler. The Battle of Britain, the pivotal point of fortunes in the war, was not won for Britain “by Polish fighter pilots”. This is to confuse the two issues.
  7. It is also false to say the Afro-Caribbean wave of immigration was the same thing and imply hostility to this new wave of immigration is a kind of racist attitude. Generally the reverse is true. The intention here is to twist vocabulary and deliberately reject the racial progress generations of UK citizens have made. That is by declaring racism to be something unrelated to skin colour. East Europeans are coming from a class ridden (Communist past) without any exposure to non-white races over a prolonged period of time. By default the permanent settlement of millions of East Europeans is the direction UK is heading in because of low birth rates. This is something on a much, much larger scale that the Afro-Caribbean wave of immigration. The social policy issues raised are also very different.
  8. The biggest impact is the sheer capacity for inflows from Eastern Europe and because superficially they are “just like us” (i.e. white) there is no need to do anything in Western Europe to raise birth rates. No new economic or social policy objectives are required if the low birth rate of West European societies can simply be answered by replacing long-term labour shortages with East Europeans. The state politicians who advocate this solution to the demographic crisis of Western Europe are however gambling that a multi-cultural generation will happily accept it. This is to underestimate the whole impact of creating a classless, racially tolerant society since the end of World War 2 in Europe.
  9. Racial tolerance is not created overnight and East Europeans will not be able to assimilate those values before the demographic crisis of management hits Western Europe as the Yuppie generation retires. The multi-cultural generation will then be in command and very likely to react in panic to their peer group from Eastern Europe who grew up behind the iron curtain but now sleep in beds next door. This would be an eventuality anyway because of the divergent age demographics of Europe created by the opposing political structures of the Cold War. However the current generation in command by failing to recognise this eventuality are doing two things. First they are failing to recognise that is a problem that can still be corrected. Instead they are pursuing policies that are worsening the demographic imbalance. Secondly they are creating a massive potential of backlash they will face in their retirement age since the multi-cultural generation once in a command will not only panic but be resentful of their lost opportunity to have had children.
  10. The multi-cultural generation (once in management command) will either need to stop being multi-cultural (and accept the arrival of huge numbers of East Europeans to care for the retired) or severely restrict the amount of labour available to care for the retired. The second option is much more likely and the use of robotics (requiring large capital investment) is the likely to be the scientific solution. The first option is less likely because it would be a vote by a whole generation to abolish their new powers. The first option (re-defining multi cultural) is more probable if the current influx of East Europeans managed to assimilate some West European multi-cultural values fast enough. However the current “no quota” immigration policy towards Eastern Europe greatly restricts that probability of assimilation occurring. Sheer numbers create large independent communities with limited opportunity or pressure to assimilate.
  11. Without the intervention of new social policy this will create a rather perverse situation in a decade where a massive retired population starts being cared for coldly and clinically via robotic systems and a generation in command have very few adult children. Their main command priority will be to implement social policies to encourage what adult children there are to have large families, to replace the numbers shot to pieces by the social and economic policies of the generations that went before. Western and Eastern Europe will be divided by cultural barriers once again. Western Europe will inevitably close itself to immigration from Eastern Europe in order to protect itself while socially re-generating. That will be despite real complaints from a massive retired population that it would prefer caring human hands rather than robotic ones. Childless couples have a “cold life” and so too will those being cared for by robotics above and beyond the call of nature requires.
  12. Common-sense would indicate that action to reduce abortions will increase the birth rate. However there are many additional factors that influence the birth rate, as covered in the points above. The fundamental flaw in the logic that preventing abortion will lead to higher birth rates is that it ignores the incentive (the carrot) and attempts to use a stick. The addition of huge migrant numbers from Eastern Europe has a special impact on the UK as the numbers are largely Polish Catholics and so relatively anti-abortion by the UK’s cultural standards. These migrant numbers are more used to the stick (accustomed to a lack of individual liberty under a Communist state) and are easy to incentivise with relatively small carrots (given their lower economic starting point). If the pro-abortion stance is adopted as official policy by the British right-wing (as it may well be in the future) this will increase the number of settled immigrants from Eastern Europe with children born in the UK. That will only further alienate the future generation in command since the stick approach of anti-abortion will economically reward those who comply, namely East European migrants. That reward is not an incentive; it is a reward for complying.
  13. However it is not good enough to do nothing. With no resultant increase in the West European birth rate amongst the multi-cultural generation (whatever colour) there will be a crisis in the future. A clear definition of this desired increase in the birth rate is required. This increase is required for a specific group, a multi-cultural measure. There is no need to define it inclusively, rather to just exclude the Muslim population and recent East Europeans from it. The Muslim population is excluded because unless the current religious attitude on the treatment of women in Islam radically changes, the issue of the post-feminism birth rate is not directly relevant to that part of the UK population. The East Europeans are excluded from this proposed multi-cultural statistical measure of birth rates because the foreseen demographic crisis my arguments are designed to pre-empt originates from the current policy of integrating Eastern and Western Europe.
  14. To reiterate, the subject of this essay is how to increase the UK birth rate by adopting a pro-abortion argument. The UK birth rates this argument argues will increase as a result of incorporating these ideas into social policy are the population sectors of the UK that have inherited the feminist values brought about by the widespread use of the pill as a contraceptive in the 1960s. This argument does not apply hold true for East Europeans or Muslims, for the reasons explained above. However it holds true for the majority of other religious groups and nationalities settled in the UK. It is unlikely that current political correctness would allow my desired multi-cultural statistical measure of birth rates to be collected (let alone set as targets). However it does not invalidate my argument. It merely means it is politically easier to use birth rates statistics to support incorrect arguments and ignore the long term crisis this will release. Worse still, the anti-abortion movement will regard their policies as resulting in an increasing birth rate. Unless they are prepared to separate the statistical measures as I am proposing. I will have succeeded partially in my purpose if my reasoning is absorbed why there is an empirical need to do so (separating out East Europeans and Muslims, but not just one or the other). Otherwise the anti-abortion movement will curtail individual liberty and achieve only the opposite of what I am arguing. Their policies will actually lower the birth rate amongst all groups (except East Europeans and Muslims). This would serve to only exacerbate the future demographic crisis in the UK and Western Europe.
  15. The “Dark Ages”, following the collapse of the Roman Empire, was a period where knowledge and learning became centred in the Islamic world. The agricultural fertility and weather systems of Northern Europe will not lead to economic prosperity and an ethic of hard-work and pre-planning where paganism takes hold. Paganism or “cult of the animal” is the alternative command and control structure of the Roman Phalanx.
  16. Feminism and animal rights currently share some pagan values. From the point of view of “God-fearing” societies, paganism permits the female to over-evaluate the importance of the natural environment. The female breeds successfully by having an attitude of men exist to fight over mating rights with them. That evolutionary characteristic of the female sex therefore suppresses the attitude of pity towards the defeated mate. This displaces pity to be directed at animal suffering and hence the “cult of the animal”. The essential weakness of the pagan “command and control” is the structural limitation. The group cannot be larger than that which men would regard as “conceivable” to fight in order to win mating rights. This sows disagreement amongst men because no amount of co-ordination between small “command and control groups” can re-create the integrity of a single larger “command and control” group. Hence Roman phalanxes could defeat much larger pagan armies because their phalanxes or “command and control” groups were made-to-measure.
  17. Animal rights is inherently a pagan values. Feminism is not. “Animal rights” is however a loose term. Where “animal rights” does not mean “cult of the animal”, those rights by default belong to the religious treatment of “unclean” practices. For instance is may be “unclean” to eat meat that has been slaughtered in an unnecessary cruel way. Certainly “animal rights” defined using the words using the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” would not be a common sense measure of paganism. However the simple textual comparison of the phrase “animal rights” and “cult of the animal” indicated the cases where they are not the one and the same is limited.
  18. Why is feminism not inherently a pagan value? Feminism is based on the scientific progress that led to the women to control her fertility via contraceptive pill and to terminate unwanted pregnancy via a variety of relatively safe medical procedures. This provided females with a new way to manage the attitude that men exist to fight over mating rights with them. Before such scientific progress was made, the fight over mating rights was decided by the act of sexual intercourse. Feminism is therefore inherently only concerned with the point at which the mating right has been awarded. The availability of contraceptives and legal abortion moves this point to be governed by the female’s attitude to future economic opportunity if the successful mate is not to be displaced by a successor but maintained. This in itself causes no change in the female’s natural displacement of pity towards unsuccessful mates to be directed at animal suffering (and hence “cult of the animal”). However an unsuccessful mate is no longer defined as failing to “mate with sexual intercourse” but rather failing to “mate and be awarded a child”.
  19. Feminism shares some pagan values only because of the relationship between the female’s attitude to “future economic opportunity” and the decision to maintain a successful mate. The female now breeds successfully by having an attitude that men exist to fight over mating rights with them and subsequently will not be displaced by a successor. The evolutionary characteristic of the female sex to suppress the attitude of pity towards the defeated mate is therefore now displaced as pity not only to be directed at animal suffering but also at her own fertilised egg when pregnant. This is paganism by the backdoor.
  20. Paganism is in itself not anti-evolutionary for the entire world, just for the countries that fall prey to it. The Dark Ages permitted evolution of less fertile areas occupied by Islam to make use of this opportunity (we have Arabic numerals as a result, displacing Roman). The female displaces pity to be directed at animal suffering and hence creates the potential of the “cult of the animal” as part of the evolutionary characteristic of the female sex to suppress the attitude of pity towards the defeated mate. The actions of anti-abortionists to encourage the female sex to direct pity at her own fertilised egg when pregnant is thus anti-evolutionary and assists paganism.
  21. Feminist (and post-feminist) societies are now dependent to breed successfully on the female’s attitude to future economic opportunity and not by the act of sexual intercourse. The actions of anti-abortionists to seek to deny the pregnant female the right to decide to “award the mating right” is starkly anti-evolutionary because the successful mate has ceased to be defined by “successful sexual intercourse and pregnancy” by women. Society must champion the new feminist definition that a successful mating occurs only when the mate is “awarded a child”.
  22. Feminism has moved the point at which the mating right has been awarded. Unless a society is prepared and able to reverse this new point that scientific progress has created, it must defend this new ground and gain from it. Half-hearted measures are the worst policies to pursue and the least evolutionary. The evolutionary characteristic of the female sex is to suppress the attitude of pity towards the defeated mate. Before scientific progress was made, the fight over mating rights was decided by the act of sexual intercourse. The availability of contraceptives and legal abortion moves this point to be governed by the female’s attitude to future economic opportunity.
  23. This definition of future economic opportunity also includes the chosen physical characteristics of the mate that will be inherited by the child. In evolutionary terms the child will provide for the parents in old age, so it is a vested interest that the chance of genetic pairing via attraction is part of the evolutionary process to defining characteristics of offspring most likely to be successful and provide. If ugly, boring people make wealthy accountants that does mean women bearing offspring of poor, beautiful men is anti-evolutionary. The state may feel robbed by subsidising the latter, but in terms of genetics the state’s displeasure is irrelevant.
  24. The new evolutionary rules are that the female must decide if a successful mate is not to be displaced by a successor but the pregnancy maintained and the mate awarded a child. That is unless there was some covenant before sexual intercourse (usually marriage for example) that the point at which the mating right would be awarded was at the old point of winning mating rights defined by the first act of sexual intercourse. Otherwise denying the pregnant female right to decide to award the mating right is the evolutionary equivalent of genetic selection by rape.
  25. If the state is gravely concerned by some choices the female population are making, the state must also recognise that government by free-market policies (to pursue comparative trade advantages) does not distribute economic opportunity evenly. The evolutionary vision of an egghead species, with little capacity for hand skilled labour is one that ugly, boring accountants and eggheads favour. Rape by financial penalties (i.e. child support agency enforcements) merely supports the basic short-term view of the state to pursue comparative trade advantages. The state should not define what genetic traits are required by future generations. The state is just as likely to require skilled robot technicians as accountants at some time in the distant future.
  26. Why are the actions of anti-abortionists to encourage the female sex to direct pity at her own fertilised egg, when pregnant, also pagan? Most anti-abortionists are “God-fearing”. That in itself does not make such people automatically free of pagan values. From the point of view of “God-fearing” societies, paganism permits the female to over-evaluate the importance of the natural environment. The evolutionary characteristic of the female sex is to suppress the attitude of pity towards the defeated mate by displacing it towards (or replacing it as) pity for animal suffering. The potential for the “cult of the animal” is an integral part of the evolutionary characteristic of the female sex and so the “battle on earth” for “God-fearing” men is to fight against that. “God-fearing” anti-abortionists are dependent upon interpretations of theological values to be sure what “God wants and what God doesn’t”. The principal action of anti-abortionists is to encourage the female sex to direct pity at her own fertilised egg when pregnant. However the principal battle against paganism is to resist the evolutionary characteristic of the female sex to suppress the attitude of pity towards the defeated mate by displacing it with pity for animal suffering. Are therefore anti-abortionists a help or hindrance in this primary battle?
  27. The medical progress that gave rise to the feminist movement is part of very recent history, the pill and the 1960s revolution. Feminism and the animal rights movement currently share some pagan values. This is only because the growing animal rights movement is being directly stimulated by repression of feminism and the better values medical progress made possible. Anti-abortionists are encouraging the female sex to direct pity at her own fertilised egg when pregnant (in order to discourage abortion). Therefore anti-abortionists are increasing not substituting the evolutionary characteristic of the female sex to direct pity at animal suffering. “God-fearing” or not, the actions of anti-abortionists are thus aid and abetting paganism. The principal battle must be against paganism. The best basis upon which a post-feminist society can evolve is where both anti-abortion movements and animal-rights movements are treated as one and the same, supporting pagan belief structures. Only then will birth rates rise out of the benefits of rigorously defending scientific progress where it is not grotesque. Let women control fertility via contraception and terminate unwanted pregnancies without duress. I do not find that grotesque.

Twitter in Not an Option

Philosophy for me is not optional. That may sound arrogant. “I have to pay the rent” you might say. “There are and will always be more pressing things”. Well, I could throw the great ancient philosopher Seneca at you. Philosophy is the only thing he said in a roundabout way. However the best reply to the “pay your way argument” is obviously the words of Jesus. Of course “The Kingdom of God” and what philosophers dedicate their time to thinking about are often one and the same. However Twitter is the target of my thoughts here, humorously at least as remote from “The Kingdom of God” as possible. So why is “philosophy not optional?” Even if I had to “pay the rent” I know from own life experience it is quite possible to not do so, the repercussion is homelessness. On this basis alone politically speaking I will forever hold a very soft spot for the great British writer and philosopher George Orwell. His novel “Down and Out in Paris and London” explores his time as homelessness. I vowed to write my own “Estoy en Mis Cuevas” to describe my experience in Granada, Spain with the same. Time will tell.

I am not particularly prone to count the number of “negative results” as Leonard Elmhirst, a philanthropist and agronomist, would call this frequent fails on his Dartington estate. However Twitter has proven a particularly difficult beast to kill. Engaging with it has all the pleasure of a particular severe attack of IBS. I have come at the beast from a number of difficult angles. Each one seems to bite back after the initial period of enthusiasm with something akin to what Hunter S. Thompson must mean by “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”. I say that without having read the novel but his famous title says enough. To be funny I guess it would be enough in Twitter babble to say “just read it”.

However to hold Leonard up to the light, these engagements are all just negative results giving me something very valuable; namely insight. Obviously twitter is not an option, otherwise I would happily forget this aspect of social media technology. For me it is obviously not optional because I keep coming back to it. It is more optional than philosophy, not least because before the invention of the type-writer there was still a mechanism to exchange ideas. Really? So let me fight fire with fire. Let me bring philosophy into my attempt to kill this beast. Why is trying to do anything even moderately successful on twitter that a large number of very young adults, recently passing the rubicon of 18 years old, manage such a challenge I would prefer a sustained attack of illness if it were optional?

For the purpose, and to set this challenge in stone, let us just propose my objective in using Twitter were to promote this website where I post this thing. I have no idea if it is an article, an essay or whatever such is the nature of the online world. I am OK with that. It is just when attempting to define terms precisely to reach the philosophical results I wish there can, in my opinion, be little quarter spared to vagueness of thought. This thing or essay called “Twitter in Not an Option” is the beginning of a new methodical approach to exploring the mental obstacles or philosophical barriers to using Twitter successfully.

This essay concludes here, although it may just be part 1 of more. However I can close now by saying this is not an article on how to successfully twitter. I cannot predict the future and at the moment my only success has been a variety of technical experiments which have given me “negative results”. Just to clarify running 20 or so twitter accounts over several years in a variety of guises can produce lots of useful “negative” results but not what I would call happiness. That is the only thing I am hoping from out of the medium, “happy” in terms of I can use it as I do other technologies to achieve a positive result I am content with.

Philosophy is rightly disliked by many and with good reason in that it rescues fools. Hence the true foolish, those it will never need to rescue, realise truth and hate it even more. With those elevated plains in mind I dedicate myself to collecting other people’s thoughts (famous or otherwise) on why twitter is pointless etc. After that I shall have a cure as such, or at least some new philosophical insight into why I am failing to use Twitter in the way I want. So here is to my first possible success, promoting my website of words where this thing resides. Salud!

Constitution and Principles of UK Foreign Spouse Association

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL EQUALITY UNDER BRITISH MARRIAGE LAW

  1. British marriage law, providing for the legal union of a couple as spouses, must set measures equally to apply to all foreign nationals universally.
  2. British immigration law, where one half of the spouses are not a British Citizen, should not set measures to discriminate against foreign nationals on the basis of their geographic origin.
  3. A British citizen must not be stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way on the basis of the geographic origin of a spouse or lawfully wedded partner.

Foreign Spouse Association (Constitution)

AIMS & OBJECTIVES

  1. To campaign to lower the fees levied by the UK immigration authorities and set measures which apply equally to all foreign nationals under British marriage law.
  2. To promote a support network accessible to members and their families to defend their rights and liberties arising out of marriage to a foreign national.
  3. To raise and distribute funds to subsidise foreign nationals, who came as marriage partners, to then naturalise as British Citizens once they have ILR (Indefinite Leave to Remain) status and so finish their journey to become British subjects.

Supreme Court Decision Democratic Catch-22 Idiocy

Have you been entertained over the last month by many flavours of Brexit, “soft” or “hard” over the past months? We would have missed all that if article 50 had been implemented immediately. The ultra-cautious approach of Theresa May has allowed a full reconnaissance. The price is a lack of momentum, as everyone knows, permits legal arguments to hijack “due process”. It is now catch-22.

The Supreme Court judgement today spoke of a requirement for an act of Parliament to trigger article 50 because it will take away legal rights. It shows a whole lack of faith in the sovereignty of Parliament itself to believe our elected representatives might not pre-plan their replacements in time. That process was exactly what was scheduled for a full 2 years of negotiation after triggering article 50. So why is there the need for a pre-plan? Effectively the Supreme Court has said a “pre-nuptial” is required. You know, you want to marry Jane or John with all your heart…share everything…completely committed…but if it goes wrong then we have a pre-nuptial agreement. Is it worth the paper? Some will think so.

There is a role for pre-nuptials but is it the “thing to do” before every marriage? Can we look a referendum straight in the face again and not think but?

On the 9th of November I wrote to Michael Gove MP the following:

The presumption of innocence owes a significant debt to the provisions of the Magna Carta, specifically “The right to due process”. By far the most significant thing to have worked to limit the impact of Clause 39 of the Magna Carta is human-rights law, which brought the process of deciding what amounts to a presumption of innocence, or a right to due process, under the adjudication of the court itself.

And this is exactly what human-rights lawyers, like Bindmans LLP, have achieved. The “due process” in which The UK expects to negotiate leave of The EU will now be overseen by supporters of EU courts. What is so sovereign about that? Are we honestly convinced Gina Miller has fought her case, backed up by powerful and rich EU legal interests, to put our “sovereign” back into “Parliamentary Sovereignty”. I think not.

The Supreme Court judgement today gives the immediate impression it is “defending” us against a loss of something. The word sovereign is bandied about, especially the phrase “Parliament is sovereign”. It is as self-referencing as “Brexit is Brexit”. In our system the monarch is ‘sovereign’ and in a constitutional democracy The UK has a system in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives. By definition a referendum is the exercise of power directly. So how do 11 Supreme Court judges, by forcing Theresa May to give the trigger back to our representatives, defend our sovereignty? They do it only by moving the democratic exercise of direct power (namely a referendum) back to representatives, not us.

This decision threatens a peculiar catch-22 for both our democracy and our sovereignty over the next few months and particularly approaching the exit point after two years debate. Whatever Parliamentary Act is now agreed in the very limited time available will cloud and risk poisoning Brexit. A pre-nuptial can ruin a couple’s chance of happiness. Try it!

“Brexit is Brexit” has been replace by “Parliament is sovereign”. The people’s referendum has been stolen by The Supreme Court. We should not underestimate the failure of Theresa May government to rebut this legal challenge over article 50. A “yes” vote in the EU referendum was assumed to lead to leaving The EU without additional scheming. So while her ultra-caution has gained Theresa May a full reconnaissance, the delay in doing so let legal arguments hijack our expected “due process”. This interference threatens the supremacy of the unwritten constitution which makes us British, beginning with the “Great Charter of the Liberties” drawn up at Runnymede on 10 June 1215 on the south bank of the River Thames. So who are these hijackers?

You need look no further than Bindmans LLP. As their corporate website says “We have a reputation for excellence and for being at the cutting edge of legal developments – particularly in relation to issues around human rights”. It is one of the 3 London law firms – Mishcon de Reya, Edwin Coe and Bindmans – which agreed to take up the case of Gina Miller which led to the Supreme Court decision today.

I place small political bets (maximum £25) on occasional outcomes. I am going to place a small bet Article 50 will not now be triggered until after March. I suggest, in defence of Brexit, Theresa May now revise the timetable for triggering article 50. Why not by the end of April or May? It would re-assert her authority and hamper those who are taking advantage of her commitment to a routine timetable. As in the “Life and Death of Colonel Blimp” we must avoid the pitfall of declaring, with rigid solemnity, “War Starts at Midnight”.

According to the novel Catch-22, people who were crazy were not obliged to fly missions, but anyone who applied to stop flying was showing a rational concern for his safety and was, therefore, sane and had to fly. The Supreme Court decision let idiots hijack “due process” and stole the referendum. Now in defence of our democracy, where citizens exercise power directly, we must take a fight to the heart of the legal system itself.

Philosophy of Contribution

Development of a Philosophical Framework to Optimise Contribution

The challenge is, God given, to write my stuff in stimulus to news events but not waste to them by posting on a news community in which while there are like minds, I am too good to be wasting my stuff by posting there. Yes, I could find a news community which values my contribution but that requires searching, the stimulus being a main stream site is not the same as a site which will value my contribution. Ultimately contributors are most valued when they are paid for content, which is not the same as being part of a community. There are many different formats for contributing. The freest form is to publish a book anonymously and seek to sell it (from pamphlet to POD). The other form is to blog and monetise the blog.

This challenge must be undertaken at the same time as a variety of others. In this respect it is not difficult to fall short, especially since the other challenges could be summarised into the categories of serve God (so no legacy matters save that of God’s kingdom, namely worthy acts that leave no “purposeful” legacy are often the best since there selfless act and self-serving act are by definition opposites) and things to survive. Survival means from the basic human act such as washing to the most complex acts such as earning a living or defending family members. I do not have the option to include the challenge of writing philosophy as a means to earn a living unless I learn to how to do so. The challenge of writing philosophy is to contribute something.

The development framework here should therefore be categorised into 3 parts:
1. Philosophy
2. Serving God
3. Survival

It would be perfectly possible to write three development frameworks. However Seneca would hold “Philosophy” to be the only thing to concern oneself. Philosophically that dramatic thought of his could be challenged both in the practical and philosophical approach, not least in terms of a pre-Christian life as Seneca had. However his texts do no suffer from not knowing The Lord through Jesus Christ, our saviour, such was his wisdom and learnedness. So I am not dependent on a need to qualify my admiration of his philosophy by decrying his pre-Christian writings because I know my faith is strong. Rather like most Christian stoics the wealth Seneca accumulated during his lifetime in the service of Roman emperors qualifies his advice at some turns. Of course one not must beguile oneself too much with the higher invocations to ignore one’s own interests, always bearing in mind that in can be the duty of writers to implore their public to one form of conduct while pursuing another course themselves. However it is the delight in the service of philosophy to be able to hold contradictory positions, although also the continual work to uphold the dramatic tension between both. The escape of restfulness never arrives, save in death or absolute poverty. The latter full of the harshest claims upon the self to survive that the beneficial effects on the mind are while cherished, best done so in reflection while not in such a condition where the only challenge is to exit the condition of real poverty.

So the weight of wealth preys upon the mind, both philosophy and Christian duty offering escape. Survival does not offer escape but rather immunity. Hence a rich man working hard to become richer needs no escape, justification is felt as a product of the immunity. So how do I compile PHILOSOPHY and SERVING GOD into my writing framework without awaking SURVIVAL more than a trifle. For contributing to my own self-interests such as financial (receiving a payment) starts to stir the beast. Equally so not contributing, where “time money” is lost where writing is lost. It would be better to spend that time serving God, simply reading The Bible for instance, than scribbling political nonsense which makes no contribution. Unless of course those scribbles were a philosophical pursuit. In that case circularity of the argument applies. So what is contribution?

The Young West European: The Fallacy of Resilience

West European civilisation is caught in the cross-fire between Slavic racism and the Islamic Diaspora. That is withering cross-fire. It is a fallacy that resilience can save the younger generations of Western Europe. One position must be overcome at whatever cost.

The term “Islamic Diaspora” has special meaning in context of Scottish history. America is driving this current “diaspora” unintentionally just as England did as a consequence of the Union of 1707. To secure oil supplies, America relies on regimes where very little allowance is made for social mobility (Saudi Arabia etc.) The consequent lack of mobility creates a diaspora. Development of this “diaspora” in the future can be compared with the Scottish one. When the British ruled the waves, the latter wave of colonialism (India etc.) was forced upon them as the “world power” to keep order. It will be very hard for America in the long term, assuming it remains the one superpower, to afford the non-colonial world it seeks to maintain. It is a good hunch America will eventually need to modify its opposition to some forms of colonialism. Hence the legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan will speak to it in the future.

In the meantime in Western Europe, generations caught in this cross-fire, must respond or be further withered in numbers. Cross-fire is a military term and serves to remind us this cost is not spread equally across generations. General proclamations that younger generations should expect lower living standards than their parents should be a wake-up call to the dangers now jointly faced by new generations of Western Europeans. As retreat is not an option, overcoming cross-fire is only possible if one source is ignored while the other source is over-run as quickly as possible. So which fire to attack?

The Islamic Diaspora being created in Western Europe is a consequence of American policy toward the world, the Middle East in particular. It is unlikely American’s radical opposition to any form of colonial government can be over-run or even speeded up. It requires the legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan to become self-evident. At the very least it requires the passage of time for what is desired to be seen. Namely that self-supporting “democratic” governments left behind after military withdrawals cannot survive the test of time. Until that proves to be false, America can maintain such an illusion such a possibility exists. Of course, remove the illusion and only two possibilities exist. Either never get involved (and hence abrogate the responsibility for maintaining world security for essential supplies such as oil) or accept some type of permanent foreign service abroad is required after a major military withdrawal (neo-colonialism). This maturation of American foreign policy may take several decades. The young generations of Western Europe do not have the time, caught in such cross-fire, to wait for America to stop governing in a manner which gives rise to wave after wave of Islamic refugees arriving in Europe.

So if the younger generations of West Europe wish to preserve West European civilisation, such cross-fire is overcome by over-running the other fire. That is Slavic racism. “West European civilisation” can be used to mean a host of things. However in the context of “anti-racism”, especially in relation to the Slavic races, it offers a much narrower definition. Behind the Iron Curtain of the Soviet Union, their people were not subject to much, if any at all, socialisation with non-whites. In contrast West Europe post 1945 accepted large scale non-white immigration.

Rome was not built in a day. Whatever we chose to call “general tolerance and goodwill” to people irrespective of colour, Western Europe’s history post 1945 proves such “civilised” values take generations to root and hold. It is totally unrealistic and a sham to believe those peoples previously held behind an Iron Curtain, able to travel freely into Western Europe from 2004, will generally acquire such values by immersion. Logically it requires a similar cultural program directed by their governments at home, evoking a gradual change in attitude taking several generations. This logic also extends to such people as East Germans, previously also held behind The Iron Curtain.

Therefore the only solution to avoid the decimation of West European civilisation, caught in the cross-fire between Slavic racism and the Islamic Diaspora, is to ignore the growing Islamic Diaspora and tackle head-on Slavic racism. The solution is very simple and is also free from any type of religious fight. Simply shut the door to the East Europeans entering Western Europe and kick Germany out of West Europe. More simply put, form a new European Economic Community (E.E.C.) among the original members of the 1992 Single Market but without German membership. It is for Germany to take financial and cultural responsibility to educate the Slav nations in the values of racial tolerance, possibly taking them several generations. Even more importantly, let the Germans do business with the new European Economic Community (E.E.C.) in a much fairer manner. Once outside our new single European market, their manufactured goods will be subject to import tariffs as our new governments sees fit.

The Principle of Trust under “Cross-fire”

I have argued elsewhere that Western European culture and prosperity is under two severe pressures, from “Slavic racism” and “The Islamic Diaspora”. My military analogy was that under order “cross-fire”, withering fire from both sides causing great losses, only one of the two components must be neutralised for the “cross-fire” to end. My thesis under that analogy was we Western Europeans should seek to neutralise “Slavic racism” first.

I argue here under “The Principle of Trust under ‘Cross-fire’” that we need correct leadership if we, the British people, on behalf of the wider West European peoples, are to successfully withdraw from The European Union. The principle of trust, or an oath to serve, is a bridge across a “fear” below which requires the support of a minimum two pillars. Those two pillars from the perspective of our South American community resident in the UK are “consulates abroad and the supporting infrastructure” and “religious freedoms under the crown”.

There is great uncertainty over what “new geo-political agreements” (or trade deals) the UK would be able to make after withdrawing from The European Union. Clarity on what might be possible is largely impossible because deals are made “in good faith” and few potential trading partners to new agreements will risk undermining their existing investment in trading relations with The European Union on the perilous assumption a plebiscite in the UK on June 23rd will create anything new.  It is this lack of certainty which serves as the main mechanism for the spread of fear, or “Project Fear” as coined by the SNP during The Scottish Referendum of 2014.

In order to trust a leader (or a leadership) most people will require news of some type of solution or evidence of rational planning. Arguably The SNP leadership failed to faithfully stipulate their preferred choice of monetary mechanism post-Exit and consequently the referendum was lost. The people did not lost their faith in the SNP (the election of 54 members to The House of Commons in 2015 testament to that) but rather they had little faith in the SNP plan for a new monetary agreement after withdrawing from the UK, namely staying with the Pound. Events proved it was incumbent upon the SNP to choose one or the other, issuing a new currency or joining The Euro. Any plan is better than none at all and by this measure the SNP leadership failed.

So does “Vote Leave” currently have any plan? The answer must be a resounding no. The purpose of this paper is to correct that. The SNP of course produced “Scotland’s Future” which was a 650 page government white paper published on 26 November 2013 by the Scottish Government under First Minister Alex Salmond. It laid out the case for Scottish independence and the means through which Scotland would become an independent country in personal union with the United Kingdom. Salmond described it as the “most comprehensive blueprint for an independent country ever published”. In hindsight we can therefore quite easily argue that to fail to produce some type of solution or evidence of rational planning to conquer the main mechanism for the spread of fear, or “Project Fear” is to plan to fail. Arguable in hindsight the SNP would have been better served to have either chosen the path of issuing a new currency or joining The Euro and sought to have vigorously defended their position. Anything was better than fudging the issue (“London cannot stop us staying with the pound”) and so permitting the growth of a nebulous fear around it. Again, any plan is better than none at all.

I have already stated the plan I propose, from the perspective of our South American community resident in the UK, is built around “consulates abroad and the supporting infrastructure” and “religious freedoms under the crown”. However it would be simpler to say the plan must effectively specify how a “new UK bill of rights will bypass The ECHR (European Court of Human Rights)”. It is not incumbent on the leadership of “Vote Leave” to provide all the details for such a new bill or act of Parliament, which undoubtedly will require a combined effort of the UK’s best legal brains post exit, but to state clearly the plan for it.

I argue here under “The Principle of Trust under ‘Cross-fire’” that the plan must include a cost-benefit analysis of the UK maintaining “consulates abroad and the supporting infrastructure” and “religious freedoms under the crown”. The latter may seem more closely aligned to the thorny debate over “rights” and “liberties” as one would expect from something replacing The ECHR. However it is our network of consulates abroad, already operating outside the shared visa processing system of Europe (free movement in The Schengen Area) which not only protects those rights and liberties abroad but sustains a plethora of agreements for a small country to act globally. If your son or daughter marries someone abroad, if you lose your passport on holiday, if you seek to export into new markets, if you want to stop us trading with countries which abuse human rights…then how the UK will invest and more importantly improve one pillar of trust in “consulates abroad and the supporting infrastructure” is vital to the success of how our liberties and rights will be defended should we withdraw from The European Union.