Why do I do it?

Having had valid comments about the extreme nature of some of my comments, it occurred to me to explain the reasoning behind why I say what I say.

It is divided between observation of where people simply get it wrong and I've seen through it, so need to put things straight in my own small way, and my opinions based on what seems right and natural.

As currently the pendulum has swung left, and for big government and large scale intervention and social engineering, the first point is whose right is it to tell others how to live if it isn't hurting them? They call it equality, but the first principle of equality after every life (including animals) is equal, is no person has the right to impose their wishes on others. Those who govern are employees, and if they get it wrong we get rid of them. Of course where that isn't possible individuals simply take over, but no one would say that was a good thing except their friends and families, we only know this one short visit to life on earth and do not need big headed autocrats putting unnecessary obstacles in any of our paths, much like Camden council's roadblocks in the 70s which have now been copied across Britain, making everyone's journeys harder unanimously. All these rules are nonsense, society simply doesn't have a right to impose its morals on others. Of course the fall of empires in history raised this long ago, so realised while the people generally will not last long under the rule of arbitrary other people, mainly then the aristocracy, they needed something higher, (much like today's global warming), so raised life to a level above humanity (despite having foundations of nothing at all) and if people were pushed into handing over their money and rights it was to a higher form of life, the highest possible, god.

Now more people are gradually dropping their belief for humanism, that only works on the margins, and the rulers need more subtle ways to impose their wishes on who are in all ways their equals (what right does the British royal family have to order us around, or the hereditary peers?). Of course the Parliament Act stopped that centuries ago for that very reason, recognising no one born to a particular family has the right to rule on that basis, but it only meant new ways kept being developed for those who weren't content with their own freedom, but feel they must impose it on others the way they want it.

So when I catalogued the areas which were being used to impose opinions on innocent people, and steal their money and rights, I pointed them out. And as a natural rebel, if anyone makes a rule to stop something harmless or even tasteless but harmless I will do it even more. A comedian was on the radio aplogising for an old programme about spastics, although it was and still is a medical term. Children (and many adults) will by human nature use the words for the disabled as insults, just as with body parts, so call it something else and they will just use them sooner or later. The name is irrelevant, as the British soldiers did when they were told to stop calling the Falklanders Bennys, they called them Stills, as they were Still Bennys. Banning words doesn't change human nature.

Family structure has always been a hot potato since the feminism of the 60s onwards. Back then women were either career women at the top, housewives in the middle, and workers at the bottom, as houses were so cheap the man could usually pay all the bills himself, while the women looked after the children and may work part time if they felt like it. They could have worked full time as no one actually forced them not to, but they chose not to. It was, to use a word the left would love to ban as well, natural. Animals are not told who must look after their children, but it's all arranged worldwide whichever animals we are talking about, some have the whole pack sharing the work, but most it's the mother, look at cats for the best example. So using ethology, extending animal behaviour to human (these lessons always become useful eventually) if animals have a natural family unit, then we can assume as animals so do we.

Multiculturalism is demonstrated worldwide in unimposed ghettoes, little pockets of Somalia, Poland or wherever else has enough new arrivals in an area, and all they do naturally is reproduce the Punjab or Shanghai in their own areas, the longer they remain the more traditional the area becomes as Chinatown or Southall. Then you reach the point where the new culture dominates the area so much the native people feel uncomfortable walking along the street or entering a shop where no one is speaking English, and whether or not genuine feel heads are turning just like when a stranger walks into a Cornish pub.

This simply isn't a political issue, it's almost entirely an economic one. As there is a currency slope between the highest and the lowest, within any country the economic hierarchy is based generally on dividing the limited GDP among the total population, either to a small elite and vast populace in poverty, or a democratic spread. Each country can work to improve the GDP to increase the total pot, but if you just let them commute to the best place and work there freely you'll naturally get the poorest who have the means all move together to the best places to work and live, with the extra bonus of sending money back to the old country to remove any benefits of the host country where it has been earned.

I haven't done a survey, but would expect given the chance the great majority of immigrants would love to return home if they had the same opportunities there, as we are all attached to our roots to some degree. Why on earth would anyone want to integrate, especially first generation? And if religious, the second generation get into great deals of trouble when they do begin to mix with the locals and either have to give in and get back in line or fall out with their families. These pitfalls are almost guaranteed, and can never totally go away, as when the few long term migrants do return home they don't fit in there either as many people see how they've changed and don't fully accept them as they are now.

Economic equality/redistribution is pretty much theft, based on my first principle, no one has the right to tell us how to live our lives if no one else is hurt. People in a single country are all in the same boat more or less, as if a free country the poor can all become rich. They won't but they could. Besides the money needed to run a country, any more than that is sheer theft. Where do you draw a line of 'too much money'? I can only describe people who wish to remove the honestly earned wealth of others for society as being no different from what they just did to the Cypriots, just a sophisticated form of burglary.

But the bottom line underlying all my beliefs is freedom. If something creates an obstacle for freedom in any way, then without an extremely good reason, vital in fact, it should never happen. I see them and call them for what they are. Artificial, totalitarian and entirely unnecessary. I was always aware of these, and fought at school to stop anything I saw as unfair as that was my nature. Since then I've had long enough to identify all the specific areas, and the internet allows me to point them out. And in the style of any rebel, if they've tried to block a word or attitude, I will use it all the more. Not because I want to offend anyone, but because everyone should be free to, and I am.

So those are the motives behind my bad behaviour. I want to release everyone for the same freedom, and to discover we all want the same thing, but just believe there are a million ways of getting it. But most of those are wrong, if they restrict freedoms for no good reason or purpose. Of course if everyone had everyone else's money they'd be better off, but the others who lost it wouldn't. Unless private property is outlawed altogether, something requiring the highest level of totalitarian imposition, the default is your property belongs to you without a damn good reason to share it. That's life, nature and freedom.