If any one thing has conclusively exposed the barbarity and complete lack of humanity of the British Conservative Party it was their rejection of a proposal to accept 3,000 parentless refugee children into the safety of the United Kingdom last night. This proposal was the result of an attempt by a Labour peer who himself arrived in Britain as a refugee from Czechoslovakia, fleeing the Nazis through the Kindertransport scheme. There are an estimated 95,000 child refugees floating around Europe with no parents and this proposal argued that the UK should immediately accept 3,000 of them to save them from the horror and dangers they are exposed to in this desperate situation. For those of you from outside the UK who may read this, Britain has 650 Parliamentary constituencies and so this proposal was arguing for less than 5 children per constituency, but that was far too much for the Tories to stomach. Within Scotland, once you travel north of Perth, you enter a large area of the United Kingdom whose population density numbers 9 per square mile. Therefore to increase that to 14 per square mile would obviously place an unacceptable burden on local services and pose a threat to the culture and survival of the Scottish nation. It is a similar perspective in the North of England and the Scottish Borders, with miles and miles of space and a low population density. However, I suppose we must thank our wise Westminster masters for saving us from the catastrophe of imposing such a strenuous increase in population on sacred land. In addition, how can we rationally accept a group of feral children who would almost certainly be (whisper it quietly and with fear and trepidation) Muslims. Thus to give sanctuary and safety to what would almost certainly be the next generation of suicide bombers and Islamic fanatics must be against the national British interest. On the other hand the explanation for the refusal to support this proposal may just perhaps be that the Tories are genuinely evil, callous, and so lacking in humanity that they have abandoned all vestiges of civilisation. Like their economic doctrine of free market neoliberalism, they are a lie, a sham and a fraud. I really thought that nothing the Tories could do could surprise me any more, but this is so disgusting that I find it difficult to digest.
England averages 413 people per square mile, but if you exclude London from that equation it drops to 353, Wales has 149, Northern Ireland 135 and Scotland 68. That is hardly the description of a nation that is full up as the Tories and UKIP are constantly telling us. Now, if we really want to get technical, the actual amount of the English nation that is actually built on is 2.27%, really, that is the figure. Over 97% of England is what is described as natural. That is the figure given by the Office of National Statistics in their UK Environmental Accounts. Now, these figures were for 2012, but they will hardly have altered by very much in four years. This is the figure for those parts of England that have been 'concreted over.' That means that are covered by buildings, roads, car parks, railways, paths etc. But according to the Tory anti-immigrants and the neo-Nazis in UKIP, we are full up, we cannot take any more. In addition, 80% of Britons live in an urban setting, in cities and towns of varying sizes, so we have the other 20% of Brits enjoying 97% of the landscape, free from care and from immigrants and Muslim children. Now, 93% of Britain is urban, but 53% of urban landscape is not built on and consists of parks, gardens, greenspaces etc. That is why the built on figure rises to just over 97%. However, that was for England, if you add in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland the built on figure actually falls to just over 1% with just under 99% free from concrete.
If you take such figures into account it makes this decision by the Tories even more nauseating given that even if our urban areas appear to be crowded, there are approximately 650,000 houses lying empty in England alone according to the Empty Homes Agency. In 2015, the Tory government admitted to 610,123 empty homes in England, Scotland had 31,844, Wales 23,171, yet we have not the ability to take any more than 23,000 refugees over the next five years, but most importantly, the situation is so bad according to the Tories that we cannot accept 3,000 children in a critical situation. So much for civilised Christian Britain. I will stop here because the more I write on this matter the sicker I feel and the more deeply ashamed I am to be British. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Thursday 28 April 2016
Monday 25 April 2016
All power to the doctors strike
Revolutions normally, and successful revolutions usually, begin from the middle classes of a population, from the indigenous bourgeoisie. When the bourgeoisie feel under threat and feel that they are in danger of being marginalised and under attack, they mobilise with a class solidarity that the working classes can only dream about. Today we see the mobilisation of a group that typify the privilege and earning power of the modern bourgeoisie, the junior doctors. This is a group of people whose default position is to hold ordinary working people in complete contempt and to completely disown any form of working class industrial action. Strikes are for other people, they could never, up until now, envisage a situation where they would even contemplate such a common and uncouth activity. The label 'Dr' opens doors that few other people can access. It procures tables in restaurants, tickets for the theatre, negates the tiresome necessity to queue. The principal motivation for a career in medicine is the abnormal status that accompanies such a position in the labour market. Doctors enjoy a status that is normally reserved for a very few people. In addition, they enjoy both a level of salary and a guarantee of job security that is unequalled in any other group of working people. Finally, they can look forward to a pension that will secure their retirement at a level that hardly any other working person can dream about. For all of these reasons, their recourse to all out industrial action highlights a deeply serious and profound malady within British society. It is to the Tories credit and the delight of people like me, that they are so stupid, arrogant and self-obsessed, so dismissive of any opinion other than their own, that they seriously believe that they can so contemptuously dismiss the threat that this action poses to their carefully constructed national narrative. Their problem is that they are now in conflict with a group of people whose contempt for others exceeds their own.
The medical profession have now woken up to the reality that people like me have been banging on about for years now, the Tories long-term agenda for the destruction of the health service and its complimentary ancillary services that constitutes the genuine threat to the future of the NHS and therefore to the terms and conditions of the medical profession. As I repeatedly write, the free marketeers will not tolerate any form of constraint on their activities and they have now identified the doctors as just such a constraint, as a result, doctors will have to be brought to heel and humbled. A group of people who have only a passing notion as to what doctors actually do have decided that they will determine a doctor's terms and conditions of employment, even if the entire medical profession tells them that they are wrong. Why? Because these people have no interest whatever in medicine, patient care and safety, or the health and welfare of the British population, their only concern is money. This conflict is, from the government's point of view, nothing whatever to do with health, the NHS, or the welfare of the British population. It is focused on a group of people who are the next in line for the process, started by Thatcher, of waging war on what are perceived as vested interests and as a potential threat to their long-term goal of transferring as much of the nations wealth upwards as possible, and, in the case of the health services, this will be achieved by the privatisation of health care. So, just as the power of the miners, the steel workers, and the public sector employees, particularly in local government, had to be smashed and neutered, so the doctors must go the same way. It was not an accident that Jeremy Hunt described the medical profession as a trade union in the pigsty today. As a result, they will be dealt with in exactly the same manner as the Tories have always dealt with trades unions, with contempt, hatred and by bullying and threats. Doctors are justifiably in shock, they have never been treated like other people before, and, they had better brace themselves, because if they continue to resist, the government will do what they have always done with working people, they will resort to violence.
The latest weapon the Tories have applied is the same old weapon that was successfully employed against the miners etc. that is, they are trying to bring down the government. This is softening up the general public to the idea that doctors are becoming an enemy of the state who will have to be dealt with as harshly as is necessary. I await the inevitable Tory minister accusing them of terrorism. When such tactics were used against the miners, the steel workers, the firemen etc. the doctors, because they are almost exclusively Tories, nodded sagely and threw their full weight behind the Tories because in those days being a doctor was a grand thing and very lucrative and they did not want all these bolshie working class peasants upsetting the status quo. Now, when they are on the receiving end, they don't like it, but being doctors, they do not think for one minute that they have to put up with it.
Now, you will have gathered that I have very little sympathy with the medical profession, given that they are indeed a very privileged and pampered sector of society who guard their privilege quite ferociously. However, I do not blame them for that and I do have a great deal of sympathy with their case and their struggle against this most reactionary of governments. In addition, I will always defend anyone's right to withdraw their labour, because without that right you are effectively in a state of slavery. Also, I do not suspect for one minute that the doctors have any intention of bringing down a government, however, if the Tories are not careful that is what may well happen, and my last thought is, if the government are so determined that their course of action is the only one available, that there really is no alternative, then why is it not happening in Scotland and Wales? You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
The medical profession have now woken up to the reality that people like me have been banging on about for years now, the Tories long-term agenda for the destruction of the health service and its complimentary ancillary services that constitutes the genuine threat to the future of the NHS and therefore to the terms and conditions of the medical profession. As I repeatedly write, the free marketeers will not tolerate any form of constraint on their activities and they have now identified the doctors as just such a constraint, as a result, doctors will have to be brought to heel and humbled. A group of people who have only a passing notion as to what doctors actually do have decided that they will determine a doctor's terms and conditions of employment, even if the entire medical profession tells them that they are wrong. Why? Because these people have no interest whatever in medicine, patient care and safety, or the health and welfare of the British population, their only concern is money. This conflict is, from the government's point of view, nothing whatever to do with health, the NHS, or the welfare of the British population. It is focused on a group of people who are the next in line for the process, started by Thatcher, of waging war on what are perceived as vested interests and as a potential threat to their long-term goal of transferring as much of the nations wealth upwards as possible, and, in the case of the health services, this will be achieved by the privatisation of health care. So, just as the power of the miners, the steel workers, and the public sector employees, particularly in local government, had to be smashed and neutered, so the doctors must go the same way. It was not an accident that Jeremy Hunt described the medical profession as a trade union in the pigsty today. As a result, they will be dealt with in exactly the same manner as the Tories have always dealt with trades unions, with contempt, hatred and by bullying and threats. Doctors are justifiably in shock, they have never been treated like other people before, and, they had better brace themselves, because if they continue to resist, the government will do what they have always done with working people, they will resort to violence.
The latest weapon the Tories have applied is the same old weapon that was successfully employed against the miners etc. that is, they are trying to bring down the government. This is softening up the general public to the idea that doctors are becoming an enemy of the state who will have to be dealt with as harshly as is necessary. I await the inevitable Tory minister accusing them of terrorism. When such tactics were used against the miners, the steel workers, the firemen etc. the doctors, because they are almost exclusively Tories, nodded sagely and threw their full weight behind the Tories because in those days being a doctor was a grand thing and very lucrative and they did not want all these bolshie working class peasants upsetting the status quo. Now, when they are on the receiving end, they don't like it, but being doctors, they do not think for one minute that they have to put up with it.
Now, you will have gathered that I have very little sympathy with the medical profession, given that they are indeed a very privileged and pampered sector of society who guard their privilege quite ferociously. However, I do not blame them for that and I do have a great deal of sympathy with their case and their struggle against this most reactionary of governments. In addition, I will always defend anyone's right to withdraw their labour, because without that right you are effectively in a state of slavery. Also, I do not suspect for one minute that the doctors have any intention of bringing down a government, however, if the Tories are not careful that is what may well happen, and my last thought is, if the government are so determined that their course of action is the only one available, that there really is no alternative, then why is it not happening in Scotland and Wales? You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Human Rights
Everyone in the world must visit the Guardian website and watch the video of Patrick Stewart asking the question, - What has the European Convention on Human Rights ever done for us?
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Sunday 24 April 2016
TTIP, welcome to the Apocalypse
The Observer newspaper has an editorial opinion today entitled, 'The Observer view on out-of-control CEO pay.' As I have written before, the human being is a social being. As a result, it is also a regulatory being that regulates and controls its environment. Unless we start from an empirical and realistic view of human nature we will not conclude an empirical and realistic view of our world and our environment. The dominant myth that currently underpins political discourse in the UK is that each human being is a unique individual, located within a milieu that denies the existence of the entity we call society; as Thatcher said, there is no such thing as society. The important point to note is the observation that CEO pay is out of control and we must both ask the question, and provide an answer to, why should CEO pay be controlled? Does it matter?
One of the first things to notice about this conundrum is that, whilst the individualist free market philosophical perspective demands that pay for the top people in society be free from all restraints, it also demands that a rigid control is exercised over the wages of ordinary working people. To that end, since 1990, the pay scales at the top have escalated until they now average 183 times the working wage, whilst the working wage has decreased by 20% in the same period. Whilst we live in a country that has set a minimum wage of £6.70 per hour and has a recommended living wage at £8.25 per hour we have a company operating in this country that pays its Chief Executive £70 million per annum. This gives our CEO £33,653.85 per 40 hour week, whilst the worker on the minimum wage earns £268 per 40 hour week and on the living wage gets £330 per 40 hour week. The above noted CEO of course indignantly insists that he deserves every penny of his £70 million. As a result, the free market philosophy insists on complete deregulation of pay at one level, and rigid regulation of pay at other levels. That is one of the reasons that the free market is a fraud and a lie.
Now, regular readers will by now be fed up reading me telling you that there is no, nor can be, such a thing as a free market. Free marketeers insist on the deregulation of all economic activity (except workers wages of course), but, if you accept that the human being is essentially a regulatory being, then deregulation is anti-social and dangerous. All human activity must be regulated, either voluntarily or coercively. Of course we can have over-regulation, and much of our lives in a modern neoliberal society is over-regulated, but correcting over-regulation is a quite different matter than deregulation. You see, the paradox is that, in order to achieve their aims, free marketeers will not tolerate constraints on their activities and this leads them to impose serious regulatory restraints on those areas of social life that threaten their interests, such as employment rights, trades union activities, and human rights in general. Thus, a free market economic system leads inevitably to a totalitarian political system. That is why the most dangerous development in our world today is indeed a form of terrorism, but it is the terrorism of the free market and in particular the threat of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
The following is the first paragraph from an article on TTIP in the Independent newspaper
"The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a series of trade negotiations being carried out mostly in secret between the EU and US. As a bi-lateral trade agreement, TTIP is about reducing the regulatory barriers to trade for big business, things like food safety law, environmental legislation, banking regulations and the sovereign powers of individual nations. It is, as John Hilary, Executive Director of campaign group War on Want, said: “An assault on European and US societies by transnational corporations.”"
You see, the activities outlined here have little to do with free trade, but everything to do with removing as many constraints as possible on profiteering. Here we are presented with the specific assertion that food safety law, environmental law, banking regulations etc. are regulatory barriers to trade. That is one of the greatest corruptions of the English language and reason that I have come across for a long time. These matters are not regulatory barriers to trade, they are regulatory safeguards for health and safety, for the survival of the species and the planet, for the economic health and stability of sovereign nations. There is no earthly barrier to free trade within such regulations, but there are barriers to unregulated profiteering and exploitation. Barriers to trade are barriers erected to prevent trade or to suppress trade for one party in order to enhance trade for another. What the regulations mentioned here represent are regulatory controls within which free trade can operate reasonably and in a stable trade environment that does not impinge on or threaten human freedom to life, health and liberty.
Make no mistake should the TTIP become accepted and be enacted, food safety law, environmental law and all regulatory controls on the financial system will be abolished. That will be followed with a bonfire of all human rights. The free market has become a threat to the survival of the human race. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
One of the first things to notice about this conundrum is that, whilst the individualist free market philosophical perspective demands that pay for the top people in society be free from all restraints, it also demands that a rigid control is exercised over the wages of ordinary working people. To that end, since 1990, the pay scales at the top have escalated until they now average 183 times the working wage, whilst the working wage has decreased by 20% in the same period. Whilst we live in a country that has set a minimum wage of £6.70 per hour and has a recommended living wage at £8.25 per hour we have a company operating in this country that pays its Chief Executive £70 million per annum. This gives our CEO £33,653.85 per 40 hour week, whilst the worker on the minimum wage earns £268 per 40 hour week and on the living wage gets £330 per 40 hour week. The above noted CEO of course indignantly insists that he deserves every penny of his £70 million. As a result, the free market philosophy insists on complete deregulation of pay at one level, and rigid regulation of pay at other levels. That is one of the reasons that the free market is a fraud and a lie.
Now, regular readers will by now be fed up reading me telling you that there is no, nor can be, such a thing as a free market. Free marketeers insist on the deregulation of all economic activity (except workers wages of course), but, if you accept that the human being is essentially a regulatory being, then deregulation is anti-social and dangerous. All human activity must be regulated, either voluntarily or coercively. Of course we can have over-regulation, and much of our lives in a modern neoliberal society is over-regulated, but correcting over-regulation is a quite different matter than deregulation. You see, the paradox is that, in order to achieve their aims, free marketeers will not tolerate constraints on their activities and this leads them to impose serious regulatory restraints on those areas of social life that threaten their interests, such as employment rights, trades union activities, and human rights in general. Thus, a free market economic system leads inevitably to a totalitarian political system. That is why the most dangerous development in our world today is indeed a form of terrorism, but it is the terrorism of the free market and in particular the threat of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
The following is the first paragraph from an article on TTIP in the Independent newspaper
"The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a series of trade negotiations being carried out mostly in secret between the EU and US. As a bi-lateral trade agreement, TTIP is about reducing the regulatory barriers to trade for big business, things like food safety law, environmental legislation, banking regulations and the sovereign powers of individual nations. It is, as John Hilary, Executive Director of campaign group War on Want, said: “An assault on European and US societies by transnational corporations.”"
You see, the activities outlined here have little to do with free trade, but everything to do with removing as many constraints as possible on profiteering. Here we are presented with the specific assertion that food safety law, environmental law, banking regulations etc. are regulatory barriers to trade. That is one of the greatest corruptions of the English language and reason that I have come across for a long time. These matters are not regulatory barriers to trade, they are regulatory safeguards for health and safety, for the survival of the species and the planet, for the economic health and stability of sovereign nations. There is no earthly barrier to free trade within such regulations, but there are barriers to unregulated profiteering and exploitation. Barriers to trade are barriers erected to prevent trade or to suppress trade for one party in order to enhance trade for another. What the regulations mentioned here represent are regulatory controls within which free trade can operate reasonably and in a stable trade environment that does not impinge on or threaten human freedom to life, health and liberty.
Make no mistake should the TTIP become accepted and be enacted, food safety law, environmental law and all regulatory controls on the financial system will be abolished. That will be followed with a bonfire of all human rights. The free market has become a threat to the survival of the human race. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Friday 22 April 2016
Incoherence, inconsistency and hypocrisy, a very accurate description of British politics.
I am acutely aware that I haven't posted for a week and I am truly grateful to those people who read this blog. I haven't posted because the dominant stories have been repetitive and boring, particularly the claims and counterclaims on the EU referendum campaign. I never post simply because I feel that I should, and I trust that those of you who read this blog appreciate that. I write about the things that interest me and that I feel are important, and I have no interest whatever in celebrities or what I perceive as trivia. I have people who I admire and who interest me, but I am not arrogant enough to think that you would necessarily agree with me. For example, I have a great interest in sport, and my greatest ever sporting 'hero' if I could use that word, is Eddy Merckx, whom I call superman. Thus, I am not totally obsessed with politics. Indeed the only person in Britain that I could honestly say I would like to meet is Paul O'Grady who I would call a great man, a label I apply very cautiously to anyone. If I could invite six people to lunch I would have Adam Smith, David Hume, Tom Paine, Eddy Merckx, Paul O'Grady and Karl Marx. That list is not exclusive because there are a great many other people I would love to meet and talk to, such as Golda Meir, Martin Luther King, Vasily Zaitsev, Rosa Parks, Sachin Tendulkar and Terry Pratchett. But enough of this trivia which I am sure does not interest you, I only mention it to try to show you that I am not one-dimensional, although I am sure that you may find it strange that many of the people that interest me are dead.
With respect to the other major stories just now, they are the same, with the US Presidential campaign following the same tedious lines as the EU in this country. I was considering a discussion of the concept of democracy to highlight how Britain has no claim to be a democratic society, but I am not sure if readers would welcome that, your input would be valuable on this if you could be bothered. Today was a bit different however, with Obama weighing in with his two cents worth of homespun wisdom which infuriated the Brexiteers as he gave his unequivocal support for Britain to remain within the EU and warning the Brexit campaign that if we do leave Europe we will be at the back of the queue of those wishing to negotiate trade relations with the USA. It was interesting to listen to Nigel the Nazi and Boris the Spider fulminating about Obama's opinions on the referendum and hearing them call him "incoherent, inconsistent and a hypocrite". This is from the very same people who cautioned the Scottish people to listen very closely to our "best friend and most trusted ally" President Obama, when he made a similar intervention in the Scottish referendum. Now what was that about inconsistency and hypocrisy?
For a wee change I went to William Hill instead of Ladbrokes today and the odds on Britain leaving the EU are 9/4 with remaining at 1/3. For England the odds are 7/4 to leave and 2/5 to remain, whilst Scotland stays the same with 8/1 to leave and 1/20 to remain. Wales is 12/5 to leave and 3/10 to remain. So, despite the constant leave campaign propaganda being continually trumpeted by the bulk of the atrocious British press and the BBC, the bookies are not impressed, and, despite the opinion polls, the remain campaign continue as clear favourites in all betting forecasts. As far as the BBC is concerned, their major political panel show, Question Time, is reaching the unwatchable state with quite overt and shameless Brexit dominance, both in the choice of panelists and audience. To top it all it is chaired by the appalling David Dimbleby who is so biased it is nauseating. I have a Yorkshire Terrier who I can confidently claim has a greater grasp of politics than the Dumbleby. If it was possible to be an even bigger loathsome Tory than Michael Gove or Boris the Spider, then the Dumbleby is it. For the moment, I look forward to my weekly diet of football tomorrow, my shameless weekly orgy of tribalism and ninety minutes of escapism. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
With respect to the other major stories just now, they are the same, with the US Presidential campaign following the same tedious lines as the EU in this country. I was considering a discussion of the concept of democracy to highlight how Britain has no claim to be a democratic society, but I am not sure if readers would welcome that, your input would be valuable on this if you could be bothered. Today was a bit different however, with Obama weighing in with his two cents worth of homespun wisdom which infuriated the Brexiteers as he gave his unequivocal support for Britain to remain within the EU and warning the Brexit campaign that if we do leave Europe we will be at the back of the queue of those wishing to negotiate trade relations with the USA. It was interesting to listen to Nigel the Nazi and Boris the Spider fulminating about Obama's opinions on the referendum and hearing them call him "incoherent, inconsistent and a hypocrite". This is from the very same people who cautioned the Scottish people to listen very closely to our "best friend and most trusted ally" President Obama, when he made a similar intervention in the Scottish referendum. Now what was that about inconsistency and hypocrisy?
For a wee change I went to William Hill instead of Ladbrokes today and the odds on Britain leaving the EU are 9/4 with remaining at 1/3. For England the odds are 7/4 to leave and 2/5 to remain, whilst Scotland stays the same with 8/1 to leave and 1/20 to remain. Wales is 12/5 to leave and 3/10 to remain. So, despite the constant leave campaign propaganda being continually trumpeted by the bulk of the atrocious British press and the BBC, the bookies are not impressed, and, despite the opinion polls, the remain campaign continue as clear favourites in all betting forecasts. As far as the BBC is concerned, their major political panel show, Question Time, is reaching the unwatchable state with quite overt and shameless Brexit dominance, both in the choice of panelists and audience. To top it all it is chaired by the appalling David Dimbleby who is so biased it is nauseating. I have a Yorkshire Terrier who I can confidently claim has a greater grasp of politics than the Dumbleby. If it was possible to be an even bigger loathsome Tory than Michael Gove or Boris the Spider, then the Dumbleby is it. For the moment, I look forward to my weekly diet of football tomorrow, my shameless weekly orgy of tribalism and ninety minutes of escapism. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Thursday 14 April 2016
The EU referendum
To keep you up to date, the betting on Britain remaining in or leaving the EU at the coming referendum has still not altered since the betting opened. According to Ladbrokes, the betting still indicates that 71% of the public will vote to remain. That is of course very speculative as there is still 10 weeks to go, but the odds across the 12 largest betting organisations hardly vary with 8 out of the 12 offering 2/5 with the least generous odds against a remain vote at 3/8, which is still a comfortable lead, and the bookies are still the most accurate indicator you will get.
As I have indicated since this began, my motivation for voting to remain within the EU has nothing to do with the economy. Even if we leave, I cannot imagine that the grass would be growing up through the pavements, we may not be as economically stable as usual, but we will not descend into third world status. My arguments are still based on the fact that under the appalling personnel that would govern the country after a Brexit we will speedily lose all of our human rights and working people will be driven to a state of modern slavery even quicker than they already are. At the moment, it is only the EU and its institutions, and other institutions such as the Court of Human Rights that is protecting the British population against the barbarians in the Westminster pigsty. Added to that, should we leave the EU, Britain will rapidly descend into an authoritarian society even worse than it already is. It is therefore gratifying to see the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, at long last speaking up on these very issues. It is ironic because it was under Mad Tony that the drive to remove our civil rights began in earnest, so, Labour has serious form on this issue. In addition, it was Labour that led the charge against our privacy and who were primarily responsible through their complete madness in economic matters, for the economic and financial crisis. Labour are dangerously authoritarian and it should never be forgotten that they were the people who passed over 4,500 new criminal offences during their time in office, more than one new criminal measure for every day they were in office. I do not call the Bliar Mad Tony for no reason. His governments displayed a genuine madness whilst in office.
As I have told you before, there is a large reservoir of latent fascism within Britain. It is evident in the dominant attitudes displayed towards, immigrants, the disabled, the unemployed and all those people labelled skivers and scroungers. As I write this, there is a growing alarm being discussed in the media at the level of anti-Semitism within the British Labour Party, and Corbyn has been forced to issue statements condemning it. The Nazis arguments about a worldwide Jewish conspiracy are again surfacing in an alarming way throughout British society. The equation of the policies of the Israeli state with Zionism only displays a complete ignorance about what Zionism is, but feeds into the general fascist worldview that is growing daily within this benighted nation. If it is not the Zionists, it is the Muslims. This is of course based on the view that there is only one narrative within worldwide Judaism and Islam, there are no shades of grey, all Jews are militant Zionists and all Muslims are Isis inspired Jihadis and potential suicide bombers. All this is being encouraged and exploited by unscrupulous politicians and journalists in both Britain and the US. I come back again to the scapegoat mentality. That is what is driving the Out campaign in Britain as these people are fixated with immigration as the ultimate evil and the cause of all our problems. As I write this I am listening to a report that the CEO of BP has just been awarded £14 million per annum as a salary. The average of CEO salaries in Britain now constitutes 180 times the average wage. Why this is not a matter of outrage I am mystified. On the same day, it is revealed that the government employs 300 personnel to investigate tax evasion and fraud, and in excess of 3000 personnel to investigate benefit fraud. That is the defining characteristic of this government's priorities. I ask you to contemplate what their priorities will be if we are governed by Boris the Spider, Nigel Farage, Michael Gove and the rest of this parcel of rogues and scoundrels. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
As I have indicated since this began, my motivation for voting to remain within the EU has nothing to do with the economy. Even if we leave, I cannot imagine that the grass would be growing up through the pavements, we may not be as economically stable as usual, but we will not descend into third world status. My arguments are still based on the fact that under the appalling personnel that would govern the country after a Brexit we will speedily lose all of our human rights and working people will be driven to a state of modern slavery even quicker than they already are. At the moment, it is only the EU and its institutions, and other institutions such as the Court of Human Rights that is protecting the British population against the barbarians in the Westminster pigsty. Added to that, should we leave the EU, Britain will rapidly descend into an authoritarian society even worse than it already is. It is therefore gratifying to see the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, at long last speaking up on these very issues. It is ironic because it was under Mad Tony that the drive to remove our civil rights began in earnest, so, Labour has serious form on this issue. In addition, it was Labour that led the charge against our privacy and who were primarily responsible through their complete madness in economic matters, for the economic and financial crisis. Labour are dangerously authoritarian and it should never be forgotten that they were the people who passed over 4,500 new criminal offences during their time in office, more than one new criminal measure for every day they were in office. I do not call the Bliar Mad Tony for no reason. His governments displayed a genuine madness whilst in office.
As I have told you before, there is a large reservoir of latent fascism within Britain. It is evident in the dominant attitudes displayed towards, immigrants, the disabled, the unemployed and all those people labelled skivers and scroungers. As I write this, there is a growing alarm being discussed in the media at the level of anti-Semitism within the British Labour Party, and Corbyn has been forced to issue statements condemning it. The Nazis arguments about a worldwide Jewish conspiracy are again surfacing in an alarming way throughout British society. The equation of the policies of the Israeli state with Zionism only displays a complete ignorance about what Zionism is, but feeds into the general fascist worldview that is growing daily within this benighted nation. If it is not the Zionists, it is the Muslims. This is of course based on the view that there is only one narrative within worldwide Judaism and Islam, there are no shades of grey, all Jews are militant Zionists and all Muslims are Isis inspired Jihadis and potential suicide bombers. All this is being encouraged and exploited by unscrupulous politicians and journalists in both Britain and the US. I come back again to the scapegoat mentality. That is what is driving the Out campaign in Britain as these people are fixated with immigration as the ultimate evil and the cause of all our problems. As I write this I am listening to a report that the CEO of BP has just been awarded £14 million per annum as a salary. The average of CEO salaries in Britain now constitutes 180 times the average wage. Why this is not a matter of outrage I am mystified. On the same day, it is revealed that the government employs 300 personnel to investigate tax evasion and fraud, and in excess of 3000 personnel to investigate benefit fraud. That is the defining characteristic of this government's priorities. I ask you to contemplate what their priorities will be if we are governed by Boris the Spider, Nigel Farage, Michael Gove and the rest of this parcel of rogues and scoundrels. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Monday 11 April 2016
Trump is a symptom, not a solution.
Karl Marx was correct when he told us that the political and economic superstructure in society is erected on, and is a reflection of, the economic base. I think that is so self-evident that even the most ardent Marx hater would hesitate to deny it for fear of being open to ridicule. However, Marx did not originate that observation, he only articulated it best. The base and superstructure thesis was a striking feature of Adam Smith's writings a century before Marx and was one of the many things that Smith and Marx had in common. I raise this point because I have been contemplating the remarkable rise of Donald Trump as the representative of a large portion of American sentiment. His rise to fame is indicative of the irrational anger of a population being driven to despair because of the dominant economic ideology of the free market that is quite literally destroying American society. I call it irrational because the anger is directed against all the wrong targets, and Trump's electoral platform is a reflection of that. The dominant individualistic free market ideology that permeates the United States is exposed for the fraud that it has always been and this time there is no collectivist, indeed socialist, New Deal solution in sight to rescue the American system. This is not the first time that the individualist free market based economy has crashed spectacularly but the abiding characteristic of western politicians is their complete inability to learn from mistakes, and. because they are either incapable or unwilling to admit the real cause of their crisis they blame anything and everything except the obvious that is glaring them in the face.
The American political system is the result of this perverted and fraudulent economics and the political leadership is a reflection of just such a perversion. However, as with the situation in Britain, the politicians in America are not affected by the crisis as they are all benefiting from it enormously. As a result it is not in their interests to be tackling the problem at its roots and so they constantly seek to shift the blame, and the public's attention, away from the real culprit. This is a political and economic system that is erected on greed, legalised theft, exploitation and a complete disinterest in its effects on the wider society. It is a system that scapegoats, just as Trump's solutions to America's perceived problems are all founded on a scapegoat mentality. Just as the free market economic system is one huge lie, so is the political system that claims to offer solutions, and the personnel who compose the political system are themselves pathological liars. The British are at this time asking why it took the Prime Minister six attempts to explain his involvement in offshore tax avoidance schemes and the answer is that he is a typical representative of a class of people, a Westminster politician, who is simply incapable of being truthful. Being truthful scares them, it is alien, people like the Camoron are programmed to lie as a matter of habit. Being truthful is a serious sign of weakness in Britain and the British elite seriously believe that they have a right to be secretive and unaccountable. Thus, the first reaction for any Westminster politician is to lie as the British people have no rights to truth and accountability from their masters and betters. How dare we demand to know what these people are up to?
In Britain we had the spectacle of the Cambridge spy ring openly admitting that they were able to get away with spying because they were members of the British aristocratic elite. Because of their class position they were above suspicion even when it was well-known what they were doing, as in the case of Anthony Blunt who was employed by the Queen. Both the Royal Family and the government knew that they had a soviet spy within their ranks but chose to ignore it because he was one of them, he was not a trade unionist or a worker or one of the little people, he was an English gentleman, so that's OK. So, the problems besetting our countries cannot be the fault of either the American or the British ruling class, it must be someone else's. Thus, in both Britain and the US we have the same phenomenon where a population that has been impoverished and bullied by a similar set of gangsters, working from the same script, is venting its anger against people who are themselves victims, the poor, the disadvantaged, the disabled, the EU, immigrants, Mexicans, and of course, Muslims. What this angry constituency cannot come to terms with is that their country is no longer the white, male, Protestant dominated society it was in both societies in1776 and they feel threatened. In Britain it is fuelled by inventing a supposed erosion of 'British values' (whatever they might be) by the poison of multiculturalism.
Thus the real cause of the problems besetting both Britain and America is the dominant economic ideology of free market neoliberalism, but no-one ever looks beyond their own selfish interests to examine the real cause of problems today because it is oh so much easier to blame the scapegoats. It's always someone else's fault. In America this irrational hatred against people who are quite innocent of the causes of the crises we are witnessing is whipped up by right-wing criminals in the political process and the media with people like Fox news and the right-wing xenophobic talk show hosts who will happily lie through their teeth persistently pandering to the lowest form of opinion that we witness being spouted by evangelical Christians, racists, homophobes and people who simply hate anyone outside their frame of reference. In Britain we have the same phenomenon being promoted by the Mail, Express, Sun, Telegraph and all the major news outlets. As I have said before, even the BBC is hardly worth watching anymore and certainly cannot be trusted. Donald Trump is simply a manifestation of this madness and at least we have Trump to thank for the fact that he is so horrific that even Americans are asking how this could have happened. Perhaps the possibility of President Trump will finally bring about a genuine reflection of the fundamental and root causes of our many problems, but I have no confidence that this will happen. So, if you dismiss the concept of an economic base supporting and defining a political and social superstructure because Karl Marx said it, then you are not only showing prejudice, you are being stupid. You are also dismissing Adam Smith and David Hume, but they were only Marxist mouthpieces anyway, weren't they? You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
The American political system is the result of this perverted and fraudulent economics and the political leadership is a reflection of just such a perversion. However, as with the situation in Britain, the politicians in America are not affected by the crisis as they are all benefiting from it enormously. As a result it is not in their interests to be tackling the problem at its roots and so they constantly seek to shift the blame, and the public's attention, away from the real culprit. This is a political and economic system that is erected on greed, legalised theft, exploitation and a complete disinterest in its effects on the wider society. It is a system that scapegoats, just as Trump's solutions to America's perceived problems are all founded on a scapegoat mentality. Just as the free market economic system is one huge lie, so is the political system that claims to offer solutions, and the personnel who compose the political system are themselves pathological liars. The British are at this time asking why it took the Prime Minister six attempts to explain his involvement in offshore tax avoidance schemes and the answer is that he is a typical representative of a class of people, a Westminster politician, who is simply incapable of being truthful. Being truthful scares them, it is alien, people like the Camoron are programmed to lie as a matter of habit. Being truthful is a serious sign of weakness in Britain and the British elite seriously believe that they have a right to be secretive and unaccountable. Thus, the first reaction for any Westminster politician is to lie as the British people have no rights to truth and accountability from their masters and betters. How dare we demand to know what these people are up to?
In Britain we had the spectacle of the Cambridge spy ring openly admitting that they were able to get away with spying because they were members of the British aristocratic elite. Because of their class position they were above suspicion even when it was well-known what they were doing, as in the case of Anthony Blunt who was employed by the Queen. Both the Royal Family and the government knew that they had a soviet spy within their ranks but chose to ignore it because he was one of them, he was not a trade unionist or a worker or one of the little people, he was an English gentleman, so that's OK. So, the problems besetting our countries cannot be the fault of either the American or the British ruling class, it must be someone else's. Thus, in both Britain and the US we have the same phenomenon where a population that has been impoverished and bullied by a similar set of gangsters, working from the same script, is venting its anger against people who are themselves victims, the poor, the disadvantaged, the disabled, the EU, immigrants, Mexicans, and of course, Muslims. What this angry constituency cannot come to terms with is that their country is no longer the white, male, Protestant dominated society it was in both societies in1776 and they feel threatened. In Britain it is fuelled by inventing a supposed erosion of 'British values' (whatever they might be) by the poison of multiculturalism.
Thus the real cause of the problems besetting both Britain and America is the dominant economic ideology of free market neoliberalism, but no-one ever looks beyond their own selfish interests to examine the real cause of problems today because it is oh so much easier to blame the scapegoats. It's always someone else's fault. In America this irrational hatred against people who are quite innocent of the causes of the crises we are witnessing is whipped up by right-wing criminals in the political process and the media with people like Fox news and the right-wing xenophobic talk show hosts who will happily lie through their teeth persistently pandering to the lowest form of opinion that we witness being spouted by evangelical Christians, racists, homophobes and people who simply hate anyone outside their frame of reference. In Britain we have the same phenomenon being promoted by the Mail, Express, Sun, Telegraph and all the major news outlets. As I have said before, even the BBC is hardly worth watching anymore and certainly cannot be trusted. Donald Trump is simply a manifestation of this madness and at least we have Trump to thank for the fact that he is so horrific that even Americans are asking how this could have happened. Perhaps the possibility of President Trump will finally bring about a genuine reflection of the fundamental and root causes of our many problems, but I have no confidence that this will happen. So, if you dismiss the concept of an economic base supporting and defining a political and social superstructure because Karl Marx said it, then you are not only showing prejudice, you are being stupid. You are also dismissing Adam Smith and David Hume, but they were only Marxist mouthpieces anyway, weren't they? You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Friday 8 April 2016
You desire an economic system derived from Adam Smith? Good, lets have one.
I have been relooking at the foundations of the ideology that underpins the dominant economic order in the UK and find that what is being taught throughout the British academic world, in all courses of economics from Oxford and Cambridge right down throughout the system of academia is known as neoclassical economics. As a result, I dug out my copy of Alfred Marshall's Principles of Economics (1890). As you will know, Marshall was the person credited with introducing what we call neoclassical economics due to his revision of classical economics and his theories of utility.
As I have already told you, I am not an economist. My reason for this confession is that when I read how the Queen had asked professors of economics at the London School of Economics why no-one had predicted the financial crisis of 2007-8, I found that odd, because I had predicted it at least five years before it actually happened, and as I said, I am not an economist. I was looking at the situation from the approach of political sociology, and from that perspective it was pretty obvious that something was going seriously wrong. This then led me to ask the question of how and why our finest economic minds missed the signs and, when I embarked on this study, I soon began to doubt whether there is such a thing in the modern world as a clear idea of what economics is, and what its functions are. For example, in her book Just Law (2004), the prominent QC and Baroness, Helena Kennedy writes
"It is unconscionable for governments to pursue populist programmes which are based on a desire to appease important sections of the electorate at the expense of the most vulnerable."
I then returned to Marshall where he tells us that
"The drift of economic science during many generations has been with increasing force towards the belief that there is no real necessity, and therefore no moral justification for extreme poverty side by side with great wealth"
Now, on the question of modern economics, all economists go to great length to support our politicians on the matter of austerity and the fact that there is no money available to finance the NHS, education, welfare etc and we now find that throughout the world there is enough money being hidden by the rich and wealthy to finance such things many times over. Marshall then goes on to tell us that in relation to the role of the state, and with regards to education he says
"To this end public money must flow freely. And it must flow freely to provide fresh air and space for wholesome play for the children in all working class quarters. Thus the state seems to be required to contribute generously and even lavishly to that side of the wellbeing of the poorer working class which they cannot easily provide for themselves".
You see, there is a very large disconnect between real economists like Marshall and Adam Smith, and the charlatans who are posing as experts in todays world. For example what would Adam Smith say about zero-hours contracts or the housing crisis that the Tories have deliberately created in order to enrich themselves when he wrote
"Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part, can never be regarded as any inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged"
Or
"The liberal reward of labour, as it encourages the propagation, so it increases the industry of the common people. The wages of labour are the encouragement of industry, which, like every other human quality, improves in proportion to the encouragement it receives. A plentiful subsistence increases the bodily strength of the labourer, and the comfortable hope of bettering his condition, and of ending his days, perhaps, in ease and plenty, animates him to exert that strength to the utmost. Where wages are high, accordingly, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious, than where they are low"
And, in the same spirit, Marshall wrote that
"Now at last we are setting ourselves seriously to inquire whether it is necessary that there should be any so-called “lower classes” at all: that is, whether there need be large numbers of people doomed from their birth to hard work in order to provide for others the requisites of a refined and cultured life; while they themselves are prevented by their poverty and toil from having any share or part in that life……The question cannot be fully answered by economic science. For the answer depends partly on the moral and political capabilities of human nature, and on these matters the economist has no special means of information…. the bearing of economics on the higher wellbeing of man has been overlooked"
Now, quite seriously, if Smith and Marshall were writing today, they would be sneeringly dismissed as Marxists, troublemakers, left-wing lunatics, but most importantly as people who were completely out of touch with reality by the Mail, the Express, the Telegraph, the residents of the Westminster pigsty and all those imbecilic right-wing commentators who pose as experts on national television, the representatives of "independent" think-tanks and economics experts who would not have passed economic "O" grades when I was at school. The Camoron and the brain dead within the Conservative Party would publicly mock them but who on earth could seriously challenge the fact that in todays world the bearing of economics on the higher well-being of man has not only been overlooked, but has been deliberately abandoned. If you want to increase economic growth, pay high wages, simples! Who said that? Adam Smith! Not Marx, not Lenin, not Doktor Kommirat, but the man who founded the discipline of economics, the man who supposedly championed the free market.
Writing in 1890, Marshall tells us that
"It may make little difference to the fullness of life of a family whether its yearly income is £1000 or £5000; but it makes a very great difference whether the income is £30 or £150: for with £150 the family has, with £30 it has not, the material conditions of a complete life"
When you have people in fulltime employment needing the services of foodbanks then you are looking at a nation within which far too many people do not have the material conditions of a complete life. And, if I may be allowed, Adam Smith makes an observation that could be made today about the rich and powerful when he tells us in the Wealth of Nations that
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
He goes on to tell us that
"This disposition to admire—and almost to worship—the rich and the powerful, and to despise or at least neglect persons of poor and mean condition, is (on one hand) necessary to establish and maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, and (on the other) the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. Moralists all down the centuries have complained that wealth and greatness are often given the respect and admiration that only wisdom and virtue should receive, and that poverty and weakness are quite wrongly treated with the contempt that should be reserved for vice and folly."
The revelations this week confirm beyond doubt that the disciplines of economics and finance are corrupt beyond repair. The entire edifice of economics and finance must be torn down and rebuilt from scratch with proper reference to, and guidance from, the real founders of economics and political economy. The Prime Minister has been revealed by his own actions as a liar and a scoundrel. If he has made five statements about his financial affairs and the fifth contradicts the first four, then he has been lying, there is no other explanation. He must go, and when he goes we must consign his government and its public policies to the dustbin. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
As I have already told you, I am not an economist. My reason for this confession is that when I read how the Queen had asked professors of economics at the London School of Economics why no-one had predicted the financial crisis of 2007-8, I found that odd, because I had predicted it at least five years before it actually happened, and as I said, I am not an economist. I was looking at the situation from the approach of political sociology, and from that perspective it was pretty obvious that something was going seriously wrong. This then led me to ask the question of how and why our finest economic minds missed the signs and, when I embarked on this study, I soon began to doubt whether there is such a thing in the modern world as a clear idea of what economics is, and what its functions are. For example, in her book Just Law (2004), the prominent QC and Baroness, Helena Kennedy writes
"It is unconscionable for governments to pursue populist programmes which are based on a desire to appease important sections of the electorate at the expense of the most vulnerable."
I then returned to Marshall where he tells us that
"The drift of economic science during many generations has been with increasing force towards the belief that there is no real necessity, and therefore no moral justification for extreme poverty side by side with great wealth"
Now, on the question of modern economics, all economists go to great length to support our politicians on the matter of austerity and the fact that there is no money available to finance the NHS, education, welfare etc and we now find that throughout the world there is enough money being hidden by the rich and wealthy to finance such things many times over. Marshall then goes on to tell us that in relation to the role of the state, and with regards to education he says
"To this end public money must flow freely. And it must flow freely to provide fresh air and space for wholesome play for the children in all working class quarters. Thus the state seems to be required to contribute generously and even lavishly to that side of the wellbeing of the poorer working class which they cannot easily provide for themselves".
You see, there is a very large disconnect between real economists like Marshall and Adam Smith, and the charlatans who are posing as experts in todays world. For example what would Adam Smith say about zero-hours contracts or the housing crisis that the Tories have deliberately created in order to enrich themselves when he wrote
"Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part, can never be regarded as any inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged"
Or
"The liberal reward of labour, as it encourages the propagation, so it increases the industry of the common people. The wages of labour are the encouragement of industry, which, like every other human quality, improves in proportion to the encouragement it receives. A plentiful subsistence increases the bodily strength of the labourer, and the comfortable hope of bettering his condition, and of ending his days, perhaps, in ease and plenty, animates him to exert that strength to the utmost. Where wages are high, accordingly, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious, than where they are low"
And, in the same spirit, Marshall wrote that
"Now at last we are setting ourselves seriously to inquire whether it is necessary that there should be any so-called “lower classes” at all: that is, whether there need be large numbers of people doomed from their birth to hard work in order to provide for others the requisites of a refined and cultured life; while they themselves are prevented by their poverty and toil from having any share or part in that life……The question cannot be fully answered by economic science. For the answer depends partly on the moral and political capabilities of human nature, and on these matters the economist has no special means of information…. the bearing of economics on the higher wellbeing of man has been overlooked"
Now, quite seriously, if Smith and Marshall were writing today, they would be sneeringly dismissed as Marxists, troublemakers, left-wing lunatics, but most importantly as people who were completely out of touch with reality by the Mail, the Express, the Telegraph, the residents of the Westminster pigsty and all those imbecilic right-wing commentators who pose as experts on national television, the representatives of "independent" think-tanks and economics experts who would not have passed economic "O" grades when I was at school. The Camoron and the brain dead within the Conservative Party would publicly mock them but who on earth could seriously challenge the fact that in todays world the bearing of economics on the higher well-being of man has not only been overlooked, but has been deliberately abandoned. If you want to increase economic growth, pay high wages, simples! Who said that? Adam Smith! Not Marx, not Lenin, not Doktor Kommirat, but the man who founded the discipline of economics, the man who supposedly championed the free market.
Writing in 1890, Marshall tells us that
"It may make little difference to the fullness of life of a family whether its yearly income is £1000 or £5000; but it makes a very great difference whether the income is £30 or £150: for with £150 the family has, with £30 it has not, the material conditions of a complete life"
When you have people in fulltime employment needing the services of foodbanks then you are looking at a nation within which far too many people do not have the material conditions of a complete life. And, if I may be allowed, Adam Smith makes an observation that could be made today about the rich and powerful when he tells us in the Wealth of Nations that
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
He goes on to tell us that
"This disposition to admire—and almost to worship—the rich and the powerful, and to despise or at least neglect persons of poor and mean condition, is (on one hand) necessary to establish and maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, and (on the other) the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. Moralists all down the centuries have complained that wealth and greatness are often given the respect and admiration that only wisdom and virtue should receive, and that poverty and weakness are quite wrongly treated with the contempt that should be reserved for vice and folly."
The revelations this week confirm beyond doubt that the disciplines of economics and finance are corrupt beyond repair. The entire edifice of economics and finance must be torn down and rebuilt from scratch with proper reference to, and guidance from, the real founders of economics and political economy. The Prime Minister has been revealed by his own actions as a liar and a scoundrel. If he has made five statements about his financial affairs and the fifth contradicts the first four, then he has been lying, there is no other explanation. He must go, and when he goes we must consign his government and its public policies to the dustbin. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Wednesday 6 April 2016
The scum rises to the top
I have been asking myself if it is possible for the British
ruling class to become any more corrupt? The entire institutional structures of
the British state are now revealed beyond any more argument to be an utter
disgrace and completely immoral. The government, Westminster, the entire
financial system including banks, insurance firms and the whole profession of
accountancy stand revealed as legalised gangsters and pirates. This poison has
affected the entire institutional structure of the UK and has become an international scandal. I am aware that
this is a worldwide phenomenon but I live in the UK and my concern is the
damage, and it is now incontestable that this damage is quite deliberate, that
these people are inflicting on the structural basis of British society, starving it of investment and funds that could be used for the benefit of the whole society. Our
rulers and the British elite are now exposed as being pathological liars and
criminals of the highest order, whose legislation is designed to make
immorality and criminality legal and punish the majority in society for
consequences that are none of their making but the results of the actions of
the governing class. For the past two days we have witnessed the two most
senior politicians in Britain simply refusing to answer questions about their
financial affairs, ducking and dodging like petty criminals trying to plead the
fifth amendment. If anyone can now challenge the claims that I have been making
in this blog that the entire Westminster system has one purpose only, the
transfer of as much of the nation's wealth as possible from the bottom up to the feral elite
that we are unfortunately burdened with, and damn the consequences, then please enlighten me as a matter
of priority.
As people who read this blog will know, I am under no
illusions about the corruption and criminality of our upper class elite in this
sorry nation. As a result, I was not surprised by the revelations of the tax
avoidance schemes in Panama and other British protectorates. However, I felt a
deep despair about the depth of corruption and criminality that they revealed
and the complete lack of any accountability that our government allows to
fester uncontrolled because they are all up to their neck in it. I am also in despair about the complete lack of concern, indeed the indifference they display, for the damage they are inflicting on individual lives and the collective wellbeing of British society. What on earth
is the matter with the British people? The people of Iceland immediately took
to the streets and forced the resignation of their loathsome Prime Minister,
and he is a saint compared with the filth that govern us. And that is the nub
of the matter, it is that all this criminality and corruption is well-known to
our elected representatives and the legal authorities and yet they have no
intention to do anything about it, and we know that even if they do try
something that no-one will be brought to book. The revelations from Panama
are only confirming what has always been common knowledge.
What has been revealed so far is only the result of the revelations
about one company. How many other companies are carrying out this form of
transaction? We have just seen a report in the UK that has shown that we have
definite knowledge of 590 people who have been driven to commit suicide since
the last election because the British government has gleefully persecuted them
under its benefits sanction regime, and these are the only ones that we can
prove. That is the real legacy of Duncan-Smith and this parcel of Tory
psychopaths, the destruction of the poor and the assistance given to an unbelievable hoarding of wealth. What is also dispiriting is that there is so much wealth being
hidden in various forms that it is of no earthly use. Some people have so much
money that they cannot spend it. What on earth do they want this for? Wealthy
people used to do something with their money, they would establish foundations,
would build parks, libraries, museums etc. They would give something back to
the people who were responsible for making them wealthy. But this literally
never happens now. My remarks are applicable to all the gangsters in every
country who are guilty of this mass criminality, but I am British and so my
concern is with the filth who govern me and are allowing my country to be drained and raped, and who only take and take and give
nothing back. What is also unforgivable is that they genuinely believe they
have a right to take, to hoard, to starve the rest of us of funds by which we
can enrich our lives and our environment. For example, long before the publication
of these papers it was public knowledge that over £170 billion of property in
Britain is owned by overseas investors who buy up property with the receipts of
criminal activity which are then left lying empty when we have the biggest
housing crisis in our modern history with record numbers of homeless people in
the seventh richest country on earth. This is just one example of how such
activity, which our despicable Prime Minister tries to pass off as a private
matter, affects large sectors of any society. Indeed the Camoron himself stated
last year that foreign investment in Britain’s housing was not only causing
large scale damage to our housing crisis but was also a cover for illegal
activities. That was his words, not mine. He even had the nerve to describe
such activity as a means whereby offshore companies launder dirty money because
London in particular was witnessing property being purchased by what he termed ‘plundered
and laundered cash.’ The most recent information I have been able to get shows
that 90,000 homes in the UK are registered to foreign overseas owners. This of
course is one of the main drivers for the massive boom in house prices that
hardly any normal member of the public can afford any more, yet the Camoron and
his henchmen know all about it and have done nothing to stop it.
This is their interpretation of the free market, it is the dominant ideology and what they are taught in
their selective schools. This is again a perfect example of how something may
be legal, but is completely immoral and unethical. The same people who are
stealing and encouraging the theft of so much of a country’s wealth are condemning people who cannot find
employment and have to rely on benefits as feckless, scroungers and skivers.
These are the people who have waged open warfare against the disabled. What is
important is the constant propaganda that austerity is unavoidable, that we
can’t afford to properly fund the NHS, education etc. when there is more money
being held out of circulation than what is in circulation. There is no
austerity, it is artificial, has been deliberately created and our governments,
indeed the whole Westminster pigsty, are quite determined that this
artificiality will be maintained despite the damage it is doing in order that
they don’t upset their mates. I could go
on and on but this post is already far too long. What is now clear however is that the British can no longer claim that they didn't know. I fear that the filth that emanates from the moral swamp from which these people emerge is now affecting the whole of the British public. Perhaps Scotland can avoid the worst of it, I can only hope. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)