In his excellent book, Small Is Beautiful, the economist Eric Schumacher told us how people who work in large bureaucratic organisations lose the ability to think independently. I agree with him with one reservation, that I do not think that such people have the capacity to think independently in the first place. In the past month, British television has exposed three major international companies for reducing their workforces to a positon that I have outlined here of modern slavery. This, as I have been telling you for some years now, is the inevitable outcome of globalisation and of the experiment that Thatcher embarked on in 1979. This situation is quite deliberate and purposeful and has been the goal of free market neoliberals for the past forty years. The three companies exposed on our television are of course simply the tip of the iceberg and are easily exposed because they are so blatant and visible. We had the news this month of a firm of egg producers in England who were exposed keeping Lithuanian workers in appalling conditions, described on our news channels as slavery, to the extent that the workers were provided with paper bags and cans in which to urinate and defecate because they were denied, either the facilities, or the time off, to toilet. This is reality in modern Britain, the real legacy of the Blessed Margaret and her henchmen. On each occasion in those exposes on television, the companies indignantly denied point blank that such terms and conditions were either company policy, nor were the reality for their workforce. On each occasion, the television were able to produce official internal documents outlining the very policies and practices that they were so righteously denying, as well as the visual evidence from hidden cameras and recordings. We can chart the slow descent of the British state from civilisation into barbarism from 1975 when Thatcher became leader of the Tories.
However, what I have been reflecting on is how easily and happily ordinary people will implement such conditions and impose them on a day to day basis on behalf of such companies. It is the ordinary workers themselves, the middle and under managers, the petty bureaucrats, who are inflicting such conditions on their fellows. I often wonder about the ordinary soldiers in Guantanamo Bay who enthusiastically carry out the daily inhumanities on people who they know are innocent. Civilisation is truly a very fragile phenomenon and I find it extremely disturbing how so many ordinary people who live ordinary lives will unthinkingly cooperate in the inhumanity required of them by the imperatives of economic and social organisations driven by free market ideology. This is what Hannah Arendt termed the banality of evil. We are daily regaled in our news outlets in this benighted nation of tales how the Department of Work and Pensions are driving people to their deaths through inhuman harassment, insisting that people with terminal illnesses etc. are fit for work and having their benefits removed. This is Tory policy and is too well documented to deny, but my concern is with the ordinary people who implement such policy and who must know they are party to a modern day evil. We expect nothing else from the Westminster filth but surely can expect more from people who are themselves only a hairsbreadth away from being in that position themselves.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn explains in his writings how people have the capacity to, in his words, voluntarily step into the bottomless pit, and divest themselves of their humanity. They lose the capacity for normal human feelings and become something else. He experienced this at first hand, and I suspect we are seeing this today under the influence of a perverted and destructive ideology. It was a similar destructive and perverted ideology that drove the people witnessed by Solzhenitsyn. I had a discussion with a pompous middle class person recently who was fulminating about the workers who are taking industrial action and who didn't care about the disruption they were causing the public. I asked him why the workers should care? He was taken aback when I told him that he was completely indifferent to what companies and managers did to their workers as long as he was not inconvenienced, so why should other people care how their actions impacted on him. I told him that as far as he was concerned, employers could chain their workers to the walls and routinely whip them, and they had better not take any action to remedy such a situation if it inconvenienced him. I asked him if he ever gave a thought to the impact of free market policies on the families of such working people, on their children and their future. Of course he never gives such things a thought, nor cares either, as long as his train runs on time and his bus turns up. The fact that such disruption happens is of course, never the fault of the company or the employer, it is always the fault of the workers who are fighting to maintain a semblance of survival and decent living standards. The prominence of people like Trump, Farage, Boris the Spider etc. tells us much about who the ordinary people in our respective nations are looking to for guidance. We are in a dark place and it is getting darker, and our first priority is to expose our dominant ideology for what it truly is. When we do that, its exponents will be similarly exposed and we can begin the process of recovery to a semblance of sanity and decency. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Saturday 31 December 2016
Thursday 29 December 2016
The meaning of life? What if it doesn't have any?
I have been reflecting on the seemingly inordinate amount of so-called celebrity deaths we have encountered over the past few months and am struck by the number of these people who have had problems with drugs, drink, depression etc. Celebrities amass considerable fortunes and widespread fame and I know I will be missing something terrible important, but I cannot conceive how someone with that amount of wealth and fame can have problems in the sense that the rest of us have getting by each day.
If I understand it properly, such people suffer from what the Bible describes as people who gain the world but lose their soul. The soul in this context is the 'nephesh' what I generally consider to be the life spirit and appears to describe people who gain wealth, fame, power etc. but who fail to find any real meaning in their life. The Bible is of course referring to God and that such people are disconnected to him/her and that their lives are meaningless because they have no connection with the only thing that can give your life real meaning. Of course religion is not the only thing that can give your life real meaning, and I suspect that they are lost in the sense that they are in a state of dislocation and are failing to understand their own location in a world that seems to make no sense, and, as God makes no sense to many people that option is not an acceptable one and they are driven to look elsewhere. Why are we all here? is a phrase many people seek an answer to, and my reply to that is because we are not all there. I argue that my reply makes as much sense as the question because the question is predicated on the assumption that there must be a purpose in life, a plan etc. that we should be seeking to uncover and understand. This is what gives rise to religion. People must individually have a purpose in life, but that is quite different from the concept of a 'grand plan' hatched by some supernatural entity. The legal profession, when seeking to apportion blame for corporate mismanagement or responsibility for an industrial accident caused by corporate neglect or criminality etc. looks for what is known as a directing mind in order that the law can be implemented correctly and blame can be properly apportioned, and that seems to be the goal of people who seek an answer to the question, why are we all here, or what is the meaning of life. They are searching for a directing mind, whom they simply call god. There must be a reason for life, for war, for tragedy etc. in the sense that it must be meaningful and part of a bigger purpose. No there doesn't, why should there be? Indeed if there is such a directing mind then it must belong to an entity of incredible callousness and indifference to human suffering and misery, a being of such evil that I want nothing to do with it.
As opposed to the search for a directing mind, I was awakened to the liberating notion of the Sophist Protagoras who told us that man is the measure of all things. We live in a material world and a material universe, and, most importantly, a world of choice. Human beings make their own world and must determine their own meanings. Here Protagoras is telling us that there is no such thing as absolute truth. This gets its best expression in the writings of David Hume, and I encourage everyone to read Hume. It is both comforting and liberating to learn that truth is a relative concept and that we all have our own truths if we just look for them. We can find meaning in our lives from a multitude of different sources, from art, music, sport, from pursuing a dream, even if we never realise it. We can make and shape our own meanings. A life dedicated to others, or to animals, is incredible meaningful according to the people who live such lives. Celebrities often live a life of self-destruction because they can find no meaning in fame and wealth. Their music or their art, or whatever brought them their fame is not an end in itself, when it often should be. Of course many celebrities do find such meaning in their chosen field as they are able to understand that it is not the fame and the wealth that brings the good life, although it certainly helps, but in being the best they can be and appreciating that their pursuit of their chosen field is itself a meaningful goal and that they have been incredibly fortunate that it has also brought them the fame and the wealth that other people think are the purpose of such a life, when the purpose is actually in the performing of the talent that has given them success and being the best they can be. Why would you choose to live in misery and uncertainty, in denial of the good things in life in preparation for an afterlife you have no knowledge exists, or even can exist? Why do you want to even contemplate such an afterlife when you live in a world that will give you all you require spiritually if you only appreciate what is all around you in all its incredible majesty and potential. In the words of the popular idiom, get a life! You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
If I understand it properly, such people suffer from what the Bible describes as people who gain the world but lose their soul. The soul in this context is the 'nephesh' what I generally consider to be the life spirit and appears to describe people who gain wealth, fame, power etc. but who fail to find any real meaning in their life. The Bible is of course referring to God and that such people are disconnected to him/her and that their lives are meaningless because they have no connection with the only thing that can give your life real meaning. Of course religion is not the only thing that can give your life real meaning, and I suspect that they are lost in the sense that they are in a state of dislocation and are failing to understand their own location in a world that seems to make no sense, and, as God makes no sense to many people that option is not an acceptable one and they are driven to look elsewhere. Why are we all here? is a phrase many people seek an answer to, and my reply to that is because we are not all there. I argue that my reply makes as much sense as the question because the question is predicated on the assumption that there must be a purpose in life, a plan etc. that we should be seeking to uncover and understand. This is what gives rise to religion. People must individually have a purpose in life, but that is quite different from the concept of a 'grand plan' hatched by some supernatural entity. The legal profession, when seeking to apportion blame for corporate mismanagement or responsibility for an industrial accident caused by corporate neglect or criminality etc. looks for what is known as a directing mind in order that the law can be implemented correctly and blame can be properly apportioned, and that seems to be the goal of people who seek an answer to the question, why are we all here, or what is the meaning of life. They are searching for a directing mind, whom they simply call god. There must be a reason for life, for war, for tragedy etc. in the sense that it must be meaningful and part of a bigger purpose. No there doesn't, why should there be? Indeed if there is such a directing mind then it must belong to an entity of incredible callousness and indifference to human suffering and misery, a being of such evil that I want nothing to do with it.
As opposed to the search for a directing mind, I was awakened to the liberating notion of the Sophist Protagoras who told us that man is the measure of all things. We live in a material world and a material universe, and, most importantly, a world of choice. Human beings make their own world and must determine their own meanings. Here Protagoras is telling us that there is no such thing as absolute truth. This gets its best expression in the writings of David Hume, and I encourage everyone to read Hume. It is both comforting and liberating to learn that truth is a relative concept and that we all have our own truths if we just look for them. We can find meaning in our lives from a multitude of different sources, from art, music, sport, from pursuing a dream, even if we never realise it. We can make and shape our own meanings. A life dedicated to others, or to animals, is incredible meaningful according to the people who live such lives. Celebrities often live a life of self-destruction because they can find no meaning in fame and wealth. Their music or their art, or whatever brought them their fame is not an end in itself, when it often should be. Of course many celebrities do find such meaning in their chosen field as they are able to understand that it is not the fame and the wealth that brings the good life, although it certainly helps, but in being the best they can be and appreciating that their pursuit of their chosen field is itself a meaningful goal and that they have been incredibly fortunate that it has also brought them the fame and the wealth that other people think are the purpose of such a life, when the purpose is actually in the performing of the talent that has given them success and being the best they can be. Why would you choose to live in misery and uncertainty, in denial of the good things in life in preparation for an afterlife you have no knowledge exists, or even can exist? Why do you want to even contemplate such an afterlife when you live in a world that will give you all you require spiritually if you only appreciate what is all around you in all its incredible majesty and potential. In the words of the popular idiom, get a life! You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Monday 19 December 2016
British values? - authoritarianism, intolerance and inequality
I warned you some time ago about the Tory MP Sajid Javid, who has risen to stardom as a result of trying to out right-wing even the most right-wing free market fundamentalists. An example of rising to the top despite a staggeringly limited intellect, he has come up with the brilliant idea of requiring all persons who secure employment in the public sector to pledge an oath to uphold British values, foremost amongst which he cites democracy, tolerance, and equality. This is from a British Tory MP, you genuinely couldn't make it up; it is farce of the highest order. This is to counteract the evil influence of foreigners and immigrants who are swamping the public sector and stealing all the good British people's jobs and undermining our great British way of life with their foreign and therefore inferior values, people presumably like Mr Javid's immigrant family. As I have said before here, there will never be a lack of irony in this unfortunate country as long as people like him are prominent. Think about that, democracy, tolerance and equality, all concepts that are almost completely absent from British society thanks to people like Sajid Javid and his mates. If anyone should be forced to take such an oath it should be all those in the pigsty.
I decided to post this because I saw this cretin on the news immediately after having watched a programme about the Third Reich that had shown footage of the German Army and the SS collectively taking the Fuhrer Oath and I was reminded that such behaviour is symptomatic of authoritarian and tyrannical regimes. In addition, as I have posted here before, there is no longer such a thing as a United Kingdom in the sense that there is a united entity that shares a common set of goals and values. I would be deeply offended to be classified as sharing a universality with any of the Westminster gang of whatever party, so there is no possibility of me taking an oath to uphold any values that are held by the British elite, or even their middle-class useful idiots. But we should consider what this offensive clown is actually proposing. Tolerance as a British value? We have just witnessed two years since the beginning on the EU referendum campaign of the most outrageous propaganda against foreigners. The majority opinion has demonstrated the British to be amongst the most intolerant people in the western world. Our papers were, and still are, full of racist and hate mongering propaganda. But the British don't stop at foreigners and immigrants. They hate their own people if they are workers and union members as our political class and our newspapers are filled with anti-union and anti-working class bile and hatred on a daily basis. They hate the disabled and the disadvantaged. If the British represent anything it is intolerance. Of course many people think like I do and the British are not all like that, but a significant enough majority do support such hatred and intolerance, do support the Tories and the Farages of the world, and do buy the Mail and the Express who encourage this vile characteristic to be dominant.
It also beggars belief that any member of the political class, but especially a Tory, can stand up in public and advocate equality as a British value with a straight face. All statistical evidence shows Britain to be the most unequal country in the developed world. We have inequality on an Olympian scale with obscene levels throughout our whole society. Inequality in Britain transcends far more than wealth, it is manifest in opportunity, in gender, race and ethnicity. It is regional and of course is most graphic in social class inequalities. In Britain you can be judged by your regional accent and one of the greatest influence of the Beatles was not in music, but in culture, in forcing people to come to terms with a Liverpool accent and from the fact that Britain did not cease to be civilised outside of London and the Home Counties. Who can ever forget John Lennon telling the people in the cheap seats at the London Palladium to applaud by clapping their hands and the Queen and her entourage to rattle their jewellery.
I will not comment on the wonderful Sajid's claim for recognition of British democracy as I have fulminated over this farcical claim many times on this blog. For example, the pigsty and its press endlessly accuse people who challenge the Brexit result as seeking to deny the will of the British people. I remind you, the referendum vote for leaving the EU was 51.9% of a 72.2% turnout. This gives the leave vote 37.5% of the British electorate. However, in the fevered imaginations of the pigsty, this 37.5% represents the 'settled will of the people' to quote our illustrious Prime Minister. However, in Scotland 62% of a 67.2% turnout voted to remain which means that 41.5% of the Scots voted to remain. This cuts no ice with our dedicated democrats in the pigsty however, despite the fact that many people voted to remain part of the UK in the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 because they were assured that the only way they could remain members of the EU was to vote No. If people like Sajid Javid did not exist we would have to invent them. They are a continuing reminder how vile our ruling elite are and how out of touch London and the pigsty are with reality. This post is too long and for that I apologise, but you have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
I decided to post this because I saw this cretin on the news immediately after having watched a programme about the Third Reich that had shown footage of the German Army and the SS collectively taking the Fuhrer Oath and I was reminded that such behaviour is symptomatic of authoritarian and tyrannical regimes. In addition, as I have posted here before, there is no longer such a thing as a United Kingdom in the sense that there is a united entity that shares a common set of goals and values. I would be deeply offended to be classified as sharing a universality with any of the Westminster gang of whatever party, so there is no possibility of me taking an oath to uphold any values that are held by the British elite, or even their middle-class useful idiots. But we should consider what this offensive clown is actually proposing. Tolerance as a British value? We have just witnessed two years since the beginning on the EU referendum campaign of the most outrageous propaganda against foreigners. The majority opinion has demonstrated the British to be amongst the most intolerant people in the western world. Our papers were, and still are, full of racist and hate mongering propaganda. But the British don't stop at foreigners and immigrants. They hate their own people if they are workers and union members as our political class and our newspapers are filled with anti-union and anti-working class bile and hatred on a daily basis. They hate the disabled and the disadvantaged. If the British represent anything it is intolerance. Of course many people think like I do and the British are not all like that, but a significant enough majority do support such hatred and intolerance, do support the Tories and the Farages of the world, and do buy the Mail and the Express who encourage this vile characteristic to be dominant.
It also beggars belief that any member of the political class, but especially a Tory, can stand up in public and advocate equality as a British value with a straight face. All statistical evidence shows Britain to be the most unequal country in the developed world. We have inequality on an Olympian scale with obscene levels throughout our whole society. Inequality in Britain transcends far more than wealth, it is manifest in opportunity, in gender, race and ethnicity. It is regional and of course is most graphic in social class inequalities. In Britain you can be judged by your regional accent and one of the greatest influence of the Beatles was not in music, but in culture, in forcing people to come to terms with a Liverpool accent and from the fact that Britain did not cease to be civilised outside of London and the Home Counties. Who can ever forget John Lennon telling the people in the cheap seats at the London Palladium to applaud by clapping their hands and the Queen and her entourage to rattle their jewellery.
I will not comment on the wonderful Sajid's claim for recognition of British democracy as I have fulminated over this farcical claim many times on this blog. For example, the pigsty and its press endlessly accuse people who challenge the Brexit result as seeking to deny the will of the British people. I remind you, the referendum vote for leaving the EU was 51.9% of a 72.2% turnout. This gives the leave vote 37.5% of the British electorate. However, in the fevered imaginations of the pigsty, this 37.5% represents the 'settled will of the people' to quote our illustrious Prime Minister. However, in Scotland 62% of a 67.2% turnout voted to remain which means that 41.5% of the Scots voted to remain. This cuts no ice with our dedicated democrats in the pigsty however, despite the fact that many people voted to remain part of the UK in the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 because they were assured that the only way they could remain members of the EU was to vote No. If people like Sajid Javid did not exist we would have to invent them. They are a continuing reminder how vile our ruling elite are and how out of touch London and the pigsty are with reality. This post is too long and for that I apologise, but you have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Sunday 18 December 2016
We don't do economics today, we do a perverted class driven poison
Since Thatcher took over the Tory party we have been constantly bombarded with the propaganda
that the most important sector of society is the business and financial communities. They are the key sectors of society and their success is the foundation for everyone's success. Thus, all taxation policy has been geared to enhance business. All regulatory policies have been the same. This is because the interests of the business and financial communities are the interests of the nation. Trade unions have been systematically demonised because they oppose the naked self-interest of business as they seek to increasingly exploit their workforce and withdraw their rights, which, in the philosophy of the Westminster pigsty, are both anti-social and unpatriotic. This is accepted as right and proper because when workers oppose fundamental business practice they are obviously opposing the national interest and therefore both anti-social and unpatriotic. Rights are a cost and all costs must be minimised which is the proper patriotic thing to do. Thus, rights to holidays, overtime payments, pensions, etc. but most importantly of all, the right to withdraw your labour, are unacceptable costs that constrain the ability of business and finance to represent the national interest, which, in our 'post-truth' society translates into the will of the people. This is standard and received economic wisdom according to the perverted narrative of the modern free market world.
As I told you, I will refer to Adam Smith in my analysis of this narrative, as there is no necessity to appeal to Marx or Engels or any of the other latter day demons whose very name evokes scorn and derision if you raise them in respectable company. There is no one so respectable as Smith in a discussion of market economics as he is the person responsible for guiding us in how we make the market work to our best advantage, isn't he? Well no actually. For a start, Smith is quite unequivocal, the real wealth of a nation is labour, which, when I raise this in 'informed' company, is greeted with derision. We truly hold all working people in utter contempt today. I have raised this in earlier posts so will not expand on it here, I will merely quote Smith
"The wages of the labourer, it has already been shewn, are never so high as when the demand for labour is continually rising, or when the quantity employed is every year increasing considerably. When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary, his wages are soon reduced to what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family, or to continue the race of labourers. When the society declines, they fall even below this. The order of proprietors may perhaps gain more by the prosperity of the society than that of labourers; but there is no order that suffers so cruelly from its decline".
Smith goes on
"But though the interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the society, he is incapable either of comprehending that interest, or of understanding its connexion with his own. His condition leaves him no time to receive the necessary information, and his education and habits are commonly such as to render him unfit to judge, even though he was fully informed. In the public deliberations, therefore, his voice is little heard, and less regarded; except upon particular occasions, when his clamour is animated, set on, and supported by his employers, not for his, but their own particular purposes".
He then goes on to discuss the attitude of employers and all those who live, not by labour, but from the profit of that labour, but, tells us that the rate of profit 'is always highest in those countries that are going fastest to ruin'. How apt that is for twenty-first century Britain, and why does that happen? because the interests of those who live by profit 'has not the same connexion with the general interest of the country' as those who live by their labour. With respect to the interests of 'employers, merchants and master manufacturers', I must include a rather lengthy quote so you can see I am not distorting his work for my own argument
"As their thoughts, however, are commonly exercised rather about the interest of their own particular branch of business. than about that of the society, their judgment, even when given with the greatest candour (which it has not been upon every occasion), is much more to be depended upon with regard to the former of those two objects, than with regard to the latter. Their superiority over the country gentleman is, not so much in their knowledge of the public interest, as in their having a better knowledge of their own interest than he has of his. It is by this superior knowledge of their own interest that they have frequently imposed upon his generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, from a very simple but honest conviction, that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public. The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market, and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can only serve to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it".
In his discussion of money and the banking system he argues for necessary regulation to restrain them exercising their freedom if that freedom will damage society. I have used this passage before in other posts, so forgive me for repeating it
"Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respect a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as or the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed".
He then reminds us of the character of our ruling classes in his famous passage which Tories and modern free market economist conveniently love to forget
"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".
We can see here, that, according to Adam Smith, the inordinate profits that business considers their right, and which are supported enthusiastically by the pigsty, are, 'an absurd tax' on the British people. In addition, when we see the pigsty proposing tax relief on billionaires, cutting corporation tax, paying outrageous bonuses etc. such proposals should be 'long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention'. There is much I could write on how Adam Smith has no relationship with the economism we see in today's world. That is why I tell you that it is evident that no-one actually reads him today, and why I tell you that modern economics are a fraud and a lie. It is a gross impertinence and a libel to associate a great man's writings with the perverted filth that we call economics in today's world. What we call economics is not economics, it is actually something else. What it is, is something for another time as it would take far too long to elaborate here, but suffice it to say that economics, as it was envisaged by its great founders, has been dead for a long time, deliberately destroyed by gangsters and charlatans. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
that the most important sector of society is the business and financial communities. They are the key sectors of society and their success is the foundation for everyone's success. Thus, all taxation policy has been geared to enhance business. All regulatory policies have been the same. This is because the interests of the business and financial communities are the interests of the nation. Trade unions have been systematically demonised because they oppose the naked self-interest of business as they seek to increasingly exploit their workforce and withdraw their rights, which, in the philosophy of the Westminster pigsty, are both anti-social and unpatriotic. This is accepted as right and proper because when workers oppose fundamental business practice they are obviously opposing the national interest and therefore both anti-social and unpatriotic. Rights are a cost and all costs must be minimised which is the proper patriotic thing to do. Thus, rights to holidays, overtime payments, pensions, etc. but most importantly of all, the right to withdraw your labour, are unacceptable costs that constrain the ability of business and finance to represent the national interest, which, in our 'post-truth' society translates into the will of the people. This is standard and received economic wisdom according to the perverted narrative of the modern free market world.
As I told you, I will refer to Adam Smith in my analysis of this narrative, as there is no necessity to appeal to Marx or Engels or any of the other latter day demons whose very name evokes scorn and derision if you raise them in respectable company. There is no one so respectable as Smith in a discussion of market economics as he is the person responsible for guiding us in how we make the market work to our best advantage, isn't he? Well no actually. For a start, Smith is quite unequivocal, the real wealth of a nation is labour, which, when I raise this in 'informed' company, is greeted with derision. We truly hold all working people in utter contempt today. I have raised this in earlier posts so will not expand on it here, I will merely quote Smith
"The wages of the labourer, it has already been shewn, are never so high as when the demand for labour is continually rising, or when the quantity employed is every year increasing considerably. When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary, his wages are soon reduced to what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family, or to continue the race of labourers. When the society declines, they fall even below this. The order of proprietors may perhaps gain more by the prosperity of the society than that of labourers; but there is no order that suffers so cruelly from its decline".
Smith goes on
"But though the interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the society, he is incapable either of comprehending that interest, or of understanding its connexion with his own. His condition leaves him no time to receive the necessary information, and his education and habits are commonly such as to render him unfit to judge, even though he was fully informed. In the public deliberations, therefore, his voice is little heard, and less regarded; except upon particular occasions, when his clamour is animated, set on, and supported by his employers, not for his, but their own particular purposes".
He then goes on to discuss the attitude of employers and all those who live, not by labour, but from the profit of that labour, but, tells us that the rate of profit 'is always highest in those countries that are going fastest to ruin'. How apt that is for twenty-first century Britain, and why does that happen? because the interests of those who live by profit 'has not the same connexion with the general interest of the country' as those who live by their labour. With respect to the interests of 'employers, merchants and master manufacturers', I must include a rather lengthy quote so you can see I am not distorting his work for my own argument
"As their thoughts, however, are commonly exercised rather about the interest of their own particular branch of business. than about that of the society, their judgment, even when given with the greatest candour (which it has not been upon every occasion), is much more to be depended upon with regard to the former of those two objects, than with regard to the latter. Their superiority over the country gentleman is, not so much in their knowledge of the public interest, as in their having a better knowledge of their own interest than he has of his. It is by this superior knowledge of their own interest that they have frequently imposed upon his generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, from a very simple but honest conviction, that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public. The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market, and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can only serve to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it".
In his discussion of money and the banking system he argues for necessary regulation to restrain them exercising their freedom if that freedom will damage society. I have used this passage before in other posts, so forgive me for repeating it
"Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respect a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as or the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed".
He then reminds us of the character of our ruling classes in his famous passage which Tories and modern free market economist conveniently love to forget
"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".
We can see here, that, according to Adam Smith, the inordinate profits that business considers their right, and which are supported enthusiastically by the pigsty, are, 'an absurd tax' on the British people. In addition, when we see the pigsty proposing tax relief on billionaires, cutting corporation tax, paying outrageous bonuses etc. such proposals should be 'long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention'. There is much I could write on how Adam Smith has no relationship with the economism we see in today's world. That is why I tell you that it is evident that no-one actually reads him today, and why I tell you that modern economics are a fraud and a lie. It is a gross impertinence and a libel to associate a great man's writings with the perverted filth that we call economics in today's world. What we call economics is not economics, it is actually something else. What it is, is something for another time as it would take far too long to elaborate here, but suffice it to say that economics, as it was envisaged by its great founders, has been dead for a long time, deliberately destroyed by gangsters and charlatans. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Saturday 17 December 2016
There is no such thing as post-truth there are only damned lies
I was discussing the free market perversion of language. Right now in Britain we are witnessing continuing riots in our prisons, a drop of prison officers by one-third in the past four years under the Tories, industrial action within the prison system by the remaining officers, by railway workers, in the ambulance service, within the medical profession, in the post office, lorry drivers etc. The care system is collapsing under a regime of 39% cuts in budget since the last election. I could go on but the facts are that the free market system of privatisation of public services is a total shambles and the Tories management of those public services that still remain is a disaster. Even those of you from outside Britain who read this must be aware that I am not exaggerating or propagandising. There are no empirical arguments left to support the free market neoliberal model of government. It has failed, demonstrably and dangerously. Yet in the language of British politicians it is still not their fault, but mostly the result of the European Union, and immigrants who are putting intolerable pressure on such services, which is quite demonstrably untrue, but suits the inherent racism of the majority of the British population who would rather comfort themselves with a barefaced lie than admit that it is of their own making. Polls are persistently showing that the British on average believe that 15% of the population are Muslim when the number is around 5%. Where do they get such beliefs from? The pigsty of course and the lying filth that work for the Mail, the Express and the Sun. They voted for these disgusting reprobates and they continue to support them and buy their newspapers even although it is daily demonstrated that they are lying through their teeth. It is the same in the United States, their economic model has failed but they are applauding a President-elect who we see daily on our televisions admitting that all the things he said during his campaign, all his promises were lies. He is boasting about lying and his supporters are cheering him for it. The world is most certainly enduring cultural insanity on a widespread scale.
In Britain the elite still condemn every form of industrial action and are supported by a right-wing press who detest working people and their representatives with a passion. The working people of this country have persistently voted for their descent into slavery but prefer to blame everyone but themselves and their own stupidity. In all of this they are aided and supported by a perversion of the English language from the pigsty and its henchmen in the media who persistently demonise everyone who seeks to challenge the dominant narrative. No-one ever seeks to understand why there is so much discontent and anger amongst working people and why they are so estranged from society. We have even witnessed respectable sources of reportage unwittingly adopting this form of perversion in describing such a development as 'post-truth' when they should be describing it as bare faced lying. Describing what is happening as post-truth is investing it with a character that will not be readily understood by most people and that is exactly what the elite want, to confuse, divide, and conquer. In addition it is perverting our understanding by embedding the assumption that such people ever told the truth in the first place, there never has been a truthful dominant narrative in this country. I do not apologise for reminding you that everything, and I mean everything, that the Scottish people were told by the pigsty and its revolting government and major parties during the 2014 referendum, was a barefaced lie. In addition, we now see that everything we were told by the Leave campaign during the EU referendum was also completely untrue. So, we are in a political system on both sides of the Atlantic whereby we are being expected to respect the outcomes of farcical campaigns of lies and distortions and respect personnel who should be barred from holding political office for all time.
Our free market politicians are persistently telling us that the interests of business and the interests of the nation are the same thing. I will show you in my next post how Adam Smith, the supposed father of free market economics says something quite different. Not Marx, but Adam Smith. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
In Britain the elite still condemn every form of industrial action and are supported by a right-wing press who detest working people and their representatives with a passion. The working people of this country have persistently voted for their descent into slavery but prefer to blame everyone but themselves and their own stupidity. In all of this they are aided and supported by a perversion of the English language from the pigsty and its henchmen in the media who persistently demonise everyone who seeks to challenge the dominant narrative. No-one ever seeks to understand why there is so much discontent and anger amongst working people and why they are so estranged from society. We have even witnessed respectable sources of reportage unwittingly adopting this form of perversion in describing such a development as 'post-truth' when they should be describing it as bare faced lying. Describing what is happening as post-truth is investing it with a character that will not be readily understood by most people and that is exactly what the elite want, to confuse, divide, and conquer. In addition it is perverting our understanding by embedding the assumption that such people ever told the truth in the first place, there never has been a truthful dominant narrative in this country. I do not apologise for reminding you that everything, and I mean everything, that the Scottish people were told by the pigsty and its revolting government and major parties during the 2014 referendum, was a barefaced lie. In addition, we now see that everything we were told by the Leave campaign during the EU referendum was also completely untrue. So, we are in a political system on both sides of the Atlantic whereby we are being expected to respect the outcomes of farcical campaigns of lies and distortions and respect personnel who should be barred from holding political office for all time.
Our free market politicians are persistently telling us that the interests of business and the interests of the nation are the same thing. I will show you in my next post how Adam Smith, the supposed father of free market economics says something quite different. Not Marx, but Adam Smith. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Friday 16 December 2016
The free market perverts everything, but particulary our language
I attended a carol service at a primary school this morning. Around forty pupils participated in this service none of whom were older than eleven years. It was not really a service as there was no religious input and was simply a joyous celebration of children singing Christmas songs, old and new. The audience was composed of family members of the children, parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts. We were addressed by the head teacher who spoke to us for just over five minutes and in that time referred to the children's performance as 'an enterprise' three times and described the audience as 'customers' three times. My wife restrained me from remonstrating with the teacher at the end. This is an example of why I never assume that someone is educated just because they have academic qualifications. They obviously display a modicum of intelligence, but no educated person, or even someone who reflects on reality, would employ language like that in such a context. That episode reflects on someone who has been brainwashed to a degree and who utilises language without any understanding of what they are saying.
This may seem a rather trivial matter but I ask you to think about it as it demonstrates how deeply the free market narrative has perverted our understanding and in particular our language. I have just been described as a customer as I enjoyed my grandchild's Christmas carols. This would suggest that there was an economic relationship taking place during this social event, which of course is simply nonsensical. By describing the performance as an enterprise you are similarly assuming an economic relationship between what you are doing and the outcomes you are seeking to achieve. Describing it as an enterprise is itself not provocative, but by immediately relating it with the description of the audience as customers, that is exactly what you are doing.
Anyone who has an understanding of sociology recognises that language is symbolic and conveys meanings. Every day we see governments and politicians go to inordinate lengths to distort language and 'spin' it in order to avoid people seeing their lies, understanding their evil and identifying their motives. One of the distinguishing characteristics of the pigsty and its inhabitants is how they constantly parrot that there is no alternative to the dominant economic and political model that is destroying our societies. This was the theme tune of Thatcher and her cronies and it has been very successfully embedded in the British collective conscience. This is evidenced by teachers describing a Christmas performance by eight to eleven year olds in the language of the economic market as an enterprise and their families as customers. Children are not able to discriminate between such use of language and will accept such terminology as the norm. Indeed most adults will fail to discriminate and identify such perversions of the language. However, a parent is a real live flesh and blood person, they are not a thing. A customer is an abstract concept, a thing, a description of a person performing one particular aspect of human behaviour, and such language employment is part of the free market process of dehumanising and atomising people. This is the language of modern British education, providers and customers. No-one learns anything nowadays, they consume, and, if they consume, then of course they should pay for the privilege. Thus, education ceases to be a right or a necessity, it becomes a purchase which, if you cannot afford, then you will have to do without. The same poison is destroying the health service, care, and all sectors of our society. This is the kind of development that produces what sociologists call 'anomie' or normlessness where people experience fewer and fewer reference points in their lives. It is no accident that we are seeing a literal explosion of mental illness within society as people are losing touch with reality; and viewing a family enjoying their children's performance as customers is indeed truly detached from reality. This is a huge problem and a huge topic, but we must challenge all forms of free market perversion, this is just the most recent I have experienced. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
This may seem a rather trivial matter but I ask you to think about it as it demonstrates how deeply the free market narrative has perverted our understanding and in particular our language. I have just been described as a customer as I enjoyed my grandchild's Christmas carols. This would suggest that there was an economic relationship taking place during this social event, which of course is simply nonsensical. By describing the performance as an enterprise you are similarly assuming an economic relationship between what you are doing and the outcomes you are seeking to achieve. Describing it as an enterprise is itself not provocative, but by immediately relating it with the description of the audience as customers, that is exactly what you are doing.
Anyone who has an understanding of sociology recognises that language is symbolic and conveys meanings. Every day we see governments and politicians go to inordinate lengths to distort language and 'spin' it in order to avoid people seeing their lies, understanding their evil and identifying their motives. One of the distinguishing characteristics of the pigsty and its inhabitants is how they constantly parrot that there is no alternative to the dominant economic and political model that is destroying our societies. This was the theme tune of Thatcher and her cronies and it has been very successfully embedded in the British collective conscience. This is evidenced by teachers describing a Christmas performance by eight to eleven year olds in the language of the economic market as an enterprise and their families as customers. Children are not able to discriminate between such use of language and will accept such terminology as the norm. Indeed most adults will fail to discriminate and identify such perversions of the language. However, a parent is a real live flesh and blood person, they are not a thing. A customer is an abstract concept, a thing, a description of a person performing one particular aspect of human behaviour, and such language employment is part of the free market process of dehumanising and atomising people. This is the language of modern British education, providers and customers. No-one learns anything nowadays, they consume, and, if they consume, then of course they should pay for the privilege. Thus, education ceases to be a right or a necessity, it becomes a purchase which, if you cannot afford, then you will have to do without. The same poison is destroying the health service, care, and all sectors of our society. This is the kind of development that produces what sociologists call 'anomie' or normlessness where people experience fewer and fewer reference points in their lives. It is no accident that we are seeing a literal explosion of mental illness within society as people are losing touch with reality; and viewing a family enjoying their children's performance as customers is indeed truly detached from reality. This is a huge problem and a huge topic, but we must challenge all forms of free market perversion, this is just the most recent I have experienced. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Sunday 11 December 2016
OK Kommirat, what about political reform?
If we are to tackle the evil that is the neoliberal free market then it becomes imperative to reform its political bedfellow, the dominant political systems in our western societies, but in particular Britain. One of the most serious problems facing our modern nation states is the curse of centralised government, and this is a problem in Scotland as much as in the UK as a whole. It is an authoritarian form of centralised government that is required by free market economics. In his ‘Representative Government’ John Stuart Mill argues that
‘The very object of having a local representation, is in order that those who have any interest in common which they do not share with the general body of their countrymen may manage that joint interest by themselves.’
If we are serious about democracy we must accept that democracy requires a system of limited government with defined independent centres of power; there can be no meaningful democracy in a centralised system. A proper democracy requires legitimacy and representation and as wide a dispersal of power as is necessary, and all those three defining characteristics are wholly absent in modern Britain. The principle of local government is neatly summed up by Mill and is designed to satisfy such requirements. When such local responsibility is replaced by a centralised administration, whether from London or Edinburgh, a local individuality of approach is always sacrificed to uniformity, with the flexibility of local decision-making giving way to rigidity and the centralised imposition of a bureaucratic ‘only one way’ of doing things. In addition, given that proper systems of local government necessitate meaningful autonomy from the centre, the power of the state is therefore fragmented and limited. As I have been arguing since I started this blog, the elimination of local government is a symptom of totalitarianism and that was the process begun by Thatcher.
The diversity of life in any modern state requires different approaches to similar problems. This is one of the great strengths of the European Union with its emphasis on subsidiarity. For example, consider policing or refuse collection. It is not rocket science to understand that the solutions to both such fundamental requirements of modern life require differing methods of implementation in different locations. Policing and refuse collection in London will be markedly different in style and implementation from that in Devon or Cornwall. The principles remain the same, but the methodology will differ quite considerably. As a result, direct responsibility for the government of a locality can harness powerful forces on behalf of that community and imaginative and meaningful solutions to local issues. However, for local government and democracy to be effective, local government must be much more than local administration. Local governments are elected locally by the people in that community, and are directly accountable to them. Indeed they are normally very visible in the local community and therefore available and approachable, whereas wherever we find a system of local administration, rather than local government, with education, health gas, water, electricity etc administered by boards and by people appointed from outwith the community, control, in effect, comes from the central government, through ministers and the courts. Membership of such controlling bodies are appointed by central government, and their activities are only accountable to the system, not to the local community they are supposed to serve. One of the features of modern British life, is just such systems of administration replacing local government control through the outsourcing of such functions to the private sector and companies located in London and even overseas.
The principle of subsidiarity is the idea that matters should be handled by the lowest competent authority. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. The concept of subsidiarity is applicable in government and all forms of management. It is a fundamental feature of federalism. Subsidiarity is derived from the Latin subsidiaries, and has its origins in Catholic social teaching. As I said earlier, it is presently best known as a fundamental principle of European Union law. According to this principle, the EU may only legislate where member states agree that action of individual countries is insufficient. This principle has always underpinned the European Union, and argues that government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently. The principle is based upon the autonomy and dignity of the human individual, and holds that all other forms of society, from the family to the state and the international order, should be in the service of the human person. Subsidiarity assumes that human beings are by their nature social beings, and emphasizes the importance of small and intermediate-sized communities or institutions, like the family, the church, and voluntary associations, as mediating structures which empower individual action and link the individual to society as a whole.
The principle of subsidiarity was developed in the encyclical Rerum Novarum of 1891 by Pope Leo XIII, to denounce both the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism and authoritarian government. The principle was further developed in a papal encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno in 1931, and in a report by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops called Economic Justice for All. In the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, the Pope specifically said, in paragraphs 79 and 80:
"As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.....The supreme authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of "subsidiary function," the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State."
As neoliberalism crumbles and is finally discarded it is imperative that we recognise the need for political as well as economic reform. This post has only briefly touched on certain necessary steps, but I trust it will give cause for reflection. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
‘The very object of having a local representation, is in order that those who have any interest in common which they do not share with the general body of their countrymen may manage that joint interest by themselves.’
If we are serious about democracy we must accept that democracy requires a system of limited government with defined independent centres of power; there can be no meaningful democracy in a centralised system. A proper democracy requires legitimacy and representation and as wide a dispersal of power as is necessary, and all those three defining characteristics are wholly absent in modern Britain. The principle of local government is neatly summed up by Mill and is designed to satisfy such requirements. When such local responsibility is replaced by a centralised administration, whether from London or Edinburgh, a local individuality of approach is always sacrificed to uniformity, with the flexibility of local decision-making giving way to rigidity and the centralised imposition of a bureaucratic ‘only one way’ of doing things. In addition, given that proper systems of local government necessitate meaningful autonomy from the centre, the power of the state is therefore fragmented and limited. As I have been arguing since I started this blog, the elimination of local government is a symptom of totalitarianism and that was the process begun by Thatcher.
The diversity of life in any modern state requires different approaches to similar problems. This is one of the great strengths of the European Union with its emphasis on subsidiarity. For example, consider policing or refuse collection. It is not rocket science to understand that the solutions to both such fundamental requirements of modern life require differing methods of implementation in different locations. Policing and refuse collection in London will be markedly different in style and implementation from that in Devon or Cornwall. The principles remain the same, but the methodology will differ quite considerably. As a result, direct responsibility for the government of a locality can harness powerful forces on behalf of that community and imaginative and meaningful solutions to local issues. However, for local government and democracy to be effective, local government must be much more than local administration. Local governments are elected locally by the people in that community, and are directly accountable to them. Indeed they are normally very visible in the local community and therefore available and approachable, whereas wherever we find a system of local administration, rather than local government, with education, health gas, water, electricity etc administered by boards and by people appointed from outwith the community, control, in effect, comes from the central government, through ministers and the courts. Membership of such controlling bodies are appointed by central government, and their activities are only accountable to the system, not to the local community they are supposed to serve. One of the features of modern British life, is just such systems of administration replacing local government control through the outsourcing of such functions to the private sector and companies located in London and even overseas.
The principle of subsidiarity is the idea that matters should be handled by the lowest competent authority. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. The concept of subsidiarity is applicable in government and all forms of management. It is a fundamental feature of federalism. Subsidiarity is derived from the Latin subsidiaries, and has its origins in Catholic social teaching. As I said earlier, it is presently best known as a fundamental principle of European Union law. According to this principle, the EU may only legislate where member states agree that action of individual countries is insufficient. This principle has always underpinned the European Union, and argues that government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently. The principle is based upon the autonomy and dignity of the human individual, and holds that all other forms of society, from the family to the state and the international order, should be in the service of the human person. Subsidiarity assumes that human beings are by their nature social beings, and emphasizes the importance of small and intermediate-sized communities or institutions, like the family, the church, and voluntary associations, as mediating structures which empower individual action and link the individual to society as a whole.
The principle of subsidiarity was developed in the encyclical Rerum Novarum of 1891 by Pope Leo XIII, to denounce both the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism and authoritarian government. The principle was further developed in a papal encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno in 1931, and in a report by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops called Economic Justice for All. In the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, the Pope specifically said, in paragraphs 79 and 80:
"As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.....The supreme authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of "subsidiary function," the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State."
As neoliberalism crumbles and is finally discarded it is imperative that we recognise the need for political as well as economic reform. This post has only briefly touched on certain necessary steps, but I trust it will give cause for reflection. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Monday 5 December 2016
Britain is getting quite dark and nasty, but also stupid
I was motivated to post this following a programme I listened to discussing the government's appeal against the Court's decision to require the government to consult Parliament before triggering Article 50 announcing our intention to leave the EU. The BBC interviewed several people in a street in London who all cheerfully denounced the court for attempting to thwart the will of the people, who had all voted to leave, but who all confessed to not having a clue about politics. We have had the spectacle of the Daily Mail publishing the names and addresses, incomes, background and the value of their property, of all eleven Supreme Court judges. This is following on from branding them the enemies of the people. Now if this is not an act of pure hatred and fascist politics then someone will have to tell me what it is. This is getting dangerous and threatens, not only democracy and the rule of law, but the very foundations of the British political system.
Any non-British person who takes an interest in British politics and current affairs must look on in disbelief at the character and the total unprofessionalism of British politicians and of a tabloid press that is quite seriously beginning to look like Germany in the 1930's. We voted to leave the EU in June, and in December, every foreign politician who has been required to negotiate with our government reports how completely at sea they are and devoid of any idea of what they are hoping to achieve except to have all of the benefits they enjoyed whilst being members of the EU, but none of the responsibilities. Foreign politicians respond with incredulity at the ignorance and stupidity of Britain's leading political figures who are demanding what every EU politician repeatedly tells them is quite impossible. If those of you reading this are keeping up to date with British current affairs you will know I am not exaggerating. I was watching an interview with a leading EU diplomat who summed our position up as how we are insisting on a divorce but demanding to keep the house, all the money and all the assets.
What is evident is that none of our political class did any homework before they embarked on the most important exercise in British politics since World War Two. They reveal daily that they really don't know how the EU works or what membership actually entails. But what is most revealing is that they are now demonstrating their entire case was founded on what I and many others told you during the campaign were a pack of lies. They are now seriously telling us that we may pay to stay in the single market. These are the people who campaigned for six months on a message that when we left the EU we would save at least £350 million per week that would be invested in the NHS and are now telling us that we are prepared to pay even more to stay, not in the whole EU, but only in the single market. This is genuinely verging on insanity and they are getting away with it because all of the people who voted leave are now happily admitting that they know absolutely nothing about politics and voted to halt immigration, simples. But of course these good people are not racist, perish the thought and are only following the excellent example of their immigrant hating Eton and Oxbridge educated betters, Boris the Spider who was born in the USA and whose family are immigrants, Nigel Garbage whose wife is an immigrant, Michael Gove whose wife is an immigrant etc. etc. If hypocrisy was an Olympic sport British politicians would sweep the medal board. We are in a dark place and its going to get worse as our leaders incompetence translates into crisis. At least we have the possibility in Scotland of independence. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Any non-British person who takes an interest in British politics and current affairs must look on in disbelief at the character and the total unprofessionalism of British politicians and of a tabloid press that is quite seriously beginning to look like Germany in the 1930's. We voted to leave the EU in June, and in December, every foreign politician who has been required to negotiate with our government reports how completely at sea they are and devoid of any idea of what they are hoping to achieve except to have all of the benefits they enjoyed whilst being members of the EU, but none of the responsibilities. Foreign politicians respond with incredulity at the ignorance and stupidity of Britain's leading political figures who are demanding what every EU politician repeatedly tells them is quite impossible. If those of you reading this are keeping up to date with British current affairs you will know I am not exaggerating. I was watching an interview with a leading EU diplomat who summed our position up as how we are insisting on a divorce but demanding to keep the house, all the money and all the assets.
What is evident is that none of our political class did any homework before they embarked on the most important exercise in British politics since World War Two. They reveal daily that they really don't know how the EU works or what membership actually entails. But what is most revealing is that they are now demonstrating their entire case was founded on what I and many others told you during the campaign were a pack of lies. They are now seriously telling us that we may pay to stay in the single market. These are the people who campaigned for six months on a message that when we left the EU we would save at least £350 million per week that would be invested in the NHS and are now telling us that we are prepared to pay even more to stay, not in the whole EU, but only in the single market. This is genuinely verging on insanity and they are getting away with it because all of the people who voted leave are now happily admitting that they know absolutely nothing about politics and voted to halt immigration, simples. But of course these good people are not racist, perish the thought and are only following the excellent example of their immigrant hating Eton and Oxbridge educated betters, Boris the Spider who was born in the USA and whose family are immigrants, Nigel Garbage whose wife is an immigrant, Michael Gove whose wife is an immigrant etc. etc. If hypocrisy was an Olympic sport British politicians would sweep the medal board. We are in a dark place and its going to get worse as our leaders incompetence translates into crisis. At least we have the possibility in Scotland of independence. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
If Conservatives are Christians then heaven and hell are the same place
Sarah Palin has told us that god intervened in the American Presidential election and describes herself as a Bible believing Christian. If that is the case then god must have a peculiar sense of humour. I was then left wondering if she thinks that god must have intervened to prevent her from becoming Vice-President and if he/she prefers a male imbecile in the White House to a female imbecile. My last reflection in this area was being reminded that Hitler also believed that he had been chosen by whatever he imagined was god. So, if Sarah Palin's god is the god of Christianity she can keep him/her.
I then began to reflect on all those people who call themselves Christian, especially the ones who go into politics but never go into a church. I read an article about a group of Tories being described as Christians and members of something called the Conservative Christian Fellowship. Now, most of the people I have met in my life who boasted of being Christian were some of the most highly hypocritical and at root, nasty people I have ever met, people who were the most brazen liars imaginable. The Christians I have met always claim to love the sinner but hate the sin, but in my experience it's the other way round. They hate the sinner but absolutely love the sin. Two of the kindest, most generous and loving people I have ever met were both gay men who were despised and held in contempt by the good Christian people I knew, not for who they were, but for what they were. If there is such a thing as a good Christian, then my two friends are definitely candidates, despite what the official Christians I know say about them. The Christian never even attempted to look for the character, only for 'the sinner' despite the fact that the Christian clergy is riddled with gay men and women, and if I ever need conformation as to the shallowness of the average Christian I only need to look at people like Sarah Palin, or those good Christian Tories who infest the pigsty. However, I feel that if you are a Bible believing person, then it is not possible to be a political conservative.
If we are to take Christianity at face value and separate it from those who practice it, there are some fundamentals that even a cursory understanding of Christianity must highlight. As I just alluded to, it must show how a Christian and a modern Conservative (whether British or American) are mutually exclusive. The first thing that springs to mind is the instruction in the Bible to love thy neighbour. Now I have searched the Bible and can find no reference to the instruction that this only applies if your neighbour is not an immigrant, or a Mexican, or a Muslim, or that your neighbour must be white, or indeed must be Christian. As the Brexit campaign highlighted, Tories, indeed all right-wingers I have ever met, hate their neighbours with a passion, they hate foreigners of every description, but particularly those who are not white. They also hate their own kind if they are poor, disabled, unemployed etc. A Tory is the antithesis of a Good Samaritan; whilst the Samaritan is tending to the sick and injured the Tory is going through their belongings, stealing their wealth while charging them for any assistance they need. My experience tells me that Christians have a capacity for hate that is quite awesome. If god is indeed a Christian then he/she keeps very unfortunate company.
I do not wish to burden you with a recital of what are supposed to be Christian values as I am sure you are all more familiar with them than I am, but I will make the observation that the last thing Britain and America are, are Christian countries. For example, there are many instructions in the Bible concerning 'the stranger within thy gates' and none of them refer to demonising such people as we demonise our immigrants. There are instructions on the welfare of the poor and needy etc. instructions we used to at least pay lip service to but have long ago abandoned. What characterises today's societies that have adopted the free market ideological narrative is their complete indifference to ethical behaviour and common decency. The biggest culprits are the British who are shameless in their greed, inequality and mendacity. In their claims to be Christian, they must also be the world leaders in self-delusion and hypocrisy. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
I then began to reflect on all those people who call themselves Christian, especially the ones who go into politics but never go into a church. I read an article about a group of Tories being described as Christians and members of something called the Conservative Christian Fellowship. Now, most of the people I have met in my life who boasted of being Christian were some of the most highly hypocritical and at root, nasty people I have ever met, people who were the most brazen liars imaginable. The Christians I have met always claim to love the sinner but hate the sin, but in my experience it's the other way round. They hate the sinner but absolutely love the sin. Two of the kindest, most generous and loving people I have ever met were both gay men who were despised and held in contempt by the good Christian people I knew, not for who they were, but for what they were. If there is such a thing as a good Christian, then my two friends are definitely candidates, despite what the official Christians I know say about them. The Christian never even attempted to look for the character, only for 'the sinner' despite the fact that the Christian clergy is riddled with gay men and women, and if I ever need conformation as to the shallowness of the average Christian I only need to look at people like Sarah Palin, or those good Christian Tories who infest the pigsty. However, I feel that if you are a Bible believing person, then it is not possible to be a political conservative.
If we are to take Christianity at face value and separate it from those who practice it, there are some fundamentals that even a cursory understanding of Christianity must highlight. As I just alluded to, it must show how a Christian and a modern Conservative (whether British or American) are mutually exclusive. The first thing that springs to mind is the instruction in the Bible to love thy neighbour. Now I have searched the Bible and can find no reference to the instruction that this only applies if your neighbour is not an immigrant, or a Mexican, or a Muslim, or that your neighbour must be white, or indeed must be Christian. As the Brexit campaign highlighted, Tories, indeed all right-wingers I have ever met, hate their neighbours with a passion, they hate foreigners of every description, but particularly those who are not white. They also hate their own kind if they are poor, disabled, unemployed etc. A Tory is the antithesis of a Good Samaritan; whilst the Samaritan is tending to the sick and injured the Tory is going through their belongings, stealing their wealth while charging them for any assistance they need. My experience tells me that Christians have a capacity for hate that is quite awesome. If god is indeed a Christian then he/she keeps very unfortunate company.
I do not wish to burden you with a recital of what are supposed to be Christian values as I am sure you are all more familiar with them than I am, but I will make the observation that the last thing Britain and America are, are Christian countries. For example, there are many instructions in the Bible concerning 'the stranger within thy gates' and none of them refer to demonising such people as we demonise our immigrants. There are instructions on the welfare of the poor and needy etc. instructions we used to at least pay lip service to but have long ago abandoned. What characterises today's societies that have adopted the free market ideological narrative is their complete indifference to ethical behaviour and common decency. The biggest culprits are the British who are shameless in their greed, inequality and mendacity. In their claims to be Christian, they must also be the world leaders in self-delusion and hypocrisy. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)