Are we being Chemically Coshed?

Brave New World is a classic book, in every sense of the word. In Huxley's tale of a "negative utopia", society was encouraged towards the mass consumption of a drug called, Soma. The use of this drug kept the majority of the population compliant, happy and generally non-aggressive.

Interestingly, it may have been a visit to the newly opened Brunner and Mond plant, part of Imperial Chemical Industries, or ICI, Billingham, which inspired him to write the classic novel.

Some of what we read about in BNW has come to pass in one form or another, particularly the ability to engineer embryos for artificial insemination or for the specific purposes such as genetically matched organs, reflects Huxley's vision of factory produced children. However, it is the aspect of Soma production and use which is where we will focus.

The World Government of Huxley's novel encouraged the widespread use of Soma, and in the UK today, our Government is increasingly encouraging a state of affairs where the population is being pharmaceuticalised beyond anything that can reasonably be termed, necessary.

For instance. There is currently a debate raging concerning whether all (repeat, all) over 50s should take Statins While the drug is effective at reducing Cholesterol and thus reducing the possibility of heart attack or stroke, it also has severe side-effects in many people. This writer was prescribed the lowest dose of Statins some time ago, and within 4 months was having quite severe muscle pain in one leg which occasionally prevented walking. All the symptoms vanished within 7 days of ceasing the medication.

During the recent near pandemic of Swine 'Flu, the anti-viral drug, Tamiflu, was mass prescribed. Many people thought this was a cure, it was certainly presented implicitly as such in the media, but at best it only reduced the effect of the virus by about 24 hours, by slowing down the rate at which viruses infect cells in the body and, therefore, how fast they spread and make you ill.

Despite this, and despite the acknowledged side-effects (nausea, vomiting, retching and diarrhoea), which often were more severe than the disease they were supposed to be 'curing', the Government went all out to enforce a mass-vaccination programme.

The fact that Swine Flu was not the feared pandemic we were all told it would be, and that the majority of people only suffered mild symptoms, the fear of the disease was greatly exaggerated. Why? Was this to encourage a certain compliancy within the population to allow themselves to be unnecessarily pharmaceuticalised?

You might find this Mail Online article interesting.

and this one!

Of course, for the aged or those with long-term illness, vaccination is nearly always beneficial.

We've looked at Statins and Tamiflu. Let's examine the increased use of Warfarin with the elderly as a routine procedure. Warfarin (known more commonly to most of us as rat poison) acts upon the blood as an anticoagulant thinning it out. Of course, although it is a poison, in lower doses it does not kill. The reason it is used is to prevent heart attacks and especially strokes in the elderly. By elderly we are talking about the over 70s. Such prevention is a good thing only if it is being used as a necessity and not as an age determined generality. For the assumption is that everyone over a certain age will benefit from Warfarin medication, and this is simply not true.

Case in point: A gentleman I know personally, and have know for over 40 years, was put on Warfarin about 3 years ago. At that time he was a very active 80 year old, used to do lots of outdoor physical activity (gardening especially) never bothered about any chilly weather and had a very good quality of life. Now he wears his outdoor clothing inside because he is always cold; holding his hand is like clutching the palm of a dead man. His quality of life is greatly reduced. Prior to being pharmaceuticalised, he had barely suffered a day's illness, presented no symptoms indicating any potential heart problems, and yet he was still prescribed Warfarin simply because he had reached 'that' age.

In all these instances, we have to ask a question: who is really benefiting from the wide-spread, and possibly completely unnecessary pharmaceuticalisation of the population? One answer may be whichever political party is currently trying to convince the public that it really cares. Another, much more likely answer would be an economic one. Money, industrial fiscal profit, is a huge motivator. The pharmaceutical industry is in business, not as a charity, but to make profit selling product. This product is pharmaceuticals; pills, potions and vaccinations.

Finally, let's mention the Government's current obsession with vaccinating underage girls against cervical cancer with Cervarix. It is not a bad thing that women, or in this case, underage girls, are protected against a serious disease. The anomaly is that while 70% of cervical cancer is caused a sexually transmitted virus, the approach is vaccination rather than the more obvious solution of encouraging sexual abstinence. But then, no Government has dared approach this, or any other sexual problem, for instance, the ever increasing rate of teenage pregnancies, with a moral solution rather then a pharmaceutical one.

And, of course, a moral solution would not produce share-holder profit for Roche (Tamiflu) nor for Bristol-Myers Squibb (Warfarin) nor for GlaxoSmithKline (Cervarix) nor the manufacturers of the varied range of Statins.

More general drug info can be found on this excellent medical site

So when a Government is looking for serious solutions for serious problems, who might be whispering in their collective ears, who might have a huge vested interest in persuading that Government that the pharmaceutical route is the one to choose?

Think about it - it's not rocket science!

Is Being a Biker More Than Just Riding a Motorcycle?

Here's something a little more light-hearted than previous posts.

I was watching a regional news TV programme some weeks ago, that featured a reporter who is well known for going after rogue traders (there's a hint!) on the back of a black sports bike. He is a motorcycle rider in his own right, but in the course of the particular report had cause to say the following, 'I ride a bike but am not a Biker'.

I found this remark quite interesting and it caused me to wonder, 'what exactly makes a Biker?

Now, you may think this to be of little import. However, it does raise the issue of how people see motorcyclist in general and 'Bikers' (if there is actually a difference) in particular; and does this affect their attitudes upon the road towards them?

Clearly a Motorcyclist is someone who rides a Motorcycle (Scooters not included - sorry). All Motorcycles are Motorbikes, therefore are all Motorcyclists, motorbikists i.e. Bikers? I think not. In that reporter's mind there is clearly a difference, and I tend to agree. I would suggest that whilst 'Motorcyclist' means one who rides a motorcycle, 'Biker', means someone who embraces a certain ideology, a certain philosophy, a certain, perhaps, Zen? i.e. A person whose relationship with the, 'Bike, goes deeper in some way or another, than merely riding a Motorbike. That involvement might be a fascination with the mechanics, the membership of a local Motorbike club or owners' group, an appreciation for the 'art' of the Motorbike, someone who uses the Bike for 'weekend warrioring', or someone whose lifestyle embraces 'The Bike' whole-heartedly to the exclusion of all else; an obsession maybe.

But is there something more? Is there not in the very term, 'Biker' a sense of rebellion, of one who is outside the boundaries of normal polite society, one who is, whilst astride their 'Bike, making an explicit statement of intent and purpose, of rebellion, of dissatisfaction with the everyday boredom of the grey-suited world, and with sanitised modes of travel?

Biker, Greaser, Outlaw, Hells Angel, are all, in some minds, interchangeable, and I wonder if this misconception, for they are slightly different things, leads to a certain animosity towards Motorcyclists generally, from other road users (i.e. car, van, bus and truck drivers, as well as certain police forces) and members of the general public?

I would call myself a Biker, yet not a Hells Angel, nor a Greaser, but I do feel there is a certain 'Zen' when you are travelling astride a throbbing motor, on two wheels (or perhaps four if you are a, 'Quader') with the wind tearing at you, the elements assailing you, the sense of freedom inspiring you and the open road calling to you. There is also a sense of danger, and this is not imaginary. Whilst Motorcyclists represent 2% of road users, they tally up a score of 20% of the road accidents, yet for some, the bite of danger, the adrenaline rush, the crack, is what they seek and is why they ride.

So, to answer the question, 'Is Being a Biker More Than Just Riding a Motorcycle?', I would say the answer is an unequivocal, 'YES'!

Finally, can I recommend, most highly, the BikeSafe Scheme which has courses running all over the country. Well worth the weekend it will take, and it will make you a safer Biker!

Ride Safe, Home Safe!!

My Life Is Your Responsibility

Let me ask you a simple (possibly hypothetical) question. If you go out drinking one evening, and you drink so much that you have difficulty walking, and in you attempts to stagger home you trip up the roadside kerb, fall over, and injure yourself. Is your first thought to sue the council? If you answer, 'yes', then you are like a significant number of people in today's society who believe that their actions, and the repercussions of those actions, are not their own, but someone else's responsibility.

Another question. You are a 15 year old girl. You go out one evening, drink alcohol, get a bit merry, have casual sex, get pregnant and have a baby. Is your first thought going to be: what council house would I like and, what office do I go to for benefits? If you think this is an acceptable line of thought, then you may well be someone who has difficulty accepting responsibility for your own actions.

Personal responsibility is the acceptance that my actions, and the consequences of my actions, are my responsibility. This simple premise forms the very bedrock of our justice system, and as such is a cornerstone of our society.

However, over the last 30-40 years a serious faultline has opened up under this crucial foundation. This faultline has been created through a number of socially seismic disturbances. The removal of discipline in the raising of children is one. The creation of the monster known as the 'Nanny State' is another.

Let's look at the former for a moment. It is a cliché to say this, but 30 years a go, if a policeman told you off for riding your bike on the pavement, and you took no notice, you may well have got a clip round the ear. If you were rude or disruptive at school, you might get the slipper (this writer got several slipperings during his secondary years).

In other words, there were repercussions for bad behaviour. In our 21st century society, discipline has been removed, and with it the vital learning experience that if I do something wrong, there will be repercussions, and sometimes, unpleasant and possibly painfully so. Please don't think that the threat of exclusion is a punishment. It is not, it is a gift. Neither are ASBOs punishments. They are rather badges of honour among a certain social class.

Let's look at the 'Nanny State' for a moment. The 'Nanny State' really came into being on the 5th July 1948, with the creation of the NHS (National Health System). It is not unreasonable to say it was possibly one of the most momentous social changes for the population of the UK. For the first time UK citizens could look to the State for provision of vital health care regardless of their social or economic standing, and let's not deny that this was a very good thing.

But it fundamentally shifted, within society, the fulcrum of responsibility. No longer was the individual responsible for their health care - if they had the means to pay for it - but now the responsibility fell to the state. Of course, every working adult contributed to the NHS in the form of National Insurance and general taxes, but nonetheless, we now looked to the state to look after us.

Nationalisation (euphemistically referred to as, Public Ownership') of industry was a central policy of the Labour government in 1945 and very quickly became more and more of a creeping menace which saw the nationalisation of the Bank of England, and the coal, aviation, telecommunications, Transport, electricity, gas, iron and steel industries, and has continued through to the part-nationalisation, in 2008, of the Royal Bank of Scotland and the newly merged HBOS-Lloyds TSB.

What this has meant is the de-empowering of the individual in favour of an all encompassing enrolment of the state as protector, benefactor..... Nanny.

Thus has our individuality, as citizens of a democratic country, become eroded, and left behind the overwhelming misconception, in the minds of many people, that it doesn't matter what I do, the state (or someone else) will 'pick up the tab'.

So now, children are growing up in a social climate which tells them either explicitly or implicitly, that it doesn't matter what they do, how they behave, who they hurt, who they disrespect, who they rob (and even, increasingly, who they kill) that it's not their responsibility and there will be little, if any, punishment or repercussions.

That is totally unacceptable and is leading us to complete social breakdown.

ID Cards And The Database State

There is a prevailing thought amongst some people that there is nothing wrong with the idea of ID cards for all, and the inevitable 'database state' that goes with it. The argument usually runs along the lines of, 'if you done nothing wrong there's nothing to worry about.' This does sound seductively logical. After all, that argument can also be used concerning the burgeoning surveillance society, and the Government's plans to monitor all (repeat, all) of our Internet traffic including emails, and snoop on all out web surfing.

Of course, we have every faith in our Government don't we, and know that they have our best interests at heart? We know this because that is what they tell us.

Pause for a moment to think of Germany in the 1930s. No-one imagined then, the horrors that were to be unleashed by the Nazis upon their own population. But horror did descend upon them, and none more horrific than the 'ID' that Jewish people were made to carry; the yellow stars marked, 'Jude', and the highly involved administration of the suppression that went with it. As we know, this led to one of the greatest human tragedies in history.

Now, imagine that in the not to distant future, our own Governmental system were to suffer a similar radical change for reasons, at present, hidden from us.

Suddenly, because we are all compelled to carry ID cards, our movements are severely restricted; where we are allowed to travel is limited, who we associate with is proscribed.

If you think that this is far-fetched, it isn't. There are already sufficient laws on the statute books to usher in such a regime. If you want to know what this might be like, try to get hold of the BBC series, 'The Last Enemy' on DVD, and then remember how the recent G20 demonstration was Policed. We may not be as far from a Police State as we would perhaps like to think we are.

On 21st October 2009, it was reported that an extra £200,000,000, every year, will be used to monitor all internet activity of UK citizens. This is on top of the current annual expenditure of £11,000,000 used to monitor emails and telephone communications.

Of course this is a huge subject, and you could do worse than go to NO2ID's own, stop the database state, website. You can subscribe to their newsletter on the website as well.

Sorry Seems To Be The Easiest Word

You will probably remember the Elton John song, 'Sorry seems to be the hardest word'. I would like to disagree with that, albeit, worthy sentiment.

The act of saying sorry, whilst it can still be a bit galling, and perhaps difficulty to come to the point of actually apologising; think Jacqui Smith, the real meaning of 'sorry' has been lost. It has been lost in the sense of loosing what 'sorry' was really all about originally.

To apologise, to say sorry, had the context of not simply words spoken, but of contrition, of reparation, of making things right again. This principle of reparation, of paying back, is an ancient one, and vital to any social group or society. "Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house." (Holy Bible-Proverbs Chap. 6 verse 30-31). "The concept of reparations-payments made for damages inflicted by one individual upon another have long been regarded as appropriate social policy." (Apologies, Regrets, and Reparations - Stanley L. Engerman - Department of Economics, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY)

It wasn't enough to mouth the words, 'sorry', you were expected to do something to make things right again, or at least to attempt to make things right again. In other words, you had to take responsibility for the consequences of your own actions, or indeed, lack of action. Of course, depending upon what you might have done in the first place, making things right might actually be impossible. Then there would be other ways of making reparation; monetary compensation for instance.

But these principles have, to a great extent, been lost to our modern 21st century society.

Nowadays, a lawyer stands before a bouquet of microphones, reading a statement about how their client, '...deeply regrets what he has done' or '... is very remorseful over her actions' .... etc., and this is deemed to be sufficient. Well of course they are going to be remorseful, regretful; they were caught! But where is the reparation, the actions to back up the words, the repentance? And here we have the nub of the issue. Repentance. The meaning of the word is to, 'turn away/around from...'. In other words, a determined action of the will away from what you have done, to a new direction... an about face. And true repentance is always accompanied by action, by reparation.

Years ago, a Government Minister was caught out lying to Parliament concerning a serious breach of ethics and security (see this blog). He resigned and devoted his life to charitable works. Here was repentance and reparation in action; a true apology.

Even if a court determines that compensation is to be paid by the guilty party, there is no guarantee that the compensation will ever be forth-coming. Indeed, thugs and criminal just ignore such things, and often don't even get around to saying sorry either.

If we, as a society, paid more attention within our Criminal Justice System to the act of reparation by the criminal, to the victim, we might find that not only would the criminal learn something of value, but the victim might feel that their hurt/injury/damage/loss, has been better considered as well.

The Death Of Discipline & The Rise Of The Feral Child

On a disturbingly regular basis, newspapers carry horrifying stories of innocent people being attacked, and in some cases killed, by gangs of children roaming the streets without any fear of the forces of law and order disturbing them.

What 'crime' then have their victims committed? Well, they had the effrontery to ask said gangs to; stop vandalising their car, stop kicking their garden fence down, stop throwing bricks at their windows and a miscellaneous catalogue of other anti-social behaviour.

The Police only get really interested if you might, in an endeavour to prevent said anti-social behaviour, touch one of these delicate and fragile youths on the arm or shoulder. Then and only then do the squad cars arrive ready to drag you, the victim, off to the pokey!

How on earth did it come to this? The answer lies in the animal kingdom, which is appropriate in a way, as human beings are constantly being referred to as 'mammal' or 'animal' by various commentators. Ask any naturalist, animal behavioural expert or TV animal pundit how animals deal with the question of disciplining their young and you'll get some very interesting answers. Few, if any of these answers run along the lines of, 'they don't discipline their young, but let them do just what they like'. Ever watch a nature program and seen a mother Lion give an unruly and undisciplined cub a swift clump with a paw? Strange how wild animals instinctively know that discipline, at all levels, is an essential tool for survival, and yet we humans have not only abandoned the disciplining of our young wholesale, but in many cases, made it a criminal offence.

The root of the problem is deeply embedded in the psyche of social engineers, educators and the judiciary, and is both misguided and dangerous. Ask the family of Fiona Pilkington whether lack of discipline is a good thing. Or maybe, if you are still not sure, talk to Helen Newlove, the widow of Garry Newlove, who was kicked to death by a gang of thugs outside his own home.

It is totally unacceptable that the Government and the Judiciary stand back and continue to allow law-abiding members of the community to be terrorised by feral gangs of thugs, whilst they hide behind the familiar mantra of, 'human rights?'.

Our streets are fast becoming virtual no-go zones, ruled by the violent, the feral and the undisciplined.

It is time for the ordinary folk of this country, the tax-payers, the families, the law-abiding, to reclaim our society from the hands of the politically correct and socially delusional 'experts' who, by their misguided and misinformed theories have dragged us to the brink of social decay.

Write to your local Councillor, MP or MEP about what they are personally doing about it.

What Happened To Honour?

If I think far enough back, I can remember the Profumo Affair in 1963.  I was at secondary school, yet the scandal seemed to enthral, shock and appal the majority of people; even 14 year olds.

In a nutshell, John Profumo, the Secretary of State for War, had an illicit relationship with Christine Keeler, the alleged  mistress of a Russian spy.  He  then lied in the House of Commons when he was questioned about it.  However, caught out, he resigned and devoted the remainder of his life to charitable works.  He died in 2006, and it could be argued that with his death, so also died any vestige of honour within Government.

How different then the rich vein of lies, dishonour and deceit currently being mined by many of our Members of Parliament embroiled in the expenses scandle.  None more so than former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith who, via fraudulent second home claims, has robbed the tax-payer, i.e. you and I, of more than £100,000.  Has she resigned from the House?  Nope.  Has she offered to pay the money back?  Nope; at least not at the time of writing.  So what has she done?  She has reluctantly said sorry, but only after having to be forced to do so, and not from any sense of having done wrong, but from having to be ordered to do so.  She, of course, is not alone in this, as every day seems to expose new stones ready to be turned over to reveal the decay of British Politics lurking underneath.

In 1963, John Profumo did something wrong but had the grace and the honour to recognise this and resign from politics for ever.  Many members of the House of Commons would do well to emulate his example.

Does Celebrating The Difference Destroy Equality?

Why do certain groups insist on parading their differences, whilst at the same time purporting to want to be accepted as part of everyday society?
I particularly have in mind group events like Gay (LGBT) Pride, Pride London etc.  While I do appreciate that this can be a strong reinforcement of shared identity (like biker rallies, anti-nuclear marches etc.) and that many LGBT persons experience great hostility and still feel excluded from, and discriminated within, society generally, do not such extravegently ostentatious displays of 'difference' contribute to the alienation rather then strengthening inclusion.

As we strive towards a society which does not discriminate against persons of different race, beliefs, sexual orientation, age, etc., I am baffled by the, as it seems, continual strident voices proclaiming loudly, 'we are different and we want everyone to know it'.

I would like to hear from readers because, although I had a gay Uncle, a lovely man now sadly passed on, and have gay friends, I do not have the perspective in this matter that a gay person will have.