Translate

BLOG SITE OF SPIRITUALMAN, KEVILL DAVIES

Novelist. Author of APSARAS and other stories

Total Pageviews

Monday, 20 June 2016

'Pooled' sovereignty is NOT Sovereignty

I'm disappointed with Baroness Warsi; I used to admire her-but no longer. She was once a vibrant spokesperson for the Tories, dealing with difficult matters the elite didn't want to face, but she has sadly reverted to type. Despite having nothing to do with the leave campaign for the EU Referendum, she has announced that after publication of UKIP's poster she, a first generation immigrant, has decided to vote 'IN'. She clearly wasn't British enough, like many of her ilk.
What was it in the poster that annoyed her; was it the fact that it displayed a seemingly never-ending queue of what were certainly all Muslims; was it the fact that they were all males or it was perhaps that they were all young, maybe of army age?
A UN report has shown that 63 million persons have been displaced this year, mostly from the three countries, Afghanistan, Somalia and Syria. I don't think it is a coincidence that all these Countries are, like the good Baroness, Muslim. The majority of these young men are probably victims but there is a good chance that some are jihadists waging Holy war against the infidels. Imagine now that these people had come form lands full of the contagion of Ebola, they would be stopped at the border and rigorously tested; so too if they were Nazis. Why is it then that stopping these young men from spreading the contagion of their religion is wrong. Have we become so paralysed by the Human Rights brigade that we are unable to oppose the spread of the vilification of the West and our way of life? Somalia, Syria and Afghanistan are Islamic Countries. These people are fleeing the problems caused by Islam and yet they are carrying their religion with them to infect those lands which welcome them with the same mindset that caused them so much angst. It is this arrant stupidity that defies logic and annoys me most. Surely, unless they are brainwashed, they must hope to escape the problem and the only way to do that is with education! Not hours in a madrasseh studying the Qu'ran but a good all round education that focuses on the sciences and technology.
Ah! But there are good Muslims I hear you say; they settle and want peace. It's true, there are but how many times have we heard the relatives of young English Muslims who go to Syria to fight for ISIS tell us that 'they were such nice boys and girls; we had no idea'. It is in the genes.

Cameron argues that the UK hasn't lost sovereignty, it has 'pooled' it with the other EU states. Bollocks; like pregnancy, Sovereignty cannot be pooled; a Country cannot be partially Sovereign. Either you are sovereign or you are not and quite clearly the UK is not Sovereign. The chance will not come aagin until the EU collapses, as it surely will. I urge everyone to vote OUT and remind Baroness Warsi that the British are a proud, resourceful Country; compassionate but not stupid.


Tuesday, 14 June 2016

Accountability in Public service

Ten men are facing jail for turning a travellers' camp built with £3million of taxpayers' cash into a giant hidden cannabis plantation worth up to £340,000 a year.
Half of the 24 caravans at their newly-renovated Glynmill camp in Merthyr Tydfil, South Wales, were used as cover for a sophisticated drug-producing operation.
Their gypsy and traveller site had received a £3million grant of public money for improvements including a community hall, toilet blocks and landscaping from the Labour-run Welsh Government.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3640555/3m-taxpayer-funded-gypsy-camp-housed-giant-cannabis-plantation-worth-340-000-year.html#ixzz4BaapLYEZ

Somebody somewhere, no doubt over a multiplicity of bureaucratic layers, approved of this scheme and should be shamed for their misuse of public funds. Where is public accountability? Who are the bastards that approve this spending and what is their authority? Let's have their names; everyone who voted for this expenditure. Let's expose them to the public whose money they have so extravagantly abused and let us tell the electorate that in voting for a Socialist government in Wales you are not only letting down a proud Nation but all the people who legally dwell in it.

Thursday, 9 June 2016

Corporate pickpocketing

Imagine the scene of a common pickpocketing. Agent A approaches a victim as agent B waits events. Agent A steals the wallet from the victims back pocket, say, and passes it immediately to agent B who has timed his pass perfectly. When apprehended, agent A protests his innocence and a search of his person can find no trace of the missing wallet.

Now picture another scene; this time a businessman buys a Company (the victim). He then strips the assets of the company and immediately transfers them to his wife who hides the proceeds in untraceable, numbered bank accounts in a tax haven. The Company is then sold at a bargain price. When later questioned about the subsequent Company failure, the businessman can claim, quite correctly, that he has no knowledge of the whereabouts of the missing money. Now, what is the difference in these two scenarios; in the first example we have the work of crooks and in the second the trade of businessmen?

Saturday, 4 June 2016

Why all the fawning over Ali?



Following his death, am I the only one who wonders why there is so much fawning over Muhammad Ali, formerly known as Cassius Clay, his familial name.
Despite his being a gifted fighter, he won an Olympic gold medal in Rome, let us not forget that the 'Louisville Lip's' biggest asset was his mouth and his ability to irritate his opponents with his pathetic verses. 'I dance like a butterfly and sting like a bee' was dreadful as was all his posturing, and his elevation to some Godlike figure betrays the honesty and skill of all those boxers who were genuinely braver and better. Even President Obama has weighed in with a tribute, praising a man who used his conversion to Islam as an excuse to escape the draft. Talk about brave; whilst other proud US men and women responded to the call to fight he opted out, suffering only the loss of his titles. To some people, he should have been awarded the merit of three white feathers.
That was bad enough but to hear the fawning praises of English commentators like Michael Parkinson and Piers Morgan is sickening when he cheated England's own hero Henry Cooper out of a win. Despite weighing two stone lighter, Cooper's famous left hook dumped Ali on his arse, only to see the american saved by the bell. His corner team then managed to extend the time of the interval to allow Ali to recover. His victory, because of eye damage, a perennial problem with Cooper, was, to my mind, a miscarriage of justice but it didn't stop the Ali bandwagon from promoting the 'story' that was Ali.
There is no doubt that his success in the ring also led to the illness that finally ended his earthly bout. His record of five defeats and the odour of a possible cheat suggests he wasn't the best ever fighter but there was a special 'something' about the man which captivated a boxing audience fed up with a succession of 17 stone plus, lumbering US heavyweight champions. He can be lauded for shaking up the heavyweight scene but please, do not place him in the Pantheon of boxing greats.

Wednesday, 1 June 2016

Brexit5. The EU future. Guest Post

No apologies for another post on Brexit because it is the biggest decision to face the UK for a generation. This is a guest post from ALBERT KIRK.

So, remainers, let's get down to brass tacks. You want us in the EU at any cost. It doesn't bother you at all that MEPs have no real power to hold the EU executive to account. It doesn't bother you at all that Britain is virtually defenceless against laws it does not want. It doesn't bother you that we are being gradually erased from all the global top tables and subordinate to the EU.

It doesn't bother you that the unresponsive CFP is totally impervious to reform. It doesn't bother you that the Prime minister has lied about his bogus reforms. For you, it's all in the greater good and you will tell any lie in support of that. For you the ends justify the means. Ok then.

It's great for you that the odds are in your favour. You will probably get what you want. And we know what is coming next. We know that the civic administration of Spain and Italy is held together by string and glue and eventually what happened to Greece will happen to one or more Euro states.

The EU will again need to assume administration in order to keep the Euro from folding and it will become apparent that the EU will need to introduce more direct governance measures. In effect we will see the final pieces put into place to make the EU the one true supreme government for Europe.

What we do know is that Britain will not submit under any circumstances to that level of control and will be exempted, thus creating that two speed Europe, if not actually by name then through divergence. From that day forward there will be an inherent internal bias within the EU that eurozone member states come first. That's not unreasonable in their position, not least when EU governance is a such a mess.

In order to shore up those economies, quite obviously the agenda for trade will put their needs first. They will have to. The future of the Euro depends on it. So the questions you really have to answer is how Britain is served by not being able to initiate its own trade agreements with other countries, and why it is good for Britain to have to wait its turn in a queue for EU diplomatic resources when other countries deal direct at the global top tables?

In effect you will have given us the worst of all worlds where we are not "leading in Europe" because we're not in the Euro. We certainly won't be a priority concern, and if the Euro is at any point in immediate peril, we can be sure our objections to new legislation will be ignored. Again, in their position I wouldn't blame them.

Worse still, we will not be able to act independently and will only benefit from future EU trade deals if we share those industrial concerns under negotiation. Britain being a diverse and modern economy means we will have distinctive needs that we cannot address. We get neither the benefits of independence or the benefit of being at "the heart of Europe".

And in this, we still haven't solved any of the fundamental problems of the EU. You say we should stay in so we can reform the EU, but when has that ever happened in any meaningful sense, and when can we expect to see that yawning democratic deficit plugged? Where is your plan for reform? Where is your timetable? How can Britain stay afloat without the ability to take up its concerns at the top tables?

Britain has strong historical and cultural ties with India and we could be gradually dismantling barriers to trade, but the way the EU approaches trade, we will be waiting years for that to happen. Today we note that once again talks have stalled in accomplishing a comprehensive deal. Why should we be locked into this obsolete way of doing things? Why should we have to wait our turn? How long must we wait? Why is it better to be on the fringes of Europe without the same level of global participation and agility as Norway?

Meanwhile, as the EU progresses, there is no way it is going to exempt us from every measure it takes to bring Eurozone stability. We are told we will be left out of ever close union but that's not actually true is it? There next time we adopt a single strand of EU law we are defacto breaking that agreement. We have no veto in the same way Norway does. Why is EU membership better?

Norway has a tangible veto by way of shaping the rules the EU adopts and it has the leverage of joining other ad-hoc alliances against the EU. It has a real emergency brake on immigration. It has the power to initiate trade talks with whomever it so chooses and enjoys more or less full access to the single market on the same terms.

Norway still cooperates fully with Interpol and participate in many of the academic cooperation agreements. They can have their cake and eat it. They can have multilateral cooperation as well as close ties with the EU without being subordinate in every single way.

For sure they still pay into the budget and still accept some of the laws but the have the right to say no. So really my question is why it is better for us to be a fringe concern of the EU, locked into their agenda, when reality already tells us we are going a different way to the rest of the EU? Why should we be on the fringes of the EU with no real say in core EU activities and even less say at the top tables? Why put us between a rock and a hard place?

Brexit does not mean leaving the single market, nor does it mean the end of cooperation with the EU, nor does it mean giving up on any of the rights we enjoy as citizens of the free West. We can be partners with the EU but not subordinate to it. We can be allies and not slaves. We can end a forty year old schism in domestic politics and move on from a dispute that will not go away. We can remove the thorn from the paw without causing major disruption.

In the face of this, when we lose so very little by leaving the EU, why should we maintain this political deadlock? Why should we perpetuate this row that won't go away? This referendum will not settle the issue. When the gains for remaining a member of the EU are so marginal given the direction it will take, we need to know why it is that Remainers think it is worth the sacrifice. For the life of me, I can't see it.

In the end, only about half the population wants to stay in the EU- and many of them only because of the fear you have spread through dishonest means. Does that not suggest to you that we need a different relationship? We need to find another way so we can settle this.

Nothing is settled if we stay in the EU. Chances are domestic politics will become even more fractious and toxic as nobody is happy with the status quo. Those who say we should remain in the EU need to tell us what they think a vote to Remain will actually solve. If you think this puts an end to the EU question you are very, very mistaken.Vote Out.

Monday, 30 May 2016

Brexit4. Cameron's campaign

For a man that was once considered a eurosceptic it has not gone unnoticed how hard David Cameron has been prosecuting the 'Remain' case. Indeed, in his endeavour to win at all costs he has formed alliances with former enemies including those he had accused in the House of Commons of colluding with groups harmful to the security of the Nation.  He has corralled the Civil Service, all the financial agencies, businesses, trade unions etc sympathetic to the 'Remain' argument, ignoring any opposition or negative comments even from those people he called his friends.
This fervour has led me to question why, when surely there is only one issue: should the UK recover its undiluted sovereignty or stay in the EU. Put in these simplistic terms, Cameron, shouldn't need to push for the win- at- all- costs strategy, scaring the voters with threats of Armageddon, plagues, financial meltdown etc. So what is it that has got the PM so worked up? It's almost as if Cameron has been given an ultimatum; win the referendum or die.
Well, maybe not that harsh but something like that. He negotiated with the EU elite and got nowhere, coming back with meaningless promises but was there something else. I don't suppose that the EU constitution has a 'treachery' clause like almost every single nation has, usually backed up with the death penalty, but what else might the smarmy bastards have lined up for him. Should the UK vote to leave have they threatened us with 'Judas' status, accusing us of being a Nation of betrayers. Have they spelt out the penalties for leaving the EU? It's not easy to see how they can harm the UK in the event of a 'leave' win but might they appeal to the US and China to have the UK kicked out of the Security Council or the G7. Will they try and marginalise our influence in the world, perhaps rewrite history? I wouldn't put it past them but maybe it's simpler than that. Maybe they have some intelligence on Cameron himself-or his family but whatever the reason, he surely can't believe that when its all over, everything will return to normal. His campaigning modus operandi has put paid to that.

Thursday, 26 May 2016

Brexit3

On the day that The Office of National Statistics announced that immigrants to the UK totalled a third of a million, the Labour Party together called 'Leave' campaigners' claim that immigration levels were unmanageable as being 'alarmist'.
They would, wouldn't they. Despite not being able to explain where all these people live, how they might get school places for the children or appointments to see a doctor they all agree that immigration is a good thing. But surely not in these numbers unless you need these folk to vote for you in the next General Election. Let's face it they need all the votes they can get and this seems their best bet in the Corbynista era. Even better, the immigrants can be housed in solid Tory constituencies but I can't see the good people of Witney accepting too many.
Even Corbyn, formerly a Brexit supporter has changed his tune having recognised that the best hope for the Labour Party is to have a socialist EU. He can then rejoice with unbridled glee as the French trades unions riot on the streets of Paris and the air traffic controllers cause chaos for travellers.
This dream of a socialist ideal in Europe can take comfort in what has happened in Venezuela where the Country, with enormous oil reserves, is on the brink of total failure due to the Socialist governance of Chavez and his successor.

Prison problems

Problem.
It seems that mobile phones are illegally getting into prisons and used, amongst, I am sure, other things, to record violence amongst the inmates.
Answer.
Stop visitors. Totally.

Problem.
Radicalisation of Muslims. (How is it possible that one can own to being Muslim and committing a crime?)
Answer. Stop freedom to associate. Imprisonment should mean just that- in a cell. This would also reduce to zero, violence against prison officers.

Problem.
But that would be against their Human Rights.
Answer. They should have thought of that before they committed a crime against society. Suspend all Human Rights.

Wednesday, 25 May 2016

Spirit, soul, body. A critique of Watchman Nee.

The commentator and Chinese theologian, Watchman Nee, argues that man is composed of three parts, body, soul and spirit, quoting from Genesis and 1 Thessalonians 5.23 as his prime authority for doing so. In his exegesis, he claims that when God created man from dust (clay) the unliving body was animated by the divine breath, the Spirit, to give rise to the living soul.
The idea of a three part human is not new; Augustine had a notion based on the Holy Trinity, God, the Father, God, the Son and God, the Holy Spirit. What the Watchman doesn't show is that this analysis can apply to almost any God, (not only Christian,) or, more importantly, NONE.
For those who think that man is made up of flesh and bone alone, this tripartite version may seem abstract; so has it any basis in truth?
Readers of my booklet, 'Spiritual Man: An Introduction to Negative Dimensions' or viewers of my youtube talks on The Davies Hypothesis (see above) will know that a natural and universal law covers almost every aspect of life, a law described by my trinitarian equation. This equation is best demonstrated by its application to time where the three aspects, 'real' time, 'unreal' time and 'imaginary' time are shown to correspond to the present, the past and the future. In other words, what seems to be illusionary, can be explained by this novel approach. Using the same arguments for mankind we might show that the 'perceived' constitution of a living being, B can be described thus:

B =  ± √ [b² + (-b)² + (ib)²]    where i = √ -1,  'b' real man (flesh & blood), '-b' 'unreal' man and 'ib' is 'imaginary' man

Solving, we have perceived man, B = ± b

In other words, we can perceive the 'real' (+b) and 'unreal' (-b) man but not 'imaginary' man. I suggest, therefore that we can equate 'imaginary' man with the 'Spirit' of the Watchman. Its essence is simply unknowable which correlates with most peoples experience. But what of the other two, the parts we can perceive? The Watchman describes the body (my 'real' man) as being that which exists in the world of matter (Plato's phenomenen) or flesh and blood. I relate it to the body's senses, sight, hearing etc which allow it to identify its place in the world. So we are able to correlate the Watchman's notion of body and Spirit with our own concept. But what of the 'soul' and my 'unreal' man. The Watchman argues that the body, given life by the Spirit, becomes a living soul, having free will and its own identity. I believe this exactly matches the idea that the human soul he describes is indistinguishable from the character, inherited from the past, passed on in the genes from generation to generation, giving, along with nurturing, a person's unique identity.

'But,' I hear you say. 'You've made that equation up!' Not quite; you see the coefficients of the terms within the parenthesis are +1, -1 and +i, three of the four fourth roots of unity, those that introduce uncertainty into the world. See my book for more analysis.  http://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Man-Introduction-Negative-Dimensions/dp/150841646X/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Looking again at the equation we can see that B becomes zero if either the body (real) or soul (unreal) is missing. In other words there is no human existence without both elements present. If the Spirit, the 'imaginary' component is missing, the concept of human life becomes nonsensical. At death, both the body and soul die and B is defined solely by the 'imaginary' component of life 'ib', the Spirit. The Watchman explains that the Spirit, after the creation process, can only influence the body through the medium of the soul which has free will, including the inclination to sin. If he is right, then clearly after death, without the soul to manipulate, the Spirit must become inoperative. In other words, after death all sense of a human being ceases to exist.

So what is wrong with the Watchman's argument? The Watchman doesn't seem able to explain why an omnipotent God should create an entity that is capable of acting contrary to His will.
Whereas the Watchman attempts to demonstrate the existence of God, I believe I have shown here, through my Hypothesis, is that every human being has an inherent capacity for spirituality, including the ability to divine Gods. You do not need to know Jesus to have within you, a stream of 'living water'.