Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Approved Baby Names And Rare Steaks - There's No End To Government Instrusion

It is without a doubt that politicians around the world are on a roll, not only are they displaying their overbearing arrogance but also their contempt for the views of the people they are supposed to be representing.

There isn't  a day that goes by without another story of faceless state bureaucrats interfering in the private lives of its citizens and with the connivance of their elected representatives. Obviously this interference is agenda driven, designed to slowly impose the superiority of the government over the rights of the individual citizen.

Many freedom loving people will be shocked to learn that there are such things as government approved lists for baby names. How and when this Soviet style interference came about is a mystery but if the form book is anything to go by it was sneaked in by stealth before the people had a chance to disagree.

In this case the interference became apparent when an Israeli couple, working in Brussels, wanted to name their newborn baby Alma Jerusalem after their home city only to be told that Jerusalem doesn't appear on the state approved list of baby names.  Along with millions of others, I have never heard of such an outrage.  Naming a baby is one of the most intimate and private things on earth and certainly not within the domain of political low lifes.

It's just as well that the Geldof children weren't born in Belgium or Fifi Trixiebell, Peaches, Pixie and Heavenly Hariana Tigerlily would be state approved Salina, Lorelay, Lydie and Berniss.

It must be said that the babies' father, having spent three years working for the European Union, should have known that Brussels is a vipers nest of authoritarian state control fanatics and arranged a trip to Israel so that mother could have had her delivery at home and name their baby without political interference.

One would think that state approved baby lists is a minor matter to be quibbling about but where politicians are involved there is always an ulterior motive and in this case it's the cultural replacement agenda better known among both tribes of natives as the Islamification of Belgium.

It must be noted that while Jerusalem is not on the state approved list of baby names the Muslim name Mohammed most certainly is; in fact it is in the top ten most popular names in some parts of the country and rising fast.

The fact that this government interference is agenda driven is given credence by the fact that cultural replacement in Belgium is gathering pace and the process of Islamification is well under way. If things proceed at the current rate then Belgium will be the first European country to fall to Islam since Spain in the 8th century.

British freedom lovers will again be dismayed but not surprised that their government via the Food Standards Authority, is issuing 'guidelines' that meat should not be served with any traces of pink. As the British know to their cost, 'guidelines' today are perverted by bureaucrats into rigidly enforced regulations tomorrow. This is achieved by government inspectors bullying and threatening until vendors are intimidated into compliance. Resistance appears to be futile.

Millions of grown up adult diners choose to enjoy eating meat cooked less than well done, myself included, and will continue to do so regardless of government interference. Overcooked pieces of leather are not as appetizing as a juicy steak or a plate of sushi.

Personally, together with tens of millions of other happy diners, I eat my meat cooked rare, my eggs boiled soft, my fried eggs runny together with seared ahi dipped in Wasabi/Soy, plates of sushi and raw oysters on the half shell. If that makes me an enemy of the state then so be it, come and get me.

One of the idiosyncrasies of their perverted creed is that nobody, except the ruling elite, escape the consequences of socialist authoritarianism.  The bureaucrats go for them all until everyone is caught in the net of government superiority.  In the meantime, wealthy socialists of the Phony Tony Blair/Bill Gates ilk will continue to enjoy the delights and excesses of the class they demonize and supposedly want to abolish.

The majority of the Scottish people are enthusiastic socialists; conservatives are as numerous north of the border as the Dodo is on Mauritius, but even these socialist diehards are not immune from the impositions of the state bureaucrats.

The Scots are outraged that the iconic pint glass is being banned from Highland pubs for safety reasons. These glasses have been around for ever and are as traditional in Scotland as the kilt, the haggis and a set of bagpipes. Obviously their socialist masters have decided that the Scottish people are too stupid to be trusted with a glass drinking vessel. Champagne, wine and whiskey drinkers are also targeted and must now drink their favourite tipple out of plastic drink dispensers. Is nothing scared to these Philistines?

It is a racing certainty that this is the usual use of precedence prior to imposition across the rest of Scotland and then the entire country over time. This is a well known tactic of sleazy politicians to get an unpopular policy imposed by stealth. One thing is for sure, the views of the people will be studiously ignored.

The people of Scotland have no room to complain, they brought this on themselves. As ardent socialists they must therefore accept that the nanny government knows what's best for them and they must comply.

From baby names, meat preparation and beer glasses, there is nothing that the government bureaucrats will not interfere with in order to demonstrate their superiority over the citizen. If the people of Scotland, and freedom lovers everywhere for that matter, want to do anything about it then they should wake up and stop their habit of blind tribal voting for sleazy, lying career politicians and replace them with experienced candidates drawn from the real world of real people.


  1. Does seem a bit odd to me why muslims would want to name their sons after a mass murdering thieving paedo. Can't see many Brits calling their son Jimmy Savile Smith or Ian Brady Jones. Still, that's what 14 centuries of severe inbreeding does for you, I suppose.
    Paris Claims

    1. After 14 centuries its unlikely they will change now

  2. Part 1 of 2 (max 4096 chars per post).
    There's a big problem in the UK and other developed nations, whereby the State tries to be all things to all people - advocating for example - that you eat your meat well done.

    They impose more and more laws on the people they are supposed to be making happy.

    'It's for your own good' they say. Actually, it's about money. They think that by imposing rules they're going to control you, and ultimately once they do that they can argue that the imposition is necessary to save the health/cost to the nation. Maybe but in the process they are building up great resentment and the backlash comes as 'we're being controlled by the Nanny State'.
    The root of this all. Money.

    The largest central (and local) Government spending is:-


    Take two extremes.
    A man and woman hardly work at all in their life. They rely on unemployment benefit and eventually a state pension .
    They are housed by the local authority .
    They have six children who get educated .
    One of the children has special needs.
    The parents drink and smoke and have been in hospital numerous times.
    Both parents have had criminal convictions resulting in time in prison.
    They have been involved in several car accidents resulting in motorway closures, fire, police, ambulance and hospital services.
    In short - they cost the state a lot of money.
    Another man and woman are both employed - working full time and employ a child minder to look after their two children. They pay taxes every month and contribute to their pension schemes.

    They have private health insurance but rarely use it because they stay choose to stay healthy by not smoking, and drink sensibly.

    Their children go to fee paying schools.
    They drive defensively to avoid accidents.
    Neither of them has been in trouble with the police.

    They pay for their childrens' further education and when they retire they live off the proceeds of their pension.

    They cost the state very little and have contributed far more than they have taken out of the system.
    One couple choose to make a mess of their life and the other take care of themselves and children, yet, there is no actual reward for doing so.

    This is the reason that people choose to let the State 'do it all for them'. And the costs balloon as more jump on the band wagon.

    End of Part 1..........

    1. You are right, its all about control and hanging onto power. I would disagree that the two examples you give are extremes. I am sure most people would recognize people from both examples, they are everywhere. Some of the people I grew up with are unashamedly from example one.

  3. Part 2 of 2.

    I have an idea on how to stop this.

    Recognise those who do their most to reduce State expenditure.

    Any political party in the UK who would propose cutting back on the welfare system would be doomed. They will not do it.

    Instead, implement a policy like this:-

    Each UK citizen is allocated 'points'. Say, 1000. Points can by earned (not bought), by paying tax every month, paying into a private pension scheme, opting for private health care, electing for private education. etc.

    Points are 'lost' by claiming benefits, not paying taxes, not paying into a pension scheme, getting a criminal conviction (varying loss of points according to severity and duration of prison stay), having road accidents (Whether to blame or not)...etc.

    At retirement age your 'tally' is totted up. Those who have no points left get nothing. Those with x number of points get the value of a two week holiday, or longer - right the way up to a round the world trip.
    The value is a cash injection - a cash back - so to speak.
    So, bonus time for the big contributors to the state and who cost little to maintain, and 'no prizes' for those who abuse the system.

    This means that people have access to all the state benefits during their working life regardless of how they choose to live it - but the cost is recognised. If people choose to smoke - it'll cost them - eventually.

    After retirement age, people 'exit' the system and regardless of health etc they continue to receive benefits.

    The above scenario provides benefits to those who cost the state a fraction of what others who abuse the system do. The 'pay back' at retirement would be a fraction of what that person *could* have cost the system.

    I've thought long and hard as to whether this would create a class divide or some such. I don't think so as essentially, it's a long term plan, and is much the same as people who are rich compared to those who are not. It does not discriminate or cause immediate loss which would hinder a person's ability to 'get back on track'.

    There would be a cost to set it up...... but.... it's not rocket science..... :-)


    1. I find it enlightening that people such as yourself are actually thinking about things, analyzing the situation and looking for solutions.

      There is nothing wrong with what you propose other than the fact that if an idea threatens the political class's grip on power it will never see the light of day.

      Rewarding the strivers over the feckless should be a natural process but I fear schemes such as yours, and others, will require the removal of the current political class first.

      They are deeply embedded and short of a revolution, only a re-awkening of the people will achieve it.

      Thanks for your comment which I enjoyed reading

  4. I totally agree. One only has to look at the reluctance of the British Government to hold referendums to see how they wish to deny the people a choice in matters.

    1. The current gang of politicians consider the people as the enemies of 'progress'. They believe that only their vision of the future is valid.

      They have nothing but contempt for 'we the people'