Pearls of Wosdom

1

The key to intelligence is to be able to overcome the prejudices of the society we live in and thus free our minds to think beyond what society assumes to be correct and beyond what it deems to be 'acceptable.' Pearls of Wosdom, like the other books in the series, offers a selection of opinion pieces illustrating how intelligent thinking has almost nothing to do with political-correctness!

Please note that the Wosdom books can be read in any order.

Warning: Contains material some may find offensive!

2

Pearls of Wosdom

by Robert Jameson Copyright 2012 Robert Jameson Cover Artwork by Robert Jameson This sample of "Pearls of Wosdom" may be copied and passed on, but only without modification and for the sole purpose of publicising the full version of the book. The author may withdraw this right at any time.

If you find this sample interesting, please visit IMOS.org.uk to find out more.

The full version of the book can be purchased from Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.com Warning/Disclaimer This book celebrates freedom of speech and contains ideas, opinions and very strong language which some may find offensive. Please also note that this is a book of opinions and that none of the contents of this book are intended to be read as statements of fact. Even when something appears to be being presented as a fact, it is still just an opinion - and possibly one based upon a complete absence of any scientific research whatsoever.

3

Preface I believe that the key to intelligence is to be able to overcome the prejudices of the society we live in and thus free our minds to think beyond what society assumes to be correct and beyond what it deems to be 'acceptable.'

My previous Wosdom books, 'Here is Wosdom' and 'Seeking Wosdom,' each offered a selection of opinion pieces designed to promote intelligence by asking the reader to question the sociallyacceptable and politically-correct assumptions our society prefers us not to question.

In this book, 'Pearls of Wosdom,' I offer some more opinion pieces with the same aim. As always, it should be noted that these opinions do not necessarily reflect my own personal views. They are simply opinions designed to provoke some intelligent thought and encourage you to question some things that you might never previously have questioned.

As with the other Wosdom books, the chapters in this book are in no particular sequence and can be read in any order you choose.

I hope you find this book to be an interesting addition to the series.

Robert Jameson

4

Contents Ensure The Jury System Sexy Staff Vested Interests One Person One Vote

Page: 7 9 12 15 17

Perspective Compensation Man Arrested Personal Connections The Gay Insult

19 22 24 26 28

Slavery The First World War Living Together On Remand Sex Crimes

29 31 34 37 40

Trial Outcomes Nazi Uniforms Submission Euthanasia

42 46 48 50 51

Pardons Retrofitting History Flirting Tasers Heroes

55 58 63 66 68

Cannibalism A Private Life Obesity

70 71 74

5

Is Rape Rape?

Users and Dealers

77 79

Colonial Plunder Breastfeeding Spending Harassment and Grooming Insurrection

81 85 87 89 93

And Last

97

6

Ensure 'Ensure' appears to be a mighty popular word these days. Whenever there's a terrorist attack, an appalling crime, an example of abuse, a medical blunder or even a simple bureaucratic oversight, politicians, campaigners and commentators pop up to say that we must 'ensure' such an incident never occurs again.

Now there's nothing wrong with trying to learn lessons from a mistake. We may be able to make it so that further unfortunate events are less likely we can have an effect on the probabilities involved.

But "ensure"? No, we can't do that and it's a complete lie to say that we can. We may reduce the frequency with which accidents, crimes and oversights occur - but we can never get rid of them.

On a practical level, if you try to ensure such things never occur, you generally come unstuck against the problem of diminishing returns.

The first steps you take to reduce accidents or crimes can often be quite cheap and very effective in reducing the frequency with which they occur, but the next steps are often rather more expensive and rather less effective. Additional steps are increasingly less cost-effective.

This makes sense as, if you are sensible, you start with the steps which make the biggest difference for the lowest cost. If you get additional resources, you can take further steps, but it may not be long before you are taking measures that have only a very marginal effect.

Indeed, there often comes a point where additional measures have no net benefit whatsoever. They

7

may help in some ways, but inadvertently hinder the achievement of other objectives. After this point, the disadvantages of any additional measures outweigh the benefits. You've reduced the incidence of unfortunate occurrences as much as you reasonably can.

And yet, even at or far beyond this point, we're still bombarded with these claims that we must "ensure" this, that and the other never occurs again.

The biggest problem with this approach is not, however, its ineffectiveness and the huge resources that are wasted in pursuit of an unobtainable objective. The biggest problem is that the attempts to 'ensure' no oversights, accidents, crimes or terror attacks ever occur, result in the erosion or destruction of many of our freedoms.

To counter highlighted threats and dangers, new regulations, restrictions, licences, schemes and vetting procedures are proposed on an almost constant basis. So many intrusive state policies are marketed and sold on the basis that they are supposed to 'ensure' something or other - but it's all lies! None of it is going to 'ensure' one fucking thing!

'Ensure' would require doing everything possible to reduce the risks we face, no matter what that involved, right down to having everyone locked down in a Stalinist state, 'for their own safety' but, even if you were mad enough to actually do that, you still cannot 'ensure' crimes or accidents never occur! Ensure? Don't talk bollocks, you utter twat!

8

The Jury System We're used to people eulogising the wonders of the jury system - and it is true that, in some cases, the jury system plays a key part in preventing injustices taking place. Few people, however, stop to question the blandly positive view of the jury system they've been indoctrinated to accept.

It is not just that there are clear cases of injustice that can and do happen when juries are used. In many ways, the jury system itself is utterly preposterous - but our society is so used to this system, that few people ever get around to properly examining it and to realising that it isn't a particularly principled system and is a very long way from being a perfect system.

You can have a court case nearing conclusion. The prosecution and defence have presented their evidence and summed up their respective cases and you can sit back and say, 'Well, clearly there is reasonable doubt here. This man may be innocent.'

The jury then pops out and comes back with a guilty verdict in complete contradiction to the evidence and don't have to explain themselves whatsoever! How the fuck is that justice?

The defence in a trial will suggest that there is reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. Surely, if a jury finds someone guilty, they should have to explain why they dismissed those doubts as 'unreasonable.' Then, if a defendant can show their reasoning to be flawed, he can appeal against the verdict on those grounds.

For all we know, under the current system, the jury could have gone into the jury room and all agreed that, "These black people - they just can't control

9

themselves!" and then played cards for a couple of hours to make it look good, before coming back into court to deliver their guilty verdict.

What idiot decided that it was a good idea to make juries totally unaccountable for the decisions that they make?

Juries are picked out fairly randomly from the general population. Yet, if we are prepared to look with open eyes, it is fairly obvious that the average member of the public is an idiot. Not only are they not specifically trained in the law, but most of them are very poorly educated in general and have little more than a vague idea of what constitutes rational argument. Why should we trust these people to decide on who is or isn't guilty?

Perhaps it would make more sense to have properly-educated, properly-qualified, professional thinkers and judges working with a jury. A guilty verdict would require the agreement of both sets of people - providing a sort of double-lock.

Or, perhaps, we can keep the jury system, but with strict records being kept of what was said in the jury room. On entering the jury room, the jury members can be randomly assigned new jury numbers. We can then have a full transcript of what was said in the jury room, even whilst jury members maintain their anonymity.

The defendant, the defence team, the judge and the court of appeal can then examine this transcript and can then have good evidence by which to judge whether the jury considered the matter fairly and with due diligence. Did they consider each of the reasonable doubts proposed by the defence? If they dismissed them all, did they have clear reasons for doing so? How can it be unreasonable for a defendant to be able to

10

examine how a verdict was reached?

The jury system is, in any case, largely a product of historical accident. It comes from a time when commoners were concerned about the dictatorial and repressive powers of their lords and masters.

Even the lords feared injustice at the hands of the barons and everyone feared the arbitrary power of the king.

From commoners to barons, everyone feared arbitrary punishment, so they sought a system in which they could only be imprisoned if their own peers found them guilty - not just to suit the whim or some high and mighty lord, baron or king.

The jury system helped temper the power of the ruling classes. It was a practical part-solution for the particular problems of a particular society, at a particular point in history. It is not a perfect system, fit for all time in all circumstances. Indeed, it totally contradicts many of the principles of justice and accountability we accept as reasonable in most other areas of public life.

As with so many things, we shouldn't be so lazy as to assume the veracity of the jury system without ever even bothering to think through the relevant principles for ourselves.

11

Sexy Staff Should an airline be allowed to specifically recruit young, attractive females as cabin crew? Should the airlines be allowed to insist these staff members wear uniforms and make-up that deliberately enhance their attractiveness? What about restaurants - should they be allowed to preferentially recruit young, attractive female staff with ample bosoms, prepared to wear low-cut tops and short skirts?

When it comes to air stewardesses and waitresses, many customers, of both sexes, prefer to be served by a young, attractive, female member of staff, rather than by a an ugly, fat middle-aged bloke. Is it wrong, then, for companies to try to please their customers and improve their customers' travel or eating experience by specifically recruiting young, attractive female staff?

'It's sexist! It's ageist!' people may say, pretending that they're working on a principled basis of not allowing sexism or ageism.

The thing is, though, that we accept that some employers are allowed to specify the age, sex and attractiveness of the people they recruit. In some roles, it would be considered utterly absurd if employers were not allowed to recruit staff specifically on the basis of their attractiveness. A marketing company is allowed to specify that a model must be of a certain sex, age and height, for example - and even specify the size of her tits. And who's going to suggest that a modelling agency or lapdancing establishment cannot recruit on the basis of physical attractiveness?

12

In other industries, however, the laws in many countries don't allow such selection rules, even though many of the customers within those industries would consider the attractiveness of the staff to be a major factor in enhancing the customer experience.

"Ah, but a waitress is there to serve food, not to serve as eye-candy for the customers" is what some people will say - but why can't a waitress do both?

The PC brigade want to have these absolute distinctions between functional jobs, such as that of a waitress serving food in a restaurant or that of bar staff serving drinks in a pub or nightclub, and aesthetic jobs, such a model or lapdancer (and even actress), where you can specifically require a recruit to be young and attractive - and even specify her tit-size, hair colour or even race.

This, however, is a ridiculously false distinction.

Why shouldn't an employee have a dual role? A waitress may have the primary function of serving food, but can also be attractive enough to make the customers smile.

The PC fanatics want to say, "No, you're a barperson - you're just serving drinks." But no they're not! Bar staff are in the business of helping customers have an enjoyable evening out something that would be made more likely if bar staff are both friendly and attractive!

If customers want attractive waitresses, bar staff and cabin crew, then what business is it of the state to say that it is illegal for firms to specifically recruit attractive staff?

Of course, you could apply the same argument to say that businesses should be allowed to recruit on the basis of race. However, in the case of racist

13

customers, you can fairly make an argument that racial prejudices are wrong and that businesses shouldn't pander to them. You can't in the same way make an argument that it is wrong for men to enjoy being served by young, attractive females with nice tits! There's nothing inherently wrong about this - so why should businesses who want to specifically cater for such customers, be prevented from doing so?

In any case, isn't it ridiculous to say that a young woman can use her attractive looks to find employment if she wants to be a stripper, but not if she wants to be a waitress?

14

Vested Interests In the media, the modern fashion amongst 'journalists' is not just to seek information and opinions from people with clear vested interests on one side or other of an argument, but actually to only speak to such people. It has become very rare to hear views from anyone who doesn't have a vested interest. Isn't it time we woke up and started questioning this ridiculous practice?

People with vested interests generally have a very obvious, boring and predictable view on the issue or matter in question. Those without a vested interest, whose opinions might actually be surprising in any way, are generally ignored, almost on a 'what would you know? You have no claim here!' basis.

A mother whose child was treated at a particular hospital, is asked if she thinks it should be closed down. "I think this hospital should be saved!" is the general gist of her answer. Oh really? What a surprise! Look love - I'm glad you were happy with the treatment your child received and I'm glad your child made a full recovery and is now enjoying a full, active life, but these things do not make you an expert in the effective distribution of scarce resources. Now go away and stop pontificating about issues you know fuck-all about!

To be fair, she was asked! My main beef is with the lazy, good-for-nothing pieces of shit journalists who ask for the opinions of such people in the first place!

Oh, what's in the news today? Train fares are going up by twice the rate of inflation. Let's ask some train passengers if they're happy about this. You

15

might as well ask turkeys if they are in favour of Christmas, or skiers if they like snow!

There's a widespread reluctance amongst journalists ever to ask for opinions from people who might have something interesting to contribute simply because they are intelligent and have principles. The policy seems to be to only ask people who have a clear prejudice or a clear selfish interest at stake.

Opinions based on prejudice and selfishness are all the rage. Those based on thought and selfless consideration seem to count for nothing! It is as if having a vested interest is an acceptable substitute for having a brain or a good argument.

16

One Person One Vote Almost whenever you have people eulogising about democracy, they seem to love to go on about the 'sacred principle' of one-person-one-vote - a sacred principle that actually amounts to little more than a fatuous slogan. One-person-one-vote?

Why the fuck should we have one-person-onevote? Where's the sense in it?

Most people don't have a clue what they are voting about. They don't understand the issues at stake.

They couldn't even tell you which policies belong to which political parties. If they were asked to explain their reasons for being in favour or against any particular policy, their case would most likely collapse within seconds of being subjected to the most basic level of rational scrutiny.

Take 'one person' who couldn't even tell you who Winston Churchill was or explain the rule of law.

Why the fuck should they get a vote at all?

Why should a stupid, ignorant person who knows pretty-much fuck-all about politics or economics and who is too fucking lazy to even try to learn anything about any of the policies or issues at stake, have the same voting power as someone who has genuine expertise and who actually makes an effort to understand the issues?

Wouldn't it make sense to have some sort of test before you are allowed to vote? It needn't be a difficult test and you may be allowed to pick a subject area, but surely you ought to know something about some of the issues at stake? And, perhaps, the more tests you can pass, the more votes you should be allowed to have.

Doesn't the one-person-one-vote slogan simply

17

stem from the fact that, though most people are stupid and ignorant, they simply don't like the idea of other people getting more votes than they get?

They're the sort of people who couldn't be bothered to study for any voting test, just as they can't be bothered to keep themselves informed about politics. They think they ought to get a right to vote, despite their almost total ignorance of all the issues and policies at stake.

They're ignorant cunts, but don't seem to see this as any sort of handicap at all in terms of being able to make important decisions about the future of the country.

18

***** End of sample!

Important: Please spread the word and pass on this book sample to lots of other people!

To find out more about my work, please visit: www.IMOS.org.uk This and my other books can be purchased from: Amazon.co.uk Amazon.com and other Amazon sites Your comments on this book are welcome at: Rob@IMOS.org.uk

Other books by Robert Jameson: The following books are all available from Amazon in paperback versions and in the Kindle Store.

19

Here Is Wosdom

Intelligence is born out of the willingness to question what we are told - whatever it may be!

Each chapter in this book asks us to do just that question accepted ideas and popular opinions - and through questioning them, develop the ability to overcome the prejudices that stand between us and greater intelligence.

Available from: Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com Find out more at: ore at: IMOS.org.uk

20

Seeking Wosdom

"Why conform when it's so much more interesting not to?" Following on from "Here is Wosdom," Robert Jameson offers another selection of opinion pieces illustrating how intelligent thinking has almost nothing to do with political-correctness!

Please note that the Wosdom books can be read in any order.

Available from: Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com Find out more at: ore at: IMOS.org.uk

21

Gifted

This is a sort of guidebook for gifted students, designed to help you nurture your potential as an exceptionally intelligent and thoughtful person.

From the introduction: "I didn't write this book in order to help people become 'moderately clever.' I wrote it for those people with the determination to develop the sort of exceptional super-intelligence that only a few people even know exists" Available from: Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com Find out more at: ore at: IMOS.org.uk

22

Whatever Happened to the Life of Leisure?

Longer working hours, later retirement, lousy pensions - hardly the life of leisure we were promised for the 21st century! We also have dirty hospitals, troops without proper equipment and schools that provide an appalling standard of education. So what went wrong and what can we do about it?

Available from: Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com Find out more at: ore at: IMOS.org.uk

23

Revelations: An Intelligent Analysis of Religious Beliefs

Are you irritated by dogmatic religious belief on the one hand and by close-minded, pompous atheism (of the angry Richard Dawkins variety) on the other? Would you be interested in a more intelligent perspective on religious ideas?

Available from: Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com Find out more at: ore at: IMOS.org.uk

24

An Intelligent Life

An unusual portrayal of a thoughtful, intelligent man appalled by the stupidity, conformism and arrogance he sees all around him. He rants to himself and ruminates on his disgust with the human species in general before deciding on a more targeted, fruitful, enjoyable and thoroughly violent course of action.

Available from: Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com Find out more at: ore at: IMOS.org.uk

25

The Education of a Poker Player

A poker strategy book with a difference. If you've never read any poker strategy books, that's great, because this is the place to start - this is strategy for typical players looking to improve the fundamentals of their game.

On the other hand, if you have read poker strategy books or magazines or listened to poker 'experts' on the television, then this book is designed to focus your mind on the fundamentals that those other sources of advice often overlook.

Available from: Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com Find out more at: ore at: IMOS.org.uk

26