Saturday, 30 July 2011

Passive atrocities

In Britain, I believe the institutionalized discrimination against the most vulnerable disabled and sick people equates to crimes against humanity on a complacent yet mass scale. This is a term that should of course never be used lightly. But I conceive that the seemingly acceptable and dehumanized degregation, patronization, abuse against disabled people, all manufactured and encouraged disablism by fascistic and vicious tabloid newspapers, makes it ultimately appropriate. It is all within the culture of the self-satisfied vilification of those relying upon state support in circumstances beyond themselves. The unemployed with no jobs to find. The single parents abandoned by the irresponsible, or the disabled imprisoned by their debilitation. The same politicians who pander to these repulsive hates crimes, take for granted the carers who work for benefits, to care for their dependent relatives out of love, for menial wages granted to them by that essentially amount to slave labour. The Atos corporation is guilty of numerous cases of manslaughter by proxy, in its employment by the UK government to deny disabled benefit claimants their welfare on behalf of private and conserved profits. The demands and excuses given in trials of proof for physical disability can be patently absurd. My grandfather was amputee with heart disease and diabetes. "Not disabled" once according to Atos.

Some may argue my designation towards this entirely fabricated Daily Express headline to be a common denominator that we would refer to as Godwin's law. But it is accurate enough to summarize it thus: Untermensch.

Saturday, 23 July 2011

The meaning of feminism

As a feminist, I do not distinguish between all forms of discrimination being an encompassing violation of the rights of all individuals. Females however (despite outnumbering my fellow males in the world) are the group most subject to dehumanizing and obstructive categorization. While women and girls are those victim to, yes, the misogyny of institutionalized patriarchy, the nature of the latter interweaves in nature to all authoritarian structures of power, social control and cynical manipulation. I would describe fashion industry as the following: the method of castration of the female eunuchs. So what am I if not a martinet? I am a man, and I am a human being. The conditioned purpose of the misogynists is as simply as the mentally neutered thugs (mostly in verbal abuse against women, even more parasitical if physical) of the oligarchal patriarchs. In the same sense, I am quite strongly inclined to distinguish masculinity from patriarchy, just I would femininity (to the latter). Patriarchy ultimately subdues humanity overall.

There is nothing loving about the nuclear family if archetypally and structurally enforced. It undermines the happiness and conditions the subservience of us all.

Thursday, 21 July 2011

Humble crookery

For decades, Rupert Murdoch's News International has waged propaganda war in the United Kingdom. Through the demagoguery of his newspapers and systematic smear campaigns  against those refusing to serve elite agendas, with those otherwise gaining Murdoch's favour sycophantically and inanely bolstered in the rags' editorials. 

Revealing the oligarchical corruption of the Murdochs (rather than incompetence purveyed) with such direct transparency and interrogation  is a true victory for our democracy. But we should make no mistake that without the mass and particular indignation of amoral phone hackings, its criminal and propagandistically tyrannical practices would have continued identically and unashamedly. The WikiLeaks principle applies: Resistant outrage and democratic consciousness of establishment authoritarian agendas prevents their implementation otherwise systematically concealed and enforced.

Monday, 18 July 2011

How to abolish America's deficit

The United States national deficit currently stands at over 14 trillion dollars. The relevant implications of an American default significantly affects us all. When Bill Clinton assumed the presidency in 1992, he inherited a debt tripled, with a debt ceiling raised on dozens of occasions from the terms Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr., based upon ideological subservience to lowering the taxes of the wealthiest 1% of corporations and privileged incomes, while raising them for low-waged working class workers and middle class families, and cutting public programs protecting jobs, alleviating opportunity and defending social mobility. Despite Clinton's many corrupt and hypocritical faults, his economic programs of investing in education, and progressively reducing the disparity of the richest and poorest, bequeathed a budget surplus of over $200 billion, leaving office in 2000 with the deficit steadily regressing into the green. But George W. Bush's proto-fascist commitments to continuation of illiterate supply-side economics reducing the taxes of the moneyed and elite ruling class corporations, the cost of his crimes against humanity (like Reagan's deposition of liberal democratic governments and resistance movements in favour of genocidal juntas and dictatorships), totalitarian Patriot Act and catastrophic deregulation of Wall Street investment bankers preceding the global economic crisis in 2007, increased the deficit by over 19%, to $12 trillion compared to the $5 trillion Clinton accorded. The costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been between 3 to 4 trillion dollars.

Today, President Obama deals with a Republican congressional majority, coercing him into compromise of lowering the taxes of corporations that already evade them while outsourcing American jobs, to avoid being politically forced to raise them for the middle classes. They justify their criminal agenda with rhetoric about the deficit, while denying raising the taxes of the rich, in conformity to the protocols that tripled, quadruped debt under successive Republican administrations, while demanding cuts to solvent social security programs and further privatization of America's atrocious healthcare system. All the while, they focus a repulsive antipathy to Planned Parenthood clinics defending the reproductive rights and health of women, or engage in the absurdity of defunding the Public Broadcasting Service that educates pre-school children with Sesame Street.

According to the Center for American Progress, tax evasion costs the United States an annual $400 to $500 billion annually. The Internal Revenue Service have a more modest figure of over $300 billion per year. America accounts for over two-thirds of the world's military-spending; up to 700 billion dollars is spent on the weapons contracting and global empire of the military-industrial complex defined by President Eisenhower (while the crippled and traumatized troops are abandoned of welfare and discarded as meat shields).

Corporations hoard over 2 trillion dollars worth of wealth every year; their accumulated, bailed out interest has significantly increased since since the financial crisis. As democratic socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont observed during his eight hour filibuster: "Today, in terms of wealth as opposed to income, the top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. When we went to school, we used to read in the textbooks about Latin America, and they used to refer to some of the countries there as ``banana republics,'' countries in which a handful of families controlled the economic and political life of the nation. I don't wish to upset the American people, but we are not all that far away from that reality today. The top 1 percent has seen a tripling of the percentage of income they earn. Since the 1970s, the top 1 percent owning 23 percent of all income, more than the bottom 50 percent. The top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. That is not the foundation of a democratic society. That is the foundation for an oligarchic society. The rich get richer. The middle class shrinks. Poverty increases. Apparently, God is not good enough yet for some of the richest people."

Let us make rough estimations (subject to correction) of cuts and revenue that could be made, with much else to rationally include and consider:

$500 billion ending corporate tax evasion. 
$2 trillion taxing back corrupt corporate profits. 
At least $400 billion to the military budget, such as ending subsidy to the arms trade, genocidal drone strikes of civilian populations and closing America's hundreds of military bases across the world.

This is at least an annual 2.9 trillion dollars, which over eight years would eradicate America's national debt in under two presidential terms, with a surplus of over $9 trillion (at current levels of inflation. Inflation here would clearly be reduced massively).

To the hostility of corporations, investment bankers and war profiteers to his New Deal, Franklin Delano Roosevelt responded: "I welcome their hatred". If there is any principle to his presidency, Barack Obama will grow a spine and welcome the hatred of his own.  Should we give him the benefit of the doubt and assumes he does by 2012? Or do we continue to petition Senator Sanders?

Friday, 15 July 2011

My disillusionment with the atheist "community"

Richard Dawkins and A.C. Grayling are two intellectuals and educators of whom I have learnt and found a great deal of inspiration from. This is why I can only can best describe their suddenly vested agendas and certain recent remark to be disappointing at least. Grayling establishes a for-profit elite private college that uses the resources and plagiarizes the coursework of the University of London, of which Dawkins is part of as the lecturers who teach the privileged few perhaps one or two times per year.

Dawkins then makes shamefully sexist and small-minded remarks against Rebecca Watson's objection, to a man propositioning her in an elevator in the early hours of the morning, situations in which a significant majority of women have been victim to rape. As if the atrocities inflicted against women in Islamic theocracies make such lack of basic consideration dismissively acceptable. Now, this was only the dispute between Dawkins and Watson, and his statements were merely tactless.  Dawkins's remarks I would hope he would view as merely retrospectively shortsighted and cynical. Which is why I would in no way wish to account him to the overwhelmingly misogynistic and repulsive  bleatings Watson has been subject to from the consecrate "community". Those respecting the rights and dignity of women seem to be the minority. But I would give the misogynistic majority in this case the benefit of the doubt; I don't believe this is their natural tendency. They merely sycophantically and delusionally clamour to Dawkins's casual sentiments in his favour. So why bother condemning the primitive fundamentalist objectification and brutality of women?  Don't pathetically gabble the religiosity of your double standards in my name. As a humanist I am consistent in my feminism.  In the context of Grayling's project, so many have seemingly become remarkable capitalist reactionaries, snidely disregarding those viewing it as a institutionalized threat to universal education teaching the Enlightenment humanities without the disparity of the anti-intellectualist profit motive.

What rational logicians you are.

Wednesday, 13 July 2011


Marilyn was not stupid.

James Joyce's Ulysses is among the greatest things I have ever read. This proclamation may be limited comprehensively, as well as unoriginal, but I in no way find the novel laboriously pretentious or complexional as many. Basically, I fully appreciate and comprehend its non-linear narrative, the most vividly inspiring and accurate depiction of the course and senses of the human experience, absolutely revolutionary in the author's creative origin, and foundational to all modern literature succeeding it.

We increment and reflect our thoughts far beyond the confines of immediate statement or perception.

Have I proven this point?

Sunday, 10 July 2011

Bottom of the swill-bucket

While I join the chorus saying good riddance to the News of the World following its criminal and appalling phone hacking activities, and direct attention to the evidently Watergate-like complicity of establishment politicians towards it, Rupert Murdoch's oligarchy is far from defeated.

Quoting Orwell is the NOTW's final act of hypocritical ignorance and stupidity. I doubt they would do so in wry irony. I'm certain Orwell would have resented and actively fought against the corporate tyranny of the Murdoch Empire, and the fascistic propaganda of its rags. The idiocy and repulsive bigotry of Britain's tabloids (and The Daily Mail) embody two conceptual terms from his 1984: prolefeed and  Two Minutes' Hate.

I believe this quote from Orwell's Keep the Aspidistra Flying would have been more appropriate: "They had their cynical code worked out. The public are swine; advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill-bucket."

A Leftist article: Capitalism is a Multifaceted Machine Designed for the Destruction of the Humane

This structured process of existence I do not understand: a person goes to school and gains qualifications for only the inherent and arbitrary purpose of employment. Going to university, they are more than often indebted extortionately first in early adulthood; it is vested interest for lives to be enslaved as early as and as severely as possible.
They work for an employer. Their lives when not exerted for a wage is spent in superficial and mindnumbing distraction of mental defeat. They have some children they mentally coerce into doing the same, they die, and expect their grandchildren to exist exactly.
For as long as I can remember, this has deeply saddened and disturbed me. I will never forget how at secondary school, even polite objection from my withdrawn self was “defiance”. Or how those objecting to abuse from owners during mid-term vocational work were vilified for not tolerating the abuse and objectification in conditioning for slave wagery.
Consumerism inherently relies upon the sabotage and destruction of development that could otherwise provide for all of humanity. Planned obsolescence, catastrophically effecting the environment, is intentionally programmed by the profit motive, where individual incomes would otherwise be self-sustainable in total alleviation of opportunity. It intrinsically distracts and dominates in subjugation and obstruction.

Monday, 4 July 2011

On Ed Miliband's roboticism

Damon Green:

"Ed Miliband thinks that the strikes are wrong at a time when negotiations are still underway. The government has acted in a reckless and provocative manner, but it is time for both sides to set aside the rhetoric and get around the negotiating table and stop this from happening again.

I know this because he told me six times. His PR must have known that was what he was going to do. And yet he still went through a convincing charade of pressing me on my line of interrogation, urging me to keep my questions brief, and even – this was a macabre touch – placing a voice recorder on the table beside me as a kind of warning not to try and misquote his boss.

The pathetically unprincipled and cynical stance taken by Ed Miliband on the strikes of teachers and public sector workers was disgraceful and lamentable enough. But this interview with Damon Green, in which he gives exactly the same automated answer to each considerately posed question, is unbelievably mindnumbing and bizarre .

It is however, in no way at all exceptional. As Sunny Hundal observes

"Given the option, if I was being interviewed I’d repeat those main talking points every time too. With their focus on short soundbites and superficial packages, the broadcast media has no one to blame but itself if politicians try to game that system."

The nature of the mainstream broadcasting media is inherently and entirely void of intellectually considered journalism. It bases itself upon manufactured and propagandistic PR tactics, totally methodological and detached, of which the political establishment only manipulates and mindlessly preoccupies itself within the confines of.

Sunday, 3 July 2011

Introducing: Rock Paper Politics, on the Greek crisis, revolution and democracy

Rock Paper Politics is a new blog founded by friends and associates mostly conversing through Twitter, with a particular and tight-knit camaraderie. Our thanks lie with the great Latent Existence and wonderful Puffles the Dragon Fairy (Puffles Massiv) for making it possible. I am deeply enthusiastic on the engaging quality and intellect of our debuting articles.

On the subject of 'beyond party politics', I write on the Greek economic crisis and opposition to the government's injustice and austerity, the meaning of democracy and its relation to the world's spring of revolution and movements of civil resistance.

Saturday, 2 July 2011

The Assange/Žižek discussion

Watch live streaming video from democracynow at

In context of the footage released by WikiLeaks, of the fatal shootings of surrendering journalists and civilians in Afghanistan by U.S. Apaches, under the permission of military commanders, Žižek makes the important point of the "abstraction" of the victims, in context of Yugoslavian genocide in Srebrenica.  The Collateral Murder video undoes the media dehumanization of the victims of crimes against humanity. "Collateral damage" (that sickening phrase) when witnessed is realized as atrocity. The segregation of unfortunate statistics and the slaughter of human beings is ethically admonished.

Some have presumptuously accused Assange of "taking credit" for the Middle East and North African uprisings. He doesn't. He merely observes the instigation of revolution through the open informationalism of which WikiLeaks has intrinsically influenced and directed. I can't imagine Assange finding honour in holding national company with Rupert Murdoch, but perhaps he is the great anti-government disseminator; the antidote to Murdoch's propaganda empire. 

Friday, 1 July 2011


There has been immense, outraged and furious commotion, over the claims of Oxford University abandoning its standardized use of what is known as the Oxford comma, in its grammatical style guide. 

A sentence written with the Oxford comma would read as follows: 

"The Oxford comma is unnecessary, awkward, and aggravating."

Without it:

"The Oxford comma is unnecessary, awkward and aggravating."

I am perfectly aware of what makes more sense in cognitive linguism and effective punctuation , though it was then pointed out to me by a Comment is Free user named INeedMuchMoreWine (who does):

"Neither. What problem or ailment is the Oxford comma aggravating? Or do you mean 
irritating? Learn the language before commenting on it."


There is a profoundly sentient range held within language, and its limitations within the confines of standardization are the same, as we labouringly deliberate when using it. It is best for it to evolve according to what feels uncomfortable or not. I say realized rather than realised, but wouldn't even think of spelling colour without a u.

A Leftist article: Corporations Prosper While Human Beings Starve, The Irony of Progress

The fundamental causes of crime are poverty and lack of education. The human monopolization of the corporate profit motive is intrinsic to both of the latter. Human beings are either coerced into its personified commoditization or are abandoned into destitution.
A percentage of the population statistically dehumanized, is denied the occupation and opportunity in society fundamental to civilization, based upon nothing but the vested constraints of the profit motive. A fully developed, liberating and equal society is undermined according to the elite corruption of the few.
The meaning of Marx’s phrase, “each according to his ability, each according to his need,” stands for the respect of every individual, and the duty their talents and capabilities hold, which are entirely disrespected through the ethically detached power of the ruling class.
The funds of welfare for the underprivileged, vulnerable and desperate in circumstances beyond themselves or unforeseeable are limited, while those for corporate welfare are seemingly infinite. Working people and families must bear the reduced income of regressive taxation, while corporations are given tax cuts, and the gap between the very wealthiest and very poorest rises with every generation.
What kind of conservative economic liberalism is this?