Human rights

 A man of West Indian heritage was imprisoned for murder, his sentence including deportation from the UK. Following his release he appealed his deportation back to the Caribbean on the grounds of his human right to family life, perversely ignoring the same rights to his victim. His appeal was supported by 67 labour MPs and other, assorted left wing zealots who see the 'human right' legislation as a tool to denigrate and belittle the United Kingdom.

His appeal was successful; he stayed and committed another murder; this time aided and abetted by his son.

Let's be clear: this blog does not recognise that any human being has a right to anything other than that to have the chance to live. That is: no one can take his life ie kill him. This right to live, however, can be revoked if the subject, him or herself, commits a crime. In the case above, whilst the perpetrator is released, the family of the victim serve a life sentence. This is not right; it is not justice.

An orphan cannot claim a right to full family life. A paraplegic cannot claim a right to full mobility. Nobody should be able to claim a right to be happy, or even the right to pursue happiness as appears in the US constitution. In fact, this blog thinks that all human right legislation should be scrapped. How can it be right that an individual can cite human rights in pursuit of self interest whilst ignoring the same rights of the general population.

This blog has carried the same message since 2010. See links below:

https://www.kevilldavies.com/2010/11/human-rights.html

https://www.kevilldavies.com/2011/10/human-rights-3.html

https://www.kevilldavies.com/2011/06/human-rights-2.html

The nature of reality

 Look around you. What do you see? What do you perceive? A chair; a table, a book or, perhaps, a television? They are all objects that exist in our perception and are 'real' or even positive. We can affix to them all a coefficient '+1' such that we have a +1chair, a +1table etc.

We cannot see a 'negative' or 'unreal' object because our brains cannot see or otherwise perceive negative forms but do they exist in reality? Are 'negative' forms even possible in nature? We have a clue. Ask yourself what is the square root of one? The sueprising answer is BOTH plus AND minus one. To my mind this decree from nature legitimises the availability of negative forms. A square with sides of minus one could not be seen by humans but its area of plus one is real; it exists. 

What is the implication? See the Davies Hypothesis as described in my inexpensive book: Spiritual Man: An Introduction to Negative Dimensions.

Frustration & disillusion. An appeal.

 I'm frustrated and disillusioned. I'm disillusioned because those projects of mine, the golf game, the novels and the hypothesis that describes the creation and evolution of the universe have so far failed to capture the public imagination. I'm frustrated that as each year passes, so my capacity to do anything about it, diminishes.

What can be done to further the chance of success? Leave to chance? One needs luck with this option and that involves time, a commodity I'm running out of. Achieve notoriety? How? By being extremely stupid or absurd or exhibit oneself in a manner likely to attract ridicule or a prison sentence. I think not.

Could it be that my life's endeavours will pass into obscurity, unacknowledged by my peers, as my life fades and passes. What a shame.

Perchance my life's ambition will be reignited, post mortem, and future generations will recognise that my effort was not in vain. 

UNLESS. Unless my work on explaining man's innate spirituality as a natural product of the creation process is finally recognised. So this is my direct appeal; is there, out there, anyone out there with influence who can give my views a fair hearing?; a platform on which to broadcast a hypothesis that changes mankind's perception of the world about them.

Cornering the wealth market

 A recent report says that 1 percent of the citizens of the United Kingdom own 70 percent of the wealth.

They are effectively cornering the wealth of the Country in a manner, I suggest, which is detrimental to the wellbeing of the populace. Why do I say this? Because from such a strong position the wealthiest can to continually increase their holdings of cash, shares and land. They never seem to tire of acquiring yet more wealth and therefore power. What they hold is never enough.

If it wasn't wealth being cornered but, say, rare earth metals necessary for the IT industry, or uranium, the government would intervene and stop it. But with wealth accumulation there is no mechanism. Attempts to adequately tax the wealthy results in financial flight to safe off-shore havens. 

The only remedy is to limit the amount of land that can be held by one person or family, closing all loopholes such as trusts, pension funds etc.

1984. Some thoughts

 I have been reading Orwell's novel, '1984'. At times it was though I was not reading a novel but a collection of essays on the tenet of 'ingsoc' or the imaginary world of the author's creation.

The idea that the geopolitical world consisted of three main bodies, Eastasia, Euroasia and Oceania reminded me of my previous thoughts on the 'Rule of Two'. See:  https://www.kevilldavies.com/2009/12/rule-of-two.html

From a planet divided into over two hundred and fifty countries, the 'Rule of Two' predicts that nature demands that over time by whatever means, coalescence will occur until only two Countries remain. Probably East (Communist, Authoritarianistic) and West (Capitalist, Democratic). In Orwell's scheme the world is now down to three blocs and as in nature the final step is too difficult to achieve in the cosmological short term.

In chapter two of part three, O'Brien asks Winston: 'Is it your opinion Winston, that the past has real existence?' and then again: 'Then where does the past exist, if at all?'

His questions remind one of the deductions of the Davies Hypothesis which suggests that the past does not exist in reality; it is in another dimension. The hypothesis argues that time in our universe is three-dimensional equating to the past, present and the future. Whereas the future never exists, the past was once the present and therefore real and as a consequence could be recalled by memory. Orwell seems to have sense of this reality.

We are introduced at an early stage to the three mantras:

War is peace

Freedom is slavery

Ignorance is strength

Their contrarianism, is an echo of Ecclesiastes 3 with its: 'A time for war and a time for peace etc etc'.

This is, to my mind, a natural consequence of nature's edict that the square root of one has TWO, not one value, plus AND minus one, thereby introducing more uncertainty into the universe than Heisenberg. Again, Orwell seems to be aware of this.

Through my book, 'Spiritualman: An introduction to Negative Dimensions', I have tried to persuade the world of an alternative cosmology based on this fact of nature. It is so obvious and yet few people assume its importance. Orwell is one of them.

Cruel to be kind

The Pope has admitted that he fears greater catastrophies ahead for the earth and all mankind. It would be unkind to suggest that he's fearing the bleedin' obvious but he has a point. Everywhere in the world one looks we see disharmony whether as a result of natural events such as volcano's erupting, earthquakes, weather phenomena, or political manoeuvres such as the Russian war in Ukraine and the Chinese threat to Taiwan. Add to that the religious divides almost everywhere resulting in massive diasporas of mainly women and children fleeing terror. Of course, this has always gone on but today, with the ease of travel, better roads etc and the ambition of the dispossessed fueled by visions of a social media inspired utopia just beyond the horizon, people are tempted to abandon their historic homes.

What do Governments do? Sadly nothing. Most sensible people in the world have no respect for politics and politicians. They say a lot, promise more and deliver little. Most sensible people just want to be governed well and justly. Leaving aside for the moment the authoritarian Governments such as China and Russia, the problems of Democracy are increasingly laid bare. In the UK a Conservative Government in power with a huge majority have achieved almost none of their manifesto promises. Illegal immigration is rampant, houses not built, civil service is enlarging, taxes rising etc etc..

The manifesto should be a statement of intent listing a realistic programme of ways to improve the life of its citizens. Instead Party manifestos are a bribe promising a utopia paid for by hypothetical money trees. When in office Governments are too frightened of upsetting the electorate to do the right thing, remembering the old adage that sometimes one has to be cruel to be kind. Now to suggest that people should exercise self discipline is to attract vilification from those to whom anarchy appeals. Worse, Governmental decisions could lead to their losing power at the next General Election. Should democracy mean a 'race to the bottom', voting for those who promise everything, squander public money on drivel and achieve nothing.

The alternative is a one party, authoritarian state where the ignorant plebeian public, excused voting, are to be run by a ruling elite that serves in the best interests of the Country. (not the populace). In a perfect world, where the politicians are honest, hard working and loyal, this would be great but sadly, as in the current case of Russia, this is seldom if ever likely to happen.

So! What does the future hold? As the Pope suggests more chaos, more disasters, greater unhappiness to more people escaping a living hell on earth. In the background the superpowers are developing ever more powerful weapons in line with more scrabbling for the earth's diminishing resources. Is this what the Pope means? 

Hereditary Peers

 In todays Mail the well respected journalist Peter Hitchins bemoans the passing of a House of Lords filled with hereditary peers of the realm.

see: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11524385/PETER-HITCHENS-arrogance-folly-Ukraine-send-nuclear-catastrophe.html

Your twelve years late, Peter. This blog has always regretted the changes that allowed the chamber to be filled with people, (almost a thousand, at £400 per day), totally unsuitable to monitor the laws of the land.

I will not repeat my arguments again but point to my original blog of 2011:-

https://www.kevilldavies.com/2011/01/house-of-lords.html

Lady Susan Hussey

Eighty-three year old Lady Susan Hussey, for many years lady in waiting to the late Queen has been accused of racial abuse by Ngozi Fulani. Miss Fulani claims she was violated and interrogated by lady Susan during a palace reception for the 'Safe Life' charity which aims to combat domestic abuse.

What caused this rumpus? Did Lady Susan call miss Fulani 'a b...k b.....d' or a 'n....r'? No she simply asked the lady where she was from? On being told she was British she again enquired, innocently, about Fulani's origins. That was it! Racial abuse, pure and simple. 

Not so, surely. It's a reasonable question between strangers trying to strike up a conversation. Had Miss Fulani replied, 'I'm British but my family originally came from Nigeria, the Ivory Coast or wherever Lady Susan might well have said something like,'I visited there with the queen in seventy-one', or something similar. But no, Fulani wanted her fifteen minutes of fame identifying a second question on her background as interrogation, feigning hurt. It's pathetic and sadly all too symptomatic of the Country's decline at the hands of people who hate the British for alleged historical malpractices.

Is it a calculated distraction aimed at sabotaging the Prince & Princess of Wales' visit to the United States at the same time as Meghan and Harry's Netflix programme is about to be aired? Who knows but clearly it will not help to diffuse the totally undeserved taint of institutionalised racism in the British royal family.

To lady Susan, I say this: you have done nothing wrong; you have served your Country and monarch well. No need to apologise and be proud. 

Scrap legislation that allows Government agencies to be sued

 I suggest that the ridiculous proliferation of 'diversity' officers in the NHS and elsewhere comes as Government agencies face unprecedented claims from people who claim to have been offended or had their human rights breeched. The situation is inflamed by aggressive lawyers, using tax payers funded legal aid, to pursue claims that most right thinking people find ridiculous.

It has only been possible to sue the government agencies such as the NHS and police since the late twentieth century. It's time this legislation was scrapped. The old argument for disallowing a citizens to sue was that it was not possible to make a claim against yourself since the citizen was also a tax payer.

Stop allowing people to sue. The agencies would then be protected from claims, allowing some mediation for special cases, saving the public purse, curbing the greed of lawyers and restoring some credibility to public services.

EU land grab

 For trade purposes Great Britain has to consider Northern Ireland as a foreign country. To all intents and purposes Ulster is part of the European Union. The Europeans have annexed the land against the wishes of the people of the United Kingdom.

At the same time, these Europeans, along with the rest of the world are condemning Russia for its illegal land grab, assuming large swathes of Eastern Ukraine as its own.