Chandos after work to meet William and give him dodgy w4r3z, had a chinwag, caught up a bit. He still can’t seem to fathom why I don’t just chase after money in jobs...hehe. Got to thinking this morning...Conservatism isn’t right for Britain. Nor is Liberalism, nor is Socialism. There are parts of each dogma that are right. Welfare state, hand in hand with as little interference from the state as possible in one’s private life, hand in hand with freedom to do whatever you wish as long as it doesn’t harm others. Low tax funding a small beauracracy. More taxation through indirect means so those who *consume* are the ones that *pay*. Better control of immigration *and* emigration. Two elected houses, but elected at different times using some form of PR and not FPTP. Public utilities run not-for-profit but not owned by the state, with clear payscales. So much could be done by combining all three parties, taking the best of all of them and creating something new, fresh and special. So why do people insist on seeing absolutes? Political “racism”? Am I a tory for believing that the state should leave people alone to live their own lives? A liberal for believing that people should have the freedom not to be monitored and recorded and placed into databases? A Socialist for believing that those who can’t help themselves should be helped by the rest of us? Fucked if I know. Left wing meets right wing if you go far enough left. Or do people not see that? Force people to work or force people to live in some kind of post modern utopia, being hand fed grapes by nubile young thong wearing people, whatever. You’re still forcing people to do something. If the point of life is to learn as much as possible (knowledge), never to preach (evangelise) as we are still learning and cannot know the truth to hand down, why do people constantly swim around and around in the same tiny space with the same arguments instead of trying to see something different? The world is imperfect. We are imperfect. Our only chance of perfection lay in our reaction to situations (stimulus) and the patterns these create in our minds and our ability to recognise those patterns and stop or modify our behaviour accordingly. Whilst it’s comforting to slip into an old argument, like an old pair of gloves, it doesn’t actually move your perception at all. You already know what the counters will be to your points. You play a part. That is where we are politically in the world at the moment. I cannot be a politician because I might have been naked at some point in photographs. I cannot be a politician because I do not know what that power would do to me. I cannot be a politician because I am gay, and whilst I would be allowed to progress some way up the slippery slope I would be prevented from going all the way to the top. I cannot be a politician because I don’t believe I speak for anyone, just for myself. Which is true? Does one preclude the other? Or is there an element of truth in all of this. Is some of this perception? Or is it fact. Does fact alter according to where you are when you perceive it? Is fact immutable. Should we invent new words for truth? What pattern does this cause to be registered in your mind? One of truth or of fiction. Do you, like me, instinctively know truth? Are you too afraid to challenge lies? When I grown up I want to be a thinker... Home by 9. More DVD goodness arrived. Philadelphia, Hulmerist and BAGPUSS! As well as Volume 8 of the Babylon 5 scripts. ""There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that<