Don’t Give A F*ck About The Latest Royal Wedding? You’re Not Alone, Over Half The Country Agrees With You Says New YouGov Poll

Don’t Give A F*ck About The Latest Royal Wedding? You’re Not Alone, Over Half The Country Agrees With You Says New YouGov Poll

The chiming bells of unrestrained joy have been ringing throughout our humble nation upon hearing the latest Royal proclamation that Henry Charles Albert David  (the redhead formally known as Prince) is due to wed Rachel Meghan Markle.

The wedding is set to cost taxpayers at least £22 million, and that’s just for police and security to protect the couple. A price definitely worth paying just for the sheer joy of it all, I am sure you are all thinking.

Yet, it seems despite the wall to wall propaganda and sycophancy trumpeted by the mainstream media, the majority of the country couldn’t care less.

In fact, according to a recent YouGov poll, 52% of Brits say they are “indifferent” to the latest Royal blowout, while 4% say they are “disappointed” and 6% of the country say they “don’t know” how to feel about it.
YouGive Harry poll 1YouGive Harry poll 2

However, that leaves 39% of the country – almost 4 in 10 – saying they are pleased with the news.

To be fair, whether or not you’re ecstatic or angry about the whole bloated charade makes no real difference: you’ll still have no choice but to foot the bill for the whole thing anyway.

Unsurprisingly, it was older Tory voters who showed the greatest blind enthusiasm:

YouGive Harry poll 3 tories love dem some Royals

Although, even then only 48% of Tory voters were ‘pleased’, leaving quite a large number: 46% who couldn’t care less.

Much has been made of the fact that Markle is mixed-race by the media – arguably one of the reasons for many Tory voters’ disinterest.

No doubt, this was one the key reasons she was chosen by Royal’s incredibly strong public relations (PR) team as they are trying to rebrand the family by increasingly focusing on the younger members.

It may also have something to do with the fact that Harry’s overt racism — seen here when he called a fellow serviceman who is Asian:

our little Paki friend

And refers to another officer as a “rag-head” — is something the Royal’s PR machine would like us all to forget.

 

I guess they’d also like us to forget Harry’s slightly outrageous dress sense.

Harry Nazi
Credit: The Sun

To be fair, he was only carrying on the proud family tradition.

The-Duke-and-Duchess-of-W-009
Former King Edward who held the title of Duke of Winsor after abducting the throne a year before this photo was taken meets Hitler with his wife in Munich in 1937. Image credit: PA.

The Queen, her mother and sister, and the future King Edward salute the Nazis in this delightful home video from 1933.

 

 

 

Sadly, and in my view bafflingly, polls generally show that overall the Royal family remains quite popular:

monrachy good for britain?

And the younger members are the most popular:

Most popular royals

So the PR really does pay off here: this is the reason for the endless media focus on the younger ones.

Desperately they try to make the archaic institution of monarchy seem like it’s some sort of modern and hip thing so that people keep supporting it.

Trying to rebrand the Queen as progressive is just too much of a stretch. The younger ones, on the other hand, well slap on some stuff about mental health issues, make them look like a normal-ish family, add in a mixed race marriage and hey ho! Now it’s progressive and modern!

However, for Republicans there are some reasons to be optomistic: polling also shows that the majority of Brits would like the Royal family to be slimmed down vastly:

Slim down Royal fanmily 1

Slim down Royal fanmily 2

Even Harry was borderline on the question of whether or not these millionaire scroungers should receive our money.

So for those who think we shouldn’t have a Monarchy in the first place, we should probably start with the fact that the public agrees with us at least partly, and work from there.

Camilla and Charles’ comically low popularity provides yet more opportunity to illustrate how unfair Monarchy is in a day and age of alleged democracy and supposed meritocracy.

We might like to mock the US for electing Trump, but say what you want about the US — at least their head of state is democratically (well sort off) elected by the people (again sort off).

The reality is the Monarchy makes us an international laughing stock — literally, we submit through our own public opinion polls to archaic belief in Kings and Queens and Princes, Dukes and Princesses, long after the time when most countries long abandoned such nonsense.

The argument that the Monarchy is good for the economy is such a weak one it barely requires adult debate, alas though, I’m sure some will use this defense in all sincerity.

Let’s just think about this for a quick second, shall we? Tourists come to look a bunch of buildings built on the blood and wealth by the enslaved of the nation and in fact the world: they don’t actually come to look at the Queen — perhaps if she was performing some sort of mildly entertaining street performance style act outside Buck house on the regular then this line of defense would make sense. But she doesn’t — she just hides in one of her many mansions keeping hundreds of rooms to herself and her family.

If she was doing something useful, like I don’t know, cleaning my toilet, then perhaps we could justify the expense of the Royals.

How about that as a compromise? Let’s start an app like Uber where you can just order the Queen to come and fucking earn her money, just like everybody else — need your toilet cleaning? Need someone to mow your lawn?

You have to make sure the tasks are relatively low skilled, as obviously, the Queen has no actual skill to sell through our beloved capitalist markets.

In the same way that millions of tourists still visit the King’s former palace of Versailles in France, long after they improved the country by ridding themselves of Monarchy, I suspect the same would happen here: the tourists would still come — alas, no argument beyond implementing stringent class divides on us really exists for Monarchy — a 6-year-old of average intelligence could tell you that.

On Versailles Wikipedia tells us that:

The Palace of Versailles (French: Château de Versailles), or simply Versailles is a royal château in Versailles in the Île-de-France region of France. It is now open as a museum and is a very popular tourist attraction.

There you have it — a museum and tourist attraction based on Royalty, long after the Royals have been ousted.

Guess it can be done then, after all…

At a time when millions live in poverty in this country, and we’ve had the longest wage stagnation/decreases since the Napoleonic wars, austerity has killed thousands and decimated millions of lives: the Royal wedding is rightly seen as being meaningless by over half of the country.

I would like to go one further here and say that not only is it meaningless: it’s a fucking insulting waste of money.

£22 million sounds like it might just be enough to feed more than one of the at least 4 million children who live in poverty in this country…

What this and Monarchy in general really boils down to is who is important and who matters in a society: some lives are worth millions, the majority of lives though, they are worth nothing at all.

That’s the question YouGov should really ask the people of this country: would you rather £22 million went towards child poverty or towards a bunch of tax avoiding millionaires who have done nothing to earn their fabulous wealth?

Given the results of this latest poll, I think we can all guess the answer.

Advertisements

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?

The Real Reason For The Hasty £50 Billion Tory EU Divorce Bill? Cry Baby Bankers & Their Beloved Nanny State

The Real Reason For The Hasty £50 Billion Tory EU Divorce Bill? Cry Baby Bankers & Their Beloved Nanny State

Much talked about of late has been the so-called £50 billion Brexit divorce bill.

The usual minutely relevant mainstream media left-right paradigms dictate that one side—right-wing Brexiteers—are strongly against the settlement—protesting in their usual grown-up, diplomatic, sensible and coherent way at the cost of the bill.

Priti Patel, the recently disgraced Tory MP, Whip and former Ex-International Development Secretary and Vote Leave figurehead, recently expressed the standrad negotiation sentiments we’ve come to expect from the hardcore right-wing Brexiteer camp.

Following her recent resignation scandal, speaking at a Tory-porn Spectator event, Patel spewed:

My views on money are pretty clear, I don’t like spending money so I would have told the EU in particular to sod off with their excessive financial demands.

Indeed Patel’s views on money are pretty clear: her former position as International Development Secretary involved going around the third world securing billions of pounds in handouts for British businesses, such as Guinness, and “consultancy firms” who have all used the foreign aid budget to line their own pockets.

The sad reality is that the foreign aid budget is all too often used for this purpose: in many cases, the way it is spent likely does more harm than good. Unlike the right-whingers who seem to detest the very concept of aid, I do support the concept, and would like to see more aid if anything: but it must go to the right places….corporations who use the money to further impoverish people in the third world, enslave them and steal their resources are not the right places.

Global Justice Now reports that:

More and more aid is channelled through financial intermediaries like big banks, insurance companies and opaque investment funds. For example, 88 per cent of the portfolio of the CDC Group, which is a UK government-owned institution that delivers aid, is channelled through the financial sector, which then goes on to ‘invest’ in projects aimed at creating economic growth. That’s why British aid ends up in dubious (but profitable) projects such as luxury housing and shopping malls in Kenya. In 2006, the CDC even invested in Nigerian companies that were later proven to be used by corrupt politician James Ibori to launder stolen money.

These institutions also make heavy use of secretive tax havens, which ensures that much of their activity is shielded from public scrutiny. Of the 157 ‘aid’ investments made by the UK’s CDC Group in 2013, 118 were channelled through tax havens.

Large proportions of aid also go towards cleaning up the mess caused by previous UK government policy. We only need climate finance because the UK has emitted such a large amount of carbon dioxide. Much of the money that went to Afghanistan and Iraq is only necessary because of the UK’s military involvement in those countries.

Sorry to digress, but honestly, the issue just doesn’t get any attention normally….

Anyway….

What is it with these hardcore Brexiteers? Are they able to do anything other than telling people they disagree with to “sod off” or “jog on”? What kind of mad attitude is that towards negotiation and diplomacy?

Would they approach any other aspect of their lives like this?

Would they go into a shop and upon being told the price of something they liked, feeling it too expensive, tell the shopkeeper to “sod off! and jog on!”

To be fair, looking at the state of the hardcore right-wing Brexiters, they probably would do exactly that: and then proceed to pull down their trousers and take a massive shit right there on the floor, whilst looking the shopkeeper directly in the eyes. No doubt, if the shopkeeper was to protest they would proceed to call them a “whiny crybaby moaner!” and mock them for protesting the shittings.

Anyway, I digress (again)…..

The mainstream left is, of course, more pro-the extortionate settlement…still though, the questions that should be raised as usual haven’t been by either side of the MSM.

So, casting aside the various political narratives designed to distract us from the real reasons that these things are happening—who is really pulling the levers of power around here, that is—we can see the actual reason the Tories are coughing up £50 billion to the EU without much attempt at negotiation (if any).

Financial industry newspaper City AM, ran on Monday’s front page, the fat cats latest demand on the public purse and nanny state.

City AM 27 Nov front page hl

Yes, that’s right, the City wants us to just get on with it—cough up and pay so they can make even more money.

Haven’t you noticed all those CEO’s lining the streets in their cardboard boxes during these freezing cold winter nights? There’s more and more by the hour don’t you know! The poor babies! Won’t somebody please think of the real victims here? Honestly, it would be selfish not to.

City AM 27 Nov excerpt 1

City AM 27 Nov excerpt 2

The City we are told doesn’t want the Government to “penny pinch” over this—heaven forbid it should affect their poverty wages after all.

The City would have us believe on its front page—and in the braoder mainstream coverage—that they truly fear Brexit will lead to the Apocolypse.

By page 25 of City AM, however, sanity and truth manage to miraculously appear.

In an article by Sam Smith, Chief Executive of finnCapp we are told that:

Sam Smith excerpt — Bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg, of course, being a man who is worth around US$ 47.8 billion and owns Bloomberg financial news and a host of other banking services.

So, then, as usual, the City cry babies get what they want and we all have to foot the bill for their gold-plated dummies and Mercedes-Benz brand prams.

The City knows all too well that they are far from collapse or peril—with or without Brexit, however, clearly they would prefer that we just pay the massive bill for thier own benefit.

Another example of how the bankers rely on the nanny state—taxpayer—us—to survive.

Great “free-market” capitalist system this, isn’t it? How we fund the bankers and their every plutocratic whim and bail them out when their crooked gambles go catastrophically bollocks up.

Apparently, that’s free market capitalism….

The only time we actually have what resembles a free-market capitalist system in this country is when it comes to the working class-poor.

If you’re just a penny short in Tesco paying for a loaf of bread—boom! fuck off! They’d throw you in prison for 6 years just for asking them to let you have it for a penny cheaper.

What a sick joke.

The real threat of Brexit is from de-regulation to our food, banks and other consumer safety protections—things like pharmaceuticals, a whole range of rights and safety standards that are currently protected under EU treaties.

As well as this, we have the obvious issues over human rights, and worker rights, data protection, etc.

The farming out of NHS services to bloated US healthcare giants….the list of real threats from Brexit is no joke….yet does any of this even get a column inch in the mainstream media?

Global Justice Now produced a report earlier this year highlighting the fact that corporations are essentially lobbying the Tories to get the Brexit they want—and keeping the public excluding in the process.

Global Justice reports that:

 

Brexit GJN lobbying

  • The DexEU list of lobby meetings includes several actors who have previously made financial contributions to the UK Conservative Party’s head office, as well as corporations with revolving door links to senior party figures.
  • The corporate bias in the lobby meetings of DexEU mirrors the pattern of lobbying seen at the UK Department for International Trade. The ministers developing the UK’s post-Brexit trade relationships with the rest of the world have been holding 90 per cent of their lobby meetings with representatives of business interests, previous research showed.

If things continue as they are on track to, we’ll end up with a Brexit that costs billions and leaves us, as Corbyn has said many times before as:

bargain basement Britain, a low-pay tax haven on the shores of Europe

We’re already forking out 50 billion because the City demands it—YAY!!!

That isn’t to say that we shouldn’t pay settlements and come to an aggreement—obviously, we should honor our legal obligations and do our best to settle amicably.

But to just rush head first into these things, with no public control or oversight says it all about the true nature of Brexit.

Staunch Brexiteers who were all too happy to declare what a great day for democracy the referendum was—alas, those same Brexiteers have been strangely quiet about the multiple ways in which the public—and indeed the opposition—has all but been excluded from the Brexit negotiations…..

As usual, it will be the poorest who voted for Brexit who will suffer the most as a result of all this.

As usual, the left-wing Guardianista commentariats will call them all racists and bigots when they find new scapegoats to blame their often justified economic-social rage on.

Short film examining the religious nature of Brexit

Apparently, that’s democracy? Apparently, this is capitalism?

Can somebody please learn how to use a dictionary in this country?

Preferably before I go totally insane.

Cheers

 

 

 

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!

IT’S CALLED TERRORISM!

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….

IT’S ALSO FUCKING DANGEROUS!!!!

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?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/928711878578237441

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.

Because:

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.

Sperbowl

 

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:

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″

And:

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

And:

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:

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

And:

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.

WHITE MALETERROR CHUCH CARNAGE

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?