Merry Christmas? Why Not?

I apologise for not posting for 10 days but I have been here there and everywhere. I am posting this on Christmas Day because this day has a huge significance in so many ways. As anyone who reads this blog will know, I consider that the individualist philosophy underpinning the free market neoliberal narrative has nothing of any value to offer us and is intellectually bankrupt. One of the significant aspects of Christmas is how it demonstrates so graphically the social nature of the human being. Christmas, Hanukkah, Ramadan etc. are all testament to the need for people to establish collective celebrations that define collective essences, such as a religion, a geographic region, an ethnic grouping etc. The human being is a collective being and, as I have said before, their individuality is a reflection of their collective existence and socialisation. Thus, philosophies of individuality that fail to start from the acceptance of the social nature of the human have little or no relevance. That is why the modern dominant narrative of economic and political neoliberalism is bankrupt and why Thatcher's famous dictum that there is no such thing as society is in essence simply stupid.

Humans cling to their observances with a quite irrational passion whether they have any bearing on reality or not. Take Christmas for example. The authority for Christmas supposedly comes from the Christian religion, and the authority for the religion supposedly comes from the Christian Bible. However, if we actually consult the Bible we will find that Christians have been given particular days that must be observed as holy, and the birth of Jesus Christ is definitely not one of them. So, where does the authority for this 'holy' day come from? In addition, why the 25th December? If we consult the Bible we discover that Christ must have been born in the 30 day period between what we today call the second week in September and the second week in October. He could not possibly have been born in December. So why do we celebrate this day, and place it above all other days as a celebration of the Christian message? In addition, our calendar is dated from the birth of Christ and we will pass into the 2016th year since Christ was born next week. But, actually we wont, because Christ must have been born five years earlier that our history tells us. The Bible again tells us that Christ's parents were warned to flee Judea after his birth because the king, Herod the Great was searching for him with the intention of killing him. Herod the Great died in 4BC. Also, the Christian calendar begins on 1AD and the year previous is designated as 1BC. There is no year zero in our calendar with the result that we consider that Christ was one year old the day he was born. This results in the Christian world indulging in a mass celebration of an event that they have no religious authority to celebrate, on the wrong day and in the wrong year. But does it matter?

I personally don't think so because we are really not celebrating a religious festival. If I know such things then so must the people who believe in Christianity and so they must be aware that they are celebrating what is in effect a fraud. What we are celebrating is the collective essence we regard as our human society, just as all religions and secular societies do in a myriad of diverse ways.. In Britain we have the celebration of the failure of Guy Fawkes to blow up Parliament, Americans have Thanksgiving for the survival of the Founding Fathers. What humans do is celebrate their collective survival and existence in many forms, but it is society they are celebrating, the society that Thatcher claims does not exist. That is why the modern neoliberal is so desperate to desacrilise society as they think that by doing that they will destroy the concept of the social. But that will never happen. It will not stop them however, and it is only a matter of a few years until Christmas ceases to be a public holiday and everyone has to work on Christmas Day. If there was a God, I am confident that David Cameron would have been struck down dead when he claimed that Britain was a Christian nation. If Britain is a Christian nation and there are any real Christians in this Tory government, then Christianity is a deeply disturbed belief system. So, roll on next Christmas and all the other observances that celebrate the human social condition, by their very existence they ensure that the dominant free market individualism will perish because it is anti-social and anti-Christ. You have been warned.

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat.

Westminster has poisoned the meaning of freedom

A friend of mine surprised me by asking what I meant in my post that the dominant ideology of free market neoliberalism was the negation of true freedom. I was surprised as I thought he would have understood this, but it led me to realise the extent and the power of the ideological grip that free market thinking has on modern society that what I wrote could be considered controversial.

Any discussion of human behaviour must begin from the fact of human social nature. This is inescapable, allowing us to dismiss the free market concept of the atomised individual as a nonsense, indeed an impossibility. As Marx correctly informs us "The individual... is the social being...Individual human life and species life are not different things". The first consequence of human social nature is that the human being is a regulatory being, in that the human naturally regulates its environment. If I may give a mundane example. The free market concept of freedom argues that any restriction on my ability to act is a restriction on my freedom to act as I will, but in the UK my freedom to drive my car as I see fit is restricted by the regulation that I must drive on the left hand side of the road. Now this is indeed a restriction on my freedom to drive on the right side of the road if it is my will to do so, but this restriction applies to all drivers in the UK. As a result, this restriction is in reality a safeguard, ensuring not only my safety, but my freedom by protecting my life, and the life of every other driver, in a possible dangerous environment. We therefore have a situation where a restriction is in reality a freedom. As a result, freedom cannot be regarded as an absolute. It is relative in respect that my freedom cannot be allowed to damage another. I must never be allowed the freedom to rape or murder, nor must any other human being. In addition, regulation cannot be necessarily regarded as a restriction on freedom. What surprises me when I speak to people is that I would have thought that such things are self-evident.

Therefore, if we apply those principles to economic and political behaviour, it makes a nonsense of those cherished ideas that we should be able to dispose of our income, our property etc. any way we wish to. The best example of that is that we have to pay taxation, which is a necessary restriction on your ability to dispose of your income as you see fit. It also dismisses the notion that government have a right to do as they please as no human being, no group, no class, no corporation has an absolute right to anything. It exposes the insidious lie that a regulated environment is 'socialist' or restrictive of human freedom. Of course an over-regulated environment is wrong, but so too is a non-regulated environment, and that is the stuff of politics and government, getting the balance right, and that is why I continually write that free market neoliberalism is a lie and a fraud and why successive policies of deregulation have been so destructive of British economic and social society.

This is of course a massive topic and I am only touching on it here, but suffice it to say that British economic and social policy are poisoned and this poison is gaining ever greater cachet on our freedom and security. The freedom that the Westminster free marketer insists on means everyone else's slavery and this is being proposed by people who know exactly what they are doing. The poison is ideologically created and sustained and finds its outlet in public policy drafted by people who are in some instances genuinely evil. We have in British government a person I call the British Eichmann, but he is not alone.  You have been warned

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat

Coming soon, the Tory one party state

I have written before about the totalitarian impulses within the British Conservative Party, and have warned you that they are genuinely dangerous. The modern Conservative Party are profoundly undemocratic and are pursuing a programme by which they hope to establish a one-party state in Britain in the sense that they will neutralise all opposition to the extent that they will establish a monopoly of control in England and Wales. Having achieved that they will happily see Scotland go independent, although that would not be necessary as their control of England and Wales will render the Scottish vote impotent. Now even the dim-witted forelock tugging British press are waking up to these developments. For example, Britain has the most draconian employment laws in the civilised world, but that is not enough for the Tories who, because of their hatred and loathing of ordinary working people, are going to attack the unions even further with their proposed Trades Union Bill. It is getting so bad that even the bible of the financial class in the UK, The Financial Times, stated that the bill was 'out of proportion' and that it would  'threaten basic rights of assembly and free expression'. There are many signs that such a programme is alive and kicking and if anyone is interested I will be glad to highlight them for you, but it would make this post too long to do it here. All I can do is trace the fundamentals.

Since the election of Margaret Thatcher, the Conservatives have pursued a neoliberal political and economic programme founded on the myth of the free market. This free market neoliberal programme is founded on the myth that any form of regulation is the negation of freedom and that regulation is necessarily the equivalent of socialism. Freedom, both in economic and political terms  therefore necessitates the deregulation of society and the removal of  all constraints on economic and political activity by free marketeers. This of course is the negation of true freedom, which I understand looks to be a strange statement at first glance. However, the argument for deregulation is, in reality, the big lie that they promote to justify their attempts to loot as much of the national treasury as possible. In economic terms this means removing all constraints on the ability of free market activity to pursue an untrammelled accumulation of wealth and power. So, in economic terms, it was deemed necessary to remove all constraints on economic activity and in political terms to remove all constraints on the centralisation of power within the elite echelons of the Conservative Party. In the context of the UK, this meant, in the first instance an assault on local councils and trades unions to neuter both their power and their influence. Thatcher achieved this with ease.

All this talk about freedom, individual liberty and the natural workings of the market is simply garbage, a lie, and the underlying justification for the attacks on unions, the poor, the disabled, human rights and of course the European Union. But the Conservative attacks on their enemies is preceded by a systematic and prolonged campaign of demonization against their intended targets. The purpose of such a campaign is to dehumanise their opponents so that there is minimal resistance from the wider society when concrete measures are announced to strip rights and responsibilities from people, groups and organisations. You see you cannot be considered as possessing human rights if you are deemed to be subhuman, and anyway, human rights are just a shorthand excuse to engage in anti-social and unBritish activities such as trades unionism, socialism, communism, Islamism and any other form of 'ism' that isn't conservatism. I mean, no decent law-abiding patriotic Briton needs or even wants human rights do they? Human rights are only a cover for terrorists posing as British citizens. The Scottish people woke up to these developments long ago and have rejected the Westminster pigsty, although ironically we have Mad Tony to thank for that rather than Tories. Unless the rest of the UK open their eyes, they are heading for the slavery I have been warning about for years now. You have been warned.

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat

If you must lie then your argument is wrong

I apologise for not posting for a week but I have been unavailable, and although it is a week since the British Parliament voted for air strikes against Syria, I feel I must comment on such an important issue because once again the British Parliament has voted go to war on a tissue of lies. So, once again it will end in grief. One of the most depressing spectacles we must endure is to watch our Parliament engaging in a huge orgy of self-deception on the basis that it is fully aware that it is planning to do the wrong thing. Because, make no mistake, Parliament knew that it was taking a decision based on a farrago of lies. No one with any intelligence could possible believe the argument that the Ca-moron put to the House. There is no honour in this decision, no glory, no basis for self-congratulation because we are going to war on a false hypothesis and if you proceed on a false hypothesis then you will reach a false conclusion and the problem lies in the fact that the Tories know that their case is a lie. The tragedy is that there is a perfectly good and justifiable reason for declaring war and taking appropriate action against Isis, and the reason that the British do not take the sensible path is because they are both intellectually and ideologically incapable of taking it. The first principal reason that the British Parliament must lie through its teeth in order to get its way is that they have been lying to the British people for so long now that we don't believe a word they say, so, in good obedience to the Goebbels principle that if you are going to tell a lie, tell a big lie and tell it often, that is precisely what the Moron and his minions have done. As I have repeatedly told you in the past, there is no longer any trust left in British politics and our Parliament is indeed considered a pigsty. The Americans dropped more tonnage of bombs on Vietnam than was dropped in the entire Second World War and achieved nothing, but the Moron claims that we will achieve great things by bombing. This decision is purely based on the Moron's massive ego and his desperation to achieve recognition in the USA and escape the wordly perception of Britain, as Vladimir Putin so succinctly put it, as a small island that nobody listens to. It is both irrational and mendacious.

I will simply note the utter stupidity of the second lie, that of claiming that bombing Isis will make the British safer, and remind you that the security campaign of counter-terrorism against the IRA was so successful that they managed to get a bomb into the Prime Minister's hotel bedroom and were able to plant a bomb in a car in Parliament's underground car park. So much for our brilliant intelligence and security services. The next lie is a whopper, given that the last big attempt at war by the pigsty was on the grounds of definite and indisputable intelligence of the existence of large supplies of weapons of mass destruction that of course never existed. This time we are being assured of an army of 70,000 troops on the ground just waiting for the British to organise them into a coherent fighting force and lead them to glory over Isis and President Assad. They are as much a figment of the pigsty's imagination as were the weapons of mass destruction, and again the military, as opposed to our brilliant security services, are telling the government that they do not exist. But what do the military know eh? Another wonderful piece of effective propaganda is how dead Syrians are described as collateral damage, whilst dead Britons are victims of terrorism. This of course effectively dehumanises the Syrian people and makes their deaths quite acceptable in order that we do not upset people on the evening news just as they are settling down to watch Eastenders and Coronation Street.

The rise of Isis has completely changed the Middle Eastern scenario and means that we must rethink our attitudes to people we have historically considered our enemies, because, we have been so demonstrably wrong in the past. Should the West succeed in toppling Assad, what will become of the Syrian Army? It is now accepted that the biggest mistake we made in Iraq was disbanding the Iraqi army and the pigsty are more than likely to go down that same route in Syria. We shall await developments, but the most likely scenario is that our appalling politicians will allow their hatreds to overcome their rationality and produce another disaster. You have been warned.

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat

Russian bombs bad, British bombs good!

The sheer hypocrisy and stupidity of the British never ceases to amaze me. The British are straining at the leash to approve the bombing of Syria and the chance to murder and maim innocents on the pretext of national security and the support of an army of 70,000 so-called moderates that exist only in the insane imagination of David Ca-moron. I was reminded of a joint statement from France, Germany, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Britain and the United States as recently as the 2nd of October that "expressed concern," that bombing Syria would  "only fuel more extremism and radicalisation." The object of their concern was of course, Russia. So, Russian bombing will fuel extremism and radicalisation, but British and American bombing is "humanitarian" (that is certainly one for the history books, that someone can actually describe bombing as humanitarian) and the right thing to do. Tories are ideological imbeciles and their ideological hatred of all things Russian and their determination to get rid of Assad will be their undoing, but unfortunately it may well be all of our undoing. Like their blindness with respect to economic free market neoliberalism, their blindness politically stems from the same source. Tories, and that includes the Tories in the Labour Party, are motivated more by hatreds than by rationality.

Every rational commentary of this situation concludes that Ca-moron's arguments for a bombing campaign range from downright mendacity to, at best, failing to make a convincing case. Even Tories are distancing themselves from Moron's position because of the likely consequences that will follow. If we declare this 'war' on Isis, it will mark the seventh state of war that we have engaged in in the Middle East in 14 years, each one of these adventures ending in disaster. What will it take to convince the British people that calling the British Parliament the Westminster pigsty is not an insult it is an accurate description of the state of governance in these sorry isles. If I am in error, it is in insulting pigs which are far more noble creatures than British politicians, and for that I apologise. Pigs indeed add to human welfare and are essential to a balanced environment whilst Westminster is a cancer on the body politic.

In relation to this situation, even I never thought that the Labour Party could become an even bigger embarrassment than it was shown to be during the referendum. It is expected that at least 50 Labour MPs will vote with the Moron to bomb Syria despite polls showing that 75% of Labour Party members are opposed. It is to be hoped that the membership will unleash retribution against such people and they will be deselected at the next election. That hope springs, not from a desire for revenge, but for the sake of democracy and accountability. These people no longer listen to the people who elect them. British democracy is a farce and simply boils down to the fact that we still get a vote every five years between a choice of three parties who are in fact one and the same as you could not detect a scintilla of real difference between them. What makes it even worse is that the personnel who are opposing Jeremy Corbyn and trying their best to destroy him, are the personnel that the British electorate soundly rejected at the last election and who the Labour membership rejected overwhelmingly in the leadership election. They are indeed the legion of the lost and lonely, a bunch of right-wing clowns who think that they have a divine right to rule. They are still fixated on a hero worship of Mad Tony and are in fact political dinosaurs. The sooner they are all banished to the political wilderness the healthier the British state will be. With their desperation to bomb and kill, and their cruelty towards their own poor and disadvantaged it is far more accurate to describe Britain as a Brutish state. If you are reading this outside the UK it will give you an insight into why a growing number of Scots people want independence. What intelligent person would want to be governed by such people? As I remind you, the proper study of politics is the study of the unintended consequences of intentional human action. Even Mad Tony has admitted that his crimes against humanity in Iraq was a factor in the rise of Daesh. After we begin our humanitarian bombing of Syria I won't be visiting London any time soon. You have been warned.

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat