The economist Eric Schumacher once wrote that people who work in large bureaucratic organisations lose the ability to think independently. I am frequently reminded of this concept as I read the reports of how our bureaucratic state institutions repeatedly and daily treat people with callousness and calculated cruelty. Whether it is in immigration or the departments responsible for welfare or housing etc. the same patterns of behaviour, the same stories about indifference and degrading treatment surface in our press and media all the time. Even those of you who do not live in the UK must be aware of such reports. There was an article in the British press this week reporting how an immigration official told an applicant that 'it's my job to piss you off.' Can you imagine the sickness that his penetrated the mind of such an individual who is simply doing an everyday job? How does an ordinary British working person who probably has a family and goes home at night to walk the dog and go to a football match at the weekend become infested with such poison that they take pleasure in making people's lives a misery? I am minded to consider that such people are not really any different to those who happily worked for the Nazis or Stalin's KGB. In other words there is essentially nothing special about Britain that would prevent the Holocaust or the Gulag happening here. I was brought up in a society that taught me that we were better than that; as I have mentioned before, education truly is a process of unlearning.
The right always portray the state as a bad thing, a necessary evil Karl Popper called it. This is wrong. The state is neither bad nor good, it is an institutional reflection of the personnel who operate and direct it. If the state is staffed by bad people pursuing bad policies it will be bad, but the opposite is also true. The British state is indeed bad at this time in history because it is a reflection of bad and malignant personnel who direct its policies and its operations and who have persuaded its permanent staff to implement cruel and vicious policies in a cruel and dehumanising manner. If I were ever to become part of government, I would immediately sack the entire management structure within the Home Office as they have become corrupted beyond redemption under the Tories. They reflect a corporate lack of intelligence and ethical purpose because any decent human being would refuse to implement the policy imperatives demanded by the Tories. The British civil service however are quite happy to implement policies and procedures the Nazis would have been proud of. What we see in both the UK and the USA are policies being created by hatred. The UK hates foreigners, Europe, immigrants etc. and the 45 hates any and every thing that happened under the Obama administration. The 45's hatred of Obama is a wonder to behold. He also, of course, hates immigrants, coloured people, women and just about everything that isn't nailed down.
Charlie Chaplin made a film that demonstrated how the human being in a modern industrial society simply becomes an adjunct of the machinery that dominates his/her life. In those cases I am discussing it is the bureaucratic machinery that affects a person's thinking. It is quite ironic how the people who preach individualism spend so much time and capital stripping everyone of their individuality. Add to that a dehumanising dominant ideology that strips the satisfaction out of work and life in general, that replaces a nation's cultural achievements with consumerism and that teaches that people are of secondary importance to profits and that some people are obviously inferior to others and not worthy of normal considerations and you have all the foundations of a totalitarian society, an Animal Farm. The sooner that Scotland can sever its ties with Westminster the better because the British are, in the words of the song, on the road to nowhere. If the USA is not careful it will follow soon. The 45 thinks that the US can stand alone, but, just as no man is an island, neither is one nation. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Tuesday, 8 May 2018
Monday, 7 May 2018
We violate our treaty obligations at our peril
It is said that nations, like individuals, reap what they sow, if they sow division and discord, if they sow lying and deception, then that is what they will reap. I have been considering the behaviour of both the UK and the USA towards their national and international obligations and conclude that if they continue fostering the divisive, suspicious and openly racist approaches they have been displaying towards people whom they need for their future peace, security and national well-being then the future does indeed look bleak. In both of our nations, the government has been promoting an image of other nations whom they seek to portray as ‘the enemy’ or at the least as hostile to the peace and prosperity and interests of the UK and the USA, as less democratic, less civilised, less moral etc. and this narrative appears to have been accepted as truth by a significant section of both of our populations, allowing our governments to pursue policy that is ideological, and from my perspective, irrational. I think this is true with respect to members of the European Union, Russia, Iran etc. There appears to be a quite deliberate degradation of such nations.
What is very alarming is the persistent and quite deliberate breach of trust by our respective governments that reflects on our wider populace. Other nations are looking askance and in some measure of bewilderment at the lies and misrepresentations that we are being fed about their respective nations. Lying, breaking of promises and betrayals of trust are scorned amongst all nations and peoples, but such behaviour has become the political and diplomatic norm for both the UK and the USA. It matters not what other nations do, we are supposed to be the democratic models, the standard bearers for honesty and trustworthiness. The moral conduct of governments ought not to differ from the moral conduct of an individual because governments are composed of individual citizens of their country. What is cowardly, cruel and unacceptable conduct in a person is just as cowardly, cruel and unacceptable in a government or a nation.
The Romans established what they termed the “Law of Nations”. As nations were regarded as societies of individuals united together, then laws that are expected to be obeyed by individuals are also obligatory on societies of united individuals. The Romans considered two expressions that governed the conduct of nations and individuals as synonymous ‘jus gentium’ and ‘jus naturale’. Jus gentium was the basis of the law of nations as it signified the law that is established by natural reason for all people, as opposed to ‘jus civile’ the civil laws which applied to particular states. Jus gentium is therefore synonymous with natural law and was defined by the Emperor Justinian as “the law of nations is common to the whole human race”, that is, it was considered to be the application of the law of nature to nations, embodying precepts prescribed by the law of nature to states. For the Romans, that law was no less obligatory for states than for individuals.
You are fed up with me reminding you how Adam Smith tells us that without justice the whole edifice of society will crumble into atoms. The Romans said the same. The jus gentium is founded on justice, fair and equal treatment for everyone, and no amount of Presidential or Prime Ministerial legal phraseology can negate the inalienable truth underlying it. But, and this is the point of this post, if that applies to individuals, it also applies to nation states. International law must be founded on those rules of conduct defined by reason as just, as must the several relations between independent nations. It is a fundamental precept of the law of nations of the right of every nation to just treatment from all other nations. Justice is not only the basis of civilised society, it is also the basis of civilised international society, and this has consequences for commerce, trade and international treaties. Our governments should be very careful to abstain from anything that may violate these international principles, and yet the governments of both the UK and the USA appear to take a delight in violating them at every opportunity. Soberingly, it is also a fundamental of the law of nations that the right of refusing to submit to injustice, of resisting injustice by force if necessary, is part of the law of nature, and as such is recognized by the law of nations.
I will finish this rather lengthy post by observing that, as justice is normally secured in civil society by contracts between persons, so it is secured internationally by treaties, such as the Treaty of Rome, or the Iranian Nuclear Treaty. To the Romans, national contracts were even more sacred and binding than private ones on account of the far greater interests involved. The British and American governments should ponder their present policy imperatives very carefully. If you violate your treaties, you violate the law of nations. We may be very close to acting extremely unjustly with unforseen consequences. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
What is very alarming is the persistent and quite deliberate breach of trust by our respective governments that reflects on our wider populace. Other nations are looking askance and in some measure of bewilderment at the lies and misrepresentations that we are being fed about their respective nations. Lying, breaking of promises and betrayals of trust are scorned amongst all nations and peoples, but such behaviour has become the political and diplomatic norm for both the UK and the USA. It matters not what other nations do, we are supposed to be the democratic models, the standard bearers for honesty and trustworthiness. The moral conduct of governments ought not to differ from the moral conduct of an individual because governments are composed of individual citizens of their country. What is cowardly, cruel and unacceptable conduct in a person is just as cowardly, cruel and unacceptable in a government or a nation.
The Romans established what they termed the “Law of Nations”. As nations were regarded as societies of individuals united together, then laws that are expected to be obeyed by individuals are also obligatory on societies of united individuals. The Romans considered two expressions that governed the conduct of nations and individuals as synonymous ‘jus gentium’ and ‘jus naturale’. Jus gentium was the basis of the law of nations as it signified the law that is established by natural reason for all people, as opposed to ‘jus civile’ the civil laws which applied to particular states. Jus gentium is therefore synonymous with natural law and was defined by the Emperor Justinian as “the law of nations is common to the whole human race”, that is, it was considered to be the application of the law of nature to nations, embodying precepts prescribed by the law of nature to states. For the Romans, that law was no less obligatory for states than for individuals.
You are fed up with me reminding you how Adam Smith tells us that without justice the whole edifice of society will crumble into atoms. The Romans said the same. The jus gentium is founded on justice, fair and equal treatment for everyone, and no amount of Presidential or Prime Ministerial legal phraseology can negate the inalienable truth underlying it. But, and this is the point of this post, if that applies to individuals, it also applies to nation states. International law must be founded on those rules of conduct defined by reason as just, as must the several relations between independent nations. It is a fundamental precept of the law of nations of the right of every nation to just treatment from all other nations. Justice is not only the basis of civilised society, it is also the basis of civilised international society, and this has consequences for commerce, trade and international treaties. Our governments should be very careful to abstain from anything that may violate these international principles, and yet the governments of both the UK and the USA appear to take a delight in violating them at every opportunity. Soberingly, it is also a fundamental of the law of nations that the right of refusing to submit to injustice, of resisting injustice by force if necessary, is part of the law of nature, and as such is recognized by the law of nations.
I will finish this rather lengthy post by observing that, as justice is normally secured in civil society by contracts between persons, so it is secured internationally by treaties, such as the Treaty of Rome, or the Iranian Nuclear Treaty. To the Romans, national contracts were even more sacred and binding than private ones on account of the far greater interests involved. The British and American governments should ponder their present policy imperatives very carefully. If you violate your treaties, you violate the law of nations. We may be very close to acting extremely unjustly with unforseen consequences. You have been warned
Doktor Kommirat
Thursday, 3 May 2018
The deeply inherent dangers of the 45's and the Tories behaviour
In my last post I spoke about the persistent degradation of our national public and private standards in language, morality, behaviour, norms and values that are being quite deliberately degraded by our national governments in both the UK and the USA. The normal characteristic of British and American government is shameless lying, racism and a complete absence of any sense of accountability or basic responsibility for anything, quite literally they refuse to be accountable or responsible for anything. I also noted how this must inevitably have profound implications for the future of order, stability and governance in both nations. Commenting on the Republican Party's silence on the 45's shameless and dangerous behaviour, US Senator Jeff Flake told his fellow Republicans that “It is time for our complicity and our accommodation for the unacceptable to end....There are times when we must risk our careers in favour of our principles. Now is such a time.....We must stop pretending that the degradation of our politics and the conduct of some in our executive branch are normal....Reckless, outrageous, and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as ‘telling it like it is’ when it is actually just reckless, outrageous, and undignified.”
He was supported by Senator Bob Corker, who, speaking about the 45, argued that
"When his term is over, the constant non-truth-telling, the name-calling, the debasement of our nation, will be what he will be remembered most for."
We suffer from exactly the same phenomenon in the UK under the Tories and, whilst it is not as extreme or blatant than the conduct of the 45, its legacy will be just as damaging. If a Tory's lips are moving they are lying. We have all come to accept that this is standard for the 45, but the Tories are just as bad. Why is this important?
As you all know I firmly reject the poisonous free marker doctrines of individualism. Humans are social animals, who, because of their interactive and interdependent environment, regulate their environment and their interactions. They do this in many ways, but the most usual is through the establishments of normative and value systems. Norms and values become institutionalised through the establishment of traditions, and such traditions are our everyday guidelines as to normal and acceptable behaviour for the order and stability essential for social life. Such guidelines are driven deep into our conscious and subconscious minds. They become part of our 'self' to the extent that we normally operate by them without even having to think about them. They are of course dynamic and subject to change and modification, but even that transpires in an evolutionary as opposed to a revolutionary manner.
Norms, values, and traditions define our fundamental human rights and our relationships with others, rights we have achieved by the fact of being human. They may be formalised by other humans in legal documents or constitutions, but they are not grants, or the gifts of enlightened rulers, nor are they bestowed by a deity and enshrined in religious writings. They stem from the obvious empirical fact that all human beings are born equal. All humans enter the world the same way and by the same method; there are no social distinctions, no rank nor privilege in the birth process. Once in the world, all human beings are in the same state of helplessness and totally dependent on other human beings for their survival. Without that support no human would last more than a few hours. That is an obvious and incontestable fact; it is almost the only fact that I would venture to call a truth. Humans are social beings; that is their nature. From the moment of their birth they are dependent on other humans and, as they grow and develop, they continue to be dependent on, learn from and interact with other humans. As a result, such interaction necessarily brings cooperation with each other, which comes naturally. Twenty people will overcome a mammoth in a hunt for food far more effectively than one or two. Because of their social nature humans divide their labour, they don’t all rush in and charge at the mammoth getting in each other’s way, they learn from other animals how to gang up on, and overcome, much larger prey. This means that they divide their labour, and the daily tasks of living and providing food and shelter, between each other. This process of dividing tasks and specialising in different factors of production raises everyone’s standard of living. This then brings an understanding of reciprocal need and the need for mutual respect and protection. Human evolution was accompanied by an evolution of insight (we call it common sense) into what we gain from mutual respect and cooperation and the dangers of conflict and destructive self-interest. Now, human beings are in conflict with each other all the time; if we disagree with each other about anything we are, by definition, in conflict with each other. However, not all conflict and self-interest is destructive, that is obvious; indeed human conflict in everyday life is a major factor driving meaningful social change, because humans regulate conflict, institutionalise it and devise regulatory methods for solving it, making conflict both positive and progressive when dealt with in that very human manner. But what is also obvious is that the self-interest encouraged by free market economic theory and its political bedfellow, right-wing libertarian ideology, most certainly is destructive and divisive. It is destructive of society and of its necessary structures, particularly when the governing elite engages in deregulating every obstacle to its success and attacks the structures designed to control destructive human activity.
Human beings are reflective creatures. They can reflect on their actions, thoughts, beliefs and experience. They can therefore learn and adapt; they can change and progress. If their hunt for the mammoth goes badly and they lose their lunch, or if the mammoth turns on them and inflicts injuries, they can reflect and adapt their hunting technique to ensure success on the next hunt. They learn from experience. The knowledge and learning they gain from their experience is empirical knowledge, the safest and surest way for humans to progress. Our mutual support of each other opens the way to the most basic right of all, the right to life. That right should be granted to us at birth by the human instinct to care for and nurture a newborn. As we are brought into the world and survive by the efforts of others, we then reciprocate and perform such services to other people to ensure the survival of our children and future generations. We have a right to life, because if that right was not honoured when we were born, then we would be the last generation of humanity and the human species would perish. We therefore have a duty as a human being to respect the right of everyone else to their life as well. As we enter into the world completely helpless and require constant care for our survival, we have a right to be nourished, clothed and sheltered. We have such rights because we continually grant them to each individual born; they are communal rights, species rights, human rights, and, as experience teaches us, necessary for the survival of the species. As a result, such equal rights belong to everyone who has ever lived or ever will live. With rights come responsibilities, and our greatest responsibility is to recognise and respect the rights of each other. We develop, through experience, the capacity to formulate and understand general principles that enable us to live and flourish in a communal manner because we understand the social nature of human existence. Each of us possesses such rights simply by our existence as a human being, and we have a duty to recognise and respect the rights of all others because they exist on the same equal basis that we do. From this beginning, other rights follow, such as the right to freedom and liberty, because without freedom and liberty the concept of rights becomes meaningless. Life must be meaningful, because if it is meaningless then it has no purpose. If we respect the right to life, but refuse the rights of freedom and liberty, refuse to give that life any meaning, then life will speedily descend into mere existence. A slave doesn’t live; he or she simply exists – for the benefit of other people.
Some people call such rights natural rights, but some thinkers have confused the debate on natural rights by identifying them with “God”, “the gods” or other metaphysical concepts. This implies that we do not have such rights by our human existence but by the gift of some supernatural entity to whom we must be eternally grateful, and we may forfeit them if some human representatives of a god decide we have offended the god’s principles. I will therefore simply refer to them as human rights or organic rights. As a result, no one, no group, no class, no elite, no government has the right to deny us our rights to life, freedom and liberty, and all have a duty to respect and honour them. Each of us has the human right to provide for ourselves, and to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves and our dependants. Should any human institution, such as a social class or a government, so order society as to prevent us exercising those rights, then they must make other provision. Political and civil rights are therefore a reflection and extension of our human rights, and, in the modern world, this has profound implications for welfare and the distribution of wealth.
All of the above is the target for the 45 and the Tories, that is their agenda, to deny us these rights, to divide us and set us against each other, by nationality, race, gender and of course by class. This was the basis of Thatcher's no such thing as society poison. Destroy our social selves, produce an amorphous group of atomised individuals. It will not happen, it cannot happen because it is antithetical to human nature. But the attempt will have profound and longlasting consequences. This is what too many people voted for whether they are aware of it or not. The rest of us, the civilised, must combat these trends as strenuously as possible. You have been warned.
I apologise for the length of this post. If you are interested in this type of debate, I have taken parts out of my book on human rights. Anyone who wishes a copy of this book please contact me on doktorkommirat@gmail.com and I will be happy to send you a free copy
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
He was supported by Senator Bob Corker, who, speaking about the 45, argued that
"When his term is over, the constant non-truth-telling, the name-calling, the debasement of our nation, will be what he will be remembered most for."
We suffer from exactly the same phenomenon in the UK under the Tories and, whilst it is not as extreme or blatant than the conduct of the 45, its legacy will be just as damaging. If a Tory's lips are moving they are lying. We have all come to accept that this is standard for the 45, but the Tories are just as bad. Why is this important?
As you all know I firmly reject the poisonous free marker doctrines of individualism. Humans are social animals, who, because of their interactive and interdependent environment, regulate their environment and their interactions. They do this in many ways, but the most usual is through the establishments of normative and value systems. Norms and values become institutionalised through the establishment of traditions, and such traditions are our everyday guidelines as to normal and acceptable behaviour for the order and stability essential for social life. Such guidelines are driven deep into our conscious and subconscious minds. They become part of our 'self' to the extent that we normally operate by them without even having to think about them. They are of course dynamic and subject to change and modification, but even that transpires in an evolutionary as opposed to a revolutionary manner.
Norms, values, and traditions define our fundamental human rights and our relationships with others, rights we have achieved by the fact of being human. They may be formalised by other humans in legal documents or constitutions, but they are not grants, or the gifts of enlightened rulers, nor are they bestowed by a deity and enshrined in religious writings. They stem from the obvious empirical fact that all human beings are born equal. All humans enter the world the same way and by the same method; there are no social distinctions, no rank nor privilege in the birth process. Once in the world, all human beings are in the same state of helplessness and totally dependent on other human beings for their survival. Without that support no human would last more than a few hours. That is an obvious and incontestable fact; it is almost the only fact that I would venture to call a truth. Humans are social beings; that is their nature. From the moment of their birth they are dependent on other humans and, as they grow and develop, they continue to be dependent on, learn from and interact with other humans. As a result, such interaction necessarily brings cooperation with each other, which comes naturally. Twenty people will overcome a mammoth in a hunt for food far more effectively than one or two. Because of their social nature humans divide their labour, they don’t all rush in and charge at the mammoth getting in each other’s way, they learn from other animals how to gang up on, and overcome, much larger prey. This means that they divide their labour, and the daily tasks of living and providing food and shelter, between each other. This process of dividing tasks and specialising in different factors of production raises everyone’s standard of living. This then brings an understanding of reciprocal need and the need for mutual respect and protection. Human evolution was accompanied by an evolution of insight (we call it common sense) into what we gain from mutual respect and cooperation and the dangers of conflict and destructive self-interest. Now, human beings are in conflict with each other all the time; if we disagree with each other about anything we are, by definition, in conflict with each other. However, not all conflict and self-interest is destructive, that is obvious; indeed human conflict in everyday life is a major factor driving meaningful social change, because humans regulate conflict, institutionalise it and devise regulatory methods for solving it, making conflict both positive and progressive when dealt with in that very human manner. But what is also obvious is that the self-interest encouraged by free market economic theory and its political bedfellow, right-wing libertarian ideology, most certainly is destructive and divisive. It is destructive of society and of its necessary structures, particularly when the governing elite engages in deregulating every obstacle to its success and attacks the structures designed to control destructive human activity.
Human beings are reflective creatures. They can reflect on their actions, thoughts, beliefs and experience. They can therefore learn and adapt; they can change and progress. If their hunt for the mammoth goes badly and they lose their lunch, or if the mammoth turns on them and inflicts injuries, they can reflect and adapt their hunting technique to ensure success on the next hunt. They learn from experience. The knowledge and learning they gain from their experience is empirical knowledge, the safest and surest way for humans to progress. Our mutual support of each other opens the way to the most basic right of all, the right to life. That right should be granted to us at birth by the human instinct to care for and nurture a newborn. As we are brought into the world and survive by the efforts of others, we then reciprocate and perform such services to other people to ensure the survival of our children and future generations. We have a right to life, because if that right was not honoured when we were born, then we would be the last generation of humanity and the human species would perish. We therefore have a duty as a human being to respect the right of everyone else to their life as well. As we enter into the world completely helpless and require constant care for our survival, we have a right to be nourished, clothed and sheltered. We have such rights because we continually grant them to each individual born; they are communal rights, species rights, human rights, and, as experience teaches us, necessary for the survival of the species. As a result, such equal rights belong to everyone who has ever lived or ever will live. With rights come responsibilities, and our greatest responsibility is to recognise and respect the rights of each other. We develop, through experience, the capacity to formulate and understand general principles that enable us to live and flourish in a communal manner because we understand the social nature of human existence. Each of us possesses such rights simply by our existence as a human being, and we have a duty to recognise and respect the rights of all others because they exist on the same equal basis that we do. From this beginning, other rights follow, such as the right to freedom and liberty, because without freedom and liberty the concept of rights becomes meaningless. Life must be meaningful, because if it is meaningless then it has no purpose. If we respect the right to life, but refuse the rights of freedom and liberty, refuse to give that life any meaning, then life will speedily descend into mere existence. A slave doesn’t live; he or she simply exists – for the benefit of other people.
Some people call such rights natural rights, but some thinkers have confused the debate on natural rights by identifying them with “God”, “the gods” or other metaphysical concepts. This implies that we do not have such rights by our human existence but by the gift of some supernatural entity to whom we must be eternally grateful, and we may forfeit them if some human representatives of a god decide we have offended the god’s principles. I will therefore simply refer to them as human rights or organic rights. As a result, no one, no group, no class, no elite, no government has the right to deny us our rights to life, freedom and liberty, and all have a duty to respect and honour them. Each of us has the human right to provide for ourselves, and to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves and our dependants. Should any human institution, such as a social class or a government, so order society as to prevent us exercising those rights, then they must make other provision. Political and civil rights are therefore a reflection and extension of our human rights, and, in the modern world, this has profound implications for welfare and the distribution of wealth.
All of the above is the target for the 45 and the Tories, that is their agenda, to deny us these rights, to divide us and set us against each other, by nationality, race, gender and of course by class. This was the basis of Thatcher's no such thing as society poison. Destroy our social selves, produce an amorphous group of atomised individuals. It will not happen, it cannot happen because it is antithetical to human nature. But the attempt will have profound and longlasting consequences. This is what too many people voted for whether they are aware of it or not. The rest of us, the civilised, must combat these trends as strenuously as possible. You have been warned.
I apologise for the length of this post. If you are interested in this type of debate, I have taken parts out of my book on human rights. Anyone who wishes a copy of this book please contact me on doktorkommirat@gmail.com and I will be happy to send you a free copy
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Sunday, 29 April 2018
Honour, dignity, self-respect - these are for mugs and losers
Unless you live in a cave you must be aware of the scandal that has engulfed the Tory party over the Windrush controversy. It has gained worldwide notoriety because of the truly disgusting manner in which the Tories and the wider British establishment have treated honest, hardworking and law-abiding British citizens. But what I want to impress upon you is the manner by which the Tories have lied and lied repeatedly and refused to take responsibility for their actions. Both the Home Secretary Amber Rudd and her predecessor as Home Secretary, Theresa May have lied through their teeth over their respective behaviour in this matter. Oh they have repeatedly apologised for the situation, each condemning it as a scandal and admitting that it should never have happened, but neither of them even blinking as it is repeatedly pointed out to them that they are both as guilty as sin, as what transpired to become a national scandal was the result of quite deliberate policy by both of them at the Home Office. What they are apologising for, whilst denying any personal responsibility, is the direct result of their deliberate actions. As I persistently tell you, these people have neither shame, self-respect, dignity, nor conscience. What the British government, and the 45 are doing is debasing our language, our moral codes, our professional standards in public and private life, and setting an example to everyone in society that you should do whatever you can and whatever pleases you, and, regardless of the damage you do, the hurt you cause, the lies you tell, or the carnage that results from your behaviour, all you need to do is deny it, disown it, blame it on others and carry on as if nothing has happened. This has become the normal form of behaviour at all levels of government in both the UK and the USA.
This is going to have profound unforseen consequences for both of our respective societies. What our governments are doing with their shamelessness and irresponsible behaviour is setting the benchmark for the rest of society. Why on earth should anyone respect social norms and mores when the government openly refuses to respect them? When the government lies, cheats and refuses to accept responsibility for their actions, when they blame everyone else for what it is quite obvious they are responsible for, where does it end? Both May and Rudd have repeatedly lied to parliament, to parliamentary committees, denied actions that are catalogued in official documents and repeatedly ignored calls for their resignations, all the while cheerfully displaying a complete contempt for any form of decency or responsible behaviour. These are the highest posts in government we are discussing here. These are the people who demand levels of behaviour from everyone else that they openly display the highest level of contempt for in their own personal lives.
I remind you, these are the people who live by the doctrines of the free market, who see any and all forms of constraints on their actions as illegitimate. Decency, adherence to norms and values, to the codes of conduct and behaviour that have developed to define the activities of those who are elected to the highest offices of state, are all viewed as unwanted restraints on their activities. They are regarded as unnecessary regulations, indeed they are regarded as designed for other people. The American Presidency and the British Prime Ministry are institutions, they are offices of state that have longstanding codes of conduct and constitutional norms and values intrinsically woven into their institutional existence that command the respect of the office bearer and endure regardless of the personnel occupying the office at any given moment in history. These offices belong to the nation, to the people, and not to any particular holder of that office. In other words, both the Presidency and the Prime Ministry are greater than any particular President or Prime Minister, and the constitutional requirements of those offices are greater and more important than the incumbent whoever that may be. To demean and defile those offices, as is happening in both of our nations, must be a true description of the concept of treason.
We are indeed at a perilous time in our national history. We have what is known as a kakistocracy in both the UK and the USA. A kakistocracy is government by the worst, by the lowest and most disreputable. All that is important to these people is that they don't get caught, and if they do get caught then they simply lie. This is what the anglo-saxon elite method of government and personal behaviour has descended into. Indeed, they have got to a stage, which the 45 has developed into an art form, of when they get caught lying, cheating, or any other disreputable behaviour, they no longer bother to deny it, they simply launch a ferocious onslaught on those who have accused them for having the audacity to attempt to hold them to account. But again, I repeat, you get what you vote for, you have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
This is going to have profound unforseen consequences for both of our respective societies. What our governments are doing with their shamelessness and irresponsible behaviour is setting the benchmark for the rest of society. Why on earth should anyone respect social norms and mores when the government openly refuses to respect them? When the government lies, cheats and refuses to accept responsibility for their actions, when they blame everyone else for what it is quite obvious they are responsible for, where does it end? Both May and Rudd have repeatedly lied to parliament, to parliamentary committees, denied actions that are catalogued in official documents and repeatedly ignored calls for their resignations, all the while cheerfully displaying a complete contempt for any form of decency or responsible behaviour. These are the highest posts in government we are discussing here. These are the people who demand levels of behaviour from everyone else that they openly display the highest level of contempt for in their own personal lives.
I remind you, these are the people who live by the doctrines of the free market, who see any and all forms of constraints on their actions as illegitimate. Decency, adherence to norms and values, to the codes of conduct and behaviour that have developed to define the activities of those who are elected to the highest offices of state, are all viewed as unwanted restraints on their activities. They are regarded as unnecessary regulations, indeed they are regarded as designed for other people. The American Presidency and the British Prime Ministry are institutions, they are offices of state that have longstanding codes of conduct and constitutional norms and values intrinsically woven into their institutional existence that command the respect of the office bearer and endure regardless of the personnel occupying the office at any given moment in history. These offices belong to the nation, to the people, and not to any particular holder of that office. In other words, both the Presidency and the Prime Ministry are greater than any particular President or Prime Minister, and the constitutional requirements of those offices are greater and more important than the incumbent whoever that may be. To demean and defile those offices, as is happening in both of our nations, must be a true description of the concept of treason.
We are indeed at a perilous time in our national history. We have what is known as a kakistocracy in both the UK and the USA. A kakistocracy is government by the worst, by the lowest and most disreputable. All that is important to these people is that they don't get caught, and if they do get caught then they simply lie. This is what the anglo-saxon elite method of government and personal behaviour has descended into. Indeed, they have got to a stage, which the 45 has developed into an art form, of when they get caught lying, cheating, or any other disreputable behaviour, they no longer bother to deny it, they simply launch a ferocious onslaught on those who have accused them for having the audacity to attempt to hold them to account. But again, I repeat, you get what you vote for, you have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Monday, 23 April 2018
Exciting free offer, part two
I have revised my paper on There is no such thing as Society, and reduced it to 19,300 words and 34 pages if anyone is interested. Even if you disagree with it, it should provide you with some food for thought and give you a different insight into the mythology surrounding the Blessed Margaret and the poisonous fraud that is free market economics.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Friday, 20 April 2018
Exciting free offer!!!! Well at least it's free
A friend approached me to ask why I lay the blame for the bulk of society's problems at Margaret Thatcher's door. In response I prepared a paper for her explaining my reasoning, I called it "There is no such thing as society". It is approximately 30,000 words and is 50 pages long. If anyone would like a copy I would be happy to send it to you. You can reply on this blog or contact me at doktorkommirat@gmail.com if you would like a copy. What puzzled my friend most was that I accuse Thatcher of utilising a very Marxist methodology to achieve her aims. I hope I clarified that to her satisfaction. My purpose is to explain how the right-wing free market experiment was a false hypothesis that can only produce false and damaging conclusions. It is a complete fraud.
Tuesday, 17 April 2018
Want proof of Britain's institutionalised racism? you have it in spades.
If you ever wanted proof of the institutionalised racism of the Tories and the British establishment then it is now right in front of you in all its empirical glory in the now revealed case of what the British call the Windrush generation. These are the children of those people who were recruited, mainly from Caribbean countries, in the aftermath of the Second World War to rebuild the British economy and infrastructure. They get their name from the fact that the first batch of immigrants arrived on a ship called the Empire Windrush in June 1948. They were actively encouraged to come here when the then government sent London double decker buses, converted into mobile recruiting offices, out to the Caribbean to encourage such people to emigrate to Britain and make their home here. The people under discussion here have lived here all of their adult lives, most of them for over fifty years and have worked, paid taxes and raised families of their own. They are more British than most of the Tory scum who want them forcibly deported.
Successive governments, obsessed with free market economics, a minimal state and low taxation have systematically destroyed that same infrastructure causing successive crises in the NHS, housing, education, and the welfare state in general, but, as became all too clear during the Brexit debacle, all such problems were blamed on immigration, on foreigners, releasing the long pent up racism that ever lurks beneath the veneer of so-called civilisation in Britain and providing the Tories with their favourite class of people, the scapegoat. Nobody with any intelligence believes that such people are actually responsible, but the good old fashioned British foreigner hating racist never allows facts to spoil a good narrative that gives respectability to their basest impulses. This gave licence to the ghastly Theresa May, as deeply racist as it is possible to be, when Home Secretary, to pledge to create a very hostile environment (her words) for those she dubbed illegal immigrants. It was she who sent buses around the country with 'Go Home' written on them. She is actually even more despicable than I have previously told you about and the evidence is now too graphic to deny it because it is incredulous, even to someone as stupid as May, to argue that those people she targeted so cruelly could be regarded as illegal immigrants. She embodies the essence of the privately schooled but uneducated thick racist British middle class who live every moment convinced of their racial and class superiority and their sense of entitlement. This episode, so hotly debated in the pigsty yesterday, exposes the lack of morality and humanity at the heart of the British state and the Tory mentality. No-one can now deny my warnings and descriptions of Tory Britain and its deliberate and policy driven cruelty as I could fill pages in this blog with quotes from the press calling the government cruel and callous. It also proves my repeated assertion that Britain has abandoned the rule of law by ditching the presumption of innocence, as all of the thousands of people who have come under the Tories malignant gaze had to prove that they were entitled to live here rather than the state having to prove that they weren't. This was also quite deliberate because they Tories knew full well that most of them couldn't because they arrived here as children and were not required to have any documentation. This embodies the type of drivers so deliberately unleashed by the Blessed Margaret that have now come to fruition. She would have been so proud. This is her legacy.
What this also reveals is the type of personnel that administer the British state, people who would be quite comfortable administering the Nazi system, the unthinking, callous, braindead, bureaucratic nonetities who delight in making life as hard as possible and who will do their masters bidding quite cheerfully by sending someone that they know is quite innocent to a detention centre and then go home, walk the dog and settle down to a nice meal and a gin and tonic comfortable in the knowledge that they have probably ruined someones life. Every nation has such people, every state relies on them.
I freely admit that this post has been a rant, but despite the fact that it is a rant, I trust you will accept that it is actually an accurate description of the nature of modern Britain under the thrall of the free market and its disciples. The free market is a colossal failure but its adherents will never admit that and the majority of the British electorate are too indifferent to realise it. Thus the need for scapegoats and the ready willingness of the majority to accept them. That is why we voted for Brexit and for people like Nigel Garbage. That is why the Americans voted for the 45 because the free market has destroyed their nation as well and they cannot see any alternative, convinced by the propaganda they are constantly subjected to that anything that smacks of collectivism is socialist, the work of the devil. The only silver lining in all this is that the silent majority has been aroused and at last a part of the Tory agenda has produced outrage. They have been exposed and have nowhere to hide on this issue. Make no mistake, what they were trying to do was truly despicable and is so bad that even the English electorate are ashamed. It won't last as the Tories will turn their attention to something else, such as bombing Syria, to deflect our attention. But remember, the driving force behind this shameful episode is now the British Prime Minister. Scum always rises to the top, you have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Successive governments, obsessed with free market economics, a minimal state and low taxation have systematically destroyed that same infrastructure causing successive crises in the NHS, housing, education, and the welfare state in general, but, as became all too clear during the Brexit debacle, all such problems were blamed on immigration, on foreigners, releasing the long pent up racism that ever lurks beneath the veneer of so-called civilisation in Britain and providing the Tories with their favourite class of people, the scapegoat. Nobody with any intelligence believes that such people are actually responsible, but the good old fashioned British foreigner hating racist never allows facts to spoil a good narrative that gives respectability to their basest impulses. This gave licence to the ghastly Theresa May, as deeply racist as it is possible to be, when Home Secretary, to pledge to create a very hostile environment (her words) for those she dubbed illegal immigrants. It was she who sent buses around the country with 'Go Home' written on them. She is actually even more despicable than I have previously told you about and the evidence is now too graphic to deny it because it is incredulous, even to someone as stupid as May, to argue that those people she targeted so cruelly could be regarded as illegal immigrants. She embodies the essence of the privately schooled but uneducated thick racist British middle class who live every moment convinced of their racial and class superiority and their sense of entitlement. This episode, so hotly debated in the pigsty yesterday, exposes the lack of morality and humanity at the heart of the British state and the Tory mentality. No-one can now deny my warnings and descriptions of Tory Britain and its deliberate and policy driven cruelty as I could fill pages in this blog with quotes from the press calling the government cruel and callous. It also proves my repeated assertion that Britain has abandoned the rule of law by ditching the presumption of innocence, as all of the thousands of people who have come under the Tories malignant gaze had to prove that they were entitled to live here rather than the state having to prove that they weren't. This was also quite deliberate because they Tories knew full well that most of them couldn't because they arrived here as children and were not required to have any documentation. This embodies the type of drivers so deliberately unleashed by the Blessed Margaret that have now come to fruition. She would have been so proud. This is her legacy.
What this also reveals is the type of personnel that administer the British state, people who would be quite comfortable administering the Nazi system, the unthinking, callous, braindead, bureaucratic nonetities who delight in making life as hard as possible and who will do their masters bidding quite cheerfully by sending someone that they know is quite innocent to a detention centre and then go home, walk the dog and settle down to a nice meal and a gin and tonic comfortable in the knowledge that they have probably ruined someones life. Every nation has such people, every state relies on them.
I freely admit that this post has been a rant, but despite the fact that it is a rant, I trust you will accept that it is actually an accurate description of the nature of modern Britain under the thrall of the free market and its disciples. The free market is a colossal failure but its adherents will never admit that and the majority of the British electorate are too indifferent to realise it. Thus the need for scapegoats and the ready willingness of the majority to accept them. That is why we voted for Brexit and for people like Nigel Garbage. That is why the Americans voted for the 45 because the free market has destroyed their nation as well and they cannot see any alternative, convinced by the propaganda they are constantly subjected to that anything that smacks of collectivism is socialist, the work of the devil. The only silver lining in all this is that the silent majority has been aroused and at last a part of the Tory agenda has produced outrage. They have been exposed and have nowhere to hide on this issue. Make no mistake, what they were trying to do was truly despicable and is so bad that even the English electorate are ashamed. It won't last as the Tories will turn their attention to something else, such as bombing Syria, to deflect our attention. But remember, the driving force behind this shameful episode is now the British Prime Minister. Scum always rises to the top, you have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)