Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.


Showing posts with label Great Train Robbery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Great Train Robbery. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

The Great Train Wife's Robbery and a Truth Uncovered Over the Story on Feminine Sanitary Products.



TV 1’s Sunday program played a great piece this last weekend, in the form of an interview with Frances Biggs, wife, then ex, to great train robber Ronnie. She had a raw deal no matter which way you look at it. Having had nothing to do with the robbery, yet arrested and reviled by the public, then divorce, with the only money she ever saw from the whole episode being what she earned after selling her story to the media while Ronnie was sunning himself in Rio. However, the state then only compounded her victimhood:



That’s quite a tax bill: the thing about the great train robbery was, it was a oncer. There’s two thieves featured, the other has grown only stronger, assuming all the powers of the surveillance state. And I can explain, again, how that has happened.

Yesterday there was a story run by the MSM which ended up being a beat-up from misinformation fed by an anonymous – yeah, another one – blog, about Ms Beneficiary who was apparently denied money by WINZ to buy sanitary products. In the end the story was not true on all the facts, although if it had been, it would have been absolutely abhorrent: every human individual must be left their respect and dignity, to say nothing of this was also a matter regarding the most intimate sort of privacy.

There were many words written on it, and the Left Twitter was understandably appalled: my friend Deborah Russell, Massey University lecturer of taxation, socialist, penned her own piece also, and tweeted a link to it. To this I replied:



At this stage, the next day, I still have no reply. I then tweeted the same question generally, and again no replies, until I pressed Lew Stoddart whom grudgingly ‘sort of agreed’, but only after being led through hoops of context that were not necessary, as that question needs no explication.

My question is where were the Marxist feminists in being rightly appalled for their sister Ms Businesswoman?

Or, I’m thinking, does she not count? Over and over on this blog I’ve been through the shock and awe powers of IRD: before those bureaucrats Ms Businesswoman has no right to privacy or to be left alone, despite she has done nothing wrong. And just as in a police state, the onus of proof is turned against her in the tax courts: it’s not up to the state to prove her guilt, they just have to say you’re guilty and owe us this, then she has to prove them wrong. Believe me, Ms Businesswoman goes from interrogation room 101 into that court system terrified given the power arrayed against her, and it’s not cheap to defend yourself.

All this to pay, remember, for Ms Beneficiary’s necessities. Fair enough you say? Okay, but then why is Ms Businesswoman apparently dismissed by the sisterhood herself? It looks to me as if Ms Businesswoman has been objectified by Marxist feminists to merely being a purse and a bank account; apparently she has no right to respect, or to her dignity: that is, her humanity. She’s just a filthy capitalist. Is that right?

As I read somewhere yesterday, if socialism didn’t have so many double standards, it would have none.

Here’s a word: wholly.

I’m wholly unhappy about this unholy society I find myself in, and for which a five figure sum called my provisional tax will be leaving my bank account in just eight days’ time, despite I have no philosophical agreement with this society, and with now two houses damaged in earthquake zones, for which that money would’ve been bloody handy at the moment, given the run around we’re getting from EQC. Pity my vote means nothing every three years, and as a classical liberal, this representative democracy mobocracy, doesn’t represent me, or Ms Businesswoman, at all.

Deborah?


Footnote:

I cannot prove that question of the value of the private use of sanitary products is on the list of an IRD investigator auditing, say, the corner dairy, although, I have certainly heard of one instance of it, and in that case the taxpayer rightly refused to answer. I suspect it would not be routine at all, however, in the context of this post, that is entirely not the point, which is this proves a point entirely on a hypothetical scenario.
Posted by at 23 comments
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)