Latest Posts

The article below is a theoretical speech that any and all members of political parties should be voicing, but rarely do. Instead we now have the situation where previous, well learned, practices and lessons are being "deconstructed" for the sake of change. It is no longer a matter of those old philosophies, facts and sayings being wrong or remotely incorrect. It is however, a matter of being that arrogant and ignorant as to believe or convince themselves that all those old pearls of wisdom are just wrong and the new generation has the answer. Destroying past history and replacing it with newly interpreted versions, just ensures that those same mistakes they were designed to avoid, will be made again..

Granting your faith in the actions of an individual, party, organisation, without bothering to check the facts or making any effort to find out what they actually believe in, will ofcourse end in major disappointment. As Aristotle notes that he only speaks out of ignorance and does not even recognise the fact that he was regarded as being wise, for such should indicate to others that not one single human being on this planet is totally infallible or totally correct on every occasion and everything they do and say. Skepticism is a required trait in order to balance one's decision making processes, without it you would fall for pretend dictators/Political parties/Organisation who always neglect to mention that they are actual such a culprits, that will be the end result..
he came to realise that his wisdom was in recognising his ignorance.
This is why one cannot fathom how any individual with a working brain could possibly accept any movement or doctrine on face value without asking the appropriate questions. One would have to wallow in total ignorance to believe that any leader or organisation or government will and does all things correctly and do not make mistakes or make errors, or make deliberate errors in judgment. Some are ofcourse more glaring and obvious than others and yet the adherence persists and one is no longer an active thinking member but a sycophant or enabler or a supporter that promotes and encourages those deliberately introduced injustices and tyrannical laws that are the end result..

One has to ask oneself which one are you. what do you support and why. Have you asked or studied all the pertinent questions or are you just another sycophant. Refusing to question and just accept, believe that supporting any movement especially slut-feminism, is justified without perusing or pursuing the facts and copious information currently available, that totally contradicts their claims or are you an active, comprehending member belonging to a movement that supports what you believe to be correct.  That  is just and honest and will benefit all, rather than promoting the ignorance you prefer to believe is correct without justification..
To be human is to be fallible. The Pythia at Delphi said that Socrates was the wisest man in Athens. But Socrates couldn’t understand why – he considered himself ignorant. After travelling around Athens and questioning citizens, he came to realise that his wisdom was in recognising his ignorance. Less wise men had the arrogance of certainty.
If individuals are fallible, and unable to appreciate their fallibility, so too are groups. Clubs, associations, companies, political parties and governments are all collections of individuals who individually make errors and collectively make greater errors. There is no reason to suppose that a group reduces rather than amplifies human errors. In some cases a group will reduce the errors of its members; in others it will amplify their errors. The latter is more likely where there is a strong and charismatic leader to whom the group’s members abdicate their reasoning and free will. Thus we find group think.
Great crimes have been committed by groups. Far greater than any committed by individuals.
If we recognise our fallibility, we will be less subject to the arrogance of righteousness and hubris. We will be less definitive in our conclusions and less emphatic in telling others how they should behave. This is the wise course.
The ultimate group is the State, which can force compliance, impose discipline and seize property. Wise people, recognising their limitations, use the instruments of the State with care and with modesty. The burden of proof for State intervention lies with the government. If the argument for intervention in a particular case is not clear, well understood and widely accepted, the government should not intervene.
Wise people make sure that decisions taken in the name of the State are not difficult to reverse, knowing that they could be wrong and not wishing to bind their successors. Already we see the follies of poor decisions where taxpayers’ resources have been misused. I want to avoid passing such a legacy to my successors.
By contrast, individuals acting in their own interests have been responsible for the great technologies we enjoy today. Few technologies have been the result of government decisions; instead governments have acted to inhibit technological progress and to reduce standards of living – this is clear by examining the path of various countries around the world and the interaction of the private life with the state.
Recently there has been a tendency in western countries for governments to intervene ever more into the daily life of their citizens. This is a direction to which I am opposed and will reverse in my government. Law abiding people should be free to lead the lives they wish, without the State acting as a nanny. Laws against murder, theft, rape and so forth are justifiable. But a law against a person smoking outside or in a group of like-minded individuals? That’s an infringement of their freedom. Regulations which, for example, tell caf├ęs how to arrange their seating are unnecessary and undesirable. There are numerous other examples where the State already regulates beyond its competence.
Like sophists of the past, governments use persuasive theories to justify the further accretion of power. Behavioural and nudge theories are examples which have been widely used to justify the novel use of State power. So too are justifications such as income inequality or social justice. They are all projected with intellectual pride and arrogance by the governments (and their agencies) in the pursuit of some Utopian dream. Advocates glow with pride as they run off reams of misused statistics to justify these follies.
Link to the remainder of the article..