[Watch] Today’s Inspiring Corbyn UN Speech About ‘Grotesque’ Levels Of Wealth Inequality, The Climate Crisis, Imperial War, May’s Attack On Human Rights & Much More, Ignored By MSM: So Watch It Here….

[Watch] Today’s Inspiring Corbyn UN Speech About ‘Grotesque’ Levels Of Wealth Inequality, The Climate Crisis, Imperial War, May’s Attack On Human Rights & Much More, Ignored By MSM: So Watch It Here….

Jeremy Corbyn today gave an uplifting and deeply thought-provoking speech at the United Nation’s (UN) Geneva Headquaters: unsurprisingly and very tellingly the mainstream media (MSM) have so far basically ignored it.

Or as in the case of The Independent, who did, at least, bother to cover it,  immediately tried to discredit it.

Topics covered include tax evasion, the destruction caused by neoliberalism, climate destruction, Trump, May’s threat to human rights, imperial war, the loss of the use of diplomacy in favor of such war and therefore the current meaninglessness of international law (among many other things).

As the MSM has basically ignored it, I include here the full video and transcript.

Thank you to Imajsa Claimant on Youtube for uploading this.


Full transcript:

Thank you Paul for that introduction.

And let me give a special thanks to the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

Your work gives an important platform to marginalised voices for social justice to challenge policy makers and campaign for change.

I welcome pressure both on my party the British Labour Party and on my leadership to put social justice front and centre stage in everything we do.

So thank you for inviting me to speak here in this historic setting at the Palais des Nations in Geneva a city that has been a place of refuge and philosophy since the time of Rousseau.

The headquarters before the Second World War of the ill-fated League of Nations, which now houses the United Nations.

It’s a particular privilege to be speaking here because the constitution of our party includes a commitment to support the United Nations. A promise “to secure peace, freedom, democracy, economic security and environmental protection for all”.

I’d also like to thank my fellow panellists, Arancha Gonzalez and Nikhil Seth, and Labour’s Shadow Attorney General, Shami Chakrabarti, who has accompanied me here.

She has been a remarkable campaigner and a great asset to the international movement for human rights.

And lastly let me thank you all for being here today.

I would like to use this opportunity in the run- up to International Human Rights Day to focus on the greatest threats to our common humanity.

And why states need to throw their weight behind genuine international cooperation and human rights both individual and collective, social and economic, as well as legal and constitutional at home and abroad if we are to meet and overcome those threats.

My own country is at a crossroads. The decision by the British people to leave the European Union in last year’s referendum means we have to rethink our role in the world.

Some want to use Brexit to turn Britain in on itself, rejecting the outside world, viewing everyone as a feared competitor.

Others want to use Brexit to put rocket boosters under our current economic system’s insecurities and inequalities, turning Britain into a deregulated corporate tax haven, with low wages, limited rights, and cut-price public services in a destructive race to the bottom.

My party stands for a completely different future when we leave the EU, drawing on the best internationalist traditions of the labour movement and our country.

We want to see close and cooperative relationships with our European neighbours, outside the EU, based on solidarity as well as mutual benefit and fair trade, along with a wider proactive internationalism across the globe.

We are proud that Britain was an original signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights and our 1998 Human Rights Act enshrined it in our law.

So Labour will continue to work with other European states and progressive parties and movements, through the Council of Europe to ensure our country and others uphold our international obligations.

Just as the work of the UN Human Rights Council helps to ensure countries like ours live up to our commitments, such as on disability rights, where this year’s report found us to be failing.

International cooperation, solidarity, collective action are the values we are determined to project in our foreign policy.

Those values will inform everything the next Labour government does on the world stage, using diplomacy to expand a progressive, rules-based international system, which provides justice and security for all.

They must be genuinely universal and apply to the strong as much as the weak if they are to command global support and confidence.

They cannot be used to discipline the weak, while the strong do as they please, or they will be discredited as a tool of power, not justice.

That’s why we must ensure that the powerful uphold and respect international rules and international law.

If we don’t, the ideals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 will remain an aspiration, rather than a reality and international rules will be seen as a pick and mix menu for the global powers that call the international shots.

Most urgently we must work with other countries to advance the cause of human rights, to confront the four greatest and interconnected threats facing our common humanity.

First, the growing concentration of unaccountable wealth and power in the hands of a tiny corporate elite, a system many call neoliberalism, which has sharply increased inequality, marginalisation, insecurity and anger across the world.

Second, climate change, which is creating instability, fuelling conflict across the world and threatening all our futures.

Third, the unprecedented numbers of people fleeing conflict, persecution, human rights abuses, social breakdown and climate disasters.

And finally, the use of unilateral military action and intervention, rather than diplomacy and negotiation, to resolve disputes and change governments.

The dominant global economic system is broken.

It is producing a world where a wealthy few control 90 percent of global resources.

Of growing insecurity and grotesque levels of inequality within and between nations, where more than 100 billion dollars a year are estimated to be lost to developing countries from corporate tax avoidance.

Where $1 trillion dollars a year are sucked out of the Global South through illicit financial flows.

This is a global scandal.

The most powerful international corporations must not be allowed to continue to dictate how and for whom our world is run.

Thirty years after structural adjustment programmes first ravaged so much of the world, and a decade after the financial crash of 2008, the neoliberal orthodoxy that delivered them is breaking down.

This moment, a crisis of confidence in a bankrupt economic system and social order, presents us with a once in a generation opportunity to build a new economic and social consensus which puts the interests of the majority first.

But the crumbling of the global elite’s system and their prerogative to call the shots unchallenged has led some politicians to stoke fear and division. And deride international cooperation as national capitulation.

President Trump’s disgraceful Muslim ban and his anti-Mexican rhetoric have fuelled racist incitement and misogyny and shift the focus away from what his Wall Street-dominated administration is actually doing.

In Britain, where wages have actually fallen for most people over the last decade as the corporations and the richest have been handed billions in tax cuts, our Prime Minister has followed a less extreme approach but one that also aims to divert attention from her Government’s failures and real agenda.

She threatens to scrap the Human Rights Act, which guarantees all of our people’s civil and political rights and has actually benefited everyone in our country. And she has insisted “if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere”.

There is an alternative to this damaging and bankrupt order. The world’s largest corporations and banks cannot be left to write the rules and rig the system for themselves.

The world’s economy can and must deliver for the common good and the majority of its people. But that is going to demand real and fundamental structural change on an international level.

The UN has a pivotal role to play, in advancing a new consensus and common ground based on solidarity, respect for human rights and international regulation and cooperation.

That includes as a platform for democratic leaders to speak truth about unaccountable power.

One such moment took place on 4 December 1972, when President Salvador Allende of Chile, elected despite huge opposition and US interference, took the rostrum of the UN General Assembly in New York.

He called for global action against the threat from transnational corporations, that do not answer to any state, any parliament or any organisation representing the common interest.

Nine months later, Allende was killed in General Augusto Pinochet’s coup, which ushered in a brutal 17-year dictatorship and turned Chile into a laboratory of free market fundamentalism.

But 44 years on, all over the world people are standing up and saying enough to the unchained power of multinational companies to dodge taxes, grab land and resources on the cheap and rip the heart out of workforces and communities.

That’s why I make the commitment to you today that the next Labour government in Britain will actively support the efforts of the UN Human Rights Council to create a legally binding treaty to regulate transnational corporations under international human rights law.

Genuine corporate accountability must apply to all of the activities of their subsidiaries and suppliers.

Impunity for corporations that violate human rights or wreck our environment, as in the mineral-driven conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo, must be brought to an end.

For too long, development has been driven by the unfounded dogma that unfettered markets and unaccountable multinational companies are the key to solving global problems.

So under the next Labour Government the Department for International Development will have the twin mission of not only eradicating poverty but also reducing inequality across the world.

To achieve this goal we must act against the global scandal of tax dodging and trade mis-invoicing – robbing developing countries and draining resources from our own public services.

In Africa alone an estimated 35 billion dollars is lost each year to tax dodging, and 50 billion to illicit financial flows, vastly exceeding the 30 billion dollars that enters the continent as aid.

As the Paradise and Panama Papers have shown the super-rich and the powerful can’t be trusted to regulate themselves.

Multinational companies must be required to undertake country-by-country reporting, while countries in the Global South need support now to keep hold of the billions being stolen from their people.

So the next Labour government will seek to work with tax authorities in developing countries, as Zambia has with NORAD – the Norwegian aid agency – to help them stop the looting.

Tomorrow is International Anti-Corruption Day. Corruption isn’t something that happens ‘over there’. Our government has played a central role in enabling the corruption that undermines democracy and violates human rights. It is a global issue that requires a global response.

When people are kept in poverty, while politicians funnel public funds into tax havens, that is corruption, and a Labour government will act decisively on tax havens: introducing strict standards of transparency for crown dependencies and overseas territories including a public register of owners, directors, major shareholders and beneficial owners … for all companies and trusts.

Climate change is the second great threat to our common humanity. Our planet is in jeopardy. Global warming is undeniable; the number of natural disasters has quadrupled since 1970.

Hurricanes like the ones that recently hit the Caribbean are bigger because they are absorbing moisture from warmer seas.

It is climate change that is warming the seas, mainly caused by emissions from the world’s richer countries.

And yet the least polluting countries, more often than not the developing nations, are at the sharp end of the havoc climate change unleashes – with environmental damage fuelling food insecurity and social dislocation.

We must stand with them in solidarity. Two months ago, I promised the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, Gaston Browne, that I would use this platform to make this message clear.

The international community must mobilise resources and the world’s biggest polluters shoulder the biggest burden.

So I ask governments in the most polluting countries, including in the UK:

First, to expand their capacity to respond to disasters around the world. Our armed forces, some of the best trained and most highly skilled in the world, should be allowed to use their experience to respond to humanitarian emergencies. Italy is among those leading the way with its navy becoming a more versatile and multi-role force.

Second, to factor the costs of environmental degradation into financial forecasting as Labour has pledged to do with Britain’s Office of Budget Responsibility.

Third, to stand very firmly behind the historic Paris Climate Accords.

And finally, take serious and urgent steps on debt relief and cancellation.
We need to act as an international community against the injustice of countries trying to recover from climate crises they did not create while struggling to repay international debts.

It’s worth remembering the words of Thomas Sankara, President of Burkina Faso, delivered to the Organisation of African Unity in 1987 a few months before he too was assassinated in a coup.

“The debt cannot be repaid“ he said, “first because if we don’t repay lenders will not die. But if we repay… we are going to die.”

The growing climate crisis exacerbates the already unparalleled numbers of people escaping conflict and desperation.

There are now more refugees and displaced people around the world than at any time since the Second World War.

Refugees are people like us.

But unlike us they have been forced by violence, persecution and climate chaos to flee their homes.

One of the biggest moral tests of our time is how we live up to the spirit and letter of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Its core principle was simple: to protect refugees.

Yet ten countries, which account for just 2.5 percent of the global economy, are hosting more than half the world’s refugees.

It is time for the world’s richer countries to step up and show our common humanity.

Failure means millions of Syrians internally displaced within their destroyed homeland or refugees outside it. Rohingya refugees returned to Myanmar without guarantees of citizenship or protection from state violence and refugees held in indefinite detention in camps unfit for human habitation as in Papua New Guinea or Nauru. And African refugees sold into slavery in war-ravaged Libya.

This reality should offend our sense of humanity and human solidarity.

European countries can, and must, do more as the death rate of migrants and refugees crossing the Mediterranean continues to rise.

And we need to take more effective action against human traffickers.

But let us be clear: the long-term answer is genuine international cooperation based on human rights, which confronts the root causes of conflict, persecution and inequality.

I’ve spent most of my life, with many others, making the case for diplomacy and dialogue… over war and conflict, often in the face of hostility.

But I remain convinced that is the only way to deliver genuine and lasting security for all.

And even after the disastrous invasions and occupations of recent years there is again renewed pressure to opt for military force, America First or Empire 2.0 as the path to global security.

I know the people of Britain are neither insensitive to the sufferings of others nor blind to the impact and blowback from our country’s reckless foreign wars.

Regime change wars, invasions, interventions and occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and Somalia have failed on their own terms, devastated the countries and regions and made Britain and the world a more dangerous place.
And while the UK government champions some human rights issues on others it is silent, if not complicit, in their violation.

Too many have turned a wilfully blind eye to the flagrant and large-scale human rights abuses now taking place in Yemen, fuelled by arms sales to Saudi Arabia worth billions of pounds.

The see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil approach undermines our credibility and ability to act over other human rights abuses.

Total British government aid to Yemen last year was under £150 million – less than the profits made by British arms companies selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. What does that say about our country’s priorities, or our government’s role in the humanitarian disaster now gripping Yemen?

Our credibility to speak out against the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims is severely undermined when the British Government has been providing support to Myanmar’s military.

And our Governments pay lip service to a comprehensive settlement and two state solution to the Israel- Palestine conflict but do nothing to use the leverage they have to end the oppression and dispossession of the Palestinian people.

70 years after the UN General Assembly voted to create a Palestinian state alongside what would become Israel, and half a century since Israel occupied the whole of historic Palestine, they should take a lead from Israeli peace campaigners such as Gush Shalom and Peace Now and demand an end to the multiple human rights abuses Palestinians face on a daily basis. The continued occupation and illegal settlements are violations of international law and are a barrier to peace.

The US president’s announcement that his administration will recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, including occupied Palestinian territory, is a threat to peace that has rightly been met with overwhelming international condemnation.

The decision is not only reckless and provocative – it risks setting back any prospect of a political settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

President Trump’s speech at the UN General Assembly in September signalled a wider threat to peace. His attack on multilateralism, human rights and international law should deeply trouble us all.

And this is no time to reject the Iran Nuclear Deal, a significant achievement agreed between Iran and a group of world power to reduce tensions.

That threatens not just the Middle East but also the Korean Peninsula. What incentives are there for Pyongyang to believe disarmament will bring benefits when the US dumps its nuclear agreement with Tehran?

Trump and Kim Jong-un threaten a terrifying nuclear confrontation with their absurd and bellicose insults.

In common with almost the whole of humanity, I say to the two leaders: this is not a game, step back from the brink now.

It is a commonplace that war and violence do not solve the world’s problems. Violence breeds violence. In 2016 nearly three quarters of all deaths from terrorism were in five states; Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Nigeria and Somalia.

So let us stand up for the victims of war and terrorism and make international justice a reality.

And demand that the biggest arms exporters ensure all arms exports are consistent, not legally, but with their moral obligations too.

That means no more arms export licences when there is a clear risk that they will be used to commit human rights abuses or crimes against humanity.

The UK is one of the world’s largest arms exporters so we must live up to our international obligations while we explore ways to convert arms production into other socially useful, high-skill, high-tech industry.

Which is why I welcome the recent bipartisan U.S. House of Representatives resolution which does two unprecedented things.

First, it acknowledges the U.S. role in the destruction of Yemen, including the mid-air refuelling of the Saudi-led coalition planes essential to their bombing campaign and helping in selecting targets.

Second, it makes plain that Congress has not authorised this military involvement.

Yemen is a desperate humanitarian catastrophe with the worst cholera outbreak in history.

The weight of international community opinion needs to be brought to bear on those supporting Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, including Theresa May’s Government, to meet our legal and moral obligations on arms sales and to negotiate an urgent ceasefire and settlement of this devastating conflict.

If we’re serious about supporting peace we must strengthen international cooperation and peacekeeping.  Britain has an important role to play after failing to contribute significant troop numbers in recent years.

We are determined to seize the opportunity to be a force for good in peacekeeping, diplomacy and support for human rights.

Labour is committed to invest in our diplomatic capabilities and consular services and we will reintroduce human rights advisers in our embassies around the world.

Human rights and justice will be at the heart of our foreign policy along with a commitment to support the United Nations.

The UN provides a unique platform for international cooperation and action. And to be effective, we need member states to get behind the reform agenda set out by Secretary General Guterres.

The world demands the UN Security Council responds, becomes more representative and plays the role it was set up to on peace and security.

We can live in a more peaceful world. The desire to help create a better life for all burns within us.

Governments, civil society, social movements and international organisations can all help realise that goal.

We need to redouble our efforts to create a global rules based system that applies to all and works for the many, not the few.

No more bomb first and think and talk later.

No more double standards in foreign policy.

No more scapegoating of global institutions for the sake of scoring political points at home.

Instead: solidarity, calm leadership and cooperation. Together we can:

Build a new social and economic system with human rights and justice at its core.

Deliver climate justice and a better way to live together on this planet.

Recognise the humanity of refugees and offer them a place of safety.

Work for peace, security and understanding.

The survival of our common humanity requires nothing less.

We need to recognise and pay tribute to human rights defenders the world over, putting their lives on the line for others – our voice must be their voice.

Thank you.



British Army Gets ‘Public Service’ Award At Major Advertising Event For Latest Propaganda Campaign

British Army Gets ‘Public Service’ Award At Major Advertising Event For Latest Propaganda Campaign

Last night the Public Relations and Advertising (propaganda) industry had yet another glitzy award show: The Campaign Big Awards—one the winners was the British Army for this stunning peice of propaganda.

‘Creative’ agency Karmarama was handed the award for ‘best public service’ campaign. According to these emotive adverts ‘this is belonging’.

The idea that anybody belongs in the Army in this way is a clear play on the fact that we live in a day and age of increasing social exclusion and isolation: come and join the Army kids! Where you can always belong...Disgusting.

Karmarama describe themselves on thier website as: 

the UK’s most progressive creative agency….We combine creative excellence with technology-inspired solutions.This means we can help clients with their business challenges now, as well as plan for their business opportunities next.
We think it’s a more progressive, more effective way of working.

Outlining the corporation’s ‘ethos’ they claim that:

Good Works is based on good karma, that what goes around comes around. It guides the way we work and behave. Meaning that if we do the right thing for our people, clients and the wider world, good things will happen to us.

An ethos that seems to have paid off for them….good things such as getting industry awards for selling death certainly have happened for them….how ‘karmic’.

The reason for the award is explained on the Big Campaign website:

Big campaign

The Army which purposely targets the deprived and those who have no education now advertises to people’s emotions to get recruits: the chance to “Find Where You Belong”…..

Picture from the award show

Once again the Ad industry weaponizes normal human emotions for exploitation and manipulation. Belonging is a central and innate human need. The Ad industry and the state combine to weaponsise this innate human trait against the population for thier own ends.

Unsurprisingly, left out of the campaigns are the number of veterans sleeping on the streets: commiting suicide and the thousands who have a lifelong serious illness as a result of service.

Left out of the campaign is the fact we are in multiple illegal conflicts right now—as I type—and we have killed thousands in these illegal wars: essentially creating IS as a result.

This is the kind of thing that people get awards for in this country? Making propaganda to send young people out who have no education, to go and die, and slaughter at the command of the elites who see them as nothing more than slabs of meat to be used to defend their vast wealth and property.

Hitler and his propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels may have lost world war 2, but no doubt, they’d be proud to see that their techniques for manipulating the masses are still being applauded and awarded by the elites in this country.

Remember we paid for this campaign, no doubt, it cost the taxpayer millions to sell death back to us—says it all about this country, doesn’t it?

No! Nazi-Punching Isn’t ‘OK’, It’s Immoral & Can Endanger You—Here’s Why

No! Nazi-Punching Isn’t ‘OK’, It’s Immoral & Can Endanger You—Here’s Why

The Nazi-punching “debate’ has quietened down somewhat of late…however, I recently stumbled across this post applauding it and was reminded of a few things that nobody ever speaks about regarding Nazi-punching.

aamer pic

Not only is it immoral to go around punching people in the face who are not directly attacking or threatening you with violence—it is also incredibly dangerous: you’re literally putting your own, and those around you—lives at risk.

These are just elementary and basic points, outside of the moral or legal framework which I have previously written about.

To summarise the moral question: violence is only acceptable as a means of self-defense: as a response to a direct, overt threat of violence towards you, or people around you.

This can be the only acceptable form of violence in my opinion—the law generally reflects this….not that it applies to state violence, carried out by the Police, etc (but that’s a matter for another day.)

Which brings me on to my next point—the Australian stand-up comedian, Aamer Rahman, recently performed a routine dealing with Nazi-punching.

Certainly, the topic has many opportunities for a skilled comedian—unfortunately, though Rahman seems to be promoting Nazi-punching…..

And mocking white liberals (I suppose I am one) for making the simple point that we shouldn’t go around punching people in the face just because they have abhorrent views.

Rahman, speaking about the unprovoked punching of the neo-Nazi Richard Spencer said:

And then every white liberal came out of the woodwork and started going: (Rahman imitates a soppy sounding white liberal)

“Mmmmm I don’t know…I don’t know if that’s what we should be doing….should we really be appluading someone for punching a Nazi?”

“Is that how we want to have political conversations?”

“Shouldn’t we hear people out?”

“If you punch a Nazi does that make you as bad as one?”

“You know what we should do with Nazis? We should debate them and we should defeat them in the marketplace of ideas”

Rahman then steps out of his imitation of the classic cappuccino sipping white liberal and, referring to the “marketplace of ideas”, responds:

Erm yeah, I don’t really know where that is. I would like to defeat Nazis on planet earth first, and then after we eradicate them here, you can fight them in the marketplace of ideas, fucking Narnia, Mordor, whatever imaginary realm it is—that you think Nazis can be constructively debated in, go for it, right?

Now, here’s the thing—this isn’t just immoral and silly, and a terrible tactic designed to backfire, it is also as Chomsky noted a “a major gift to the right”-wing themselves: essentially helping them to justify their own Nazi idealogy—who are the violent ones here?

Rahman then goes on to justify Nazi-punching by saying:

Do I support political violence?

We’re talking about punching fascists in the face—not suicide bombing, OK, relax!

The answer is still yes though Mr Rahman, and isn’t there a word for violence carried out for a political cause? Hmmm…..oh yeah!


Just apply this logic to any other aspect of life, or in fact politics:

For instance, the Tories, not to mention the majority of the Labour party have all carried out massive atrocities all over the world: just look at the weapons we are currently selling to the Saudia Arabian Government who are creating, according to Oxfam, “one of the world’s gravest humanitarian crises” through the Yemen “civil war”.

Essentially they are war criminals: does that mean I should go up and punch Theresa May in the face? Or Hammond, or Tony Blair?

You may think they deserve it—but what good does it do? Does it stop the Saudi bombing?

I think we all know the answer: we all know that even the suggestion is absurd, for obvious reasons.

But here’s the part that nobody ever speaks about or thinks of, it seems, not only is Nazi-punching an awful tactic….


I speak as somebody who has trained in various martial arts since the age of 10—that’s over 20 years of my life spent learning how to fight.

But that’s exactly the point of training—not learning to fight, but how to avoid, or end a fight (in case you ever have to).

That’s the first lesson that any instructor worth their salt will teach you. There is a joke within the martial arts that crystalizes this:

The best form of self-defense training is a pair of Nikes and a racetrack.

The reason is that fighting is incredibly dangerous in multiple ways: violence once unleashed is so unpredictable that it can only ever be a last resort—when all other options have been exhausted.

The only predictable thing about violence is that it is unpredictable.

I have had my nose broken, more black eyes than I can remember: I’ve sparred with trained with guys who are built like brick shit houses who went on to compete in MMA—highly skilled fighters—but still, accidents happen….. I’ve seen a guy have his tooth knocked—it flew across my eyeline in slow motion…..

These are the kinds of things that happen under tightly controlled circumstances with people who are training together and are not trying to actually hurt each other.

Now, imagine what happens when you have people who are actually trying to hurt each other? It doesn’t even look anything like a cage fight—Mixed Martial Arts (MMA)—that is.

Even so-called “No-Holds-Barred” MMA fights are far more controlled than any real fight could ever be.

In a real fight there are no rules of engagement and no referee: meaning the most logical thing to do to win is to rip the enemy’s bollocks off, stab them with your keys in their throat, blind them by spitting in their eyes and clawing them, rip out the hair, and so on….none of which anybody can ever train for as it’s just too dangerous, but that’s how real fights look: but it gets far more dangerous than this.

An example of what can happen outside of the ring….chaos

There is an infinite number of things that can happen: first of all you could punch and miss or the punch has no effect: as soon as you’ve thrown that punch you are committed to action.

An example of when to hit/defend: self-defense: This man, I believe, from the movements and way he handles the aggressor, is a martial artsist—and as such tries to calm the situation first, only when the aggressor persists, and starts to throw punches, and throw his property around, does he defend himself: and only then with enough force to send me a message to the aggressor: This is how it’s done. The defender you will notice remains calm and relaxed: this is not just to try and descale the aggresor’s violence, it is also so as to allow him to think rationally, and move loosely:

So what happens when the Nazi hits you back? What happens if they grab you, pull out a blade and slit your throat? What happens if you hit them so hard they fall over, hit their head on the concrete and you’ve killed them?

What happens if they do they do same to you? What happens if they throw acid at you?

What happens if their pals are around and join in? what happens if the Police see you wailing on a guy?

Do you think any of this would hold in court? On a manslaughter or even murder charge?

Why did you hit him?

Well, he was a Nazi, your honor.

OK, so did he threaten to hit you?

No, he was just standing there talking to somebody—but he’s a Nazi….

Right, so you just went up and killed a man because he’s a Nazi, but he didn’t actually do anything to you?

But he’s a Nazi, your honor!

You think that’ll hold up in court?

I don’t think these guys—Rahman et al, realize just how dangerous fighting actually is.

You don’t get into a fight unless you really have to, and if that happens you do your best to get the fuck out of there.

Otherwise, you could get killed, your friends could get killed and so on.

This isn’t child’s play, this isn’t a school playground brawl—when you’re dealing with the real world, especially in the case of neo-Nazi’s you’ve no idea what they will do back to you and those around you.

In the US this is all the worse as guns are so freely and easily available, and and I don’t know if anybody else has noticed this, but it seems to be the white males—nationalists often—who do open fire killing many innocent people: now think about that, give them a reason and you could get killed and God knows who else could be killed or injured as well.

You just don’t play games like this—think about it. Think about how reckless it is to just go around punching people—again unless it’s the last resort purely for self-defense.

It may be all well and good to justify this violence under the guise of fighting fascism, but how is that any different to the Neo-Nazis going around punching Muslim hate preachers?

Is it now justifiable? again, the same issue, unless there is a direct threat of violence towards you—clear aggression—then neither is justifiable: both are exceptionally dangerous for the reasons I’ve stated above.

You can call me a sanctimonious white liberal if you want Mr Rahman, but frankly, I’d rather be that than somebody who endangers people and helps inadvertently spread the fascist agenda.

Some neo-Nazis have been reformed—some people do change their ways through debate..it does happen.

Debates and conversations about complex issues with people you (rightly) despise may be dead-ends sometimes, but the alternative you’re presenting here: punching people in the face is far worse.

Violence is a last resort unless you are a thug or a terrorist: I’m sorry if you don’t like that simple fact: but it’s the truth.

The last thing the left needs is a bunch of people going around throwing punches at neo-Nazis who are already hell-bent on looking for every reason to have a fight.

Trust me, many neo-Nazis—unlike Spencer—will not just stand there and take a blow to the face—they’ll hit you back, they’ll hit you hard and they may kill you, your family, your friends, other people around: who knows….

Violence is always unpredictable. Always.

At the risk of repeating myself again: such acts of violence can and must only be used as self-defense, and only when all other options have been exhausted.

One final note; I understand that Rahman is a comedian and as such, I hope I’m not missing out on the context here; from what I can gather though, the context is quite clear…

If you would like to answer to the points I’ve made Mr Rahman, please do: I certainly would welcome a debate in the much-loathed marketplace of ideas with you

Davis Cracks ‘Gag’ About Patel Scandal During Glitzy City Fat Cat Awards Show

Davis Cracks ‘Gag’ About Patel Scandal During Glitzy City Fat Cat Awards Show

The plutocrats awards season is in full swing! On Wednesday night, just hours after Priti Patel was forced to resign from her cabinet position (although it’s worth remembering she’s still an MP, a fact rarely mentioned in the media), our beloved Prime Minister treated herself to a lavish banquet with none of other than the Torie’s Chief Propaganda Minister, Daily Mail Editor, Paul Dacre to “celebrate” his 25-year-long reign of terror at the “newspaper”

Continuing this theme of the excessively rich and evil congratulating each other on how great they are at awards shows, last night, another Daily Mail political “journalist”, Julia Hartley-Brewer hosted the City AM Awards show.

A stunning event, designed to congratulate and reward those hard-working, underappreciated, poor deserving bankers and CEOs who have given so much to society—let them have fun! They’ve earned it!

And who else should be giving a speech at the event? well, none other than Mr Brexit Minister himself: David Davis!

Unfortunately, as the event was held in private we do not know what Davis said about Brexit to the corporate elites, but I think we can at least gather from this that he was there to reassure those dainty and fearful fat cat darlings over their Brexit fears….

However, we do know at least one thing that old DD said last night—in classic Tory tradition he just couldn’t resist the urge to make another classic Tory joke—this time about the Priti Patel corruption scandal-forced resignation.

James Bethel, Director of Westbourne a “reputation, advocacy and engagement strategies, content and delivery” agency, was in attendance and just so happened to tweet out what was, no doubt, one of the highlights of the night—another Tory clanger:

James Bethel Twitter —who does DD gags 2?


Apparently, it’s hilarious that our politicians are so corrupt!

Or perhaps this isn’t so much a joke as a statement of fact by Davis…..

It is a good question though, who does write DD’s ‘gags’? HSBC maybe? Who knows….

We still haven’t found out who wrote Micheal Gove’s ‘rib-tickler’ about Harvey Weinstein a few weeks ago on Radio 4—it had us all in stitches didn’t it?

It’s one thing to joke about these kinds of topics, but it’s quite another when publicly elected and paid representatives—lawmakers make jokes that wouldn’t be out of place at a Roy Chubby Brown stand-up show on the end of Blackpool Pier—in public!

And that’s the real problem here, they just can’t help themselves: they really just can’t—this is what they think is funny….

Corruption, sexual abuse…..

If this is what they openly joke about in front of massive audiences, just imagine what they joke about in private?

It kind of makes you wonder: do these people think that, I, Daniel Blake was actually a laugh-a-second Ealing comedy?

Now, I’ll lay my cards on the table and say that I believe nothing is really off limits for comedy: it’s all about context and the skill of the comedian-or writer, or whoever is making the joke.

And that’s why this is so sick—what’s the joke here? Other than women were abused by a powerful sleazeball and it was covered up, and Patel is corrupt (as is Davis and the people he was surrounded by at the award show.)

It really is astounding that they’re so open about how hilarious they find all of this.

Of course, let us not lose sight of the fact that politicians and media barons such as May going to Dacre’s banquet—and politicians attending awards shows with City fat cats are all opportunities for these elites to mix as Davis says with “dealmakers”.

And we have absolutely no public record of what is said, or what deals may be made at these kinds of events…..nice democracy we’ve got here, isn’t it?

That’s the really worrying aspect to all of this…..the corruption is just so in your face in this country you don’t know where to look, or even where to start when it comes to tackling it.

In my opinion, Patel’s meeting was no worse than what she was doing in her role as Secretary of State for International Development anyway…

Let’s be real here: her job was going around giving billions in foreign aid to corporations who use the aid money purely to build their own business empires: not to help the people in the third world.

That’s not to say that foreign aid is a bad thing, but we seriously need to start looking at just where this money is going and how it is being used: I support foreign aid, of course, but that doesn’t mean it’s currently going to the right people.

That’s far worse than some off the books meeting in Isreal. The real reason Patel was forced to resign was because she stepped out of line in her department—essentuially she broke the rules and that pissed off the rest of the Government and civil service. Just like anybody breaking the rules in their workplace…this is no different, there’s no moral aspect to this….or coherent principle to her resignation.

The Al Jazeera undercover investigation into the manufactured anti-semitism scandal in Labour—the concoction of the Isreali embassy and related lobbying groups in London, already showed widespread commonplace interference—likely illegal—by the Isreali government in our democracy…And nobody in the mainstream media even batted an eyelid about that.

That’s the sad about all of this, Patel was forced to resign for a crime that is far less significant than the crimes she was being paid to do in her role: paid and rewarded for.

When somebody steps out of line in an institution like government and breaks the rules, that’s when they might actually get punished—it has nothing to do with scandal or corruption itself: so long as that corruption and scandal is considered acceptable within the institution.

That’s British politics for you: symbolized quite nice by DD joking and laughing about Priti and corruption with a bunch of other corrupt oligarchs in the Square Mile, while they all give themselves awards as a celebration of how fucking great they are….


Following Latest Massacre, Trump Declares New ‘War on White Male Terror’

Following Latest Massacre, Trump Declares New ‘War on White Male Terror’

Following yet another mass slaughter in the US—this time inside a church in Texas, where former-US military “member” Devin Patrick Kelley opened fire killing 26 peopleincluding an 18-month-old baby girl—US President Donald Trump—in a fit of moral outrage and genuine concern for the victims—has declared a new “war on terror”.

This war on terror, Trump announced during his state visit to Japan, was going to be aimed at “all white guys” as they are ones “doing all the terrorism.”

Trump, repeating what he said during his campaign for office, about Islamic terrorists said that he was “going to bomb the hell out of them and their families”.

Of course, no such thing has happened….

As is the standard practice at this point, the recent massacre in Texas is being labeled and presented by politicians and the media as a “lone gun man-good guy gone bad-mental illness is the cause” narrative.

This is despite the fact that white males are now considered to be a greater threat in the US than Islamic terrorists and they have also carried out more attacks than Islamic terrorists, and have killed roughly the same amount of people in these attacks.

The US government is well aware of the terrorist threat posed by white males, on 27th September, just 5 days before the Vegas killer went on a rampage slaughtering at least 58, and injuring at least 527 people, Democratic Senator, Claire McCaskill and FBI Director, Christoper Wray discussed the burgeoning problem at a Senate hearing in Washington.

During the hearing, they discussed the clear, relative lack of attention paid to the threat posed by white terrorists when compared to Islamic based terror.

McCaskill referenced a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that showed white supremacist and other anti-government extremists have carried out 62 terrorist attacks resulting in 106 fatalities since 9/11.

In the same time radical Muslims had executed just 23—killing 119 people, the report stated.

McCaskill said at the hearing that:

I don’t think most Americans realize that the number of incidents by white supremacist militant [and] anti-government organizations are almost triple the number of attacks of those who identify with a jihadist movement internationally in this country,

This issue is therefore nothing new—and security experts are well aware of the clear terrorist threat posed by white males.

The GAO report indicated that white shooters are on the FBI’s terrorist list, therefore, indicating that the US Gov itself, does, in fact, consider these acts to be terrorism.

The standard, accepted definition of terrorism is expressed here by the UN, who in 2004 defined it as:

criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

There are also indications that religion may have played a key role in motivation Kelley’s attack—The Independent reports that:

Kelley was married and it is believed he has taught a Bible studies at Kingsville First Baptist Church.

This combined with the scene of the attack: a church, heavily imply some sort of religious motivation.

The fact Kelley was in the US armed forces adding weight to the terrorism charge—maybe he was enraged at his treatment by the government?

The truth is: we will likely never know: because that would require actual journalism and the asking of difficult questions—and we can’t have that now, can we?

So then it seems appropriate given these definitions, that we should conclude that indeed white males are a category to be targeted by the state as terrorists.

So, let’s apply the principles of the war on Islamic terror lead by the West, to combatting the terror threat posed by white males.

The first thing we should do, of course, is one the first things that former US President, George W Bush did following the aftermath of 9/11: and declare a “war on terror” on white men in the US and beyond.

The next thing Trump should do, being the current US President as he is, is to deploy thousands of troops to any states in which there has been white guy terrorism or where white guy terrorism could happen—the likely breeding grounds.

The troops should then proceed to capture, torture, rape and kill anybody they deem to be terrorists, or possibly related to terrorists, or who one day may become terrorists.

Torture will not only have to be implemented, it will have to be increased, as Trump said of torturing Islamic terrorists:

We have to play the game the way they’re playing the game. You’re not going to win if we’re soft and they’re, they have no rules.


we have to beat the savages

Waterboarding—we should imagine—will be the least of the torture, as Trump has firmly stated before that we must go much further than this, because:

I think we’ve become very weak and ineffective. I think that’s why we’re not beating ISIS. It’s that mentality

Some of the white males should be sent to a new white guy Guantanamo Bay, where they will be held without evidence for years at a time, and subject to torture—including sexual torture—without any due legal process or rights—demanding that they hand over their leaders, and tell us everything they know about other white male terrorists.

The next thing Trump should do is start a mass bombing campaign against the terror states—the campaign must be indiscriminate, killing men, women, and children.

Trump should particularly focus on mass gatherings of white males; football stadiums, pubs, and bars, and of course churches, all being prime breeding grounds for possible white male radicalization and terror.



He would have to start with Las Vegas in Nevada (not his own Casino there though, of course) and move to Texas following this latest attack.

Just as Trump said of Iran and the mid east countries we have to “knock the hell out of them” and then “take the oil” from the rich oil-terror containing states such as Texas, California, Oklahoma, and Louisiana, and reap billions in profits from the white males who own the refineries (probably all terrorists).

Although this would defy both international and domestic law—Trump should proceed with his war on white male terrorism anway—fuck the law, right?

Trump should make sure to use white phosphorous and depleted uranium to achieve the full desired effects of his war on white terrorism: the results being mass genetic deformities as seen here when the US used them in Iraq.

The next thing Trump needs to do is start a mass assassination campaign against white men—taking out as he said of Islamic terrorists both them and thier families:

The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families.

Using Obama’s favorite killing toy: drones.

While all this is going on Trump and his corporate fat cat pals should help themselves to the land, assets and anything else of worth that the possible white male terrorists possess.

At this point white guy terror is likely to have all but been stopped completely—however, there may still be the odd attack here and there—so he’ll have to go further. While terror experts are pretty much in universal agreement that the Islamic war on terror has created far more terrorism—Trump’s war on white male terrorism will no doubt deal with the problem effectively, and with little negative consequence for innocent people..

Next, Trump will have to deport the white males back—a “white male ban”, if you will—to where they came from (mainly Europe, starting about 400 years ago), and stop any further white males from entering the US: this extends to women giving birth to white male children.

These babies will either have to be destroyed, deported, or kept in detention centers till they can prove they aren’t terrorists. Border patrols will need to be increased to make sure that suspect white males are prevented from re-entering the states—a wall would have to be erected along the entire border of the country to ensure that white males are kept out.

Then Trump will have to start a drone campaign against the white males in countries with other white males all over Europe: the source of the terror in the first place.

Drone strikes against white males in the UK, Ireland, Poland, anywhere in which the evil white male can be found—as Trump has said  before the drone strikes also need to take out their families, and children: that’s just how you fight terrorism.

Trump will also have to identify the sources of white male terror radicalization itself: this ranges from anywhere on the internet where white men might frequent (which would have to be heavily monitered and censored by the state) to video games, to comic books forums: all potential sources of indoctrination and radicalization.

And let us not forget the link here between white males and Christianity: no doubt, the evil verses found in the Bible, such as this:

And Moses was wroth with the officers … And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves—Numbers 31:1-18

And this:

And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: Deuteronomy 2:33-34


And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deuteronomy 7:2, 7:16″


If thou shalt hear say … Certain men … saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known … Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:12-15


When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it … And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women … shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. … But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them … as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. Deuteronomy 20:10-17


And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21


So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40

Will need to be frequently condemmed by him.

And prominent media figures who spread the angry white guy ideology, such Fox News’ Bill O’Reily, and Infowar’s Paul Joseph Watson, will also have to be censored and banned.

These are all dangerous radicalisation sources and indoctrination of the evil white male—the Bible, of course, being a core source of much of the evil and barbarity: but what more should we expect from the backward white males? They can’t handle such radical texts without potentially becoming terrorists—such is their inferior culture.

The media, of course, will also have to do their best to inform the public about the dire threat posed by white males. Screaming and emotive headlines about the destruction they cause and the terror they inflict and the fact they want to destroy “our way of life” with their backward culture and caveman like ways will, no doubt, be commonplace.


Just like the war on Islamic terror this too will be a costly venture for the US Pres—the middle east wars have cost the US taxpayer at least 4.8 trillion dollars —before interest is even taken into account—a price worth paying to keep us safe though…

We should expect at least 1 million (mainly white) people to be killed—as is the case in the war on Islamic terror—doesn’t matter though as even if they weren’t terrorists, they probably would’ve become terrorists at some point.

The group’s leaders will also have to be targeted: this is where things might start to get a bit tricky for the US President.

After all, he is the ultimate angry white guy, who likes to go around threatening people and inciting violence….

It cannot be a coincidence that the number of terrorist attacks carried out by white guys has increased since Trump came into office.

He is likely to have been the source of inspiration for them—almost like a white guy Osama Bin-laden.

Trump then, will ultimately have to declare a war on terror on himself.

I think we should leave this particular thought experiment there for now.

The point is that terrorism needs to be understood rather than just shouted at and that the motivations of terrorists span across various ideologies, and happen for various reasons.

Islamic terrorism is in part motivated by radical Islam, but as Osama Bin-laden made clear in his letter to the West—the drivers behind Islamic terror, involves reasons that go far beyond radical Islam: including the West’s unflinching support for the most brutal dictators in the Islamic world, the constant crushing of human rights and democratic movements, the Western-backed, trained, armed and funded overthrow of democratically elected leaders, stealing of natural resources such as oil from the middle east, and Western military aggression and occupation: as well as support and funding for the Isreali atrocities in Palestine.

This aside from the fact the West has always supported and continues to support the Saudi terror state: the source responsible for spreading the most extreme and brutal Wahhabi-Salafi interpretation of Islam across the world: the state that imprisons, and tortures and executes anybody who is campaigning for even the most basic of democratic and human rights.

The reasons for the current speight of white terror in the US—often aimed at government, or in the case of the Vegas killer, potentially the capitalist system itself—after all, casinos and gambling represent the most disgusting elements of unfettered greed and destruction of humanity—as players are gambling all they have against a corrupt system….a system that can, and often does break them, and destroys lives and families.

The reasons may also have something to do with the vast wealth and income inequalities that have become commonplace since the inception of the neoliberal period: jobs exported abroad, wages in steady decline, jobs less secure than ever, manufacturing jobs that once provided security and pride now gone: leaving many places, people, and communities decimated.

These are just some of the reasons—the root causes of terrorism and crime in general.

The narrative developed around the white lone guman—good kid gone bad—mental illness sufferer—may well all be true, but they are also likely to be true of Islamic terror.

Whether or not they are true is not so much the point: the point is to understand the root cause—and understand that atrocity is not somehow better or worse when carried out by ISIS or a white terrorist.

The justification used for the war on terror in the Islamic world could be applied to a similar kind of campaign against the white male terrorists—but to even suggest so would be absurd.

People would rightly laugh at you for even suggesting what I have above.

Yet, the war on terror in the Islamic world was not laughed at by the West, it was treated as if it was inevitable, and fed to us as if it was the only solution.

In the same way, we did not go around during the height of the IRA attacks declaring that anybody with a Northern Irish accent could be a terrorist, we should also accept that just because somebody is Muslim it does not, by default, make then a possible suspect.

What makes people terrorists—the drivers behind terrorism that is—that’s what we need to look at here.

I don’t wish to single the US out here for the double standards imposed on terror—we have the same issue: a quick glance at the Global Terror Database reveals that white male terrorism is more prevalent than Islamic terror in the UK. Much of our white male terrorism is directed at Muslims themselves—it really is quite shocking to read through the data, you quickly realize just how many Mosques have been burned down, Muslims stabbed outside them, etc—most of which barely receives an inch of media attention.

There is a blueprint right in front of our eyes for dealing with terrorism—the Northern Ireland peace agreement is a testament to the fact that terrorism can only really be dealt with through diplomacy, negotiation and understanding of the root causes.

Until we do that, we can expect more racism, more Islamophobia, and more and more terrorism: whether carried out by white males, radical Islamists, or anybody else for that matter.

Despite Thatcher’s Declaration That ‘There’s no such thing as society’, We Still Remain Deeply Moral, YouGov Polls Finds

Despite Thatcher’s Declaration That ‘There’s no such thing as society’, We Still Remain Deeply Moral, YouGov Polls Finds

Despite the great effort that has gone into destroying our moral-social fabric over the neoliberal period, typified by Thatcher’s notorious declaration—some 30 years ago—that there is ‘no such thing as society’, it is reassuring to note that a majority of the public still holds strong moral values—a testament, I believe, to the good nature inherent in much of our fellow man.

A recent YouGov poll examined public attitudes towards the Bible’s Ten Commandments—although we as a nation have pretty much abandoned Christianity—we have firmly retained some of its more pertinent moral teachings.

My personal belief is that this is because these morals actually make sense—they aren’t grounded in anything other than basic principles of fairness and justice, and humanity.

The morals of the Ten Commandments, stretch back far beyond Christianity and so-called organized religion—they are likely to have been organizing principles in any civilized society.

From the survey—given this, it is no wonder that the public hates the political-elite class: on a daily basis, they openly commit these sins/crimes—their crimes, of course, flaunted openly in public, go totally unpunished as the criminal actions they so clearly are.

YouGov 1

Then we start to move into the more contentious (in my opinion) areas—such as this:

YouGov 2

I never understood this commandment as applied to fully grown adults—why should you simply obey somebody just because they gave birth to you?

What if they told your father told you to steal? Or murder? Would it still be right to obey them?

This conflicts with the first four obviously, however, I suspect that the broader principle of caring for your parents and respecting them is what people really mean—in which case: good.

We should all, of course, do our best to care about those around us: especially family.

Again, that such principles should survive despite the neoliberal assault on the family unit (forcing parent’s to work every hour of the day, forcing them to send children to horrible, expensive, greedy private nurseries for example.) Is a testament to our moral fiber.

YouGov 3

Another interesting finding: given that we live in a day and age in which we are bombarded by propaganda designed to turn us into the ideal brain-dead consumers required for the neoliberal’s dream vision of humanity: that man’s highest desire should be to own the latest iPhone—envious of everybody else’s possessions and material wealth, and thus willing to lose all human dignity in the process of acquiring such possessions.

George Carlin’s classic bit on brain-dead consumer culture.

It is quite reassuring to see that the majority rejects this propaganda and attack on the moral structure of society.  Although it’s easy to think the majority are solely motivated by the desire to own the latest gadget—the evidence doesn’t stack up here, does it?

Here though, things get slightly more confusing—potentially more depressing—while 31% think it’s still important to not worship false idols (such as I don’t know, Kim Kardashian, or pretty much any bland pop-singer/group, Hollywood star)—56% say that it’s “not important” anymore.

YouGov 4

While the worship of the rather banal, so-called “celeb culture” is rarely described as worshipping false idols: it clearly is, and I think should be seen as such: this may well be why so many people think it’s not important—they don’t realise who the falsely worshipped idols actually are—and why this clearly a bad thing as it distracts from important issues, and fills our heads with the garbage-nonsense of celebrity tittle-tattle: as if such endeavours have any relevance to our lives, society, the planet, the human species, etc.

An example of brain-dead moronic worship of false idols—an actress likes ice cream!!!!!!!!!! BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!STOP THE PRESSES!!!!

The reality is that singers are treated as if they are modern Gods—rather than people who have a skill and talent to be admired (in the case of actual talented ones, that is)—there is a great difference between admiration of genuine skill, and blind worship and devotion to somebody else’s skill.

Anyway, moving on…..

YouGov 5

The first two make perfect sense, and of course, most people rightly see these commandments as not being important.

The last one—while in my opinion, it doesn’t make sense to call it a “holy day”—the principle that Sunday is a holiday represents is still important.

Think about it: the holy day=holiday=day of rest: God rested on the 7th day.

We work all week and then we rest on Sunday—in the day and age of increasing consumerism, longer and ever-expanding shopping hours, etc—it seems to me that while we don’t need to keep the day reserved for worship of God: a rest built into the week is more than a good moral principle: it’s essential to maintain any form of a decent life.

So it’s more the principle of having time-off to rest here than anything else.

I suspect though, that’s not what people were thinking about when they responded.

Comparing the religious to the everybody else: strangely the results don’t vary as much as you would think….

YouGov 8YouGov 7


To me, this shows that people are not so easily molded by the propaganda system as it may sometimes appear and feel.

The attempt to turn us into selfish, greedy, nasty, consumers over the neoliberal period from Thatcher onwards have largely failed: we still recognize the basic moral principles that establish that jealousy is wrong, envy is wrong, adultery is wrong, stealing is wrong, and so on.

Perhaps the ones we ought to be most concerned about are the tiny minority who believe that stealing, murder, and lying are no longer important moral principles ….

Guess they must’ve included the Westminster & billionaire oligarchic-elites in the survey sample.

How else can you explain such an abhorrent finding?



While We spend £14M On Anti-Russian ‘Propaganda war’ In Former Soviet States, Twitter Bans RT & Sputnik Ads For Being ‘Kremlin Backed’

While We spend £14M On Anti-Russian ‘Propaganda war’ In Former Soviet States, Twitter Bans RT & Sputnik Ads For Being ‘Kremlin Backed’

The RussiaGate hysteria continues as Twitter announces they will be banning Russia Today (RT) & Sputnik news from advertising on the service because they are in part funded by the Kremlin.

NYT twitter
From the New York Times

We are now nearly a year into the Russian-Trump mainstream media conspiracy theory and we have yet to see any actual evidence that Russian “collusion” (whatever that even means) lead to Trump being elected.

While the MSM and a certain sector of the “left” (liberal-progressive commentariats such as the US’ formely respected Rachel Maddow, and Keith Olbermann) seem hell-bent on this conspiracy theory, the real damage that Trump is doing to the US (and world at large) goes unchallenged by them: tax breaks for the for 1%, destroying the already abysmal US healthcare system, mass deportation of immigrants (he must be trying to beat Obama’s record of deporting more immigrants than any other President), school budget cuts,  cuts in social programs, escalation of war in the middle east, increased military spending, essentially tearing up the Paris climate change agreement, this is aside from his tacit support for racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamopahobia,  and white supremacy (among many other things).

Just like a truther fixated on the belief Bush planned 9/11 whilst ignoring our multiple crimes and atrocities in the Iraq War (the thing you can actually do something about)—these people pursue their paranoia to the detriment of Trump’s real victims.

The situation becomes all the more absurd given the fact that a high-level CNN producer admitted that the Russia collusion story was “mostly bullshit” during an undercover investigation.

As a result you may as well just hand Trump another 4 years from now: believe it or not, most people care more about the damage he is doing in their own lives and communities than your obscure conspiracy theory about Putin, Russian spies, and the Kremlin.

By pursuing—so rabidly—this madness and paranoia the left are further alienating the very people who are at the sharp end of Trump’s policies, the very people who should be voting for a left-wing alternative, sympathetic to thier suffering and prepared to actually do something about it.

The fact we and the US have not only interfered in elections all across the world, we have actually overthrown democratically elected leaders and imposed brutal regimes in their place, apparently, all forgotten about by the RussiaGate fanatics.

They also seem to skip over the fact the US basically installed fromer Russian President Boris Yeltsin in 1996, heavily funding and supporting his campaign secretly from Washington.

Following Yeltsin’s victory in ’96, Time Magazine proudly declared in one of its headline articles:


Yeltsin would go on to be an incredibly unpopular leader—and is remembered as such to this day.

Much of this has to do with his policies, which essentially carved up the state for the Oligarchs: policies that the West supported and backed fully.

If this isn’t proof of the US interfering and colluding to destroy Russian democracy—then their charges against Russia (even the most severe) have absolutely no bearing or meaning (especially in legal terms).

Reporting on Twitter’s Russian ad ban, the New York Times informs us that:

Twitter’s ban comes as United States authorities are pressuring RT, formerly known as Russia Today, to register as a foreign agent under a World War II-era law intended to curtail Nazi propaganda.

This illustrates just how hysterical the whole thing has gotten—Russia Today and Sputnik now being equated to “Nazi propaganda” and ‘foreign agents”—a form of madness now prevails in the US-West, unseen since the height of the red scare tactics and paranoia of the Cold War.

The simple fact is both RT and Sputnik actually produce a lot of news that isn’t in any way Russian propaganda—it just contains information that the establishment doesn’t like, and doesn’t want you to know about.

Anything the establishment deems to be propaganda is just code for “information we don’t approve of as it’s a threat to our own power”.

Both RT and Sputnik are one of few mainstream (ish) news sources we have left were accurate dissenting voice, facts and opinions can be heard.

The best journalists in the country (and the US) are now all confined to either RT or Sputnik, for instance, John Pilger who regularly appears on both, Neil Clark, and Afshin Rattansi—all powerful dissenting voices against the establishment….

Or to phrase this more precisely: actual journalists who do speak truth to power.

So, the Twitter ban clearly has nothing to do with who is funding it, so much as what the stations cover: any threat to established power or deviations from the norm must always be stamped out and censored in a “free” society such as ours.

We are allowed to have the facade of a “free press” with none of the actual risks or challenge to power such a thing would actually create.

They have absolutely no problem spreading their own propaganda and fake news on a daily basis, whether it be about the Iraq War & WMDs, or how Corbyn is a “national security threat”—the list is endless.

To make matters even more hypocritical our own government is spending £14 million to win a “propaganda war” with Russia in former Soviet Union countries.

PR Week—Russia propaganda 1PR Week—Russia propaganda 2

This includes funding “independent media”……

Apparently, we have the right to spread our own propaganda in these countries—yet Russia Today & Sputnik (generally high-quality news services) aren’t even allowed to advertise on Twitter.

If anybody is interfering in democracy here and spreading propaganda: it isn’t Russia, it is actually us.

The RussianGate conspiracy theory has been going on nearly a year now and doesn’t look like it’s going to fizzle out anytime soon.

Perhaps one day the hysteria will all be justified, and the devotees of this theory will present us with concrete evidence of Russian-Trump-Putin collusion…

But until that happens (I don’t think it will be honest) they really are just wasting time at the expense of fighting the real damage that Trump is doing.

But worse than this, they are also being completely reckless: they are goading the Russians into a totally pointless, but potentially catastrophic fight—remembering that Russia is heavily armed with nuclear weapons—as are we—and along the Russian border both sides are escalating tensions and provoking each other.

It doesn’t take much to start a nuclear war under these conditions: the hysteria about Russia adding public support and maufacturing consent for such action to take place.

The “left” who are dedicated to this Trump-Putin insanity need to grow up and take some responsibility for what they are doing and think about how best to oppose Trump.

If they really care about getting rid of Trump, that is precisely what they will do.

If they only care about their own self-righteousness then they will continue to do the same as they are now.

Unfortunately, I suspect the former over the latter…

And then the left-liberal elites wonder why pretty much everybody else hates them?

Yeah, stuff like this is the reason why….