Roberto Saviano, the Italian journalist and author who wrote the best-selling exposés Gomorrah and ZeroZeroZero, and spent more than a decade exposing the criminal dealings of the Italian Mafia has written that the United Kingdom is the most corrupt country in the world. He told an audience at a literary festival that 'It’s not the bureaucracy, it’s not the police, it’s not the politics but what is corrupt is the financial capital'. I agree with him.
I don’t know if I’ve ever mentioned it in this blog, but I have decided that the dominant ideology in the west, but in particular within the United Kingdom is what I would describe as anarchic fascism. I repeatedly write that the dominant characteristic of the British elite and the financial system they are in thrall to, is their complete refusal to be constrained by decency, concern for other people, or the moral and ethical norms that they demand that the rest of us must be subject to. They simply refuse to be constrained by any form of regulation on their behaviour, whose object is to loot as much of the national wealth of society as they possibly can and transfer as much of the nation’s resources upwards into their own personal and collective pockets. So, let me explain, as many of you may well come to decide that I am talking rubbish as I am well aware that the term anarchic fascism appears to be a contradiction in terms. I decided on this description over a period of time because I decided that their behaviour is itself a contradiction.
Without wishing to insult your intelligence, anarchy is a condition where people, singularly or collectively, refuse to recognise authority. As you will be aware, Pierre Proudhon described anarchism as a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies founded on voluntary associations. The present economic and political system that dominates the UK is the child of Margaret Thatcher whose defining approach to policy-making was described by her as ‘there is no such thing as society.’ Thatcher herself described society as ‘a living structure of individuals, families, neighbours and voluntary associations.’ Thus, Thatcher’s purpose was to deny the collective entity we know as society. Her position was self-evidently rubbish, but was very successful as she waged unceasing war against the very state that she was elected to be principal guardian of by denying any form of collective social responsibility and attacking the very institutions that make society function. As a result, we reached a situation within the UK where any form of state control over economic and financial matters came to be regarded as illegitimate and the business and financial sectors of society, openly encouraged by the British government, rejected any authority over their activities. They demanded to be ‘free’. They demanded autonomy and the deregulation of their activities and the British economy descended into a state of anarchism with respect to business and finance, but with particular emphasis on the financial sector. It was this state of anarchism that was of course responsible for the financial crash of 2007-08 and which will usher in the next.
As a result, the dominant economic neoliberalism that is regarded as holy writ in the west is a form of anarchy. However, its bedfellow, political neoliberalism is a form of fascism. That is why it is failing, because it is a contradiction and a fraud, as the political and the economic are incompatible. Again as I have written before, todays Conservatives are not conservatives. Today's Tories are a contradiction as they seek to conserve nothing but to implement radical change over everything in order to effectively destroy the traditional institutional and cultural institutions of the UK that will act as barriers to their programme of looting the national treasury and reducing the working people of the nation to a state of slavery. They may utilise the Conservative Party name, but they are not conservatives. This post is getting too long, so I will return to this theme and expand on it. I trust you will stay with me and be patient because I wish to explain how the modern Tory has a very different notion of freedom to that which we are accustomed, and their notion of freedom will ensure that the rest of us are deprived of ours. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Tuesday 31 May 2016
Thursday 26 May 2016
Britain a democracy? I don't think so!
The odds on Britain staying in the EU are getting stronger with the average odds from the top 12 betting organisations showing 1/5 to stay and 4/1 to leave. If this is accurate then the opinion polls are getting it pretty wrong and the support for remaining is far stronger than the polls suggest. For those of you from outside this sorry nation who read this, regardless of which side you support in this upcoming referendum, you would find it hard to believe the lies and disinformation spewing out of both camps in their efforts to persuade a public who are simply obsessed with immigrants. As I have warned repeatedly, Britain is in danger of slipping into a right-wing scapegoat mentality that borders on fascism. This has to be the most unintelligent and irrational campaign I have witnessed in my lifetime. I really thought that the Westminster pigsty had hit rock bottom in the Scottish referendum, but this one is even worse and shows the Tories up for the vermin that they really are as the hatred they exhibit for each other and for foreigners in general is nauseous. Britain truly has the most appalling political leadership imaginable; right across the political spectrum we are being led by a bunch of pathological lying criminals. Even within the newly elected SNP group we are witnessing people being beset by scandal and sleaze. I mean, where on earth do they dig such people up from?
Britain is a good example of what happens when the political system produces a leadership elite that becomes unaccountable and out of public control, and make no mistake it is the system that is doing it and entrenching it, the biggest culprit being the first-past-the-post electoral system. Britain is supposed to be a liberal democracy. Our political institutions evolved from a liberal democratic framework, buttressed by a liberal democratic ideology. However, to witness how far Britain has moved from its liberal democratic roots, we must note how the principal concept within liberal democracy is the concept of limited government. This means that government must be limited, both institutionally and in terms of power. Liberal government is accountable government, and must therefore be responsive to the wishes of those it serves. In addition, liberal government requires a genuine dispersal of power throughout society, and real choice and participation available to the citizens of that society. Liberal democracy, to be meaningful and effective, requires the existence of what are known as independent centres of power. In Britain, the two best examples of this principle have been the institutions of trade unions and local government, those institutions that governments of all persuasions have, since the election of Thatcher, waged continuous and unrelenting war against. It is surely obvious to even outsiders that Britain has abandoned limited government, choice, accountability and all the rest of the pillars of liberal democracy. As I constantly write we are governed by a pigsty that completely refuses, limitations on its power, accountability, representation and effective participation.
The underlying principle of liberal government can be described as the principle of subsidiary function. This means that, if any subsidiary organisation can perform a function efficiently and satisfactorily, then it should be allowed to do so, free from interference from the central power. The fundamental essence of a move towards totalitarianism is the degree to which governments remove power, autonomy and freedom from trades unions and local governments. Britain has gone a very long way down that route. The principle of subsidiary function means that, within a state structure there are many functions that can be readily achieved and managed by subsidiary organisations within the state. Education, housing, cleansing, policing etc. are all examples of functions that are usually considered to be better performed by subsidiaries rather than by the central authority and should never be farmed out to the private sector. This allows for a genuine dispersal of power and decision-making, but also provides the citizen with choice and opportunities for participation in the political life of the society. Very importantly, it provides for accountability. The central concept of such ideas is that the people of Glasgow, Manchester, Edinburgh etc. know what is in their own best interests, rather than someone from London who has never seen these places.
Another aspect of a democracy is that it needs to be representative, not a handpicked collection of white, male public schoolboys dominating all parties. It needs to be representative in terms of class, gender, race, ethnicity, and trades and professions. But above all it needs to be representative in terms of regions and localities. The penultimate Labour MP my constituency had was a handpicked barrister who lived 75 miles away and who only visited the constituency when it suited him. He actually used to hold meetings with his constituents in a local supermarket cafeteria. Needless to say Labour lost this constituency at the last election. The major political problem throughout the Western nations is an unrelenting centralism. Now, the EU is bad for that and desperately needs reform, but if we support Brexit and the sociopaths who are its leading spokespeople, then what is left of any semblance of democracy, along with all of our human rights, will disappear like snow off a dyke. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Britain is a good example of what happens when the political system produces a leadership elite that becomes unaccountable and out of public control, and make no mistake it is the system that is doing it and entrenching it, the biggest culprit being the first-past-the-post electoral system. Britain is supposed to be a liberal democracy. Our political institutions evolved from a liberal democratic framework, buttressed by a liberal democratic ideology. However, to witness how far Britain has moved from its liberal democratic roots, we must note how the principal concept within liberal democracy is the concept of limited government. This means that government must be limited, both institutionally and in terms of power. Liberal government is accountable government, and must therefore be responsive to the wishes of those it serves. In addition, liberal government requires a genuine dispersal of power throughout society, and real choice and participation available to the citizens of that society. Liberal democracy, to be meaningful and effective, requires the existence of what are known as independent centres of power. In Britain, the two best examples of this principle have been the institutions of trade unions and local government, those institutions that governments of all persuasions have, since the election of Thatcher, waged continuous and unrelenting war against. It is surely obvious to even outsiders that Britain has abandoned limited government, choice, accountability and all the rest of the pillars of liberal democracy. As I constantly write we are governed by a pigsty that completely refuses, limitations on its power, accountability, representation and effective participation.
The underlying principle of liberal government can be described as the principle of subsidiary function. This means that, if any subsidiary organisation can perform a function efficiently and satisfactorily, then it should be allowed to do so, free from interference from the central power. The fundamental essence of a move towards totalitarianism is the degree to which governments remove power, autonomy and freedom from trades unions and local governments. Britain has gone a very long way down that route. The principle of subsidiary function means that, within a state structure there are many functions that can be readily achieved and managed by subsidiary organisations within the state. Education, housing, cleansing, policing etc. are all examples of functions that are usually considered to be better performed by subsidiaries rather than by the central authority and should never be farmed out to the private sector. This allows for a genuine dispersal of power and decision-making, but also provides the citizen with choice and opportunities for participation in the political life of the society. Very importantly, it provides for accountability. The central concept of such ideas is that the people of Glasgow, Manchester, Edinburgh etc. know what is in their own best interests, rather than someone from London who has never seen these places.
Another aspect of a democracy is that it needs to be representative, not a handpicked collection of white, male public schoolboys dominating all parties. It needs to be representative in terms of class, gender, race, ethnicity, and trades and professions. But above all it needs to be representative in terms of regions and localities. The penultimate Labour MP my constituency had was a handpicked barrister who lived 75 miles away and who only visited the constituency when it suited him. He actually used to hold meetings with his constituents in a local supermarket cafeteria. Needless to say Labour lost this constituency at the last election. The major political problem throughout the Western nations is an unrelenting centralism. Now, the EU is bad for that and desperately needs reform, but if we support Brexit and the sociopaths who are its leading spokespeople, then what is left of any semblance of democracy, along with all of our human rights, will disappear like snow off a dyke. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Friday 20 May 2016
Thatcher, Reagan, and the deliberate destruction of ethical behaviour
The British press have been carrying reports about how the insurance industry are trying desperately to avoid paying out for the damage caused by the unusual flooding that Britain experienced last year. This I think is an apt metaphor for the dominant ideology that runs like a poisonous cancer throughout our western societies. As you know, metaphor derives from the Greek, to transfer, to carry over, to alter, and Thatcher's great mission was to transfer the dominant American concept of individualism into the British cultural mainstream in order to alter our way of thinking to allow her to succeed in convincing us that there is no such thing as society. That is what American insurance firms do, they never cease searching for ways to avoid paying their customers for the service that the same customers have paid for in the first place.
Individualism is a denial of reality. As I've written before, each person is of course a unique individual, but their individuality is conditioned by their social environment, that is, their uniqueness is tempered by the fact that they are a product of their social upbringing and that their individual personality has been shaped and developed by many external sources. To deny the social nature of the individual is to attempt to deny that each individual has responsibilities to other people and to the society that they are a product of, and that was Thatcher's goal. If there is no such thing as society, then you are solely responsible to yourself and no other person. More importantly, as there is no society, then society has no responsibilities as it does not exist. In addition, there can be no form of morality or ethical behaviour expected of a society that does not exist, and each individual has no moral or ethical responsibilities to anyone else unless they personally commit to acting in a moral or ethical manner. As a result, why should you pay taxes that will be used to provide benefits, health care, education etc. for other people? If they cannot afford such things then that is not your responsibility, is it? In one fell swoop, the Thatcher/Reagan approach completely negates the entire Christian message. The Good Samaritan was a fool, no-one is his/her brother's keeper.
Sequences of events produce con-sequences. We therefore come back to our insurance companies, corporations with neither honour nor decency who are a typical example of the Thatcher/Reagan approach to business and human relations. In Britain we are told that we live in a world where we expect something for nothing, we are all scroungers. Throughout my working life I paid one-third of my income in either taxation or forms of insurance to cover health and retirement benefits. I paid income tax during the bulk of my working life at 35 pence in the pound. Just as I am told that I do not merit the fruits of my many years of contributions, and I live in a society that does all it can to prevent me enjoying those fruits, so the insurance companies adopt exactly the same position. It did not used to be like this until Maggie adopted the poison of American individualism. Modern Britain is a society where justice has all but disappeared, a society where everyone takes and very few people are prepared to give, a society that would prefer that refugee children simply died rather than attempt to help them. What the Thatcher/Reagan philosophy did was make it both acceptable and respectable for corporations and employers to operate without any sense of responsibility, either to people in general, or to the wider society that they operate within. The individual has been reduced to an economic unit, and a unit that only has value to the extent of its ability to both produce and consume. If that unit has no production capacity, either from age, health status, or mental capacity, then it has no value, it is, as the Nazis described such people, a useless eater, and therefore disposable.
In Britain there is no longer any value in the family. This country prosecutes parents who take their children out of school on holiday, irrespective of the fact that many parents have their holidays allocated when their children are at school. I actually represented a lady once who was refused a day off work to get married. That is not a lie. Moral and ethical behaviour have all but vanished in this society by employers and corporations and this development was quite deliberate and planned. Such behaviour is expected, and indeed demanded, from employees and the general public, but does not apply to employers, corporations, politicians, the police, the judiciary and the establishment in general. We have a man who will represent the American Republican Party in this years Presidential election who openly boasts about his determination to employ torture and many Americans applaud this. We have the spectacle of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay and the defence of governments and politicians for the degrading and barbaric treatment of people within these institutions. Thus, moral and ethical behaviour has been purged, not only from employers and corporations, but from politicians and governance itself. As I said, sequences produce consequences, and when they hit our societies, remember Thatcher and Reagan. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Individualism is a denial of reality. As I've written before, each person is of course a unique individual, but their individuality is conditioned by their social environment, that is, their uniqueness is tempered by the fact that they are a product of their social upbringing and that their individual personality has been shaped and developed by many external sources. To deny the social nature of the individual is to attempt to deny that each individual has responsibilities to other people and to the society that they are a product of, and that was Thatcher's goal. If there is no such thing as society, then you are solely responsible to yourself and no other person. More importantly, as there is no society, then society has no responsibilities as it does not exist. In addition, there can be no form of morality or ethical behaviour expected of a society that does not exist, and each individual has no moral or ethical responsibilities to anyone else unless they personally commit to acting in a moral or ethical manner. As a result, why should you pay taxes that will be used to provide benefits, health care, education etc. for other people? If they cannot afford such things then that is not your responsibility, is it? In one fell swoop, the Thatcher/Reagan approach completely negates the entire Christian message. The Good Samaritan was a fool, no-one is his/her brother's keeper.
Sequences of events produce con-sequences. We therefore come back to our insurance companies, corporations with neither honour nor decency who are a typical example of the Thatcher/Reagan approach to business and human relations. In Britain we are told that we live in a world where we expect something for nothing, we are all scroungers. Throughout my working life I paid one-third of my income in either taxation or forms of insurance to cover health and retirement benefits. I paid income tax during the bulk of my working life at 35 pence in the pound. Just as I am told that I do not merit the fruits of my many years of contributions, and I live in a society that does all it can to prevent me enjoying those fruits, so the insurance companies adopt exactly the same position. It did not used to be like this until Maggie adopted the poison of American individualism. Modern Britain is a society where justice has all but disappeared, a society where everyone takes and very few people are prepared to give, a society that would prefer that refugee children simply died rather than attempt to help them. What the Thatcher/Reagan philosophy did was make it both acceptable and respectable for corporations and employers to operate without any sense of responsibility, either to people in general, or to the wider society that they operate within. The individual has been reduced to an economic unit, and a unit that only has value to the extent of its ability to both produce and consume. If that unit has no production capacity, either from age, health status, or mental capacity, then it has no value, it is, as the Nazis described such people, a useless eater, and therefore disposable.
In Britain there is no longer any value in the family. This country prosecutes parents who take their children out of school on holiday, irrespective of the fact that many parents have their holidays allocated when their children are at school. I actually represented a lady once who was refused a day off work to get married. That is not a lie. Moral and ethical behaviour have all but vanished in this society by employers and corporations and this development was quite deliberate and planned. Such behaviour is expected, and indeed demanded, from employees and the general public, but does not apply to employers, corporations, politicians, the police, the judiciary and the establishment in general. We have a man who will represent the American Republican Party in this years Presidential election who openly boasts about his determination to employ torture and many Americans applaud this. We have the spectacle of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay and the defence of governments and politicians for the degrading and barbaric treatment of people within these institutions. Thus, moral and ethical behaviour has been purged, not only from employers and corporations, but from politicians and governance itself. As I said, sequences produce consequences, and when they hit our societies, remember Thatcher and Reagan. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Friday 13 May 2016
Isn't it ironic that the 'Great' British are so rotten?
The British have, if nothing else, a delicate understanding of irony, after all they elected Mad Tony three times after he repeatedly told them that he was 'an honest sort of guy.' Another explanation is that, as a nation, they are utterly shameless and have abandoned all pretence at decency and dignity. That is, of course a generalisation as it does not apply to everyone in this sorry country, but it does generalise enough to be stated with a fair degree of accuracy. This week we have the Tory Prime Minister hosting an international conference on corruption whilst his own party are subject to 27 (at present) cases of electoral corruption and criminality by 10 different police forces, whilst another police force is investigating electoral corruption by a Tory Police and Crime Commissioner who was elected just last week in Devon and Cornwall. Today we had the Electoral Commission taking the Tory Party to the High Court for failure to disclose crucial documentation concerning the aforementioned electoral irregularities following the Tories failure to disclose this information after two requests over the past three months. The law applies only to the little people in Britain as I have told you repeatedly.
The Westminster pigsty are trying to con the whole world with calls for financial and business transparency when their own Crown Protectorates are the most corrupt states on earth and the pigsty point blank refuses to do anything to rectify it, whilst the Tory government are in danger of finding a whole tranche of their officials and candidates being charged with criminal offences. Now, I have absolutely no faith in the British legal system actually bringing anyone to account for their criminality, unless it involves a working person or someone on benefits, as our legal guardians are every bit as corrupt as the pigsty. The British believe that justice is a horse running in the Grand National and is a nation where no-one in a position of any authority is ever held to account, because, as we unceasingly tell everyone, Britain is a meritocracy and therefore everyone in a position of authority is in that position by merit and everyone who is not in a position of authority is a failure and a waster who does not deserve the normal considerations. Thus, should anyone from a working class background, a trade unionist or someone on benefits be suspected of any form of criminality or fraud, they will be prosecuted with the whole might of the law. However, should that person be of Asian extract or even worse, Islamic, then we should not really bother with the legal process as they are obviously guilty, and anyway, the only people of any merit and deserving of consideration are white middle class Protestants. Therefore, prosecuting working class people and benefit scroungers is the right thing to do because such people pollute the environment simply by existing and non-whites and Islamists obviously deserve all they get. In Britain we have been watching programmes about the process of the Hillsborough disaster (and, as I told you before, are revisiting the miners strike and the events at Orgreave in Yorkshire where the police launched a military style campaign against the miners) and the corruption of politics and the legal system highlighted by these programmes is genuinely hard to believe, involving government, the coroners office, judges, the police, the media and ordinary politicians. As I told you before, the truth about Hillsborough only came to light due to the tenacity of ordinary Liverpudlians and the legislation of the European Union. So, its no use the pigsty or the establishment congratulating themselves for 'justice' being served in this enlightened nation when they have spent the past 30 years doing everything in their power to prevent the truth coming to light.
I don't suppose that Britain is really any worse than other countries because that is what all governments and systems of power do, however we would do well to exercise a little humility and caution when presenting ourselves as the beacons of rectitude and the rule of law. As this post began by highlighting how the British government is being investigated for criminality, we should be reminded of the American Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, who told us in 1928 that ,
“If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy.”
It does not need to be stated that a civilised society must be morally founded on rule by law, as opposed to rule by people exercising power. The Roman philosopher Cicero argued, “We are all servants of the laws in order that we may be free.” As a result, if our rulers refuse to be subject to the laws that they themselves establish and are the supposed guardians of, can we truly call ourselves free? Indeed can we honestly call ourselves a civilised society? The Athenian statesman Pericles, describing Athenian democracy told us that:
"Our polity does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. It is called a democracy, because not the few but the many govern. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if to social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition....Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state."
These are not trivial points because when British politicians persistently invoke the concept of sovereignty, what they are in actual fact doing is demanding the right to do whatever they want unrestrained by law, custom, decency or civilised behaviour. By their fruits shall you know them a wise man once told us. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
The Westminster pigsty are trying to con the whole world with calls for financial and business transparency when their own Crown Protectorates are the most corrupt states on earth and the pigsty point blank refuses to do anything to rectify it, whilst the Tory government are in danger of finding a whole tranche of their officials and candidates being charged with criminal offences. Now, I have absolutely no faith in the British legal system actually bringing anyone to account for their criminality, unless it involves a working person or someone on benefits, as our legal guardians are every bit as corrupt as the pigsty. The British believe that justice is a horse running in the Grand National and is a nation where no-one in a position of any authority is ever held to account, because, as we unceasingly tell everyone, Britain is a meritocracy and therefore everyone in a position of authority is in that position by merit and everyone who is not in a position of authority is a failure and a waster who does not deserve the normal considerations. Thus, should anyone from a working class background, a trade unionist or someone on benefits be suspected of any form of criminality or fraud, they will be prosecuted with the whole might of the law. However, should that person be of Asian extract or even worse, Islamic, then we should not really bother with the legal process as they are obviously guilty, and anyway, the only people of any merit and deserving of consideration are white middle class Protestants. Therefore, prosecuting working class people and benefit scroungers is the right thing to do because such people pollute the environment simply by existing and non-whites and Islamists obviously deserve all they get. In Britain we have been watching programmes about the process of the Hillsborough disaster (and, as I told you before, are revisiting the miners strike and the events at Orgreave in Yorkshire where the police launched a military style campaign against the miners) and the corruption of politics and the legal system highlighted by these programmes is genuinely hard to believe, involving government, the coroners office, judges, the police, the media and ordinary politicians. As I told you before, the truth about Hillsborough only came to light due to the tenacity of ordinary Liverpudlians and the legislation of the European Union. So, its no use the pigsty or the establishment congratulating themselves for 'justice' being served in this enlightened nation when they have spent the past 30 years doing everything in their power to prevent the truth coming to light.
I don't suppose that Britain is really any worse than other countries because that is what all governments and systems of power do, however we would do well to exercise a little humility and caution when presenting ourselves as the beacons of rectitude and the rule of law. As this post began by highlighting how the British government is being investigated for criminality, we should be reminded of the American Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, who told us in 1928 that ,
“If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy.”
It does not need to be stated that a civilised society must be morally founded on rule by law, as opposed to rule by people exercising power. The Roman philosopher Cicero argued, “We are all servants of the laws in order that we may be free.” As a result, if our rulers refuse to be subject to the laws that they themselves establish and are the supposed guardians of, can we truly call ourselves free? Indeed can we honestly call ourselves a civilised society? The Athenian statesman Pericles, describing Athenian democracy told us that:
"Our polity does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. It is called a democracy, because not the few but the many govern. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if to social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition....Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state."
These are not trivial points because when British politicians persistently invoke the concept of sovereignty, what they are in actual fact doing is demanding the right to do whatever they want unrestrained by law, custom, decency or civilised behaviour. By their fruits shall you know them a wise man once told us. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Monday 9 May 2016
What should I vote in the EU Referendum? Well lets see!
A friend came to visit me yesterday to ask my advice for the upcoming European referendum. I never tell other people how to vote, so I told him I would ask him a question. As he is a very keen football supporter I asked him what the ultimate goal his team has at the start of every season. He told me that it was to win the league. Why is that important? Because they will qualify for Europe he said. That is what every British football fan dreams of, getting into Europe. Their domestic championship is important but fades into insignificance beside the real prize, European football and the money and status that comes with it. That example may seem rather trivial and appear politically irrelevant but I asked him that because much was made by the commentators whilst I was watching Man. City playing Arsenal about the importance for both teams finishing in a position that would give them entrance to next years Champions League and the disaster for each if they failed. Thus, whether they are aware of it or not, the supporters of our elite teams in football are all desperate to get into Europe via the Champions League because that is where the money is, and of course the glory and status. Without Europe they will fade into international irrelevance and relative poverty. I wonder if that may just be an allegorical example?
I asked him a number of other questions, such as, what kind of society did he wish to live in? Without going into detail, I asked him if he thought Britain could be a just and equal society, a tolerant society, under people like Michael Gove, Boris the Spider, Iain Duncan Eichmann and Nigel Garbage? These people, I reminded him are the people piloting the Trades Union Bill through Parliament, negotiating TTIP, and who never bother to hide their loathing for working class people, but particularly working class Scots. I then showed him a leader article from the Guardian which stated that
"The trade union bill, which the government advertised as its flagship at the start of the parliamentary session that ends next week, has been heavily amended. But it is still a nasty, vindictive piece of legislation. There is no justification for it beyond a partisan desire to weaken trade unions, and indirectly to weaken the Labour party, to the point where it becomes almost impossible for workers to defend their rights".
I then reminded him that I have been telling him for the past twenty years that the neoliberal elite, those that are most keen to leave the EU, are determined to reduce working people to the status of modern day slaves. He now has the Guardian telling him what I have been warning about for two decades. You used to smile when I told you that I said, but you're not smiling now, why not? Are you beginning to think I may just have been correct? So, I asked him, do you want to live in a country that has opted out of the various Charters of Human Rights, that denies climate change, that continues to build and finance nuclear weapons, that demonises working people, their trades unions, the disabled, people on benefits, and in the case of Nigel Garbage, promises to repeal the Scotland Act and abolish the Scottish Parliament, etc. etc. I finished my chat with my friend by returning to football and telling him to look up the Hillsborough disaster because without the Human Rights Act and the European Court of Human Rights, the inquest that found that the Liverpool supporters were unlawfully killed would never have happened. Article 2 of the ECHR (the right to life) has meant it is no longer enough for an inquest to decide the means by which a person died; the circumstances in which the death occurred must also be determined. Michael Mansfield QC who represented many of the Hillsborough families noted that “one of the unusual features of these inquests has been the way the friends and relatives of the deceased have been accorded a central status” – a requirement of the European Court of Human Rights. Why do these Brexit people want to leave Europe? in order to destroy whatever remains of our human rights and deny justice, that's why. To complete the enslavement of working people. They want cover ups such as Hillsborough to succeed and they want to demonise the working people who go to football. If that is the kind of country you want to live in, then your choice is obvious when you go to vote I told him, and like him, you have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
I asked him a number of other questions, such as, what kind of society did he wish to live in? Without going into detail, I asked him if he thought Britain could be a just and equal society, a tolerant society, under people like Michael Gove, Boris the Spider, Iain Duncan Eichmann and Nigel Garbage? These people, I reminded him are the people piloting the Trades Union Bill through Parliament, negotiating TTIP, and who never bother to hide their loathing for working class people, but particularly working class Scots. I then showed him a leader article from the Guardian which stated that
"The trade union bill, which the government advertised as its flagship at the start of the parliamentary session that ends next week, has been heavily amended. But it is still a nasty, vindictive piece of legislation. There is no justification for it beyond a partisan desire to weaken trade unions, and indirectly to weaken the Labour party, to the point where it becomes almost impossible for workers to defend their rights".
I then reminded him that I have been telling him for the past twenty years that the neoliberal elite, those that are most keen to leave the EU, are determined to reduce working people to the status of modern day slaves. He now has the Guardian telling him what I have been warning about for two decades. You used to smile when I told you that I said, but you're not smiling now, why not? Are you beginning to think I may just have been correct? So, I asked him, do you want to live in a country that has opted out of the various Charters of Human Rights, that denies climate change, that continues to build and finance nuclear weapons, that demonises working people, their trades unions, the disabled, people on benefits, and in the case of Nigel Garbage, promises to repeal the Scotland Act and abolish the Scottish Parliament, etc. etc. I finished my chat with my friend by returning to football and telling him to look up the Hillsborough disaster because without the Human Rights Act and the European Court of Human Rights, the inquest that found that the Liverpool supporters were unlawfully killed would never have happened. Article 2 of the ECHR (the right to life) has meant it is no longer enough for an inquest to decide the means by which a person died; the circumstances in which the death occurred must also be determined. Michael Mansfield QC who represented many of the Hillsborough families noted that “one of the unusual features of these inquests has been the way the friends and relatives of the deceased have been accorded a central status” – a requirement of the European Court of Human Rights. Why do these Brexit people want to leave Europe? in order to destroy whatever remains of our human rights and deny justice, that's why. To complete the enslavement of working people. They want cover ups such as Hillsborough to succeed and they want to demonise the working people who go to football. If that is the kind of country you want to live in, then your choice is obvious when you go to vote I told him, and like him, you have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Friday 6 May 2016
I think British politics has changed forever
To keep you up to date on the betting on Britain's EU referendum, the odds have shifted slightly in favour of leaving, but they still represent a 64% vote to remain. The average odds are 9/4 to leave and 1/3 to remain. If the betting is a reflection of voting intentions then the leave campaign have an obstacle to climb that appears to be quite insurmountable. However, Leicester City have just won the English Premier League from odds of 5,000/1 so we shall await the referendum with interest. From a personal point of view, I find it difficult to reconcile the bookmakers odds with my own observations. I feel that the Leave campaign are leading public opinion quite significantly, but I am loathe to dismiss the betting odds as my experience tells me that the bookies are rarely wrong. There is no doubt however that the British electorate are getting more right wing and xenophobic. It is a source of despair and great shame that the Tories have made significant gains in the Scottish Parliament elections though they were mostly at the expense of Scottish Labour who deserved all they got. However a surge in Toryism is a genuinely worrying development as our recent history suggests that the Scots are too decent and intelligent to vote for those people. It is to be hoped that it is a temporary phenomenon.
A great deal of noise is always made by unionists when the SNP bring up the subject of a possible referendum on Scottish Independence if the rest of the UK vote to leave the EU. We are constantly being reminded that the SNP leadership stressed that the Scottish Referendum would be a 'once in a generation' chance to vote for independence. It goes without saying that the SNP leadership do not speak for the Scottish people, of which I am one, and I am at a loss as to why the SNP do not promote the argument that I make and that seems to me blindingly obvious. From my perspective, the commitment that the referendum was a once in a generation event was predicated on the fact that the Westminster pigsty parties were being honest and would keep their word. If I pledge that my support will be committed to a respect for the democratic majority, then that democratic majority will itself have to be founded on a commitment to fairness and honesty, I will not respect mendacity and betrayal. As I write this, the Scottish Labour Party have been hammered in the Scottish Parliament elections held this week, have been abandoned by their core support in Scotland and this is the result of its betrayal of the Scottish people during and after the referendum. We were comprehensively lied to and betrayed, and Labour are paying the price. They deserve their fate. The Tories were even worse with the Prime Minister appearing on the steps of Ten Downing Street one hour after the referendum result breaking all of the promises he made during the campaign. As a result, I do not feel obliged to support my pledge to wait for another generation to remove myself from a union that is based on lies, damned lies and betrayal, simples! In the aftermath of the referendum, the residents of the pigsty revealed themselves for the pathological and unprincipled liars that they are, and that embraced all the pigsty parties. If anyone wonders why Labour is in such a state of decline in Scotland, look no further than their behaviour during and since the Scottish Referendum.
Politics in Scotland are quite different from the rest of the UK and I will state quite confidently that there is no such thing as a British political system any more. Labour's demise has little to do with the fortunes of the national party and it is now beyond any doubt in my mind that Scottish Labour will have to declare its independence from the Westminster Party if they are, not only to recover, but to survive. Labour are too identified with Iraq, Mad Tony, austerity and their collaboration with the Tories during the referendum. They are seriously damaged in Scotland by the lies and betrayal of Daphne Broon and Alistair Darling and the catastrophic leadership of Jim the Murphy. I believe that Labour will recover in Scotland, but as I have written here before they will have to literally reinvent themselves. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
A great deal of noise is always made by unionists when the SNP bring up the subject of a possible referendum on Scottish Independence if the rest of the UK vote to leave the EU. We are constantly being reminded that the SNP leadership stressed that the Scottish Referendum would be a 'once in a generation' chance to vote for independence. It goes without saying that the SNP leadership do not speak for the Scottish people, of which I am one, and I am at a loss as to why the SNP do not promote the argument that I make and that seems to me blindingly obvious. From my perspective, the commitment that the referendum was a once in a generation event was predicated on the fact that the Westminster pigsty parties were being honest and would keep their word. If I pledge that my support will be committed to a respect for the democratic majority, then that democratic majority will itself have to be founded on a commitment to fairness and honesty, I will not respect mendacity and betrayal. As I write this, the Scottish Labour Party have been hammered in the Scottish Parliament elections held this week, have been abandoned by their core support in Scotland and this is the result of its betrayal of the Scottish people during and after the referendum. We were comprehensively lied to and betrayed, and Labour are paying the price. They deserve their fate. The Tories were even worse with the Prime Minister appearing on the steps of Ten Downing Street one hour after the referendum result breaking all of the promises he made during the campaign. As a result, I do not feel obliged to support my pledge to wait for another generation to remove myself from a union that is based on lies, damned lies and betrayal, simples! In the aftermath of the referendum, the residents of the pigsty revealed themselves for the pathological and unprincipled liars that they are, and that embraced all the pigsty parties. If anyone wonders why Labour is in such a state of decline in Scotland, look no further than their behaviour during and since the Scottish Referendum.
Politics in Scotland are quite different from the rest of the UK and I will state quite confidently that there is no such thing as a British political system any more. Labour's demise has little to do with the fortunes of the national party and it is now beyond any doubt in my mind that Scottish Labour will have to declare its independence from the Westminster Party if they are, not only to recover, but to survive. Labour are too identified with Iraq, Mad Tony, austerity and their collaboration with the Tories during the referendum. They are seriously damaged in Scotland by the lies and betrayal of Daphne Broon and Alistair Darling and the catastrophic leadership of Jim the Murphy. I believe that Labour will recover in Scotland, but as I have written here before they will have to literally reinvent themselves. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
The Dark Side of Thatcherism
Peter Oborne is a British journalist, a committed right-winger who describes himself as a Conservative and who was, until last year, chief political editor of the Daily Telegraph. He now works for the Daily Mail, the British newspaper that, until 1939, openly supported Hitler and the Nazis, and, if Hitler was still alive today would undoubtedly still support him. He is also a committed opponent of Scottish Independence. He is therefore not the kind of person that I would invite for dinner. However, peculiarly for a Tory, he seems to have a conscience and a sense of morality as many of his positions are adopted from his stated commitment to the rule of law and his departure from the Telegraph was because he resigned, accusing the Telegraph of defrauding its readers by suppressing stories about the activities of major companies and corporations for commercial reasons. This type of behaviour is very unusual for a Tory as they normally believe that the law is only for the little people, and, as I continually warn you, work unceasingly to undermine any law that they consider a constraint on their never ending quest for unlimited power and wealth. Tories have neither any sense of moral fibre or any hesitation to lie shamelessly, and, they have a pathological hatred of working people and reserve a special loathing of the labour movement. As a result, when Oborne voices criticism of the Conservatives and government policies, I do not simply dismiss him, as, once again extremely rare for any Tory, he seems to be quite honest.
For those of you who read this from outside the UK, there has been an ongoing and long-term dispute surrounding two major events in recent British history concerning the behaviour of the British police and their collusion with and identification with Conservative governments and their policies. These are the Hillsborough disaster where 96 Liverpool football supporters lost their lives, and the 1984-85 miners strike. Hillsborough is the name of Sheffield Wednesday's stadium that was the venue for a football match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest, and a major inquest by jury into the Hillsborough disaster has just concluded that completely exonerated the Liverpool supporters and exposed police criminality, involving perjury, tampering with police personal notebooks, interfering with witnesses etc. However, this disaster also involved collusion between the police and the government of Margaret Thatcher who personally intervened to praise the police and support their claims, whilst her office fed lies and smears to the British press. What is possibly worse is that these lies and smears have been maintained right up till now and has led to the dismissal of the Chief Constable in South Yorkshire.
The other event, the miners strike, involved the same police force, the South Yorkshire Police, and the Hillsborough inquiry has led to demands that the events at Orgreave, which lies just outside Sheffield, are reopened and subject to another Inquiry. This involved a confrontation between the police and striking miners which we now know involved a very close collusion between the police and Thatcher herself as well as other prominent members of her government. With respect to the Orgreave incident, Peter Oborne has now publicly called for a proper investigation of these events. He stated that an Inquiry was not a sufficient method of investigation and insisted that it must be done by a Royal Commission because he stated that there was a very real collusion between the State, the police and the media during the miners strike and that the events at Orgreave exposed what he termed the "dark side of the Thatcher era". During the Orgreave confrontation 95 miners were arrested and charged with riot and other offences and every one of the cases was thrown out by the British judiciary because the evidence against them was so obviously fabricated. Such revelations have caused Oborne to comment that "some things went very, very wrong during the Thatcher era."
I mention these things because they are evidence of what I write to you about. When people like Peter Oborne are publicly evidencing what I write to you about the Tories it is time people began to take more notice. You see, whilst Oborne highlights the dark side of the Thatcher era, I am unaware of a bright side. She was a genuinely bad person whose policies have brought Britain to the edge of ruin and have heralded an era where morality has been purged from political and economic life and her acolytes operate from an ethical vacuum. We are still having a debate as to whether we will accept the 3,000 parentless refugee children I wrote about last week. This government are truly disgusting and Oborne's only problem is that he cannot seem to see that what went very, very wrong during the Thatcher era has gotten steadily worse since. Still I commend him for his honesty and look forward to a Royal Commission on Orgreave. Things are so bad in Yorkshire that prominent people are calling for the South Yorkshire Police Force to be disbanded . However, they were only doing Thatcher's bidding, both at Orgreave and at Hillsborough. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
For those of you who read this from outside the UK, there has been an ongoing and long-term dispute surrounding two major events in recent British history concerning the behaviour of the British police and their collusion with and identification with Conservative governments and their policies. These are the Hillsborough disaster where 96 Liverpool football supporters lost their lives, and the 1984-85 miners strike. Hillsborough is the name of Sheffield Wednesday's stadium that was the venue for a football match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest, and a major inquest by jury into the Hillsborough disaster has just concluded that completely exonerated the Liverpool supporters and exposed police criminality, involving perjury, tampering with police personal notebooks, interfering with witnesses etc. However, this disaster also involved collusion between the police and the government of Margaret Thatcher who personally intervened to praise the police and support their claims, whilst her office fed lies and smears to the British press. What is possibly worse is that these lies and smears have been maintained right up till now and has led to the dismissal of the Chief Constable in South Yorkshire.
The other event, the miners strike, involved the same police force, the South Yorkshire Police, and the Hillsborough inquiry has led to demands that the events at Orgreave, which lies just outside Sheffield, are reopened and subject to another Inquiry. This involved a confrontation between the police and striking miners which we now know involved a very close collusion between the police and Thatcher herself as well as other prominent members of her government. With respect to the Orgreave incident, Peter Oborne has now publicly called for a proper investigation of these events. He stated that an Inquiry was not a sufficient method of investigation and insisted that it must be done by a Royal Commission because he stated that there was a very real collusion between the State, the police and the media during the miners strike and that the events at Orgreave exposed what he termed the "dark side of the Thatcher era". During the Orgreave confrontation 95 miners were arrested and charged with riot and other offences and every one of the cases was thrown out by the British judiciary because the evidence against them was so obviously fabricated. Such revelations have caused Oborne to comment that "some things went very, very wrong during the Thatcher era."
I mention these things because they are evidence of what I write to you about. When people like Peter Oborne are publicly evidencing what I write to you about the Tories it is time people began to take more notice. You see, whilst Oborne highlights the dark side of the Thatcher era, I am unaware of a bright side. She was a genuinely bad person whose policies have brought Britain to the edge of ruin and have heralded an era where morality has been purged from political and economic life and her acolytes operate from an ethical vacuum. We are still having a debate as to whether we will accept the 3,000 parentless refugee children I wrote about last week. This government are truly disgusting and Oborne's only problem is that he cannot seem to see that what went very, very wrong during the Thatcher era has gotten steadily worse since. Still I commend him for his honesty and look forward to a Royal Commission on Orgreave. Things are so bad in Yorkshire that prominent people are calling for the South Yorkshire Police Force to be disbanded . However, they were only doing Thatcher's bidding, both at Orgreave and at Hillsborough. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
No wonder America is voting for Trump if this is the opinion of the Obama's
One of the big disappointments I have encountered in politics has been the Presidency of Barak Obama. From my perspective he has been a failure. I feel that one explanation for this can be found in an interview I read that his wife Michelle had given in which she stated that
"Whether you come from a council estate or a country estate, your success in life will be determined by your own confidence and fortitude".
This is so painfully wrong and hopelessly idealistic that I despair that the President of the United States may share such a grotesque view of the real world. I feel that he probably does as his wife is so confident that she can make such public statements without being contradicted by her husband. If that is so, is it any wonder that his Presidency can be such a disappointment if he carries such a blinkered individualist philosophy into his political life and utilises it for the basis of his public policy making. It is even more remarkable coming from an African-American who must witness daily that the determining influence on the vast majority of his fellow African-Americans is race, regardless of their individual self-confidence and fortitude. Of course some individuals will succeed in life through their own confidence and fortitude, but these are the exceptions, those that are lucky enough to be able to exploit the chinks in the armour of the bourgeois elite who govern our western society and erect formidable barriers to the majority of society who are not part of their elite circle. There are ways by which many people can make it up the ladder such as sport, music, or, too often crime. But for the most of us in society who are not born into a more privileged milieu there are ceilings and barriers to any form of meaningful advancement. At the present time I wonder how many American Muslims would agree with Mrs Obama?
In the UK the most obvious barrier is class. Britain is a quite ferociously class ridden society. Class permeates Britain like a blanket, smothering talent and opportunity. The Westminster party system is a classic example of that with working class MPs almost invisible. All you need to do is listen to the accents of people at the top, and look at their background. Britain is also bedevilled by gender and racial discrimination because of the Eton/Harrow type of white male Tory mentality that dominates progress in this sorry nation. If you consider the political class in modern Britain it is characterised by mediocrity and buffoonery. It is the same in the media with presenters and commentators who are chosen for their looks and their accents rather than any meaningful knowledge or talent. I have written before and I repeat, if you had the ability to combine the intellects of the Conservative government in this country you would struggle to produce a halfwit.
The phenomenon of Donald Trump is a reflection of the exclusion of the majority of the American people and their effective disenfranchisement. What did Obama's election do for African-Americans? Well from this side of the Atlantic is doesn't seem to be very much. It hasn't stopped them from being shot and imprisoned. It hasn't seen any meaningful rise in their employment prospects and life chances. From Mrs Obama's perspective this must only mean that they have no self-confidence or inner fortitude and that their lack of success must be a result of inherent character flaws. This is exactly the same kind of poisonous nonsense we get from the Westminster pigsty. There are no causal social factors producing poverty and social exclusion, it is all the result of personal failure. Until we address the social causes of failure, class, race, gender, ethnicity etc. we will never begin to understand the root causes of the serious problems that exist in our societies, never mind beginning to solve them. This dominant neoliberal political and economic filth must be confronted and exposed. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
"Whether you come from a council estate or a country estate, your success in life will be determined by your own confidence and fortitude".
This is so painfully wrong and hopelessly idealistic that I despair that the President of the United States may share such a grotesque view of the real world. I feel that he probably does as his wife is so confident that she can make such public statements without being contradicted by her husband. If that is so, is it any wonder that his Presidency can be such a disappointment if he carries such a blinkered individualist philosophy into his political life and utilises it for the basis of his public policy making. It is even more remarkable coming from an African-American who must witness daily that the determining influence on the vast majority of his fellow African-Americans is race, regardless of their individual self-confidence and fortitude. Of course some individuals will succeed in life through their own confidence and fortitude, but these are the exceptions, those that are lucky enough to be able to exploit the chinks in the armour of the bourgeois elite who govern our western society and erect formidable barriers to the majority of society who are not part of their elite circle. There are ways by which many people can make it up the ladder such as sport, music, or, too often crime. But for the most of us in society who are not born into a more privileged milieu there are ceilings and barriers to any form of meaningful advancement. At the present time I wonder how many American Muslims would agree with Mrs Obama?
In the UK the most obvious barrier is class. Britain is a quite ferociously class ridden society. Class permeates Britain like a blanket, smothering talent and opportunity. The Westminster party system is a classic example of that with working class MPs almost invisible. All you need to do is listen to the accents of people at the top, and look at their background. Britain is also bedevilled by gender and racial discrimination because of the Eton/Harrow type of white male Tory mentality that dominates progress in this sorry nation. If you consider the political class in modern Britain it is characterised by mediocrity and buffoonery. It is the same in the media with presenters and commentators who are chosen for their looks and their accents rather than any meaningful knowledge or talent. I have written before and I repeat, if you had the ability to combine the intellects of the Conservative government in this country you would struggle to produce a halfwit.
The phenomenon of Donald Trump is a reflection of the exclusion of the majority of the American people and their effective disenfranchisement. What did Obama's election do for African-Americans? Well from this side of the Atlantic is doesn't seem to be very much. It hasn't stopped them from being shot and imprisoned. It hasn't seen any meaningful rise in their employment prospects and life chances. From Mrs Obama's perspective this must only mean that they have no self-confidence or inner fortitude and that their lack of success must be a result of inherent character flaws. This is exactly the same kind of poisonous nonsense we get from the Westminster pigsty. There are no causal social factors producing poverty and social exclusion, it is all the result of personal failure. Until we address the social causes of failure, class, race, gender, ethnicity etc. we will never begin to understand the root causes of the serious problems that exist in our societies, never mind beginning to solve them. This dominant neoliberal political and economic filth must be confronted and exposed. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)