North Stoke Life

This post is a play on the phrase 'freedom of speech'. Freedom of laughter. Imagine two scenarios. 1. Where someone is directing hateful language at you. 2. Where someone is telling you how funny you are. Are you there yet? Now think about this, with extreme care: in both cases you were faced with a choice where you could respond either with anger or laughter.  In the one case it is almost exclusively common to be angry and the other happy. Now imagine this: next time you are in scenario 1 respind with laughter and see what happens. I do not mean that you do it because you are some kind of diplomat.  I do mean you do it because you had the choice to be angry or not angry about it. And this time you made the right choice. There is no known way physically and scientifically that even someone being hateful to you can force you to respond with anger. The anger was entirely a choice that you made. And every time it is a bad choice. The right choice is to respond with la...

Even though one does not exist, we insist on creating an environment and a situation where war is very likely. So that we can satisfy a primordial fear that the world is running out of everything and there will never be enough to go around. But this is just an imaginary hold-over - a visionary rumour. So we must fight the enemy tribe in a zero sum game to protect our own from starvation. Forever. This is why we fight wars. Wars are not fought such that the winner receives all the limited resources allowing that side to survive against the loser. Wars are fought even though both sides will still have enough even the loser. Resources are not limited any more. War is fought because the winner wants more resources than the loser so is less likely to run out of resources in the future. Even though there are plenty of resources for everybody, even the loser. A collective neurosis. A systemic pathology. There is strong evidence for this all around us. e.g. government kills far more of its own...

What does this mean to the English citizen? This party calls for secession of England from the United Kingdom. That is, England leaves the United Kingdom, wholesale. And forms its own administration and reforms its pillars of state to serve its tenants by renewing the following: English monarchy English prime minister English archbishop Mantra: Its OK to be English With the future possibility of joining the US as a federal state , with its far greater protection and if it suits our tenants purposes.  In the mean time prior to the next general election, the party would offer to act as a local branch under the national umbrella organisation of Restore Britain . Or preferably as a hyper-local political party much like Great Yarmouth First. Or both. Whichever delivers the largest political platform. How to become a tenant of England? Becoming a Tenant of England, officially gives you the right to vote and this is the only way to gain that right. Tenancy of England is automatically gran...

In response to Mr. Lowe MP discussing his immigration policy. My response is that it is a good one but will be moot if he leaves taxation without wholesale attention.  <Snip> It is great. But you must deliver a bold and wholesale policy for taxation. Else the downstream immigration policy will be moot. Start by raising the income tax and NI threshold to the median wage. About £30. That way both the welfare trap and minimum wage neglects also become moot. And millions able yet not willing to work at the current rates due to high taxation, will flow immediately into jobs. Creating millions of new Restore voters. Further along, the incentive to migrate into Britain will largely be mitigated too. With such a huge reduction in welfare, much if it can be abolished. And the remains able to work and still not willing will be that much more visible to citizens as unjust players making it easy to induct them by right.

Dear father, I was listening to your podcast today on the plight of people convicted of brutal crimes. And it made me wonder about how you might understand the meaning of 'the grace of God'? I was alarmed that you are confidently committed to asking for the death penalty in the cases you support it for.  May I ask, if you were in the same position as those you want killed, would you have not done the same thing? I hear you. You might now be thinking "I would never commit such a crime don't be ridiculous". I would respond ironically by suggesting we have a veritable Jesus Christ before us, if so. My point is, how do you know that you would not commit the same crime in their position? You have been saved by the grace of God. Can you then know what you would have done, if you have already been saved by His grace? If my interpretation of grace is 'if I do not sin, God will save me', then I will think this way.  But if my interpretation of gr...