If there are many people who wonder why the Scots should vote for independence then the behaviour of the government should be reason enough. The Scots simply must sever their ties with the Westminster parliament, as it has now become the biggest threat to our freedom, to the law, and to our human rights. Forget all the propaganda about terrorism, the real terrorists are the people who sit in the Westminster Parliament. The Home Secretary, Theresa May has once again promoted the idea that Britain should withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights because she has lost an appeal on the deportation of Abu Quatada. As a result, in a country that preaches human rights and the rule of law throughout the world and poses as a standard bearer for rights, law and democracy, the government, because it cannot get its own way over one case, is openly jeopardising 63 million people's human rights, and telling its own population that if it cannot get its own way over this case it will jettison the human rights protection for the entire British population. They simply refuse to be subject to their own laws, if those laws do not give them exactly what they want. Now, I have repeatedly warned on this blog, that the Conservatives are completely serious about taking all of our human rights from us and introducing new forms of slavery. This has to be a wake up call for all of those who doubt what I am saying.
However, what
is conveniently ignored by these people is that the European Court of Human
Rights was largely a Conservative vision, mainly the result of the vision of
Winston Churchill. Churchill commissioned a Conservative politician, David
Maxwell Fyfe (who later became the Conservative Party Lord Chancellor) to
prepare the first draft of the founding principles of the European Court of Human Rights, and the resulting outcome was
the inclusion of a set of principles taken straight out of Britain’s ideas on
rights, justice, freedom and democratic accountability that sat well with
traditional Conservative Party thinking. The principles of freedom under the
law, a rejection of torture in all its forms, accountability of, and restraints
on, the state, were all ancient British principles transferred to, and embedded
into, a European context. As a result, the European system of human rights so
detested by the modern Conservative is actually their own legacy and they are
so stupid that they cannot even recognise this. In addition, Britain has a representative on this Court, so they have continuing input into the Court and all its judgements. Thus, the European Court is actually more British than European.
In addition, it serves to highlight how the Conservative Party have long since abandoned traditional conservatism and have come under the spell of American neoliberalism. Another insight into the behaviour of the British authorities has been revealed by the admission that the police had the evidence that the News of the World were guilty of criminal behaviour with respect to the Millie Dowler case as early as 2002, nine years before the Guardian exposed them. Thus, the authorities, under the model set by our parliament, have no hesitation in breaking the law, covering up corruption and fraud and lying through their teeth. The police, the press and the government all treated a murdered 13 year old girl and her family with utter contempt and the rest of us with arrogant disdain. Democracy in the UK is in a truly perilous state and we all have good reason to fear the behaviour of our authorities and their complete refusal to be held by the constraints they demand from everyone else, or to be held accountable. What should also alarm you is that I am not telling you anything that you cannot easily find out in the press. These people have become so arrogant that they no longer care what you think. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Thursday 25 April 2013
Wednesday 17 April 2013
Thatcher's legacy
On the day Margaret Thatcher is being buried, the national debate centres on her legacy. It goes without saying that I am opposed to everything she stood for but I wish the reader to know the principal reason why. It is because she was wrong, and it's as simple as that. Thatcher is not personally responsible for what is wrong with the UK today, but she is most certainly fundamentally responsible, as she laid a philosophical and theoretical course that has been adopted and followed by all UK politicians since, and the theoretical and philosophical foundations are wrong.
When Thatcher made her famous statement that there is no such thing as society, she did so for a very fundamental reason. She saw a society she hated and was determined to destroy that society because she had the power to do so. The first step was to deny the existence of that society because if there is no such thing as society, then society has no responsibilities, not for health, education, welfare etc. As a result if there is no social and collective requirement for the provision of such services then they only need to be available if there is a market demand that can be met for a market price. Thus, in order to marketise health and education etc. she first had to portray them as something that was both dispensible and then replaceable with free market provision. It has to be admitted that she was remarkably successful, as she appealed to the lowest common denominators of greed and selfishness and denied that any of us have any form of social responsibility for our fellow human beings, because there is no such thing as society. So we can be as greedy and selfish as we wish and feel good about it, because we are doing the right thing. In addition, if some people cannot afford to purchase health or education then that is not your fault and they only have themselves to blame. Her denial that there is no such thing as society is a denial that the human being is a social being and is, instead, an atomised individual.
But not only her social philosophy was wrong, so was her economic. I have said before how free market economists misquote and misrepresent Adam Smith. For example, the most influential economics textbook since the second world war was undoubtedly Paul Samuelson's Economics which was studied by tens of thousands of economics students, and in which Samuelson makes the fundamental error of telling us that, according to Adam Smith
each individual in pursuing only his own selfish good was led, as if by an invisible hand, to achieve the best good of all, so that any interference with free competition by government was almost certain to be injurious.
The problem with this is that Smith said no such thing. He neither described people as selfish, nor argued that any interference by government was injurious. He told us how people could be very selfish, but argued that the basic human nature was in fact characterised by sympathy. In addition, the invisible hand was not an economic concept, it was something else.
This is not the place to elaborate on such theoretical concepts, but suffice it to say that Thatcher was responsible for basing government policy-making on fundamental errors that have had profound implications that have resulted in economic and social crisis in modern Britain. If you base your theories on false hypotheses, then you can only reach false conclusions. Thatcher's (and all subsequent policy-making) hypotheses were wrong. The tragedy is that all parties, and particularly Labour, are still wedded to these spurious economic theories, and that is why they cannot provide a solution to our problems as they are using the false assumptions that brought us to crisis in the first place. Britain's problems are fundamentally ideological and theoretical, and we are ruled by people who simply do not understand what they are talking about. You cannot apply the economic theories of Adam Smith or anyone else if you don't understand them in the first place.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
When Thatcher made her famous statement that there is no such thing as society, she did so for a very fundamental reason. She saw a society she hated and was determined to destroy that society because she had the power to do so. The first step was to deny the existence of that society because if there is no such thing as society, then society has no responsibilities, not for health, education, welfare etc. As a result if there is no social and collective requirement for the provision of such services then they only need to be available if there is a market demand that can be met for a market price. Thus, in order to marketise health and education etc. she first had to portray them as something that was both dispensible and then replaceable with free market provision. It has to be admitted that she was remarkably successful, as she appealed to the lowest common denominators of greed and selfishness and denied that any of us have any form of social responsibility for our fellow human beings, because there is no such thing as society. So we can be as greedy and selfish as we wish and feel good about it, because we are doing the right thing. In addition, if some people cannot afford to purchase health or education then that is not your fault and they only have themselves to blame. Her denial that there is no such thing as society is a denial that the human being is a social being and is, instead, an atomised individual.
But not only her social philosophy was wrong, so was her economic. I have said before how free market economists misquote and misrepresent Adam Smith. For example, the most influential economics textbook since the second world war was undoubtedly Paul Samuelson's Economics which was studied by tens of thousands of economics students, and in which Samuelson makes the fundamental error of telling us that, according to Adam Smith
each individual in pursuing only his own selfish good was led, as if by an invisible hand, to achieve the best good of all, so that any interference with free competition by government was almost certain to be injurious.
The problem with this is that Smith said no such thing. He neither described people as selfish, nor argued that any interference by government was injurious. He told us how people could be very selfish, but argued that the basic human nature was in fact characterised by sympathy. In addition, the invisible hand was not an economic concept, it was something else.
This is not the place to elaborate on such theoretical concepts, but suffice it to say that Thatcher was responsible for basing government policy-making on fundamental errors that have had profound implications that have resulted in economic and social crisis in modern Britain. If you base your theories on false hypotheses, then you can only reach false conclusions. Thatcher's (and all subsequent policy-making) hypotheses were wrong. The tragedy is that all parties, and particularly Labour, are still wedded to these spurious economic theories, and that is why they cannot provide a solution to our problems as they are using the false assumptions that brought us to crisis in the first place. Britain's problems are fundamentally ideological and theoretical, and we are ruled by people who simply do not understand what they are talking about. You cannot apply the economic theories of Adam Smith or anyone else if you don't understand them in the first place.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Monday 8 April 2013
There are none so blind
It never ceases to amaze and disappoint me how gullible people are and how ready they are to accept outrageous propaganda and downright lies because it suits them. It is beyond debate who is responsible for the financial crash and the position we find ourselves as a country both economically and financially. Our political leaders have been supremely incompetent and driven by a hatred and loathing of ordinary people, and our financial personnel have been criminally corrupt and recklessly incompetent. Thus, it is a mixture of corruption, criminality, class warfare and incompetence that has characterised Britain's so-called elite for the past 20 odd years. The ruling elite in modern Britain simply refuse to be bound by the rules and moral principles they demand from everyone else. They are venal and outrageously immoral.
However, today we are witnessing the blame being successfully pinned on the most unfortunate in society and the people who are so obviously guilty being let off scot free to enjoy the fruits of their avarice and greed. Through a combination of outright lies and relentless propaganda, the coalition government and its paid servants in the gutter press have successfully demonised the innocent. There has been a relentless campaign to blame people on benefits and it has succeeded, with the majority of public opinion demanding a crack-down on benefit payments, whilst the criminals in the financial system and Westminster are escaping all necessary accountability.
The government's own figures show that benefit fraud stands at around £1billion per annum, or 0.7% of the benefits budget, whilst tax evasion alone exceeds £100billion. The Guardian has shown how the majority of the population believe that benefit fraud stands at 27% rather than the true figure of 0.7% and that is testimony to the success of the government's lies backed by the Daily Mail and the Express. Supermarkets normally budget for around 0.5% for waste and breakages, so given that benefit fraud sits 0.2% higher than that, it is really quite minimal, particularly when tax evasion is 100 times greater. That is without the billions being given in bonuses to people who are demonstrably useless and have wrecked the entire economy.
However, I have said it before, this situation cannot continue much longer. Britain's neoliberal elite are using all their energy and ingenuity to exclude more and more people from any form of security and hope. The are marginalising and in effect disenfranchising more and more people, and the general public are supporting them. The Bible tells us that where there is no vision the people perish and that there are none so blind as those who will not see, and Bob Dylan tells us that when you aint got nothin you aint got nothin to lose. There is a reckoning coming and the British will pay for their hatred of the disadvantaged and the less fortunate.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
However, today we are witnessing the blame being successfully pinned on the most unfortunate in society and the people who are so obviously guilty being let off scot free to enjoy the fruits of their avarice and greed. Through a combination of outright lies and relentless propaganda, the coalition government and its paid servants in the gutter press have successfully demonised the innocent. There has been a relentless campaign to blame people on benefits and it has succeeded, with the majority of public opinion demanding a crack-down on benefit payments, whilst the criminals in the financial system and Westminster are escaping all necessary accountability.
The government's own figures show that benefit fraud stands at around £1billion per annum, or 0.7% of the benefits budget, whilst tax evasion alone exceeds £100billion. The Guardian has shown how the majority of the population believe that benefit fraud stands at 27% rather than the true figure of 0.7% and that is testimony to the success of the government's lies backed by the Daily Mail and the Express. Supermarkets normally budget for around 0.5% for waste and breakages, so given that benefit fraud sits 0.2% higher than that, it is really quite minimal, particularly when tax evasion is 100 times greater. That is without the billions being given in bonuses to people who are demonstrably useless and have wrecked the entire economy.
However, I have said it before, this situation cannot continue much longer. Britain's neoliberal elite are using all their energy and ingenuity to exclude more and more people from any form of security and hope. The are marginalising and in effect disenfranchising more and more people, and the general public are supporting them. The Bible tells us that where there is no vision the people perish and that there are none so blind as those who will not see, and Bob Dylan tells us that when you aint got nothin you aint got nothin to lose. There is a reckoning coming and the British will pay for their hatred of the disadvantaged and the less fortunate.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Thursday 4 April 2013
Correction
I must apologise. I try to always be rational when analysing reality, but I must confess that I allowed my reason to be a slave to my passions in my last post when I referred to benefits being the price that the rich pay for their privileges. I succumbed to my emotions and allowed them to cloud my reason and for that I apologise.
Of course we all pay for the benefits system through general taxation, but that does not minimise the fact that benefits are the price that our system pays for its legally underpinned structural arrangements. In our society we are dependent on money for all of our needs. As a result, money is an essential requirement, and is obtained by the vast majority of the population through employment for a money income. Modern Britain is the result of a historical process that began with the Norman Conquest. Through this process we have reached an empirical reality whereby 1% of the UK population own 70% of the land. This development is also the reason for the class structure of the UK whereby much of that land is owned by the monarchy, the church and an aristocratic elite. If the system of ownership denies people access to land that can sustain them and provide for their food, and a legal system upholds the heredity basis of legalised theft, and creates a modern economy in which the vast majority of people depend for their existence on working for an employer who will pay them a money wage within an economy that is entirely dependent on money, and then significant sections of the population can’t find work and don’t have enough money to live on as determined by the norm for that society, which also progressively denies them a sufficient level of the benefits, then that is not their fault and they cannot be blamed for it. In a modern society like the UK, operating under a capitalist economic system that entrenches politically, legally and socially the rights of private property ownership, but refuses to admit that people have a right to employment, then in the absence of employment the state – the organised governmental system of that society – must provide you with alternative funds to sustain a reasonable standard of living.
The system of ownership has its genesis in military conquest and has been sustained by legalised theft and systematic fraud, which has evolved into so-called property rights. However, with rights come obligations, and, if your rights have been gained by denying your fellow human beings the fundamental means to sustain their life, then you are obliged to provide an alternative. As a result, if the capitalist class of property owners and employers cannot, or will not, provide sufficient means of employment and money wages to the population, then the state must do so, as it is this state that is upholding and supporting that economic system. This is the rationale for social security.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Of course we all pay for the benefits system through general taxation, but that does not minimise the fact that benefits are the price that our system pays for its legally underpinned structural arrangements. In our society we are dependent on money for all of our needs. As a result, money is an essential requirement, and is obtained by the vast majority of the population through employment for a money income. Modern Britain is the result of a historical process that began with the Norman Conquest. Through this process we have reached an empirical reality whereby 1% of the UK population own 70% of the land. This development is also the reason for the class structure of the UK whereby much of that land is owned by the monarchy, the church and an aristocratic elite. If the system of ownership denies people access to land that can sustain them and provide for their food, and a legal system upholds the heredity basis of legalised theft, and creates a modern economy in which the vast majority of people depend for their existence on working for an employer who will pay them a money wage within an economy that is entirely dependent on money, and then significant sections of the population can’t find work and don’t have enough money to live on as determined by the norm for that society, which also progressively denies them a sufficient level of the benefits, then that is not their fault and they cannot be blamed for it. In a modern society like the UK, operating under a capitalist economic system that entrenches politically, legally and socially the rights of private property ownership, but refuses to admit that people have a right to employment, then in the absence of employment the state – the organised governmental system of that society – must provide you with alternative funds to sustain a reasonable standard of living.
The system of ownership has its genesis in military conquest and has been sustained by legalised theft and systematic fraud, which has evolved into so-called property rights. However, with rights come obligations, and, if your rights have been gained by denying your fellow human beings the fundamental means to sustain their life, then you are obliged to provide an alternative. As a result, if the capitalist class of property owners and employers cannot, or will not, provide sufficient means of employment and money wages to the population, then the state must do so, as it is this state that is upholding and supporting that economic system. This is the rationale for social security.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Wednesday 3 April 2013
All hail the free market
Welcome to Britain's privatised free market heaven where the market will ensure that you get the best prices and quality for all goods and services through the dynamic of healthy competition in the market system. But wait a minute, the energy giant SSE has just been fined for persistent misselling, systematic and persistent lying to its customers, and misrepresentation of its products, whilst racking up a profit margin last year of £1.3billion, and it has been doing it for at least 10 years. That's not supposed to happen is it? This is fraud is it not? So, who's going to jail, who has been sacked, who has been denied their bonus? Answer, no-one!
Todays news however, is all about a couple who were responsible for the deaths of six of their children in a fire, and guess who's to blame? The benefit system! It wasn't the free market that was to blame for corporate criminality and fraud, but it's the benefit system that's responsible for the deaths of six children.
Every energy firm is under investigation for fraud, the banks manipulated the market and rigged the interest rates whilst defrauding their customers for billions of pounds, but who gets punished? No-one. Privatised hospital services are literally killing thousands of people through gross neglect and incompetence and the people responsible are promoted. What causes such unbelievable outcomes in a supposedly civilised society that operates by the rule of law?
The answer is that we are ruled by a criminal clique who refuse to regulate their pals in corporate boardrooms or punish the people who are guilty of mass fraud, because our governing elite encourage them to loot as much as they can as long as they don't get caught. However, even if they do get caught they won't be punished because they are the elite and they have a right to behave like that. However, if a working class unemployed benefit scrounger gets out of line, woe betide them as the might of the state will descend on them with a vengeance. Worse still are all those people who claim to be disabled and expect benefits as they cannot work. They are all frauds of course, as nobody is really disabled and its all just a scam to get millions of pounds every month from the state. This must be true as we are constantly being told this by the government, the Daily Mail and the Express and every coalition spokesperson on TV.
The free market is a fraud, as I have told you before, and it isn't difficult to demonstrate that it is. Free market economists constantly preach the benefits of the market and appeal to the writings of Adam Smith for conformation of their claims. The problem is, that Adam Smith does not support their claims which are another aspect of the free market fraud, but that is a subject for another forum as it would take too long to outline here. Just let me finish with the observation that, contrary to what our government and their lackeys in the media constantly tell us, welfare benefits are not a privilege, they are an entitlement. They are the price that our millionaire gangsters must pay for their riches and privileges. Do not be fooled by these people in your search for the reality of social life.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Todays news however, is all about a couple who were responsible for the deaths of six of their children in a fire, and guess who's to blame? The benefit system! It wasn't the free market that was to blame for corporate criminality and fraud, but it's the benefit system that's responsible for the deaths of six children.
Every energy firm is under investigation for fraud, the banks manipulated the market and rigged the interest rates whilst defrauding their customers for billions of pounds, but who gets punished? No-one. Privatised hospital services are literally killing thousands of people through gross neglect and incompetence and the people responsible are promoted. What causes such unbelievable outcomes in a supposedly civilised society that operates by the rule of law?
The answer is that we are ruled by a criminal clique who refuse to regulate their pals in corporate boardrooms or punish the people who are guilty of mass fraud, because our governing elite encourage them to loot as much as they can as long as they don't get caught. However, even if they do get caught they won't be punished because they are the elite and they have a right to behave like that. However, if a working class unemployed benefit scrounger gets out of line, woe betide them as the might of the state will descend on them with a vengeance. Worse still are all those people who claim to be disabled and expect benefits as they cannot work. They are all frauds of course, as nobody is really disabled and its all just a scam to get millions of pounds every month from the state. This must be true as we are constantly being told this by the government, the Daily Mail and the Express and every coalition spokesperson on TV.
The free market is a fraud, as I have told you before, and it isn't difficult to demonstrate that it is. Free market economists constantly preach the benefits of the market and appeal to the writings of Adam Smith for conformation of their claims. The problem is, that Adam Smith does not support their claims which are another aspect of the free market fraud, but that is a subject for another forum as it would take too long to outline here. Just let me finish with the observation that, contrary to what our government and their lackeys in the media constantly tell us, welfare benefits are not a privilege, they are an entitlement. They are the price that our millionaire gangsters must pay for their riches and privileges. Do not be fooled by these people in your search for the reality of social life.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)