Loyalty or Honesty?

Which is the greater trait? Loyalty or honesty?

It doesn't take most people too long to realise you can be loyal without being honest. Yet history is rife with examples of people who were loyal when, honestly, they knew better. The most sensational example of this is, of course, the Nazi's, but the concept hits a little closer to home than that.


Loyalty will always be valued over honesty by those in a position of authority (be it political, religious, secular businesses or social groups) simply because no one wants to be told they're wrong. We instinctively and inherently resent honest notions that force us to justify ourselves. And so, our natural sense of values are topsy-turvy. Someone that's loyal is seen as more valuable, more of a team player, more of an asset. While someone that's honest is difficult, a trouble-maker.

Reality, of course, is just the opposite. The seemingly loyal devotee isn't at all loyal. They're dishonest. While the honest devotee is loyal to principle before position.

If you find yourself in a position where you are challenged to be either loyal or honest, choose the tougher road less travelled and be honest...

From the US, With Love...

Apparently, not many people did. Al Gore got more of the popular vote but lost on a state level. Well, I guess we can be thankful for small mercies.

Democracy - We Get What We Deserve

One thing I'll say for democracy - people get what they deserve. Those of us who remember the "time for a change" mantra of '97 know the shallowness of thought that won the country over. Blair's government has proceeded to ban anything unfashionable, remove our rights, and generally boss us around for our own good - and Britain deserved it. Britain chose it.

We even have the opposition we deserve. If we were a principled people, we would have a principled opposition. But principles don't pay in politics - the electorate neither understands nor desires them. The Conservative party knows better than to put a principled conservative in the leadership role. They've tried that - and the electorate burned them for it. So we have the vacuous Cameron - a showman like Blair - only with fewer principles.

The Palestinians elected Hamas. That's the thing about democracy. This may sound like a bitter injustice to the many good hearted Palestinians who want none of this madness, but they fail to form a critical mass. They will endure what their compatriots have chosen.

Heartless? No, I want something better for people. Pragmatic? Yes, I think the best option for government is to allow the people to choose. The down-side is that the people will get what they choose.

Ten Years of Tony Blair

On the announcement that Tony Blair is to step down as prime minister on June 27, here (pinched from the BBC) is how he has aged over the last ten years:
Not too bad, really. You should see how the rest of us look after ten years of his sanctimonious and bossy leadership!

Banana Republics

Within hours of the polls opening in Nigeria, the ballots are not even in the country! This is a big country, with crap transport, and there are 120,000 polling stations needing those ballots - if you can call shacks with no ballot papers "polling stations"...

Never mind, the government won't care how people vote anyway. These elections are just to humour the "international community".

With this scale of incompetence and contempt for the electorate, Nigeria is in danger of being compared to the United Kingdom - remember the election the judge said "would disgrace a banana republic"?

Wipe that grin off your face, Tony Blair - history will be cruel. Why not try on the more fitting dumbfounded-shit-for-brains look of your Nigerian counterpart.

Abolition of Slavery

It's 200 years today since the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire. While I appreciate the monumental change for good in the legal abolition of slave trafficking from Africa to the New World, I'm a little more ambivalent about this anniversary - and I'm especially sceptical of the fad for ceremonial apologies. Here's why:

Firstly, I have no doubt there are more slaves in Britain today than ever before. Sex slaves are being brought in from eastern Europe in their droves. Children are being flown in from Africa to live with cousins and aunties as unpaid household help [read - domestic slaves]. Uprooted from everything they know, they will fail at school, fall in with the wrong crowd, and eventually run-away, likely into prostitution (as I saw happen in a family I know).

Second, my ancestors were Scottish - some of whom were mercilessly driven off their land tenure. People were cleared to seize land for the wealthy elite. Yes, that's white people being treated as more worthless than chattel.

Thirdly, it's a lot easier to make theatrical apologies for crimes of another generation than to put your own house in order. Our society still consigns people to miserable hopelessness by fostering dependence on welfare and a host of other morally corrupt policies.

Fourth, many of those clambering for an apology can trace their ancestry back to slaves. But it is almost certain that their ancestry also includes the slave masters. Callused as I may sound - apologise to yourself! We did not chose our ancestors, and it's just too damned convenient to chose to identify with the victim rather than the oppressor. The genes from both sides define every cell in your body.

And finally, the vast majority of white British families never kept slaves. They were more likely to lose their jobs to them. My ancestors and yours had enough to think about putting food on the table before their own children.

So apologise if you want. It'll do more harm than good - because it is not honest.

The Religion of the Secular Left

Those of us who believe in God well know the sneering disdain of the atheist political left. There are of course many kinds of atheists, but few are as self-righteous as the humanist left.

It's striking how religious the anti-religious left-wingers have become.

This stark irony is glaring in the recent bullying of the church by our Labour government. Having grown up in the church I see the worst characteristics of religion in the secular left:

1. Disagreement from the received wisdom is barely tolerable. All efforts are made to suppress dissent. Parliamentary time was not even allowed to debate new laws which will force Roman Catholic run adoption agencies to adopt children to gay couples. The view that "any loving stable relationship" is equal is above question to the elite left. In their arrogance, they smugly dismiss the accumulative wisdom of human history, heritage and design. They have no respect for the knowledge of the church which has been active in caring for orphans and the vulnerable long before the government took an interest. The liberal left's willingness to use children for this reckless social experiment is deeply shameful.

2. Those who dare to disagree are personally attacked. There has to be at least a character flaw, and probably a psychological derangement in anyone who deviates from the holy consensus. To suggest that children should be with a mother and father is tantamount to sacrilege. 'Homophobia' is the much thrown about accusation as though belief that marriage is between an man and woman, or disagreement with gay couples adopting is a mental illness. Actual phobias are real, and can be debilitating to the sufferer. Believing that children in need of adoption should be cared for by a married man and women is not a phobia, it's common sense.

3. Outrageous bossiness. The elite not only demand obedience of action, but obedience of thought. Not content with banning smoking in public buildings, every public building must display regulation signs forbidding the practice. Once again, churches are being made to display the signs. Nobody smokes in church! If the lefties had ever put their head in the door for a moment just to glimpse the heritage of their nation's principles, law, morality and values, they'd notice that no one is smoking in there. We don't need your damned bossy sign defacing the wall! The fashionable morality of the left may be a flash in the pan beside the enduring principles of the church, but those moral fads will be forced on all nonetheless.

4. Condemnation - for all are guilty. We're wrecking the environment, world poverty is somehow our fault, we're supposed to apologise for African slavery. We're even to blame for the shit-for-brains murderous rabble spreading their violence over the middle-east and the world. Your car is too big, your carbon footprint is too big, your arse is too big, you eat too much, waste too much... And fear - the Earth is too small, too warm, too full, too dangerous, and that's our fault too.

Jesus himself detested this religious practice of lording over people...
For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Jesus called them together and said, You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.

So many times I've heard Christians criticized for "pushing their beliefs on others". Religions certainly have been guilty of this, but no more so than today's political left. Jesus didn't put his energy into bossing others around. He taught and lived what he believed, and people were inspired to follow.

Jesus wasn't religious at all. He said "ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." It's the political left and this damned Labour government that has all the hallmarks of a constrictive religion.

Racism on Big Brother

The news, the papers and even the prime minister in parliament are talking about racism on TV. The limeys have been bullying Shilpa Shetty in that menagerie that is Big Brother.

Now an Indian junior government minister of external affairs is "considering a formal approach to the UK over the programme."

Perhaps Gordon Brown (on his self-aggrandisement tour of India) can tell the junior minister that if he gives a hint of credence to anything on the damnable show he's as thick as Jade Goody.

For a more thoughtful post, try Morag The Mindbender.

Bossy Governments Are Never Good

I've been trying to figure out what to say about this bossy government's move to raise the leaving age for compulsory education to 18.

Saving me the trouble, ThunderDragon has put together an excellent and concise post.

(And besides, I was sick and tired of seeing a Labour politician as the last photo on this site.)

Empty Excuses

Thinking about Labour MP Ruth Kelly and her dyslexic child attending a private school, I'm struck by the emptiness of her arguement.

Ruth Kelly's defence is that the needs of her child are most important in this decision (doesn't every parent care?), and that the school authorities recommended the move (...and so what if they didn't?). I don't think she needs to defend the choice at all, only abandon her hypocritical Labour government job.

Dyslexia is somewhat on a high right now. As Ellee rightly pointed out, there are some notable dyslexic achievers - Branson, Churchill, Einstein. But over the last few generations, I expect there have been many more who did not find such success. Countless intelligent and talented (or not especially intelligent, but precious none the less) children have suffered misery at schools that could neither help nor understand.

I went to school with one young rebel who was a complete horror to our teachers. Today, I expect he would have Attention Deficit Disorder, or some such labelled condition - perhaps even dyslexia.

Either we happen to live in the time that all learning-imparing afflictions have finally been categorised and understood (which would be an extraordinary coincidence) or there are some more thick kids out there who will one day look back on a cruel system that failed, but never diagnosed them.

My point is twofold. First, without the contemporary status of dyslexia, Ruth Kelly may never have found the support of the local school educators to remove her child from the state school. Does she still believe that parents should be able to choose the best school for their child even if there is no Latin word for whatever is holding the child back?

Second, each child is an individual and some may have no diagnosable condition, yet would greatly improve their results from a private school. They may have the same measure of increase toward fulfilling their unique potential that a dyslexic child by gains with expert attention. Does not every parent have the right to pursue the best for his or her child?

Labour's hate campaign against private and church school education is deeply hypocritical. The moment the presure is on, their leaders run to the private sector.

And for what it's worth, the church was educating children long before the governments gave it any thought.

Envy and Hypocrisy: the Hallmark of Socialism

I will not criticise Ruth Kelly (Labour MP and former Education Secretary) for sending her child to a private school. It is none of my business how much the school costs. Nor is it my business what special educational need her child has. Every child is unique and responds in different ways. Some kids even thrive in bog-standard Comprehensives! (The state school system worked fine for me.) And every parent has a duty to do what they believe best for their own children.

I will criticise her for being a socialist.

Socialist Principle 1. Prevent others from achieving excellence by enforcing equality of outcome.
Socialist Principle 2. Once in power and wealth, grab the goodies of high living that no one else should be allowed.

Envy and hypocrisy - the hallmark of socialism.

Moral Fashion

When my five year old came home from school chanting:
"Eenie meenie mynie mo..."
I thought, here we go...
"Which will stay and which will go...?"
I'm sure we used to say, "catch a nigger by the toe." Ah hem. I flinch as I type this. "If he squeals, let him go..." Ah, stop! Excuse me. But no one battered an eye back then. I suppose a few did, but I wasn't aware. I didn't even know what a nigger was!

This year I've been fascinated to watch the new ethical fashions come and some of the old go. There's been a clear establishment of the view that drug sellers are bad while drug users are victims. With the five murders in Ipswich there's been a surge of acknowledgment that those selling sex are victims while the users are bad.

I think it's fair to say that these were not widely held views a generation ago. Fashions in morals seem as fluid as any other field. Perhaps more so with the abandonment of an absolute standard in the slide to a secular society.

There are issues we debate, and there are underlying assumptions accepted by both sides of the debate. A few swim upsteam... one columnist had the audacity to suggest that the prostitutes lives were of less value than most - no great loss, he implied. He was roundly put down by left and right, by legalist and libertarian. Most agree that an individual murder victim's social position should not prejudice the vigour of the investigation nor the exactness of justice. But that has not always been the prevailing moral climate. There is little reason to think it will remain as it is now.

There are two possibilities here. Either we have just arrived at the final and complete set of ethical standards for humanity... or fashion will change again. (It would be a remarkable coincidence if this is the age that finally figured it all out.)

It is a near certainty that our children, as post-enlightened adults (or whatever they'll call themselves) will look back on some views held today with a roll-of-the-eyes and mock embarrassment - "oh, that's just how people thought in those days." So I asked myself, what thoughts and values are approvingly smiled upon today by the great and the good, but will seem ridiculous to a new generation?

Perhaps discrimination against the thick will become unacceptable. Nowadays stupid people get an awful rough time, low pay, over-representation in prisons. In future, employees telling jokes about dummies will be frog-marched to tolerance classes. We'll observe Meat-Head Awareness Week, and Dim Pride! No longer will promotion by merit sound so noble... perhaps.

I'm not making judgements about what morals I approve or disapprove of here, I'm just wondering what current standards will prove less enduring than they feel today.

Any other ideas?

Spoof Belgian Split

A public television station in Belgium ran a two hour spoof story that the Dutch-speaking half of the nation had declared independence. It was half an hour into the report before "this is fiction" appeared on the screen. By this time thousands were taking in, including foreign ambassadors in Brussels who "sent urgent messages back to their respective capitals".

I won't laugh at those who fell for this, it must have been convincing. Even current politicians in on the joke gave spoof interviews. They're not laughing in Belgium either. But then, Belgians don't laugh much.

The TV channel thought to provoke debate, and it seems to have worked. If the Flemish are inspired and emboldened, they may just gain some form of independence. It's upset many too, which is another plus. Of course, unless they split from the European Union altogether, they'll still be serfs to the unelected council of busybodies in Brussels.

Having been on several business trips to Belgium, I can offer my informed and balanced opinion that Belgians are barking-mad. But not in a good way. If you don't know what I mean, go to a restaurant in the Flemish north and try ordering in French.

Lib Dem Says Loose and Quit

Liberal Democrat MP, Sandra Gidley in a caricature of her over-prescriptive, hater-of-excellence, all-must-be-mediocre, far-left self has called for an end to school sports days. She says schools fail to consider the feelings of children with little sporting ability... school sports days publicly humiliate children who finish last.

What a wonderful example of a socialist solution. Some fail, so no one can be allowed to succeed! All must be prevented from excellence so that no one's feelings will be hurt.

Apparently Gidley's feeble efforts on the school sports track left her so bitter that quitting was not enough. All must quit.

A right-of-centre solution focuses on individual freedom. I would insist on the right of children to refrain from public sports just as others choose to compete. I would also encourage participatory games that are more fun for the less competitive.

And perhaps more important for parents, teach children to enjoy participating in a variety of activities with different levels of proficiency. Win with grace, loose with dignity. Respect your opponents, give your best, develop character.

Coming last on sports day is not a humiliation. Sulking all the way to Parliament is.

Marriage is Best

Half of co-habiting parents split by their child's fifth birthday, while only one in 12 married couples do. The Conservative policy group has pointed out this stark reality that deluded lefties have denied for years.

This family breakdown leads to massive problems of poverty, underachievement, hopelessness and unemployment, crime and drug abuse. The Tory group costed this at £20 billion a year.

For years socialist politicians have insisted that any "loving, stable relationship" is of equal value, arguing for equal recognition of de-facto or same-sex relationships. The sad debris from this social experiment is the feckless underclass that expect to contribute nothing but dead weight.

And yes, there are thousands of tremendous, contributing individuals who come from broken homes (and there are worthless scum from married parents). The individual can overcome any "statistic". But is it willful ignorance to deny the superiority of marriage over de-facto relationships in family outcomes.

One of the greatest things people can ever do for children is marry and make it work. About the greatest thing a father can ever give for his kids is faithfulness in marriage to their mother.

In response to the BBC article:
He [Ian Duncan Smith] insisted that the focus of the report was not to "lecture" people to get married, but to help couples, both married and co-habiting, to stabilise their relationships.
And they will fail because they are still too spineless to conclude the obvious - that co-habiting will remain inferior and less stable than marriage because it is a deliberate rejection of the traditional commitment. The outcomes for children are catastrophic.

No one is asking the Conservative party to "lecture" people what to do, just tell the truth!

Mr Duncan Smith said he was not making a moral judgement about marriage.
That's because the Tories have no morals. They abandoned conservative morality when it went out of fashion.

Islam and Islamism

In response to the Queen's speech, British MP Paul Goodman spoke thoughtfully in Parliament about the government and nation's approach to terrorism and security. (Hat tip to Melanie Phillips. The speech is not short, but worth reading.)

Interestingly, he makes the distinction between Islam - a great religion ...as various, as complex, as multi-faceted and as capable of supporting a great civilisation as Christianity.

... and Islamism - an ideology forged largely in the past 100 years...

• First, it separates the inhabitants of the dar-al-Islam-the house of Islam-and the dar-al-Harb-the house of war-and, according to Islamist ideology, those two houses are necessarily in conflict.
• Secondly, it proclaims to Muslims that their political loyalty lies not with the country that they live in, but with the umma-that is, the worldwide community of Muslims.
• Thirdly, it aims to bring the dar-al-Islam under sharia law.

I do not agree with this analysis. It seems to me that the Islamic religion is oppressive, aggressive and regressive. The 'moderate/radical' distinction is that so-called 'moderates' are influenced by the western style pick-and-choose belief system. They pay more attention to the nice parts of their religion, and wish-away the slay-the-infidel-wherever-you-find-em bits.

Those very committed to every tenet of Islam will of necessity oppose freedom and peace. Islamism is Islam's response to 'corrupting' and particularly, western influences. 'Moderate Islam' from a western point of view is really just 'back-sliding Islam' from the committed.

I think it's fair to say that Islam is not going to 'go away' anytime soon - though frankly, I'd rather it would. (I don't consider it a 'great religion' or even helpful in the world.) The next best is that it be watered-down, westernised and marginalised.

Human Rights and Drugs in Prison

Our embarrassing government is handing over our money in settlement for alleged breeches of 'human rights'. Prisoners denied illegal drugs while in prison had to tough out cold turkey.

So what are rights? This is a fundamental question and the Government of this country is getting it all wrong. A 'right' must be free. If a right costs something, then does it become someone else's obligation to pay? That would be an infringement on others' rights! This is why there is a right to freedom of speech, not a right to a microphone, air-time and an attentive audience.

The Americans understood this. They have a right to 'the pursuit of happiness'. Not a 'right to happiness'. If you want it, pursue it for yourself! The rest of us have no obligation to make you happy.

In Britain we hear so much about human rights to education or health care. This really makes no sense as a principled position. How much education is a right? Primary, secondary, university? If there is right to health care, does that mean any treatment possible must be made available? If these things are human rights, then people become victims of human rights abuses whenever they get less education or health care than someone else.

The only realistic way to provide this equality is to prevent the most resourceful from getting the excellence in education and health care that they might otherwise obtain. This perverted idea of human rights breeds envy, mediocrity and victim-hood.

The right must be to pursue education, to pursue health care. If I work hard to achieve something for my family, that hurts no one else. I am not preventing anyone else from providing abundantly for their own. But the twisted ideals of human rights bring ever increasing taxes to level-down achievement so that even those who do little or nothing to look after their own can have what the rest of us must work for.

These were convicted prisoners wanting illegal drugs. The moral vacuum in which they can successfully fleece the rest of us for compensation is beyond belief.

The Home Office said it "reluctantly" decided to settle out of court to "minimise costs to the taxpayer". They won't even fight. Utterly useless.

European Union to Turn 50

The celebrations are a wee way off yet, but the utterly useless monumental waste of money called the EU is spending our money on a 50th anniversary logo. If they just stopped embezzling our money that would do a lot to improve public relations.My favourite line from the BBC article is: "The winner was named amid reports that the EU is scaling back celebration plans, fearing public ridicule."

The Moral Compass is Spinning

Years ago I learned (the hard way) that just because something is a good idea, it may not be a good idea for everyone.

There is not just the question of whether it was right to invade and attempt to liberate Iraq. My question is: Did we have the moral fortitude to pull it off?

The head of the British Army said there is a moral and spiritual vacuum in Britain. He says, "the decline in Christian values in Britain that has allowed Islamic extremism to flourish."

From the interview:
Our society has always been embedded in Christian values; once you have pulled the anchor up there is a danger that our society moves with the prevailing wind.

In other words, we haven't a clue why we are in Iraq, we don't know what we have to offer. We don't even have the fortitude to support our troops, let alone pay them a living wage.

Also:
There is an element of the moral compass spinning. I think it is up to society to realise that is the situation we are in.

We can’t wish the Islamist challenge to our society away and I believe that the army both in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably wherever we go next, is fighting the foreign dimension of the challenge to our accepted way of life.

We need to face up to the Islamist threat, to those who act in the name of Islam and in a perverted way try to impose Islam by force on societies that do not wish it.

It takes the breath away to hear someone at the top speaking honestly. Here is a write up of the interview with General Sir Richard Dannatt.

French, Genocide and Fatwa

I was considering the new French bill to criminalise denial of the Armenian genocide when I came across this succinct post on a forum by (unknown to me) Tara Rene of Tokyo:

Nothing more than a "secular" version of FATWA. France has long lost its prestige as the beacon of liberty. This will degrade that position even further. Let's face it this is not even truly about what happened to Armenians 90 years ago and rectifying its history. French PMs -as ignorant as their Turkish counterparts but more arrogant with a superiority complex- acted like radical imams issuing fatwas: an expression of looming French racism and neo-fascism, and of giving in to powerful lobbies.

Meanwhile, Turkish politicians are considering a law that would make it a crime to deny that French killings in Algeria in 1945 were genocide. George Orwell called it thoughtcrime.

This is all part of a row over Turkey's entry to the EU. I say disband the bloody thing.