Encouraging Signs Re Euro Collapse

2011 has been a pretty bleak year for The Mrs Gruff and I and some good news at its end is most welcome. There may, in the words of the song, be trouble ahead, we may soon be humming a different tune and there may be teardrops to shed but the madness that it is the EU cannot go on and the music will have to be faced sooner or later. The news that ministers may be 'considering draconian plans' to deal with the collapse of the Euro is as welcome as the first sign of spring.

Slowly But Surely ... Eventually

'Slowly but surely', and 'eventually', we will do it, legally or illegally, peacefully or violently. The power is ours, the law is ours and we will take it back from those who have stolen it, and hold the guilty to account.

Old Mother Gruff (deceased) told me long ago that even dictators need the consent of the governed and I smiled when I heard Roger Hayes repeat her imparted wisdom.

All we need to do is withdraw our consent and say no more and no further.

Addendum: I've been wondering for a while why we cannot create our own banks but being a bear of very little brain I have hitherto consoled myself with the thought that I am too stupid to understand the complexities of banking. I'm delighted to learn that others not so stupid have had the same thoughts. Perhaps we'll see the return of mutual societies.


Gruff thanks to Fausty's Libertarian Blog for the link to the video.

Another Plank in The Sterilisation Argument

You know it makes sense.

Athens Today

From Russia Today:






And Athens tonight:

Let Them Eat Brioche

While I agree, in part, with his comments on lifestyles and spending (Mrs Gruff and I have been feeding ourselves for the past year on first £25.00 and now, since mid June, on £10.00 per week - for both of us.) I cannot help observing that although the podgy John Glen, MP for Salisbury, may not have the 'right stuff' of his astronaut namesake he is certainly living on another planet. It can do the revolution no harm that a clearly well-fed member of a party led by equally podgy, expensively educated, over-promoted and over-privileged mediocrities feels that those who pay his bills are to be faulted for aspiring to ape his all too obviously self-indulgent example.

The only reason for allowing the pompous arrogant bastard to grow any fatter at our expense is for the greater pleasure to be had when his fat head sits on a spike above London Bridge.

Tom MacInnes makes a point that I've made many times over many years: A job that pays less than a living is not worth doing. It ought to be obvious to all that everyone needs a living and no one needs a job except to obtain a living, which seems easy enough to grasp. The haves have, however, throughout history been seemingly unable to grasp that when those who live well at the expense of the have nots state openly and arrogantly that the latter should be content with having less revolution is probably unavoidable, which, from time to time, is no bad thing.

Which give me an excuse for a song:

'In their sties with all their backing
They don't care what goes on around'

A damned good whacking indeed!


Reluctant Gruff thanks, again, to the Craven Shaver at Comment Deleted for the link to the video.

It Ain't Default of De Greeks

Eugenics: What's The Objection?

No one in that clip can be given any credit, certainly not the presenter, who seems to be at least as inadequate as his victim, but the point of posting it is that it supports my belief that some sort of eugenicist policy is now necessary. Perhaps it's nothing more than crude prejudice founded on a chronic intellectual deficit but I can see no purpose whatsoever to that young man's existence, nor that of the young woman sitting beside him, who has apparently decided that he is a fitting mate and father of a child, or children, she has already borne or will bear. Can anyone seriously doubt that he is nothing more than a source of irritation, annoyance, trouble, pain or harm to almost everyone he has dealings with, and she little if at all better? Can anyone say with honesty that they do not doubt his economic activity, and hers, is defined not as a net contribution but as the cost of those who are paid, or work unpaid, to manage his life, and hers, to deal with the problems he and she create, to repair, often imperfectly, the damage they do, the harm they cause and the suffering they inflict in their degraded and barbarous condition? Would it not have been better for them and us had they not been born?

I am mindful of the extremes to which eugenics have been taken but I can see no objection, for the common good, now and in future, to the judicious application of selective sterilisation.

As an aside, that is one of the reasons why I do not own a television set.