I'm afraid that I broke a longstanding personal rule today when I read an article about Tony Blair. I normally refuse to engage with murderers, torturers and imbeciles but I was drawn to his latest comments about how "it makes sense for us to stick together because we're more powerful together, economically and politically." He then tells us that "the best arguments are economic and practical" and I can never resist sublime irony.
This is the man who told us that our security was more important than our liberty as he tried to justify rendition, torture, illegal wars, identity cards, millions of cameras spying on us, the enhancement of police powers, the illegal activities of the press under his governments, 4,500 new criminal offences under his rule, and then trying to convince us that the terror we saw on our streets was nothing to do with him. When he tried to convince us that our liberty is worth losing for our security I was reminded of Benjamin Franklin when he told us that "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Blair seems to have completely missed the salient point that the driving force behind a desire for Scottish Independence is the state of the economy and the state of politics in modern Britain. The best arguments for Independence are indeed economic and political. It was Blair's governments who presided over the ruin of both our economy and our political system. He was ably assisted by the Tories, but he was the person most responsible. People ought to remember his policies of 'light touch' regulation of the banks and the financial system and his government's quite relaxed attitude to people becoming filthy rich. What he forgot to mention that they were equally relaxed about people becoming filthy poor. His was the government who introduced ATOS. His was the government who introduced the Private Finance Initiatives that are ruining the NHS.
So, economically and practically, the only way Scotland has any hope of economic recovery and political democracy is to divorce from the Westminster Parliament that he did so much to reduce to a lying, corrupt and completely unrepresentative farce. No wonder the Tories never criticise him, they have everything to thank him for because he laid the foundations for all the carnage they are inflicting on us.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
t makes sense for us as a UK to stick together because we're more powerful together, economically and politically. And, you know, to reference another debate that's going on, it makes sense for us to remain in Europe because without that weight we will lose influence and lose power both economically and politically.
And I still think that is the best. I think the best arguments are economic and practical and, you know, by and large I think those are the arguments that are being made.
Wednesday 30 October 2013
Monday 28 October 2013
Economics? Humbug
Readers of this blog will be well aware of my rejection of the dominant economic theories that govern our society and of my contempt for economists in general. My approach is to listen to an economic expert and promptly believe the opposite. There are exceptions to this rule of course, prominent amongst whom are the Cambridge economist Ha Joon Chang and the American Joseph Stiglitz. Economics is a discredited discipline in the UK with the vast majority of economists still unable to comprehend what happened in 2007 and completely unable to tell us how to rectify the disaster they caused and failed to predict. Anyone who knows me will know that I was predicting the financial crash 10 years before it happened and I don't even study economics; what was coming before 2007 was quite obvious.
The principal reason for the failure of economics in the modern world is that economists don't understand the nature of the subject they are dealing with. As I've written here before, the human being is a social being who necessarily regulates his/her environment and his/her behaviour. As the war-cry of economists since the 1980's has been for deregulation of all economic activity as far as possible, they have been pursuing anti-social and socially destructive policies that finally came to fruition. Economics is a social science and cannot be understood if treated as a standalone activity. Economics is, by its very nature, an interdependent discipline that cannot be understood without reference to the political and social environment within which it operates. Modern economics does not recognise this. All economic activity impacts on the wider social and political world and is in return affected by social and political factors and that is why all the early classical analysts of such behaviour, such as David Hume and Adam Smith referred to this study as political economy.
But most importantly, economics is a product of human nature, economic behaviour is human behaviour and can never be anything else. The human being is a labourer, a producer who engages in production, trade, exchange and barter and the study of economics is the study of that behaviour. If you wish to talk about markets, then you are talking about a human artefact, not something that exists outside of the scope of human behaviour. An economic market is simply a description of the process of exchange, trade and barter of human production.
It is correct to note that human beings are largely motivated by self-interest, the active pursuit of personal gain and property. However, David Hume showed us in the 18th century that such a motivation in people is a real threat to social order and stability noting how our desire for “goods and possessions for ourselves and our nearest friends is insatiable, perpetual, universal and directly destructive of society.” Because of this inherent danger to social order posed by our self-interested desire for gain, we must, paradoxically, recognise that it is also in our own self-interest to constrain such desire. He warns us that this is necessary for the preservation of society telling us that “’tis evident, that the passion is much better satisfy’d by its restraint, than by its liberty.” As a result, Hume is concerned that unregulated greed will effectively destroy social order and society itself if it is not controlled and shackled. How interesting that an 18th century philosopher can accurately predict the financial crisis of the 21st century and pinpoint its causes and yet our political class and our so-called economic experts cannot. We find exactly the same type of warnings in the writings of Adam Smith which should alert us to the fact that there is something seriously wrong with the understanding of economics in modern Britain. Hume warns us that for humans “tis impossible to live in society without restraining themselves by certain rules.” As a result, we are back to the truism that the human being is a regulatory being and large scale policies of deregulation are anti-social and ultimately destructive of society itself. We erect socially preserving rules of conduct because we recognise the need for them as we are by nature social beings and, as Hume notes, “we receive a pleasure from the view of such actions as tend to the peace of society, and an uneasiness from such as are contrary to it.”
I leave you with this thought, if David Hume and Adam Smith are truly the founders of free market economics, what on earth are they teaching in our universities? That is why it is quite correct to say that our government, and particularly our Prime Minister and his Chancellor simply don't know what they are talking about.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
The principal reason for the failure of economics in the modern world is that economists don't understand the nature of the subject they are dealing with. As I've written here before, the human being is a social being who necessarily regulates his/her environment and his/her behaviour. As the war-cry of economists since the 1980's has been for deregulation of all economic activity as far as possible, they have been pursuing anti-social and socially destructive policies that finally came to fruition. Economics is a social science and cannot be understood if treated as a standalone activity. Economics is, by its very nature, an interdependent discipline that cannot be understood without reference to the political and social environment within which it operates. Modern economics does not recognise this. All economic activity impacts on the wider social and political world and is in return affected by social and political factors and that is why all the early classical analysts of such behaviour, such as David Hume and Adam Smith referred to this study as political economy.
But most importantly, economics is a product of human nature, economic behaviour is human behaviour and can never be anything else. The human being is a labourer, a producer who engages in production, trade, exchange and barter and the study of economics is the study of that behaviour. If you wish to talk about markets, then you are talking about a human artefact, not something that exists outside of the scope of human behaviour. An economic market is simply a description of the process of exchange, trade and barter of human production.
It is correct to note that human beings are largely motivated by self-interest, the active pursuit of personal gain and property. However, David Hume showed us in the 18th century that such a motivation in people is a real threat to social order and stability noting how our desire for “goods and possessions for ourselves and our nearest friends is insatiable, perpetual, universal and directly destructive of society.” Because of this inherent danger to social order posed by our self-interested desire for gain, we must, paradoxically, recognise that it is also in our own self-interest to constrain such desire. He warns us that this is necessary for the preservation of society telling us that “’tis evident, that the passion is much better satisfy’d by its restraint, than by its liberty.” As a result, Hume is concerned that unregulated greed will effectively destroy social order and society itself if it is not controlled and shackled. How interesting that an 18th century philosopher can accurately predict the financial crisis of the 21st century and pinpoint its causes and yet our political class and our so-called economic experts cannot. We find exactly the same type of warnings in the writings of Adam Smith which should alert us to the fact that there is something seriously wrong with the understanding of economics in modern Britain. Hume warns us that for humans “tis impossible to live in society without restraining themselves by certain rules.” As a result, we are back to the truism that the human being is a regulatory being and large scale policies of deregulation are anti-social and ultimately destructive of society itself. We erect socially preserving rules of conduct because we recognise the need for them as we are by nature social beings and, as Hume notes, “we receive a pleasure from the view of such actions as tend to the peace of society, and an uneasiness from such as are contrary to it.”
I leave you with this thought, if David Hume and Adam Smith are truly the founders of free market economics, what on earth are they teaching in our universities? That is why it is quite correct to say that our government, and particularly our Prime Minister and his Chancellor simply don't know what they are talking about.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Sunday 27 October 2013
The Rule of Law - Rest in Peace
As we read how Michael Gove and Lord Nash 'misled' both Houses of Parliament and therefore the British people over the performance of free schools I am left pondering the moral climate of British political and social life. Misled is of course a good example of newspeak for 'lying through their teeth', which of course is the default position for all Westminster politicians. However, lying and indulging in criminal behaviour is now the norm for the political class, the police, the press, business, banks and the security services. In other words, Britain is simply a feral society where morality and the rule of law no longer exists amongst the ruling and governing powers. The law is for the little people.
This is a matter of profound importance for all of us living in this nation as it poses a far more serious threat to social order and stability than any threat of terrorism, crime, or any of the other convenient scapegoats that the governing elite and their lackeys in the press try to scare us with, because, if the people who govern and establish the law, simply refuse to govern with respect to law, tradition and justice, then they set the example for the rest of society. Why should I be bound by the laws of lawbreakers? Why should I live by the morality of the immoral? This is a society where, if working people attempt to engage in the perfectly legal and moral activity of exercising their fundamental human right to withdraw their labour they are branded immoral criminals, whilst the owners and managers of corporations who engineer the conditions whereby workers feel they must use the only weapon at their disposal in order to protect their jobs and livelihood, and who then use the resulting disruption to destroy their employees conditions, lower their wages, remove their pensions and literally blackmail them into acceptance of this criminality are hailed as upright paragons of virtue and probity.
It speaks volumes for the state of this country when the two people talking the most sense about conditions are well-known comedians, Russell Brand and Mark Steele. Brand's Newsnight interview was a classic and Steele's column in the Independent is required reading. Brand's argument that there is no point voting as there is no one worth voting for is quite accurate for the rest of the UK, but does not apply in Scotland. The Scots have an opportunity to affect meaningful change and progress if they have the will and desire to take it. However, with regards the rest of the UK it is a truism that if voting changed anything they would make it illegal.
The UK government genuinely think it is OK for GCHQ to indulge in criminal behaviour and to breach our fundamental human rights. They think its OK to lie, to torture, to invade foreign countries and for their armed forces to murder rape and kill innocent civilians, and its OK to give a benefit cheat ten years in jail whilst a banker who has stolen millions of pounds gets a bonus. I say again, that with respect to the Westminster Parliament the lunatics have taken over the asylum and the criminals have taken over the jails. We have reached a stage where we can put no trust in anyone in government, in authority, or in management. Society is dismantling before our eyes. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
This is a matter of profound importance for all of us living in this nation as it poses a far more serious threat to social order and stability than any threat of terrorism, crime, or any of the other convenient scapegoats that the governing elite and their lackeys in the press try to scare us with, because, if the people who govern and establish the law, simply refuse to govern with respect to law, tradition and justice, then they set the example for the rest of society. Why should I be bound by the laws of lawbreakers? Why should I live by the morality of the immoral? This is a society where, if working people attempt to engage in the perfectly legal and moral activity of exercising their fundamental human right to withdraw their labour they are branded immoral criminals, whilst the owners and managers of corporations who engineer the conditions whereby workers feel they must use the only weapon at their disposal in order to protect their jobs and livelihood, and who then use the resulting disruption to destroy their employees conditions, lower their wages, remove their pensions and literally blackmail them into acceptance of this criminality are hailed as upright paragons of virtue and probity.
It speaks volumes for the state of this country when the two people talking the most sense about conditions are well-known comedians, Russell Brand and Mark Steele. Brand's Newsnight interview was a classic and Steele's column in the Independent is required reading. Brand's argument that there is no point voting as there is no one worth voting for is quite accurate for the rest of the UK, but does not apply in Scotland. The Scots have an opportunity to affect meaningful change and progress if they have the will and desire to take it. However, with regards the rest of the UK it is a truism that if voting changed anything they would make it illegal.
The UK government genuinely think it is OK for GCHQ to indulge in criminal behaviour and to breach our fundamental human rights. They think its OK to lie, to torture, to invade foreign countries and for their armed forces to murder rape and kill innocent civilians, and its OK to give a benefit cheat ten years in jail whilst a banker who has stolen millions of pounds gets a bonus. I say again, that with respect to the Westminster Parliament the lunatics have taken over the asylum and the criminals have taken over the jails. We have reached a stage where we can put no trust in anyone in government, in authority, or in management. Society is dismantling before our eyes. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Thursday 24 October 2013
Does Scotland have the Energy?
There can surely be no-one left with a scintilla of intelligence who cannot see the dominant free market economic and political system in the UK for anything but the poisonous and ruinous farce that it is. As the energy firms continue to ratchet up the price of electricity and gas, even the Archbishop of Canterbury has taken them to task for their complete absence of moral and civic responsibility in their endless search for ever greater profits. What the energy market demonstrates graphically is that it is most certainly not a market, its a cartel that colludes to rig the system completely in their own interests, and our political class grovel at their feet in impotence.
On the same theme, the catastrophe that is the Grangemouth petrochemical plant is another graphic demonstration of neoliberal greed and ruthlessness. This firm has simply told the workers that they will accept whatever terms and conditions they are prepared to give them or they will simply close the plant, which they then proceeded to do. This type of management has become the norm in Britain, and, as I continually tell you, is part of the process of reducing the British worker to a modern form of slavery. This is a facility that should be nationalised immediately and their entire management prosecuted.
The destruction of British society and its replacement by a neoliberal tyranny is nearing completion. We have the most appalling set of politicians imaginable who will neither stand for their country or their electorate and who cave into business interests with a speed that makes one want to weep with embarrassment. The Westminster Parliament is a disgrace and every one of its elected members should be turned out of office and forbidden to hold public office for the rest of their lives.
As I have said repeatedly, the dominant ideology in this country has no moral or civic perspective whatsoever. It is bankrupt and is simply a system of licensed gangsterism. I repeat, the free market is a fraud and an illusion. There cannot, and should not, ever be such a thing as a free market. All human interactive behaviour must be subject to regulation. But even if a free market was either possible or desirable, what we see before us is so far detached from that it beggars belief that anyone can even remotely believe that we have a market of any form in this country.
What is blindingly obvious is that the people of Scotland have an opportunity to escape from the Westminster pantomime next September and take control of their own political and economic destiny. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
On the same theme, the catastrophe that is the Grangemouth petrochemical plant is another graphic demonstration of neoliberal greed and ruthlessness. This firm has simply told the workers that they will accept whatever terms and conditions they are prepared to give them or they will simply close the plant, which they then proceeded to do. This type of management has become the norm in Britain, and, as I continually tell you, is part of the process of reducing the British worker to a modern form of slavery. This is a facility that should be nationalised immediately and their entire management prosecuted.
The destruction of British society and its replacement by a neoliberal tyranny is nearing completion. We have the most appalling set of politicians imaginable who will neither stand for their country or their electorate and who cave into business interests with a speed that makes one want to weep with embarrassment. The Westminster Parliament is a disgrace and every one of its elected members should be turned out of office and forbidden to hold public office for the rest of their lives.
As I have said repeatedly, the dominant ideology in this country has no moral or civic perspective whatsoever. It is bankrupt and is simply a system of licensed gangsterism. I repeat, the free market is a fraud and an illusion. There cannot, and should not, ever be such a thing as a free market. All human interactive behaviour must be subject to regulation. But even if a free market was either possible or desirable, what we see before us is so far detached from that it beggars belief that anyone can even remotely believe that we have a market of any form in this country.
What is blindingly obvious is that the people of Scotland have an opportunity to escape from the Westminster pantomime next September and take control of their own political and economic destiny. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Sunday 20 October 2013
If I've nothing to hide I have nothing to fear. Is that so?
I was recently asked to respond to the government's position that if I have nothing to hide then I have nothing to fear. The questioner had a genuine dilemma over this as government propaganda over their sinister surveillance of everything we do is attempting to convince people that this surveillance is necessary and is designed to protect us, and many people are persuaded when their government make claims like this.
The first point to make is that having something that is private to you that you don't want other people to know about is a fundamental human characteristic and is miles apart from having a secret that you feel guilty about. All of us have things that we wish to keep private and it is our right to do so. What the government wants is that you also feel guilty about this and therefore don't complain when they demand to know your private world. We all have thoughts that make us feel ashamed and feel guilty about. Fantasy is a perfectly legitimate human activity and, as you get older you realise that you had nothing to feel guilty about in the first place. In addition, you may do something that you feel guilty about and don't want anyone to know, but, the important point is, that if your activities do no harm to any other person then it is no-one else's business.
The second point is that the government's position is a demonstrable lie as many people who have nothing to hide in our society have been given plenty of reason to be afraid of the government, police and security services, who, if they wish to get you for anything will have no hesitation in inventing something. The police have been demonstrated as being completely without scruple when it comes to fitting people up and lying through their teeth. The security services are equally as culpable.
But the most important point is that breaking the law is a fundamental human right, as long as you are prepared to take the consequences. No-one has an obligation to obey any legislation they feel is fundamentally wrong or corrupt, unless what you are doing will harm someone, such as driving on the wrong side of the road. In some cases it is a moral duty to break the law, such as the Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany that required people to openly persecute other people. Laws are simply human artefacts and too many of them simply institutionalise what people in power like or dislike. Law is vital in human society and we must be bound by law and governed by law, but that does not mean that every law is essential or that every law is good or designed to protect us. Too many laws are designed to protect particular sections of society to the exclusion of the rest of us, as Thrasymachus the Sophist tells us; justice is the interests of the strongest. So, we must not be conned into believing that we must always obey the law. Making something legal does not make it either moral or right, and making something illegal does not make it immoral or wrong.
If no-one challenged bad law then we would never have meaningful social change, for example, witchcraft would still be illegal and slavery would still be legal. If we lived in a society where we were incapable of breaking the law, then it would not be worth living in it, it would be completely totalitarian.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
The first point to make is that having something that is private to you that you don't want other people to know about is a fundamental human characteristic and is miles apart from having a secret that you feel guilty about. All of us have things that we wish to keep private and it is our right to do so. What the government wants is that you also feel guilty about this and therefore don't complain when they demand to know your private world. We all have thoughts that make us feel ashamed and feel guilty about. Fantasy is a perfectly legitimate human activity and, as you get older you realise that you had nothing to feel guilty about in the first place. In addition, you may do something that you feel guilty about and don't want anyone to know, but, the important point is, that if your activities do no harm to any other person then it is no-one else's business.
The second point is that the government's position is a demonstrable lie as many people who have nothing to hide in our society have been given plenty of reason to be afraid of the government, police and security services, who, if they wish to get you for anything will have no hesitation in inventing something. The police have been demonstrated as being completely without scruple when it comes to fitting people up and lying through their teeth. The security services are equally as culpable.
But the most important point is that breaking the law is a fundamental human right, as long as you are prepared to take the consequences. No-one has an obligation to obey any legislation they feel is fundamentally wrong or corrupt, unless what you are doing will harm someone, such as driving on the wrong side of the road. In some cases it is a moral duty to break the law, such as the Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany that required people to openly persecute other people. Laws are simply human artefacts and too many of them simply institutionalise what people in power like or dislike. Law is vital in human society and we must be bound by law and governed by law, but that does not mean that every law is essential or that every law is good or designed to protect us. Too many laws are designed to protect particular sections of society to the exclusion of the rest of us, as Thrasymachus the Sophist tells us; justice is the interests of the strongest. So, we must not be conned into believing that we must always obey the law. Making something legal does not make it either moral or right, and making something illegal does not make it immoral or wrong.
If no-one challenged bad law then we would never have meaningful social change, for example, witchcraft would still be illegal and slavery would still be legal. If we lived in a society where we were incapable of breaking the law, then it would not be worth living in it, it would be completely totalitarian.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Saturday 19 October 2013
This was in the Independent
I have copied and pasted below a comment made by a poster in answer to an article in todays Independent newspaper on poverty. It is self-explanatory.
I am posting it here to highlight that not only has someone in our society posted something like this in a national newspaper, but that the newspaper has published it and has not deleted it. The Independent must therefore consider such opinions as valid and representative. If anyone still thinks that Scotland is better together with people like this, then I can only despair and tell you that I am afraid that I not only do not share the same language as you do, but that I do not want to live in the same country as you. There is nothing to be even remotely proud about a nation that conducts itself in this manner. You have been warned.
Chris Lane 14 hours ago
I am posting it here to highlight that not only has someone in our society posted something like this in a national newspaper, but that the newspaper has published it and has not deleted it. The Independent must therefore consider such opinions as valid and representative. If anyone still thinks that Scotland is better together with people like this, then I can only despair and tell you that I am afraid that I not only do not share the same language as you do, but that I do not want to live in the same country as you. There is nothing to be even remotely proud about a nation that conducts itself in this manner. You have been warned.
Chris Lane 14 hours ago
HERE;S a SOLUTION: STERILIZE ALL NON-WHITES EUTHANIZE the DISABLED EXECUTE ALL MURDERERS--RAPIST and RACE MIXERS!!!!! THAT MY FRIEND is a START!!!!!
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Friday 18 October 2013
Democracy must go
A good insight into the mind of a neoliberal elitist was displayed on Question Time last night by the Daily Telegraph journalist Peter Oborne. During a debate on energy, Oborne was promoting the need for a much expanded programme of fracking, the controversial and environmentally damaging method of tapping into gas resources. He got quite agitated because as most people are very opposed to such activities being conducted in their own neighbourhood, local authorities are very reluctant to grant licences for fracking to take place. Without actually saying so, Oborne indicated that central government should override local councils by making the statement that 'democracy can be an impediment.'
What Oborne was suggesting was the wishes of local residents should simply be ignored because there is a greater need at stake and the locals are simply too selfish and too stupid to be trusted with making decisions that directly affect them. This is exactly the attitude that Blair employed over the war in Iraq.
Since the election of Thatcher, local authorities have been systematically stripped of all their traditional functions and been subjected to endless reform based on neutering them and centralising their functions so that they can be privatised. In his ‘Representative Government’ John Stuart Mill argues that
As I've continually stated in this blog, the dominant free marketeers in our society will not tolerate constraints on their activities. Oborne highlights a serious threat to our nation as he openly states that democracy is now a nuisance; his words should not be taken lightly. You have been warned. We must get free from the corruption of Westminster as soon as we can.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
What Oborne was suggesting was the wishes of local residents should simply be ignored because there is a greater need at stake and the locals are simply too selfish and too stupid to be trusted with making decisions that directly affect them. This is exactly the attitude that Blair employed over the war in Iraq.
Since the election of Thatcher, local authorities have been systematically stripped of all their traditional functions and been subjected to endless reform based on neutering them and centralising their functions so that they can be privatised. In his ‘Representative Government’ John Stuart Mill argues that
‘The very object of having a local representation, is in
order that those who have any interest in common which they do not share with
the general body of their countrymen may manage that joint interest by
themselves.’
A genuine Liberal and democratic society requires a system of limited government
with defined independent centres of power. It requires legitimacy and
representation and as wide a dispersal of power as is necessary. The principle
of local government is designed to satisfy such requirements as is neatly
summed up by Mill. If such local responsibility were to be replaced by
centralised administration from London, such local
individuality of approach would be sacrificed to uniformity, and that the
adaptability of local decision-making would give way to rigidity and the
centralised imposition of a bureaucratic ‘only one way’ of doing things, and I trust I don't have to remind you that the repeated mantra of the neoliberals is that there is no alternative. As
local government enjoys a degree of autonomy from the centre, the power of the
state is therefore fragmented and limited. As the political theorist John Kingdom notes, the elimination
of local government is generally taken as a symptom of totalitarianism.
Kingdom notes that local government is found in virtually
all developed states as a complement to central government and is generally
seen as a sign of a healthy democracy. The diversity of life in a modern state
such as Britain requires different approaches to similar problems. For example,
consider policing or refuse collection. It is not rocket science to understand
that the solutions to both such fundamental requirements of modern life require
differing methods of implementation in different locations. Policing and refuse
collection in the City of Glasgow will be markedly different in style and
implementation from that in Ross and Cromarty. The principles remain the same,
but the methodology will differ quite considerably. As a result, direct
responsibility for the government of a locality can harness powerful forces on
behalf of that community and imaginative and meaningful solutions to local
issues.
As I've continually stated in this blog, the dominant free marketeers in our society will not tolerate constraints on their activities. Oborne highlights a serious threat to our nation as he openly states that democracy is now a nuisance; his words should not be taken lightly. You have been warned. We must get free from the corruption of Westminster as soon as we can.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Tuesday 15 October 2013
Rachel Reeves, champion of the underdog.
One of the finest indicators of the great free market process of privatisation I have encountered for some time is the revelation that the Care Commission is recommending that care homes and houses where the inhabitants are being cared for, have secret cameras installed to monitor the appalling levels of care in our wonderful private care system in modern Britain. The people who live in such homes are amongst the most vulnerable in our society and include the disabled and the mentally ill and their situation has become a national scandal. Welcome to caring sharing free market obsessed Britain. These people will attempt to justify making a profit out of anything.
On a similar theme, I trust all of the people who are desperate to have us put our trust in the major parties that we will be better together were listening to Labour's Rachel Reeves assuring us that Labour will be even harder on those people who receive benefits than the Tories are now. This is truly scary stuff. The Westminster mafia really do live in a parallel universe. I do not need to regale you with the real hardship that the vast majority of people on benefits are suffering today, but according to the Labour Party, they are not getting it hard enough. Another constantly repeated lie from our Westminster masters is how they inform us that there are more jobs in Britain today than there have ever been. This is a perfect example of how figures don't lie, but liars figure.
There are over 5 million people working on zero hours contracts and over 10 million on part-time and temporary contracts. These jobs have mostly come about because the free marketeers have successfully destroyed the system of full-time permanent jobs and replaced each full-time employee with two or even three part-timers and zero hours workers. So, there are not really more jobs, just more people doing the same job for a lot less money and no employment benefits.
The free market dominant ideology is a lie and exists by persistently lying about reality. All Westminster politicians are pathological liars and committed to the enrichment of a small elite at the top of British society and the pauperisation and increasing enslavement of the rest of us. If you vote to keep Scotland within the UK at the coming referendum, I can only assume that you agree with Rachel Reeves and her Tory Party equivalents and that you are quite happy with the levels of care that people experience in modern Britain. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
On a similar theme, I trust all of the people who are desperate to have us put our trust in the major parties that we will be better together were listening to Labour's Rachel Reeves assuring us that Labour will be even harder on those people who receive benefits than the Tories are now. This is truly scary stuff. The Westminster mafia really do live in a parallel universe. I do not need to regale you with the real hardship that the vast majority of people on benefits are suffering today, but according to the Labour Party, they are not getting it hard enough. Another constantly repeated lie from our Westminster masters is how they inform us that there are more jobs in Britain today than there have ever been. This is a perfect example of how figures don't lie, but liars figure.
There are over 5 million people working on zero hours contracts and over 10 million on part-time and temporary contracts. These jobs have mostly come about because the free marketeers have successfully destroyed the system of full-time permanent jobs and replaced each full-time employee with two or even three part-timers and zero hours workers. So, there are not really more jobs, just more people doing the same job for a lot less money and no employment benefits.
The free market dominant ideology is a lie and exists by persistently lying about reality. All Westminster politicians are pathological liars and committed to the enrichment of a small elite at the top of British society and the pauperisation and increasing enslavement of the rest of us. If you vote to keep Scotland within the UK at the coming referendum, I can only assume that you agree with Rachel Reeves and her Tory Party equivalents and that you are quite happy with the levels of care that people experience in modern Britain. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Monday 14 October 2013
I was amused, but not at all surprised, to be accused of being a Marxist recently. You see, in modern Britain, accusing someone of being a Marxist is the equivalent of accusing them of having AIDS. Such is the appalling level of intellect in modern political discourse that if you say anything that remotely approaches a socialist position on any matter, you are immediately cast as a dangerous lunatic as the Labour leader Ed Miliband had experience of recently. As readers of this blog will be aware, I certainly do not consider Miliband to be a lunatic; dangerous yes, but a lunatic no. He is dangerous simply because he is as thick as a plank. Indeed I have it on good authority that Miliband believes that Karl Marx and Adam Smith both play for Chelsea.
Now, I freely confess that I agree with Karl Marx on many issues. I have no problem with that because Marx was a genius, and, in my opinion, correct on a great many issues, such as his theories of class and alienation. I am also a great admirer of Adam Smith who shared Marx's labour theory of value, or to be more accurate it was Marx who shared Smith's labour theory of value. However, despite the fact that Smith died before Marx was born, that must make Adam Smith a Marxist as well, by the intellectual standards of today.
My politics and philosophy derive from many sources, but particularly from David Hume. I also utilise the philosophy of Adam Smith whose work I regularly consult, in addition to the Sophists and Tom Paine. I also use work from John Locke, John Stuart Mill and others, which is quite unremarkable and of no interest to anyone until I dare to utilise any reference to Marx which then allows them to indulge in a righteous fit of indignation and ignore anything I say on any matter because Marx was (now whisper it softly) a communist and, if I make reference to that person, then I must be one of those unmentionables as well. The fact that Marx would neither recognise nor approve of, the modern political concept that bears the name communist is of no concern to such philosophical titans. It gives them liberty to denounce and ignore one of the greatest minds who ever lived.
To adopt a Marxist position on any issue does not make you a Marxist, it only shows that you are intelligent enough to recognise a valid point of view when it presents itself, and, to ignore the writings of Karl Marx is to deny yourself an invaluable tool for an understanding of social and political reality. To refuse to recognise intellectual honesty, and worse, to refuse to exercise intellectual honesty and a correct interpretation of reality from whatever source it emanates from simply demonstrates that you are stupid, or a bigot, and probably both. No-one is ever accused of being a Smithist or a Humeist if they argue from Smith or Hume's point of view, which readers of this blog may recognise that I frequently do, so, I am resigned to being labelled a Marxist. That however is preferable to being labelled a Christian, or a Tory or a patriot. That, I would take exception to. I only hope that I am regarded as being intellectually honest whilst being much maligned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Now, I freely confess that I agree with Karl Marx on many issues. I have no problem with that because Marx was a genius, and, in my opinion, correct on a great many issues, such as his theories of class and alienation. I am also a great admirer of Adam Smith who shared Marx's labour theory of value, or to be more accurate it was Marx who shared Smith's labour theory of value. However, despite the fact that Smith died before Marx was born, that must make Adam Smith a Marxist as well, by the intellectual standards of today.
My politics and philosophy derive from many sources, but particularly from David Hume. I also utilise the philosophy of Adam Smith whose work I regularly consult, in addition to the Sophists and Tom Paine. I also use work from John Locke, John Stuart Mill and others, which is quite unremarkable and of no interest to anyone until I dare to utilise any reference to Marx which then allows them to indulge in a righteous fit of indignation and ignore anything I say on any matter because Marx was (now whisper it softly) a communist and, if I make reference to that person, then I must be one of those unmentionables as well. The fact that Marx would neither recognise nor approve of, the modern political concept that bears the name communist is of no concern to such philosophical titans. It gives them liberty to denounce and ignore one of the greatest minds who ever lived.
To adopt a Marxist position on any issue does not make you a Marxist, it only shows that you are intelligent enough to recognise a valid point of view when it presents itself, and, to ignore the writings of Karl Marx is to deny yourself an invaluable tool for an understanding of social and political reality. To refuse to recognise intellectual honesty, and worse, to refuse to exercise intellectual honesty and a correct interpretation of reality from whatever source it emanates from simply demonstrates that you are stupid, or a bigot, and probably both. No-one is ever accused of being a Smithist or a Humeist if they argue from Smith or Hume's point of view, which readers of this blog may recognise that I frequently do, so, I am resigned to being labelled a Marxist. That however is preferable to being labelled a Christian, or a Tory or a patriot. That, I would take exception to. I only hope that I am regarded as being intellectually honest whilst being much maligned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
For all of you good British patriots out there who believe that we are all better together, I trust you will spare a few moments to ponder the latest promise from the Home Secretary Theresa May that the Tories will include a commitment in their next election manifesto to repeal the Human Rights Act. In addition, perhaps you will be a tad concerned about the latest predictions from health experts that the NHS will very shortly be no longer free at the point of use.
I have been warning for over a year now in this blog that Westminster (because its no use just blaming the Tories as the other two mafia families are just as culpable) fully intends to strip you of all your human rights and privatise the entire economic and social structure of the UK. By repealing the Human Rights Act you will, of course, lose any ability to hold Parliament and its Mafioso to account, and you will not be able to reverse the destruction of the NHS and the education system as all three parties are in this together (that is where they got the slogan 'better together' from). You see, when they tell us that we are all in this together, what they really mean is that they are all in it together, and that if we disagree then that is just hard luck.
Therefore if you vote to remain within the Westminster political system at the coming referendum you are voting to lose your human rights, your health and education systems, more cuts and reduced benefits, more zero hour contract working and all the delights that the neoliberal economic geniuses have in store for you.
One of the immediate effects of a repeal of the Human Rights Act will be ever greater unaccountable surveillance and the continued growth of a police state. Any complaints about surveillance and government spying is heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal which sits in secret. We already have what are known as closed material proceedings in which the case against you is kept secret from both you and your lawyers. At the moment human rights lawyers are seeking redress against the government for illegally intercepting communications between them and their clients. In other words, the government will know the case against them before it even gets to court. This destroys any pretence of a nation governed by the rule of law. All the revelations about the activities of GCHQ make a mockery of the rule of law. This is the activity of a police state and denies the legal principle of 'legal professional privilege.' This principle allows that legal advice between lawyers and clients is kept private. The Law Society states that the principle of legal professional privilege means that
"certain documents and information provided to lawyers cannot be disclosed at all. It recognises the client's fundamental human right to be candid with his legal adviser, without fear of later disclosure to his prejudice. It is an absolute right and cannot be overidden by any other interest. The ability of clients to consult and receive advice from lawyers with certainty of absolute confidentiality is fundamental to the rule of law and the values of our democracy,"
Thus this government is actively subverting both the rule of law and our democratic political system. I trust you will ponder such things next September. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
I have been warning for over a year now in this blog that Westminster (because its no use just blaming the Tories as the other two mafia families are just as culpable) fully intends to strip you of all your human rights and privatise the entire economic and social structure of the UK. By repealing the Human Rights Act you will, of course, lose any ability to hold Parliament and its Mafioso to account, and you will not be able to reverse the destruction of the NHS and the education system as all three parties are in this together (that is where they got the slogan 'better together' from). You see, when they tell us that we are all in this together, what they really mean is that they are all in it together, and that if we disagree then that is just hard luck.
Therefore if you vote to remain within the Westminster political system at the coming referendum you are voting to lose your human rights, your health and education systems, more cuts and reduced benefits, more zero hour contract working and all the delights that the neoliberal economic geniuses have in store for you.
One of the immediate effects of a repeal of the Human Rights Act will be ever greater unaccountable surveillance and the continued growth of a police state. Any complaints about surveillance and government spying is heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal which sits in secret. We already have what are known as closed material proceedings in which the case against you is kept secret from both you and your lawyers. At the moment human rights lawyers are seeking redress against the government for illegally intercepting communications between them and their clients. In other words, the government will know the case against them before it even gets to court. This destroys any pretence of a nation governed by the rule of law. All the revelations about the activities of GCHQ make a mockery of the rule of law. This is the activity of a police state and denies the legal principle of 'legal professional privilege.' This principle allows that legal advice between lawyers and clients is kept private. The Law Society states that the principle of legal professional privilege means that
"certain documents and information provided to lawyers cannot be disclosed at all. It recognises the client's fundamental human right to be candid with his legal adviser, without fear of later disclosure to his prejudice. It is an absolute right and cannot be overidden by any other interest. The ability of clients to consult and receive advice from lawyers with certainty of absolute confidentiality is fundamental to the rule of law and the values of our democracy,"
Thus this government is actively subverting both the rule of law and our democratic political system. I trust you will ponder such things next September. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Monday 7 October 2013
Who are the real Terrorists?
I was intrigued to read a headline in the Mail on Sunday yesterday saying that an independent Scotland would be at risk from terrorist attacks because it will be abandoning the safety of the British state. No it won't.
Scotland will be safe from terrorist attacks because it will not provide any motivation for them. Scotland will not wage illegal wars against anyone. Scotland won't invade anyone for oil or to plunder their resources. Scotland won't bomb anyone to rubble and its troops won't blow up their houses nor kill its citizens. Scotland will not persecute minority peoples or religions. Scotland will not submit people to illegal rendition, nor will it torture people. Scotland will not hold people illegally and indefinitely for years without charge or bringing them to trial. Scotland's legislation will not be described as 'the stuff of nightmares.' Scotland will be a country governed by law, and not by hatred for foreigners or Muslims. Scotland will respect human rights and freedoms. Scotland will not attempt to dominate other states and blackmail their governments into adopting its economic model. Scotland will not assassinate other states citizens or hack into their computer systems, nor listen to their phone messages or read their emails. Scotland will not assume that it is self-evidently superior to everyone else, nor feel that it must impose its obviously superior culture and way of life on everyone else if they are too stupid to do it themselves.
Scotland will not suffer from terrorism because it is intelligent, humane and tolerant. It is not insufferably arrogant nor institutionally racist. Scottish people don't hold everyone else in contempt. They do not demonise Muslims, the unemployed, the disabled and people on benefits. The Scottish press does not preach hate and hasn't (so far) hacked peoples phones, nor does it tell such outright lies and obvious drivel as to claim that it will be subject to terrorist attacks if it has the audacity to abandon the wonderful protection of its lords and masters in Westminster. Indeed, the only terrorist attacks that Scotland should beware of are from its big brother south of its border and its loathsome press. Any hatred for, or danger to, the Scottish people, does not emanate from the rest of the world, it comes from London.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Scotland will be safe from terrorist attacks because it will not provide any motivation for them. Scotland will not wage illegal wars against anyone. Scotland won't invade anyone for oil or to plunder their resources. Scotland won't bomb anyone to rubble and its troops won't blow up their houses nor kill its citizens. Scotland will not persecute minority peoples or religions. Scotland will not submit people to illegal rendition, nor will it torture people. Scotland will not hold people illegally and indefinitely for years without charge or bringing them to trial. Scotland's legislation will not be described as 'the stuff of nightmares.' Scotland will be a country governed by law, and not by hatred for foreigners or Muslims. Scotland will respect human rights and freedoms. Scotland will not attempt to dominate other states and blackmail their governments into adopting its economic model. Scotland will not assassinate other states citizens or hack into their computer systems, nor listen to their phone messages or read their emails. Scotland will not assume that it is self-evidently superior to everyone else, nor feel that it must impose its obviously superior culture and way of life on everyone else if they are too stupid to do it themselves.
Scotland will not suffer from terrorism because it is intelligent, humane and tolerant. It is not insufferably arrogant nor institutionally racist. Scottish people don't hold everyone else in contempt. They do not demonise Muslims, the unemployed, the disabled and people on benefits. The Scottish press does not preach hate and hasn't (so far) hacked peoples phones, nor does it tell such outright lies and obvious drivel as to claim that it will be subject to terrorist attacks if it has the audacity to abandon the wonderful protection of its lords and masters in Westminster. Indeed, the only terrorist attacks that Scotland should beware of are from its big brother south of its border and its loathsome press. Any hatred for, or danger to, the Scottish people, does not emanate from the rest of the world, it comes from London.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Tuesday 1 October 2013
The Conservative definition of Fairness
Conservatives in the UK and America have hit new lows and are becoming genuinely dangerous. They are ferociously rabid and are quite prepared to say or do anything to discredit anyone they view as an enemy or who proposes anything they disagree with. In Britain we have the spectacle of the Daily Mail attacking the father of Labour leader Ed Miliband, the Marxist academic Ralph Miliband, who, incidentally has been dead for many years now. The Mail described him as a man who hated Britain. However, a particularly poisonous remark from them is to the effect that he left an evil legacy. It does not take a genius to work out that they were referring to his son. Now this is taking place right in the middle of the Conservative Party conference and one week after the Labour conference when the Mail and its other right-wing friends labelled Ed Miliband as a Marxist for suggesting a freeze to energy prices. It is stretching credulity to impossible limits to suggest that the Mail published this without the knowledge and support of the Conservative leadership.
Now, anyone who reads this blog will be quite aware that I have neither respect for, nor time for, Ed Miliband, so I will never be accused of defending him. However, I trust that on this issue he will not object if I give him my full support. Ralph Miliband was one of the most respected academics of his age, a man who fought for Britain in the Second World War and who was a model citizen. He wrote what I consider the best book on the nature of the modern state ever written. Anyone who professes an interest in politics must read his 'The State in Capitalist Society.'
What is interesting is that the attack upon him came from the Daily Mail, a newspaper that was an enthusiastic supporter of fascism and of Adolf Hitler and his Nazis. This was the newspaper that endorsed the British fascist party of Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts. So, if anyone can be accused of hating Britain it is the Daily Mail. What this paper is now presenting us in the guise of journalism can genuinely be described as evil and reveals that their fascist tendencies have never left them.
In the United States, the Republican Party has just shut down the American government and closed most of its vital services out of sheer vindictiveness at the proposal to provide poor Americans with affordable health care. The Republicans would quite genuinely prefer to watch people die rather than help them purchase health care from public funds. I have nothing to add to this as it is all self-explanatory. These people are way beyond contempt and are now genuinely dangerous and totally undemocratic. These are the people who are telling us we are better together. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Now, anyone who reads this blog will be quite aware that I have neither respect for, nor time for, Ed Miliband, so I will never be accused of defending him. However, I trust that on this issue he will not object if I give him my full support. Ralph Miliband was one of the most respected academics of his age, a man who fought for Britain in the Second World War and who was a model citizen. He wrote what I consider the best book on the nature of the modern state ever written. Anyone who professes an interest in politics must read his 'The State in Capitalist Society.'
What is interesting is that the attack upon him came from the Daily Mail, a newspaper that was an enthusiastic supporter of fascism and of Adolf Hitler and his Nazis. This was the newspaper that endorsed the British fascist party of Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts. So, if anyone can be accused of hating Britain it is the Daily Mail. What this paper is now presenting us in the guise of journalism can genuinely be described as evil and reveals that their fascist tendencies have never left them.
In the United States, the Republican Party has just shut down the American government and closed most of its vital services out of sheer vindictiveness at the proposal to provide poor Americans with affordable health care. The Republicans would quite genuinely prefer to watch people die rather than help them purchase health care from public funds. I have nothing to add to this as it is all self-explanatory. These people are way beyond contempt and are now genuinely dangerous and totally undemocratic. These are the people who are telling us we are better together. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Who really are the scum?
Welcome to modern British government as practiced by the Westminster Parliament where the Environment Secretary' s response to global warming is to welcome the fact that less people will die because of the cold in winter. That is the extent of a Tory's intellect. In addition, the Tory answer to long-term unemployment is to get the people on benefits to work for nothing rather than doing anything to create real jobs that would give them a permanent income and dignity. As I have repeatedly said, the Tories are determined to introduce modern forms of slavery.
The Tories hatred of anything that happens in the public sector means that they have almost destroyed the system of local government. Local government is the biggest potential employer in the country, and, with a little intelligence, unemployment could be almost eradicated quite quickly. If local government were given back their traditional functions from the private sector, housing, transport, refuse collection, parks and gardens etc. they could, in consultation with their constituency, develop acceptable levels of service at a price each constituency was willing to pay that could provide thousands of real jobs.
You see, to the Tory mindset, and I'm afraid that this thinking has corrupted Labour as well, working people have no input into their vision of wealth creation. To the neoliberals at Westminster, only bankers and financiers create wealth, but, if there was one thing that both Adam Smith and Karl Marx agreed on it was that all value in any society stems from the labour that produced any good or service. Thus, in the real world, the wealth created by the bankers and financiers, is the result of the thousands of inputs that determine productive activity, and that includes the cleaning lady and the refuse collector. The banker and financier are only the visible part of such wealth creation, because without the input of production they would be completely useless. The computer that the banker and the financier are so dependent on is the product of such labour, without the physical work of the people who made and assembled it, it is just a heap of inanimate materials, and thus, the real value in banking and finance comes from the labour of the very people that Westminster politicians, bankers and financiers regard as scum.
Thus, to the neoliberal a worker is not a wealth creator and has only a limited value as a consumer. In the free market universe, everything of value has a price attached, and if there is no price there is no value. The unemployed and people on benefits cannot earn a wage, which, to the free marketer, is their value. Thus, no wage no value, in other words they are useless and must be regarded as such. We must escape from this system as a matter of urgency. It is destroying our society, devaluing our humanity and indeed, thanks to attitudes such as those of our Environment Secretary, destroying the world. Scottish independence from this Westminster mentality is becoming a moral imperative. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
The Tories hatred of anything that happens in the public sector means that they have almost destroyed the system of local government. Local government is the biggest potential employer in the country, and, with a little intelligence, unemployment could be almost eradicated quite quickly. If local government were given back their traditional functions from the private sector, housing, transport, refuse collection, parks and gardens etc. they could, in consultation with their constituency, develop acceptable levels of service at a price each constituency was willing to pay that could provide thousands of real jobs.
You see, to the Tory mindset, and I'm afraid that this thinking has corrupted Labour as well, working people have no input into their vision of wealth creation. To the neoliberals at Westminster, only bankers and financiers create wealth, but, if there was one thing that both Adam Smith and Karl Marx agreed on it was that all value in any society stems from the labour that produced any good or service. Thus, in the real world, the wealth created by the bankers and financiers, is the result of the thousands of inputs that determine productive activity, and that includes the cleaning lady and the refuse collector. The banker and financier are only the visible part of such wealth creation, because without the input of production they would be completely useless. The computer that the banker and the financier are so dependent on is the product of such labour, without the physical work of the people who made and assembled it, it is just a heap of inanimate materials, and thus, the real value in banking and finance comes from the labour of the very people that Westminster politicians, bankers and financiers regard as scum.
Thus, to the neoliberal a worker is not a wealth creator and has only a limited value as a consumer. In the free market universe, everything of value has a price attached, and if there is no price there is no value. The unemployed and people on benefits cannot earn a wage, which, to the free marketer, is their value. Thus, no wage no value, in other words they are useless and must be regarded as such. We must escape from this system as a matter of urgency. It is destroying our society, devaluing our humanity and indeed, thanks to attitudes such as those of our Environment Secretary, destroying the world. Scottish independence from this Westminster mentality is becoming a moral imperative. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)