Mr Speaker: Ordure, ordure. Personal statement, Mr Charles Fanshawe
Fanshawe (Conservative, Bustington): For many years, prime Minister, I have loyally taken the Conservative whip and been proud to have served my Country in your government.
However your total failure to address the problems of immigration and your continued support of foreign peoples with financial aid while your own suffer austerity begs the question as to where your true interest lies. You always claim that immigration has been good for the Country but isn't it the reality that the Romans, Normans and Vikings came to this Country not as immigrants but as conquerers. There is a difference, you know. Can you explain to your constituents and mine why the people of this Country have to fork out for Somalians with whom we have no historical or cultural ties and who, by and large, accept our hospitality whilst despising our nationality?
Following the election you promised to roll up your sleeves and work jolly hard to respond
to the electorate's fears. You then announced an extra 19 days off for MPs citing no work
despite renaging on a promise to hold a referendum on our continued membership of the EU and to debate again the question of Hunting. Our Country is still suffering from the stupidity of the Court of Human Rights and its associated 'ambulance chasing' culture
It's no good claiming coalition terms for your failures; the people, as shown in the elections, have seen through the Lib Dems and highlighted their irrelevance but you have consistently failed to live up to your values. You have consistently betrayed the trust invested in you, failing to appreciate the problems of the ordinary hard working people of this sceptred isle and for this reason you can no longer count on my support. From henceforth I shall be joining those politicians who have worked for a living, who truly understand the people, listen to their fears and ambitions and act with no thought to their self interests. I shall be taking the UKIP whip.
Saturday 31 May 2014
Saturday 24 May 2014
Does God bear grudges?
The police are investigating Attleborough Baptist Church in Norfolk for an apparent 'hate' crime by displaying this poster.
There had been just one complaint.
The poster's message is typical of the crude blackmail that since earliest times has characterised the priestly class's ambition to control mankind. By suggesting to an unenlightened congregation that, despite there being no real proof, hell and damnation awaited non-believers, they hoped to coerce them into obedience. It's nothing less than emotional blackmail; if you don't believe you're for it! Get in line. Is the Church immune from charges of blackmail?
I believe it was French philosopher/mathematician Pascal who owned up to believing in God because there was no downside. If there is a God then you win and if there isn't you still win because you've lost nothing.
But is it really necessary to take this position? Surely, if there truly is a benevolent God (of mercy) he will know on the Day of Judgement that your honestly held views were based on the evidence you were presented with in life and found to be inadequate. If God doesn't hold grudges and had truly meant everyone to believe, he would surely present irrefutable evidence of his Existence and Will. The alternative, of course, is to believe that the priestly classes are up to their old tricks of sophistry and blackmail and more people should complain.
There had been just one complaint.
The poster's message is typical of the crude blackmail that since earliest times has characterised the priestly class's ambition to control mankind. By suggesting to an unenlightened congregation that, despite there being no real proof, hell and damnation awaited non-believers, they hoped to coerce them into obedience. It's nothing less than emotional blackmail; if you don't believe you're for it! Get in line. Is the Church immune from charges of blackmail?
I believe it was French philosopher/mathematician Pascal who owned up to believing in God because there was no downside. If there is a God then you win and if there isn't you still win because you've lost nothing.
But is it really necessary to take this position? Surely, if there truly is a benevolent God (of mercy) he will know on the Day of Judgement that your honestly held views were based on the evidence you were presented with in life and found to be inadequate. If God doesn't hold grudges and had truly meant everyone to believe, he would surely present irrefutable evidence of his Existence and Will. The alternative, of course, is to believe that the priestly classes are up to their old tricks of sophistry and blackmail and more people should complain.
Friday 16 May 2014
Is it normal to be 'racist'?
Is 'racism' a normal and natural human trait? These days the term 'racist' does not suggest a person who celebrates his own ethnicity or nationality but is used derogatorily to suggest someone who has supremacist views that find those of other races or castes to be inferior. Regardless of the definition, the question is: should we welcome into our community people of other races and cultures?
In a 'global' world, criss-crossed with human interactions on several levels; trade, entertainment, education, it is difficult to determine mankind's basic intuition, compromised as it is by personal ambition, profit and greed. To establish the real motives of mankind we perhaps have to look at the earliest, most primitive systems of humanity. We have to look at stone age man, his fears and prejudices, to see what were the priorities of his life and how he found solutions. We must then see how relevant it is to today's environment.
Simply put, stone age man's priorities were fresh water, food, shelter, defence and procreation. Leaving aside procreation, Once a community or tribe had established the first three criterion, they needed the fourth, defence, to keep their assets free from predatory others. Does this not, from the outset, suggest that man's attitude to those of different communities is necessarily one of distrust? I might go further and suggest that mistrust of other peoples was not only inherent in the human condition it was vital for the success of a community. It is nothing less than a demonstration of Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' theory made manifest in human behaviour even today. We are conditioned to take comfort first amongst our families, then our community and Country. What is so wrong about that? Immigrants to any Country, for instance, choose to settle amongst their own.
Looking at Britain today it is seemingly run by a political elite who have the means to indulge their cosmopolitan irrationality whilst subjecting their people to the reality of a life on the streets at odds with their vote catching ideology. The real British people are those we see at Carterton and Royal Woottan Basset, decent and fair men and women, receiving home the Nation's sons and daughters, fallen on far off battlefields, not the street gangs of Brixton or the Muslim quarters that houses a system of belief that despises the British way of life whilst simultaneously accepting British hospitality.
When politicians voice their concern about immigration into the United Kingdom, the main Parties, anxious for votes, pooh pooh any suggestion that it is likely to cause problems. Enoch Powell was famously ridiculed for his 'rivers of blood' prediction but still today tensions are mounting. The prime Minister says over and over again that the Country welcomes high achievers from elsewhere whilst dishing out taxpayers money to needy countries but why not instead keep our money and repatriate the very people these countries need to boost their economies?
The ruling elite, instead of courting votes and denying the British people their right to exercise their natural instincts, should listen to their fears and act before it really is too late. Trapped and frightened people become desperate people.
In a 'global' world, criss-crossed with human interactions on several levels; trade, entertainment, education, it is difficult to determine mankind's basic intuition, compromised as it is by personal ambition, profit and greed. To establish the real motives of mankind we perhaps have to look at the earliest, most primitive systems of humanity. We have to look at stone age man, his fears and prejudices, to see what were the priorities of his life and how he found solutions. We must then see how relevant it is to today's environment.
Simply put, stone age man's priorities were fresh water, food, shelter, defence and procreation. Leaving aside procreation, Once a community or tribe had established the first three criterion, they needed the fourth, defence, to keep their assets free from predatory others. Does this not, from the outset, suggest that man's attitude to those of different communities is necessarily one of distrust? I might go further and suggest that mistrust of other peoples was not only inherent in the human condition it was vital for the success of a community. It is nothing less than a demonstration of Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' theory made manifest in human behaviour even today. We are conditioned to take comfort first amongst our families, then our community and Country. What is so wrong about that? Immigrants to any Country, for instance, choose to settle amongst their own.
Looking at Britain today it is seemingly run by a political elite who have the means to indulge their cosmopolitan irrationality whilst subjecting their people to the reality of a life on the streets at odds with their vote catching ideology. The real British people are those we see at Carterton and Royal Woottan Basset, decent and fair men and women, receiving home the Nation's sons and daughters, fallen on far off battlefields, not the street gangs of Brixton or the Muslim quarters that houses a system of belief that despises the British way of life whilst simultaneously accepting British hospitality.
When politicians voice their concern about immigration into the United Kingdom, the main Parties, anxious for votes, pooh pooh any suggestion that it is likely to cause problems. Enoch Powell was famously ridiculed for his 'rivers of blood' prediction but still today tensions are mounting. The prime Minister says over and over again that the Country welcomes high achievers from elsewhere whilst dishing out taxpayers money to needy countries but why not instead keep our money and repatriate the very people these countries need to boost their economies?
The ruling elite, instead of courting votes and denying the British people their right to exercise their natural instincts, should listen to their fears and act before it really is too late. Trapped and frightened people become desperate people.
Thursday 8 May 2014
Souls and the Innocence of children
Are children born innocent? It's a question that has taxed philosophers and those of a religious persuasion for thousands of years but what does it mean?
Are they as pure as driven snow uncorrupted by the past at birth or do they somehow bear the sins of their fathers? Julian of Norwich, the venerated anchoress felt that children were born without evil but needed to sin in order to live their ignorant lives and learn. The Catholic Church believes in 'original sin' and advocates infant baptism as a way to counter it and yet Jesus conversely tells us to become like children and renounce sin (Mathew 18.3). Scripture further teaches us that, at death, “the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7). The parents do not give the soul to a child, but God does. If God hates sin (Ps. 45:7), cannot look at sin (Isa. 59:2), and is the giver of the spirit, a newborn baby’s soul cannot be sinful.
What then is the truth?
So much has been written about 'souls' one is compelled to believe that their existence, like that of spirits or ghosts, is a certainty according to the 'smoke' and 'fire' principle. We must also accept that religious reasoning is biased because the priestly classes always fashion their philosophy to accord with their own ambition.
It is my contention that 'souls' exist, they move from body to body but only according to hereditary rules, passing on characteristics from one generation to another. These generations need not be continuous; indeed the character inherited may be from an ancestor a hundred or more generations earlier, his 'soul' dutifully recorded in his or her DNA. It therefore follows that a person without issue cannot pass on his 'soul'. Also when a parent dies his soul has already left his body, passed on at the act of procreation.
I believe that the character of a person, chosen, possibly at random, from a forebear, is selected as the embryonic brain develops. It is the 'nature' part of the nature/nurture dualism that moulds the new person's character. It means, however, that the new person may be born inherently pious or evil or any shade in between possibly with characteristics that may not be recognised by the immediate parents. We've all heard parents protest that: 'we don't know where little Johnnie comes from!'. Physical attributes such as hair and eye colour may be explained by Mendelian genetics, but what about personality?
What determines which character from the past is chosen for the proto-infant? I'm tempted to say it is at random but somehow I suspect Nature is more sophisticated in its method. As the brain developes it uses NEGATIVE time, the same as used in memory processes, to troll through the DNA of both parents before making a selection and a 'soul' is passed on to a new body.
Some astonishing consequences may arise. A musical child may surprise the discordant parents, the science graduate will astonish the brain dead Mum and Dad and the entrepreneur will bring pride to his idle family.
Of course, mistakes occur. The selected character may be from too early a time, perhaps more than a thousand generations earlier, and the embryo cannot survive giving rise to a miscarriage. There will be other reasons that unsuitable selections give rise to unviable embryos.
There are other consequences. Readers may well ask, what would be the outcome if the character chosen is female and it is fitted to a male embryo.
To summarise. Souls are not supernatural, they exist and they survive death if a person passes on his or her DNA through procreation. A newborn child inherits a soul for good or bad, however nurturing helps define the finished product.
Kevill Davies is the author of: SPIRITUAL MAN: AN INTRODUCTION TO NEGATIVE DIMENSIONS
Available for download from Amazon.
Are they as pure as driven snow uncorrupted by the past at birth or do they somehow bear the sins of their fathers? Julian of Norwich, the venerated anchoress felt that children were born without evil but needed to sin in order to live their ignorant lives and learn. The Catholic Church believes in 'original sin' and advocates infant baptism as a way to counter it and yet Jesus conversely tells us to become like children and renounce sin (Mathew 18.3). Scripture further teaches us that, at death, “the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7). The parents do not give the soul to a child, but God does. If God hates sin (Ps. 45:7), cannot look at sin (Isa. 59:2), and is the giver of the spirit, a newborn baby’s soul cannot be sinful.
What then is the truth?
So much has been written about 'souls' one is compelled to believe that their existence, like that of spirits or ghosts, is a certainty according to the 'smoke' and 'fire' principle. We must also accept that religious reasoning is biased because the priestly classes always fashion their philosophy to accord with their own ambition.
It is my contention that 'souls' exist, they move from body to body but only according to hereditary rules, passing on characteristics from one generation to another. These generations need not be continuous; indeed the character inherited may be from an ancestor a hundred or more generations earlier, his 'soul' dutifully recorded in his or her DNA. It therefore follows that a person without issue cannot pass on his 'soul'. Also when a parent dies his soul has already left his body, passed on at the act of procreation.
I believe that the character of a person, chosen, possibly at random, from a forebear, is selected as the embryonic brain develops. It is the 'nature' part of the nature/nurture dualism that moulds the new person's character. It means, however, that the new person may be born inherently pious or evil or any shade in between possibly with characteristics that may not be recognised by the immediate parents. We've all heard parents protest that: 'we don't know where little Johnnie comes from!'. Physical attributes such as hair and eye colour may be explained by Mendelian genetics, but what about personality?
What determines which character from the past is chosen for the proto-infant? I'm tempted to say it is at random but somehow I suspect Nature is more sophisticated in its method. As the brain developes it uses NEGATIVE time, the same as used in memory processes, to troll through the DNA of both parents before making a selection and a 'soul' is passed on to a new body.
Some astonishing consequences may arise. A musical child may surprise the discordant parents, the science graduate will astonish the brain dead Mum and Dad and the entrepreneur will bring pride to his idle family.
Of course, mistakes occur. The selected character may be from too early a time, perhaps more than a thousand generations earlier, and the embryo cannot survive giving rise to a miscarriage. There will be other reasons that unsuitable selections give rise to unviable embryos.
There are other consequences. Readers may well ask, what would be the outcome if the character chosen is female and it is fitted to a male embryo.
To summarise. Souls are not supernatural, they exist and they survive death if a person passes on his or her DNA through procreation. A newborn child inherits a soul for good or bad, however nurturing helps define the finished product.
Kevill Davies is the author of: SPIRITUAL MAN: AN INTRODUCTION TO NEGATIVE DIMENSIONS
Available for download from Amazon.
Tuesday 6 May 2014
Asthma relief
A report shows that three people a day on average needlessly die of asthma. Many more suffer acute symptoms that cause great distress to themselves and those around them. Sufferers feel helpless and in great fear of imminent death leading to panic that greatly exacerbates the attack. I know because it happened to me in the fifties. I survived because a neighbour recommended that I lay down and relaxed in an effort to control my breathing before the ambulance arrived. It isn't easy when you are literally fighting for breath and your life.
I still suffer from asthma but thanks to my medihaler I can alleviate the symptoms immediately. When I was younger the asthma 'season' coincided with the hay fever season but these days the condition comes and goes on a daily basis. I live in Spain where you can buy a medihaler over the counter in a pharmacy for a few Euros. I always carry one with me and keep others around the home to use whenever the need arises. I suggest the UK authorities, if they are serious about helping asthma sufferers allow the sale of medihalers without prescription from chemists.
I still suffer from asthma but thanks to my medihaler I can alleviate the symptoms immediately. When I was younger the asthma 'season' coincided with the hay fever season but these days the condition comes and goes on a daily basis. I live in Spain where you can buy a medihaler over the counter in a pharmacy for a few Euros. I always carry one with me and keep others around the home to use whenever the need arises. I suggest the UK authorities, if they are serious about helping asthma sufferers allow the sale of medihalers without prescription from chemists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
