Very liberal... just like a dictatorship...

Is it just me, or is the left and the far right starting to look like the same team?

For those who don't know, the far right is meant to be authoritarian, believe in strong state control and often characterised as intolerant towards minorities of race/religion etc.

The liberal left is meant to be about minimal intervention from the state and providing freedom to everyone to as much as they want within the limits of what will affect those around them (ie, you're not allowed to shoot someone, because they interferes with their life etc)

Generally everyone hates the far right for obvious reasons, while the liberal left is 'cool' because they are usually for legalising drugs, reduced sentences for criminals and for all round telling people that whatever lifestyle you go for just fine and dandy.

The flaws with both are simple:

Far right: see Nazi Germany
Liberal: it doesn't take long to realise that most people's behaviour has a cost for someone else, ie, you take drugs and you'll end up being treated by the NHS... which is paid for by me or your neighbour or whoever else didn't want to have to pay for it.

Anyway I'm not actually on my point yet, which is, as I said at the start, that actually these days the liberal left is starting to look like the same team as the far right. Maybe they don't play in quite the same way, but their tools and practises are starting to have an uncanny similarity.

I'll take a few examples that are going on around the world right now:

Sweden & Germany:
Sweden is usually portrayed by many people as a liberal paradise. They have high investment in rehabilitation and relatively 'pleasant' prisons. What they now also have, is a total ban on home schooling your own children. Not only this but the government controls the curriculum for any non-state schools. What difference does this make? I hear you ask. Well ignoring for a moment the fact that on average home schooled children tend to get far better grades and be more involved in the community, the problem can be summed up in one sentence: the government has legal control of what every human in the country (excluding immigrants) must be taught at a young age, that is when they are most impressionable.

The scope for indoctrination is staggering. Anyone who says anything that the government considers untoward can the act as a flag to have their parents investigated. The Nazis were known for encouraging children to report their own parents if they said anything in the home against the Nazi regime, amazingly this could easily have a similar effect. Just set the curriculum on whatever you want, get people to discuss it and chances are they'll say what they've been taught by their parents. The fact that it was also adopted in Germany isn't encouraging. Last year some parents pulled their children out of a sex education class, they were fined €2,340. How liberal is that? You don't even have the liberty to educate your own children on 'family matters'.

United States, New York:
Recently in New York they have made it so that churches cannot use state school premises for a place to worship on a Sunday. Never mind the fact that this brings in money for state education (ironically something that liberals in America always complain is underfunded and inadequate), never mind the schools aren't used on Sunday so essentially it is efficient use of resources (something that American liberals also claim to care about) they've decided that churches can't use state premises because... it suggests that the government supports Christianity.

Once again irony knocks considering the pledge of allegiance often recited in schools states "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God" and that the money which they hand over in order to pay for the hire of the premises states "in God we Trust". The fact is, hiring out a hall constitutes an endorsement, according to New York state. Presumably those who hire out a wedding premises endorse the match and the couples choice. Does the state favour pilates over yoga if it rents out a community hall to a pilates class? Does the state endorse Tae Kwon Do over Karate if it rents a hall to a Tae Kwon Do team? Or maybe one could go further and say that is an endorsement of Korea's right to use violent defence (Tae Kwon Do is Korean) over and above China's?

The list could go on forever, it is just retarded to think that venue hire actively endorses an activity just because it allow it to go on. Don't get me wrong, there may be a time when a venue is expected to refuse to allow someone to use its premises but that is when they are actively against, it, not passively indifferent.

So this example isn't illiberal, it is just absurd.


The United Kingdom

For the UK I'm going to pick one that is topical. Gay marriage. Now as I said before a liberal in theory wants people to be able to do what they want without affecting others. At the moment Gay people are able to get a civil partnership that provides every legal right of marriage. If you're heterosexual you can't have a civil partnership if you're homosexual you can't have 'marriage', but essentially they provide exactly the same rights and benefits. Those who have the one are legally treated the same as those who have the other, no exceptions. In theory those who have a civil partnership don't have a religious aspect to their service, but in reality any gay couple are free to find someone who is considered to have religious standing in the community to add a 'religious' aspect to their special day.

So from a liberal point of view people can have what they want and no one can impose their desires upon another. Arguably there is an equilibrium where each party can do as they wish without being able to force their version of events upon another.

But liberals are seeking to ensure that gay people can legally have a marriage, something that I'm sure lots of liberals would think is a great idea. But in the UK there is an act called the Equality Act which means if you do something for one person, you have to do it for another and you cannot refuse on specific grounds. One of these involves sexuality. While this may make sense in a work case scenario, that means all of sudden not only will the change allow gay people to marry, it will also mean that anyone (vicar/minister etc) whose consciences tell them they shouldn't be performing such ceremonies will not be allowed to follow their conscience or even redirect them to someone else, and will be fined large sums of money if they do, and potentially imprisoned if they don't pay up. In short you can't just endorse what you want to endorse, you have endorse what the state tells you to too. How liberal is that?

So to summarise modern liberalism is all about laid back freedom. Allowing people to make their own choices and live their lives in anyway they wish to as long as it doesn't interfere with other peoples' rights to do the same.... that is unless they think they could explain something better/educate their child better than the state, unless they want to hire a venue that the state owns, or follow the convictions of their conscience on the life-styles they choose to endorse. If you want to do any of those things then chances are liberals are not so laid back, not so freedom loving and actually far more the 'drag you before the courts and fine you thousands of £/€/$' types. And if you don't pay up, you're going to jail.

An easy way to get around this of course, is just do whatever the state wants and don't disagree with any of their values or stances or try to express/teach anything different or abstain from behaviour you wish to avoid... a bit like what the far right expects of people. See simple!

This is the most important lesson we might learn in modern times

So this Wikileaks chap has finally be released on bail.

But what a challenge it was. Can you believe how much the US government has gone through to nail this guy? Quite a lot I'm guessing. But I want to look at it from another angle.

First of all, I have no idea whether the information that wikileaks publishes is damaging or not. Most of the cables that were published just say what we already knew. The only difference is, it is the political establishment that is usually so coy, saying it.

But that isn't my concern. The fact that Saudi wants the US to bomb Iraq isn't that surprising, even if it is damaging, what is surprising is the control that can, and clearly has been exerted on almost every institution that should be resilient to control, for the purpose of protecting freedom and preventing the fascist state.

Ordoliberalism is a school of thought that developed during the Nazi period in Germany. They opposed the Nazis and hated their practices. The hated them so much that they spent alot of their time thinking of ways to make sure that the fall of a republic never need happen again. They'd watched the Weimar Republic go to pot, and they wanted to make sure that sort of thing never happened again. They decided private power, was the cause and as such, this should be limited.

In this case, however, it is not private power being used to manipulate political power, but the other way around. And that has demonstrated some staggering consequences.

So here are a few huge corporations that have given in to the man in black suit from the CIA:

• Amazon;
• 'Swiss bank';
• Paypal;
• Mastercard;
• Visa.

That is before we get on to the Swedish government themselves.

Now these are huge companies. They by rights should be able to stand up to the government, but clearly are even more at risk, as after all, they have more to lose.

This is a scary situation. The only way that Julian Assange can get bail is by cash or cheque, although if a cheque is being used then he'd have to wait until it cleared, which would just leave him in prison for a week. The reason why this is so concerning is that banks, in the name of efficiency have recently decided they want to scrap cheques by 2018. Further, it is the dream of the government to one day banish cash altogether. After all, if this is done, then every transaction can always be monitored... and it would appear, stopped.

So is that it? The government leans on a company and then they stop you having access to your own money? Just think, by Mastercard not letting anyone pay for Julian Assange's bail, they are stopping everyone, you, me, anyone from spending our money. They are dictating what we can use our money for, and not just in the sense of stopping buy crack with my income, I mean buying a man's freedom.

This concerns me.

What happens if a government considers you a dissident? What if they decide that they don't like your hair colour or your accent or your passion for freedom of speech? Does that mean they will lean on the Swedish government to arrest you? What about me? Will they lean on your bank to close your account? Will they lean on your card provider to stop people from helping you? Will they make sure that "that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark" of their approval? That is an unpleasant thought.

I know this all sounds like scare mongering, but let me put it this way, the US is a country that prizes freedom above all others. I would say that in many ways they have it ingrained into them to cherrish their freedom and protect it. Now, if the US cares about freedom so much and yet even their government can act in such a tyrannical way we can learn this: any government can be turned into fascists you just have to piddle them off enough.

So next time you think that getting rid of cash is a good idea because you don't use it anyway, next time you vote laws to your government because they'd never use them irresponsibly. Just remember what I said.

I'm not an anarchist and I not anti authoritarian, but I am, seriously, pro-freedom.

Obama, what were you thinking?

Obama has recently made the 'courageous' decision to support the building of a Mosque near 911 ground zero.

For those of you not familiar with British political sit-com "Yes, Minister" I will clarify that courageous means that the decision will lose votes and/or the next election.

Now, I'm a very pro-freedom kind of guy, so why do I think he made a complete cock up? Well first of all lets be clear, freedom to worship is centrally important to every country. If you can't walk into a church and worship Jesus, then there is something wrong in your country. But I don't believe that people should limit worship in the sense of having an official relgion of the country. Such behaviour usually just attracts the wrong people and as a result the religion often becomes nothing like what it should be, because the adherents are there, not to worship God but because they want to be associated with the states religion.

So if I want to support religious freedom (where it is not damaging a country) why is there a problem with having a mosque near ground zero. Well, for the same reason that I wouldn't want people having a protest against the war at Wootton-bassett (the place where British soldiers who are killed in action are returned to the UK).

If you want to make a point and protest, or if you want to worship that is one thing that is in your choice, however if you want to deliberately offend and annoy people, provoking violence and riots that is something else. The thing is all these things can be done at another time. or another place. Protests against the war would make more sense in London that in Wootton-bassett, a Mosque can be built elsewhere in New York without needing to be near ground zero.

The difficulty with this of course is where does one draw the line. Recently Christians were arrested for giving out Christian literature at an Arab festival. Could they have done that at another time? Of course, but that is not the point, the point is to reach Arab Muslims. What about pro-gay and non-pro gay people protesting at the same time? What about the really strange decisions in the UK where they allow English Defence league (EDL- anti-Islamisiation) and anti-EDL protests to go on in the same city at the same time?

Surely the anti-EDL protest doesn't think that by having a protest themselves at the same time they are going to convince those of the EDL to change their minds? So surely it must be for the purpose of confrontation and altercation?

It is a difficult line to draw in some cases but in this case one thing is clear, Obama has made a very courageous decision.

Geert Wilders is in the UK, hmmm sensitive topic I feel...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8311059.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/16/geert-wilders-dutch-far-right
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wilders-hails-his-arrival-in-uk-as-victory-for-free-speech-1804347.html

Geert Wilders is in the UK, hmmm sensitive topic I feel... but nonetheless one that needs commenting on.

This man claims that Islam is a threat to Western civilisation and so on and so forth. Now I don't want to get involved in a discussion about Islam itself because as far as I'm concerned there is a bigger point to be discussed that covers Islam and a whole lot more. That is freedom of speech.

Now last time I checked most people agreed that freedom of speech is a fundamental tenant of Western democracy. To be honest I believe more in freedom of speech than I do in most of the other elements of a democracy. If anything the other elements are there to ensure that freedom of speech exists.

Don't get me wrong it is not without its problems, you cannot have absolute freedom of speech otherwise you would be able to incite violence and various other crimes. You also have to consider things such as stirring up hatred against racial groups too, but then this should come under the category of stirring up violence.
But there is a balance to be achieved and this balance is fundamental to the Western way of life and without it this country would soon go to pot.

So why is it so important?
Simple, a ban on offence is a ban on criticism. This is why dictators love restricting speech, it is why communist countries love restrictions and but this is not why the governement likes making restictions.
The reason our governement likes restricting speech is not to prevent criticism of the government itself (not in this case anyway) but to prevent the criticism of those who have big mouths. The government doesn't want the Islam to be offended, because whenever they are they take to the streets with banners saying various unpleasant things.

But wait a minute, since when was that a legitimate to supress the expression of opinion?
Really now, since when?

If I decide to pick up some retarded opinion such as apes are in fact superior and must be made to reign in the UK, if I then built a following that would then protest in a very aggressive fashion everytime someone said something against 'ape-ism' it would then be retarded to think 'oh best not offend them, better prevent people saying anything against ape-ism and prevent people coming to the UK to talk about it.

The first thing I was taught regarding freedom of speech in my Human Rights lectures was that it is only offensive opinions that need to be protected in the first place, because if the opinion was not offensive no one would be complaining about it.

If you can't criticise then the whole playing field because un-leveled, can you imagine going to court after being accused of something you did not do, and then once in court you are told that you can defend yourself just as long as you don't criticise the credibility or the storey of the prosecutor. You'd be wondering what exactly you can do and in short, you'd be screwed.

People kicking up a fuss was never a reason to let them get their way or as Winston Churchill once said "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." And this is exactly what the government is doing, I mean lets be honest anyone who has signs saying 'freedom go to hell' should be open to a bit of debate and that goes whether the person adheres to a religion, ideology, 'science' or anything else. I, like anyone have things that are important to me, things that I don't like other people making fun of or criticising (especially when the criticisim is from the point of ignorance, which it often is) but I think people should have the freedom to do those things even though it offends me because then I know when I have to say things that offend others (and I will) they will have to accept that I am free to do so just them same. I don't go out of my way to offend and I don't think people should generally, but that doesn't mean for one minute that offence should be prevented at the cost of genuine freedoms.

It is time of the UK to grow up in a way, instead of trying to keep everyone happy and stopping play everytime someone wants to sulk we should accept that we're all adults and that offence is going to happen whether we like it or not. If we don't every aspect of our lives will be controlled by those who tantrum the loudest and most inappropriately whenever something happens they don't like. In a line; freedom will go to hell.