It is election time again!
Once upon a time the English people elected representatives to hold the government to account, a government with severely limited powers. Parliament was often called when the government needed money to go to war!
Those days are long gone. Today we live in a totalitarian society, in which every aspect of our lives is a matter for government. The education of our children and our health are the governments concern.
We do not vote so much for representatives, but for law makers.
People are used to doing what they are told. Our working lives are frequently the extension of our school lives. We turn up, suffer boredom, accept the humiliation of being ordered about by a boss.
This slave reality is something that seems quite natural to most people. The small windows of personal autonomy are restricted to leisure time, when consumer choice kicks in to give us the illusion of freedom.
More and more people are in work we are told. More women, more people than ever are in paid employment. How sad!
In the past fifty years capital has become increasingly centralised., Government, although it no longer runs any major industries, is bigger than ever, the bureaucracy sucking up the previously autonomous functions of family and society.
The day of rest is all but abolished, and the people accept debt as something as normal as dog like obedience.
There is no political party that wishes to change this situation, because, like us, they can see no alternative to a world in which our humanity is diminished by the orders of Power.
Tuesday, 31 March 2015
Saturday, 28 March 2015
Isolation Rooms In Schools
I have to confess that until a few hours ago I had no idea that schools had isolation units, something like solitary confinement for reluctant and uncooperative students.
Such cells did not exist in the schools of my youth. When the little Revoltettes were at primary school sometimes the more troublesome children were taken out of class and sat in the corridor, outside the school office. At their secondary school, which was private, there were no such isolation units.
So this is where compulsory government 'education' leads too - semi literate children and young people, pointlessly restrained in meaningless learning activities, herded together with their peers instead of working and dealing with the adult world, punished with isolation should they show spirit.
What is amazing though is that the pseudo Left will tell you that solitary confinement is not punishment. They are merely managing the children, conforming them to the system. The teachers have no authority, only power. Without authority there can be no values and without values here can be no worth, and nobody worthy of punishment.
And so all crime is permitted to those with Power in their quest for total conformity.
Such cells did not exist in the schools of my youth. When the little Revoltettes were at primary school sometimes the more troublesome children were taken out of class and sat in the corridor, outside the school office. At their secondary school, which was private, there were no such isolation units.
So this is where compulsory government 'education' leads too - semi literate children and young people, pointlessly restrained in meaningless learning activities, herded together with their peers instead of working and dealing with the adult world, punished with isolation should they show spirit.
What is amazing though is that the pseudo Left will tell you that solitary confinement is not punishment. They are merely managing the children, conforming them to the system. The teachers have no authority, only power. Without authority there can be no values and without values here can be no worth, and nobody worthy of punishment.
And so all crime is permitted to those with Power in their quest for total conformity.
Monday, 23 March 2015
The Shepherds Fire - John Clare
On the rude heath yclad in furze and ling
And oddling thorns that thick and prickly grows
Shielding the shepherd when the rude wind blows
And boys that sit right merry in a ring
Round fires upon a molehill toasting sloes
And crabs that froth and frizzle on the coals
Loud is the gabble and the laughter loud
The rabbits scarce dare peep out from their holes
Unwont to mix with such a noisey crowd
Some run to eke the fire - while many a cloud
Of smoke curls up some on their haunches squat
With mouth for bellows puffing till it flares
Or if that fail one fans his napless hat
And when the feast is done they squabble for their shares.
And oddling thorns that thick and prickly grows
Shielding the shepherd when the rude wind blows
And boys that sit right merry in a ring
Round fires upon a molehill toasting sloes
And crabs that froth and frizzle on the coals
Loud is the gabble and the laughter loud
The rabbits scarce dare peep out from their holes
Unwont to mix with such a noisey crowd
Some run to eke the fire - while many a cloud
Of smoke curls up some on their haunches squat
With mouth for bellows puffing till it flares
Or if that fail one fans his napless hat
And when the feast is done they squabble for their shares.
Saturday, 21 March 2015
Escapism - The Autistic Society
It really was not so long ago, within living memory, in fact, that people did not have televisions. Even so, people had radio (the wireless) and magazines and the cinema, so we were well on the road to cretinization.
But before television people still had to 'make their own entertainment'. Churches, clubs and pubs were centres of social life. Women went to the bingo, men dug their allotments and raced pigeons. In those brief hours of escape from the factory or domestic duties people did things.
Today they seem to do nothing. Even cooking is a chore. When was the last time anyone washed a nappy?
Yet, at the same time we are very busy, cramming every moment with noise and flickering images.
Physical work, like walking, gives us chance to think.
But today we chase the thoughts away. We look for escape, not from drudgery, but from ourselves.
How else can we explain the use of drugs? Not so long ago people smoked cigarettes and drank a few beers, perhaps, but that was all. For the most part people drank to be sociable, and smoked as a little break, like a coffee break, while going about their business.
But now people passively perform their functions, then passively consume. They do not find relief in creativity.
We have learnt passivity and obedience at school, brought up with enough learning to enable us to consume but not to question. Practical skills are scarcely taught at all in schools. Healthy young men and women are chained to the school desk instead of doing and creating.
And when we emerge from our education with our degrees in psychology, criminology and media studies, then what?
Consumption ad nauseam, consumption ad tedium.
We want to escape the hollowness where there once was a heart, escape our purposelessness, where once the meaning of life was obvious.
So we consume more and more, images, noise, food, looking for another thrill to put on the curriculum of 'my life', unable to relate to another human being, because your own experiences are entirely irrelevant to anybody else.
But before television people still had to 'make their own entertainment'. Churches, clubs and pubs were centres of social life. Women went to the bingo, men dug their allotments and raced pigeons. In those brief hours of escape from the factory or domestic duties people did things.
Today they seem to do nothing. Even cooking is a chore. When was the last time anyone washed a nappy?
Yet, at the same time we are very busy, cramming every moment with noise and flickering images.
Physical work, like walking, gives us chance to think.
But today we chase the thoughts away. We look for escape, not from drudgery, but from ourselves.
How else can we explain the use of drugs? Not so long ago people smoked cigarettes and drank a few beers, perhaps, but that was all. For the most part people drank to be sociable, and smoked as a little break, like a coffee break, while going about their business.
But now people passively perform their functions, then passively consume. They do not find relief in creativity.
We have learnt passivity and obedience at school, brought up with enough learning to enable us to consume but not to question. Practical skills are scarcely taught at all in schools. Healthy young men and women are chained to the school desk instead of doing and creating.
And when we emerge from our education with our degrees in psychology, criminology and media studies, then what?
Consumption ad nauseam, consumption ad tedium.
We want to escape the hollowness where there once was a heart, escape our purposelessness, where once the meaning of life was obvious.
So we consume more and more, images, noise, food, looking for another thrill to put on the curriculum of 'my life', unable to relate to another human being, because your own experiences are entirely irrelevant to anybody else.
Friday, 20 March 2015
Multiculturalism And Monoculturalism
The imprisonment if a young man in Scotland for singing a Glasgow Rangers song, which might possibly offend a Catholic of Irish descent, raises a few troubling issues.
Firstly, of course, is the fact that the principle of free speech has been attacked yet again by our totalitarian rulers. Jailed for singing a song? You've got to be kidding.
Secondly, there was the notion that the song was provocative and might cause violence. This is the defence of the Charlie Hebdo killers, and their numerous supporters in the establishment, such as Papa Francesco, that if somebody does not like what you say they have the right to punch your lights out - or worse. People say things hat are offencive to me all the time. When Feminazis defame the male of the species, when racists like Diane Abbott say that white people like to divide and rule, or the profane take the Lord's name in vain with their OMGs, I am indignant, I am offended, but do I smash their faces in? Would I get away with it? I doubt it.
Thirdly, of course is the nature of the song. It is specifically a Scottish Protestant song, and therefore cannot permitted. In the same way that the establishment tried to ban Tottenham fans from proclaiming their 'Yid' identity, the authorities try to abolish any cultural allegiances to football clubs. Some years ago, for instance, Irish Catholic players would play for Arsenal, Manchester United and Liverpool, as well as Glasgow Celtic, rather than their local rivals. But now those clubs must be merely a brand.
However, the past must now be forgotten. In Scotland the only identity is to be Scottish. It is okay to hate the English and the Jews, sorry, Zionists, but not each other. To be Scottish is the only monocultural identity allowed.
We see this in other countries too. For all the talk of diversity and multiculturalism, in reality there is none. We can see this in the propaganda of the Progressive pseudo-Left against kosher and halal meat. Throughout the western world animals are kept in abominable conditions and yet the practices of religious minorities are condemned. Those who do not worship Caesar, religious people that is, are portrayed as savages, superstitious ignoramuses.
The slaughter of animals the kosher way has been banned in a number of countries, including Denmark and New Zealand. Even Hitler didn't go that far.
So what is the link between the young man singing a proscribed song and the Muslims and the Jews and their meat? It is this, that for all the talk of multiculturalism, your adherence to a culture or a religion must only be skin deep. If you identify with a faith or a people, you can wear it like a tattoo, no more.
Firstly, of course, is the fact that the principle of free speech has been attacked yet again by our totalitarian rulers. Jailed for singing a song? You've got to be kidding.
Secondly, there was the notion that the song was provocative and might cause violence. This is the defence of the Charlie Hebdo killers, and their numerous supporters in the establishment, such as Papa Francesco, that if somebody does not like what you say they have the right to punch your lights out - or worse. People say things hat are offencive to me all the time. When Feminazis defame the male of the species, when racists like Diane Abbott say that white people like to divide and rule, or the profane take the Lord's name in vain with their OMGs, I am indignant, I am offended, but do I smash their faces in? Would I get away with it? I doubt it.
Thirdly, of course is the nature of the song. It is specifically a Scottish Protestant song, and therefore cannot permitted. In the same way that the establishment tried to ban Tottenham fans from proclaiming their 'Yid' identity, the authorities try to abolish any cultural allegiances to football clubs. Some years ago, for instance, Irish Catholic players would play for Arsenal, Manchester United and Liverpool, as well as Glasgow Celtic, rather than their local rivals. But now those clubs must be merely a brand.
However, the past must now be forgotten. In Scotland the only identity is to be Scottish. It is okay to hate the English and the Jews, sorry, Zionists, but not each other. To be Scottish is the only monocultural identity allowed.
We see this in other countries too. For all the talk of diversity and multiculturalism, in reality there is none. We can see this in the propaganda of the Progressive pseudo-Left against kosher and halal meat. Throughout the western world animals are kept in abominable conditions and yet the practices of religious minorities are condemned. Those who do not worship Caesar, religious people that is, are portrayed as savages, superstitious ignoramuses.
The slaughter of animals the kosher way has been banned in a number of countries, including Denmark and New Zealand. Even Hitler didn't go that far.
So what is the link between the young man singing a proscribed song and the Muslims and the Jews and their meat? It is this, that for all the talk of multiculturalism, your adherence to a culture or a religion must only be skin deep. If you identify with a faith or a people, you can wear it like a tattoo, no more.
Thursday, 19 March 2015
Up Too Late
Revoltina and I have just come back from a meal at a pub in the centre of our little town. We got to the pub at about a quarter to seven. Sat at a nearby table was a family of four, the children being two little boys aged about six and three. They looked like little darlings so it was a surprise when all of a sudden the eldest child began screaming and yelling and hitting his father with his little fists.
The thought came into my mind, 'What that boy needs is a good smack!'
'Gosh, he's got one on him,' Revoltina muttered.
'These days,' I grumbled to Revoltina, 'this sort of appalling behaviour is inevitable, what with the government undermining parental authority. Is it any wonder that children turn out to be little tyrants!'
And then I thought about it.
The time was nearly seven o'clock. The wee man had probably been up for twelve hours. He was probably worn out. He shouldn't be eating at seven o'clock, but at four or five o'clock. By seven o'clock he should be having a bath, may be a bite of supper and a story, while sat comfortably in Mum or Dad's lap. Then, warm contented and loved he should be tucked up in bed with Teddy.
The fault was with the parents, not the child. It is quite possible that they had been working all day and only picked up the six year old from the day orphanage (school) at six o'clock. Unfortunately keeping children up late is all too common these days. And it is not especially the poor, the feckless, the shiftless, who are abusing their children in this way, but the respectable, the professional and the prosperous, who drag their children around with them when they should be in bed. Parents are all too frequently obsessessed with consumption and careers. But what children need is love and structure and - time! Time to relax, time to play, time to daydream, time for imagination and wonder.
I would guess that a good many children who are diagnosed with ADHD are just plain tired.
The thought came into my mind, 'What that boy needs is a good smack!'
'Gosh, he's got one on him,' Revoltina muttered.
'These days,' I grumbled to Revoltina, 'this sort of appalling behaviour is inevitable, what with the government undermining parental authority. Is it any wonder that children turn out to be little tyrants!'
And then I thought about it.
The time was nearly seven o'clock. The wee man had probably been up for twelve hours. He was probably worn out. He shouldn't be eating at seven o'clock, but at four or five o'clock. By seven o'clock he should be having a bath, may be a bite of supper and a story, while sat comfortably in Mum or Dad's lap. Then, warm contented and loved he should be tucked up in bed with Teddy.
The fault was with the parents, not the child. It is quite possible that they had been working all day and only picked up the six year old from the day orphanage (school) at six o'clock. Unfortunately keeping children up late is all too common these days. And it is not especially the poor, the feckless, the shiftless, who are abusing their children in this way, but the respectable, the professional and the prosperous, who drag their children around with them when they should be in bed. Parents are all too frequently obsessessed with consumption and careers. But what children need is love and structure and - time! Time to relax, time to play, time to daydream, time for imagination and wonder.
I would guess that a good many children who are diagnosed with ADHD are just plain tired.
Wednesday, 18 March 2015
The Health Adviser In The Community
From the essay, 'Eugenics And Other Evils', by G.K.Chesterton, 1922.
'..........in the composite book which Mr. Wells edited and called 'The Great State' (1912). He said the doctor should no longer be a mere plasterer of paltry maladies, but should be, in his own words, 'the health adviser of the community'. The same can be expressed with even more point and simplicity in the proverb that prevention is better than cure. Commenting on this, I said that it amounted to treating all people as if they were ill. This the writer admitted to be true, only adding that everyone is ill. To which I rejoin that if everyone is ill, the health adviser is ill too, and therefore cannot know how to cure that minimum of illness. This is the fundamental fallacy in the whole business of preventive medicine. Prevention is not better than cure. Cutting off a man's head is not better than curing his headache: it is not even better than failing to cure it. And it is the same if a man is in revolt, even a morbid revolt. Taking the heart out of him by slavery is not better than cure; prevention is even worse than the disease. Prevention means being an invalid for life, with the extra exasperation of being quite well.
'..........in the composite book which Mr. Wells edited and called 'The Great State' (1912). He said the doctor should no longer be a mere plasterer of paltry maladies, but should be, in his own words, 'the health adviser of the community'. The same can be expressed with even more point and simplicity in the proverb that prevention is better than cure. Commenting on this, I said that it amounted to treating all people as if they were ill. This the writer admitted to be true, only adding that everyone is ill. To which I rejoin that if everyone is ill, the health adviser is ill too, and therefore cannot know how to cure that minimum of illness. This is the fundamental fallacy in the whole business of preventive medicine. Prevention is not better than cure. Cutting off a man's head is not better than curing his headache: it is not even better than failing to cure it. And it is the same if a man is in revolt, even a morbid revolt. Taking the heart out of him by slavery is not better than cure; prevention is even worse than the disease. Prevention means being an invalid for life, with the extra exasperation of being quite well.
Sunday, 15 March 2015
Elton John And Boycotts And Negative Comments
Some of Elton John's early music is classic pop, and he was part of the Glam Rock era, along with T.Rex, Bowie, Gary Glitter, Roxy Music, Sweet, and many more. And some of his music has stood the test of time.
Now, however much I dislike his sucking up to the establishment, however much I squirm at pictures of him with his 'husband', and whatever my reservations about adoptions and surrogate mothers, whatever I think about the irresponsibility of parenting children when you are old enough to be their great- grandfather, I will not be boycotting Elton John's records.
I will not be boycotting Elton because, firstly, I think that at heart Elton John is a decent bloke. I can understand people not wanting to listen to Gary Glitter anymore, and personally, when musicians take an anti Israel stand, they fall in my estimation and I don't much feel like listening to their music, because I suspect that behind their righteousness, their exclusive hostility to Israel reveals a hate-filled heart that may lead to someone's physical harm. But Elton John is just trying to live his life as he sees best.
Secondly, if you disagree with someone, then talk to them. Shutting down debate by calling for a boycott is absurd and destructive. It seems to me that the ones who express 'anger' and 'outrage' are the ones that hate.
Likewise I am sure Dolce and Gabbana are decent blokes too.
That said, I can understand Elton John not wanting to buy any more stuff from people who have criticised his lifestyle.
The problem with Dolce and Gabbana is that their comments were negative. They wished to praise traditional motherhood and traditional families. By all means do so, but it doesn't need to involve criticism of others.
Say what is right, not what is wrong.
Now, however much I dislike his sucking up to the establishment, however much I squirm at pictures of him with his 'husband', and whatever my reservations about adoptions and surrogate mothers, whatever I think about the irresponsibility of parenting children when you are old enough to be their great- grandfather, I will not be boycotting Elton John's records.
I will not be boycotting Elton because, firstly, I think that at heart Elton John is a decent bloke. I can understand people not wanting to listen to Gary Glitter anymore, and personally, when musicians take an anti Israel stand, they fall in my estimation and I don't much feel like listening to their music, because I suspect that behind their righteousness, their exclusive hostility to Israel reveals a hate-filled heart that may lead to someone's physical harm. But Elton John is just trying to live his life as he sees best.
Secondly, if you disagree with someone, then talk to them. Shutting down debate by calling for a boycott is absurd and destructive. It seems to me that the ones who express 'anger' and 'outrage' are the ones that hate.
Likewise I am sure Dolce and Gabbana are decent blokes too.
That said, I can understand Elton John not wanting to buy any more stuff from people who have criticised his lifestyle.
The problem with Dolce and Gabbana is that their comments were negative. They wished to praise traditional motherhood and traditional families. By all means do so, but it doesn't need to involve criticism of others.
Say what is right, not what is wrong.
The Foggy Foggy Dew
When I was a bachelor I lived by myself,
I worked at the weaver's trade,
And the only, only thing I did that was wrong
Was to woo a fair young maid.
I wooed her in the winter time,
And in the summer too,
And the only, only thing I did wrong
Was to keep her from the foggy, foggy, dew.
One night she knelt close by my side
As I lay fast asleep.
She threw her arms around my neck,
And then began to weep.
She wept, she cried, she tore her hair,
Ah me, what could I do?
So all night long I held her in my arms
Just to keep her from the foggy, foggy dew.
Oh, I am a bachelor, I live with my son,
We work at the weaver's trade.
And every single time I look into his eyes
He reminds me of the fair young maid.
He reminds of the winter time,
And of the summer too.
And the many, many times I held her in my arms
Just to keep her from the foggy, foggy dew.
I worked at the weaver's trade,
And the only, only thing I did that was wrong
Was to woo a fair young maid.
I wooed her in the winter time,
And in the summer too,
And the only, only thing I did wrong
Was to keep her from the foggy, foggy, dew.
One night she knelt close by my side
As I lay fast asleep.
She threw her arms around my neck,
And then began to weep.
She wept, she cried, she tore her hair,
Ah me, what could I do?
So all night long I held her in my arms
Just to keep her from the foggy, foggy dew.
Oh, I am a bachelor, I live with my son,
We work at the weaver's trade.
And every single time I look into his eyes
He reminds me of the fair young maid.
He reminds of the winter time,
And of the summer too.
And the many, many times I held her in my arms
Just to keep her from the foggy, foggy dew.
Friday, 13 March 2015
Most Slaves Have Always Been Female
There's nothing new about women being integrated into the workforce. Slavery, with the exception of the plantation economies in the Americas, has always been largely female.
Ever since woman first said, 'I could do with some help with the housework' and man rushed to the neighbouring tribe to kidnap some girls and kill the men, slavery has been largely female.
Indeed, work - life itself - has been largely female.
It is only in the last couple of hundred years - since the ultra patriarchal French Revolution - that the absurd notion has arisen that what the boys do is what is important, and that women exist to serve them.
In ancient times the Greeks, just like the barbarians that they despised, would enslave conquered people. When they destroyed Troy they killed the men and enslaved the women and children. The men weren't really necessary or useful - the women were.
The Arabs, the Turks and other Muslims such as the Tartars were big on slavery too. Nowadays it is fashionable to talk about the centuries of Islamic domination in Spain as some kind of golden age, but the Christians were very careful to keep an unpopulated military zone between them and the Muslims, who liked nothing better than raiding for slaves.
Men could have up to four wives because, with all that war and massacring, there were a lot more women than men.
Largely female slave societies have been common throughout the world until modern times. It is only Judaeo Christian societies that have found a place for Man's energies without killing him or castrating him. At the same time Christian culture freed all women from slavery.
It was quite clear to our Christian ancestors that the men served the women. Only with the rise of atheism in the eighteenth century did the notion of male superiority begin to make inroads outside the warrior and bureaucratic elites.
Since then we have seen the collapse of Christian civilisation and its inevitable corollary - female servitude.
Ever since woman first said, 'I could do with some help with the housework' and man rushed to the neighbouring tribe to kidnap some girls and kill the men, slavery has been largely female.
Indeed, work - life itself - has been largely female.
It is only in the last couple of hundred years - since the ultra patriarchal French Revolution - that the absurd notion has arisen that what the boys do is what is important, and that women exist to serve them.
In ancient times the Greeks, just like the barbarians that they despised, would enslave conquered people. When they destroyed Troy they killed the men and enslaved the women and children. The men weren't really necessary or useful - the women were.
The Arabs, the Turks and other Muslims such as the Tartars were big on slavery too. Nowadays it is fashionable to talk about the centuries of Islamic domination in Spain as some kind of golden age, but the Christians were very careful to keep an unpopulated military zone between them and the Muslims, who liked nothing better than raiding for slaves.
Men could have up to four wives because, with all that war and massacring, there were a lot more women than men.
Largely female slave societies have been common throughout the world until modern times. It is only Judaeo Christian societies that have found a place for Man's energies without killing him or castrating him. At the same time Christian culture freed all women from slavery.
It was quite clear to our Christian ancestors that the men served the women. Only with the rise of atheism in the eighteenth century did the notion of male superiority begin to make inroads outside the warrior and bureaucratic elites.
Since then we have seen the collapse of Christian civilisation and its inevitable corollary - female servitude.
Women Make Better Slaves
One of the great changes of the past 50 years is the integration of women into patriarchal/hierarchical power structures at school and at work. Autonomous living and untaxed labour is scorned. Childcare is taken to be a low grade worthless activity when compared to working for the boss, which is regarded as so much more essential. Children only become worth something when the mother abandons them to perform taxable labour in order to pay for them, and a childcarer earns taxable money looking after the children. In this way the Economy is strengthened twice over, by the mother and by the child carer.
The woman who looks after her own children is an enemy of Power. The old fashioned way is simply not acceptable anymore. By taking herself and her children out of the Economy, an old fashioned autonomous woman is defying the State and Global Capitalism.
In the New Order women must be enslaved at all costs. After the colonisation of Europe, then America, then Africa and Asia, Power has to expand somewhere - for capitalism is the spread of Power and money the exchange of the tokens of Power - and how better than to colonise every aspect of life and turn it into a relationship of exchange and domination.
In Europe we see women giving up on the right to have children, living in a morass of loneliness, self-harm and self-pity, untrained and unwilling to assume the dignity of there foremothers.
In the Third World sweat shops abound. Women have deft fingers and are more easily intimidated. Far from being set free, women are subjected to sexual abuse, poverty and abortion. They are allowed nothing -no homes, no families. But even so, despite the politics of Power, the politics of Death, when people move to the cities they create new communities. Often, as in England during the Industrial Revolution, people form free evangelical Protestant churches to reconnect with the values of solidarity and giving, to escape from the swamp of despair that is the result of their empty and meaningless toil and enjoy relations of love and respect in their private lives.
The woman who looks after her own children is an enemy of Power. The old fashioned way is simply not acceptable anymore. By taking herself and her children out of the Economy, an old fashioned autonomous woman is defying the State and Global Capitalism.
In the New Order women must be enslaved at all costs. After the colonisation of Europe, then America, then Africa and Asia, Power has to expand somewhere - for capitalism is the spread of Power and money the exchange of the tokens of Power - and how better than to colonise every aspect of life and turn it into a relationship of exchange and domination.
In Europe we see women giving up on the right to have children, living in a morass of loneliness, self-harm and self-pity, untrained and unwilling to assume the dignity of there foremothers.
In the Third World sweat shops abound. Women have deft fingers and are more easily intimidated. Far from being set free, women are subjected to sexual abuse, poverty and abortion. They are allowed nothing -no homes, no families. But even so, despite the politics of Power, the politics of Death, when people move to the cities they create new communities. Often, as in England during the Industrial Revolution, people form free evangelical Protestant churches to reconnect with the values of solidarity and giving, to escape from the swamp of despair that is the result of their empty and meaningless toil and enjoy relations of love and respect in their private lives.
Thursday, 12 March 2015
The Pseudo Left; Educating For Inequality
The pseudo Left is the current political manifestation of the officer and overseer classes. Everything it does is progressive, moral and fair - and in its own interests.
Take education for example.
In our little town, some years ago, there was a selective grammar school for boys and one for girls. A good number of the pupils were from ordinary backgrounds. Two thirds of the kids went to secondary moderns where they learnt more practical skills, left school at 16, and if they wanted to get on in life, they furthered their training at night school or with apprenticeships.
Of course, that worked too well, and the selection on academic merit, by an exam at the age of 11, meant that the bureaucratic bourgeoisie might lose out.
So, of course, to make things 'fair',selection by merit was abolished and all the children were sent to the same school.
Except in reality they weren't.
In our little town the children from the poorest area go to the 'worst' school. Those from the richest areas go to the 'best' school.
Pretty much the only children from state schools to go to top universities are the children of 'educated' parents.
The 'advantage' of richer better educated pupils starts early on. Many years ago, at primary school, all the work was done in school - there was no homework. If your reading was not up to scratch the teacher might well keep you back to read to her for ten minutes after class.
Not a chance these days! As a parent once told me, 'you send your children to school to socialise, you educate them at home.'
In secondary school poor children often have to overcome the handicap of coursework - knowledgeable parents come in very useful. And of course there is the endless prejudice of the teachers against the native working class. They themselves are frequently middle-class, peripatetic, nobody people from nowhere. They can relate to immigrants, people who have moved, but the native English workers, with their local accents and their sense of belonging, who have all those things the bourgeois does not have, and can never buy, who can give without rewarding, who can laugh without hating, who can love without moralising - these people are hated by the teachers.
The pseudo Left curiously see everything as competition. For them education is competition, gaining an 'advantage'. So they hate those who go to private school, because in the eyes of the bourgeois 'Left' they have gained an 'advantage', and gained it by cheating, by spending money.
The pseudo-Left, the captains and the corporals of global capitalism, do not want equality - far from it.
Their only interest is in maintaining the hierarchy, the patriarchal structure, the Caesar they worship, and their own place as favoured devotees.
Take education for example.
In our little town, some years ago, there was a selective grammar school for boys and one for girls. A good number of the pupils were from ordinary backgrounds. Two thirds of the kids went to secondary moderns where they learnt more practical skills, left school at 16, and if they wanted to get on in life, they furthered their training at night school or with apprenticeships.
Of course, that worked too well, and the selection on academic merit, by an exam at the age of 11, meant that the bureaucratic bourgeoisie might lose out.
So, of course, to make things 'fair',selection by merit was abolished and all the children were sent to the same school.
Except in reality they weren't.
In our little town the children from the poorest area go to the 'worst' school. Those from the richest areas go to the 'best' school.
Pretty much the only children from state schools to go to top universities are the children of 'educated' parents.
The 'advantage' of richer better educated pupils starts early on. Many years ago, at primary school, all the work was done in school - there was no homework. If your reading was not up to scratch the teacher might well keep you back to read to her for ten minutes after class.
Not a chance these days! As a parent once told me, 'you send your children to school to socialise, you educate them at home.'
In secondary school poor children often have to overcome the handicap of coursework - knowledgeable parents come in very useful. And of course there is the endless prejudice of the teachers against the native working class. They themselves are frequently middle-class, peripatetic, nobody people from nowhere. They can relate to immigrants, people who have moved, but the native English workers, with their local accents and their sense of belonging, who have all those things the bourgeois does not have, and can never buy, who can give without rewarding, who can laugh without hating, who can love without moralising - these people are hated by the teachers.
The pseudo Left curiously see everything as competition. For them education is competition, gaining an 'advantage'. So they hate those who go to private school, because in the eyes of the bourgeois 'Left' they have gained an 'advantage', and gained it by cheating, by spending money.
The pseudo-Left, the captains and the corporals of global capitalism, do not want equality - far from it.
Their only interest is in maintaining the hierarchy, the patriarchal structure, the Caesar they worship, and their own place as favoured devotees.
Wednesday, 11 March 2015
Teachers: The Authority And The Power
These days teachers normally adhere to the pseudo Left and its ideologies because they are mainly employed by the Government. Naturally they wish to control the children and adhere to the State's agenda of obtaining power, not only over the little darlings, but over their parents too. Hence the lack of interest by the teaching professions in practical skills such as reading, writing and arithmetic and its obsession over racism, sexism, gay advocacy and climate change. They teach division and fear.
Obviously, no parent in their right mind wishes such drivel to be force fed to their offspring. Parents want their children to learn Maths, Science, Music, History, Dance, Geography, the arts and the sciences. The children are taught submission, and worse still, for the girls in particular, is the teaching of depravity. They are taught that love is genital, that they must accept being sodomised; at the age of thirteen they are given sex toys and condoms to practice with. God help them! The last thing the children are taught is that love is about motherhood, family, unconditional love, sacrifice and submission.
They are taught no ethics. Racism, sexism etc is as far as it goes, and maybe 'success' too.In other words, the slave has no ethic except one, obedience. He or she knows no loyalty, courage, persistence, endurance, sacrifice or generosity.
And from where does the teacher get the authority to teach our children thus? From the parents? Do they act 'in loco parentis'?
No, of course not. Teachers have no authority whatsoever.
Behind them lies only power, the power that comes from the violence of the State.
Obviously, no parent in their right mind wishes such drivel to be force fed to their offspring. Parents want their children to learn Maths, Science, Music, History, Dance, Geography, the arts and the sciences. The children are taught submission, and worse still, for the girls in particular, is the teaching of depravity. They are taught that love is genital, that they must accept being sodomised; at the age of thirteen they are given sex toys and condoms to practice with. God help them! The last thing the children are taught is that love is about motherhood, family, unconditional love, sacrifice and submission.
They are taught no ethics. Racism, sexism etc is as far as it goes, and maybe 'success' too.In other words, the slave has no ethic except one, obedience. He or she knows no loyalty, courage, persistence, endurance, sacrifice or generosity.
And from where does the teacher get the authority to teach our children thus? From the parents? Do they act 'in loco parentis'?
No, of course not. Teachers have no authority whatsoever.
Behind them lies only power, the power that comes from the violence of the State.
Monday, 9 March 2015
The Inevitable Failure Of Bureaucracy
I have taken the quote below from an interesting blog called 'Secret Social Worker'. The writer is referring to the Rotherham Mass Child Rape Scandal. Yet the failings of the Rotherham bureaucrats, their collaboration with appalling criminals at the expense of the vulnerable, is almost inevitable. It takes a brave person to fight against the aggressive self-interst of a Bureaucracy. A Bureaucracy is the most Capitalist of all institutions. Its purpose is to survive, to grow and to conquer. Its fine words are just so much self-justifying propaganda.
However kind and loving and responsible an individual bureaucrat may be, they are accountable to their line manager, not the 'customer'. Be they police, teachers, doctors, administrators, they must inevitably see the customer with some hostility, a potential hazard, particularly should the customer believe the propaganda.
The Secret Social Worker has this to say,
'The lack of political will and covering up of mistakes and failings, a management structure that prevents professionals protecting children properly, the process and organisation appear more important than the children....... no responsibility for mistakes and decision making from management and politicians, a concern about political correctness, a community that was unwilling or unable to be involved in child protection, whistleblowers censured, the de-professionalisation of expert child protection workers in favour of process and targets....... family court reforms looking at targets and money.'
It could relate to any aspect of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie as they lay their heavy thieving hands upon ordinary people.
However kind and loving and responsible an individual bureaucrat may be, they are accountable to their line manager, not the 'customer'. Be they police, teachers, doctors, administrators, they must inevitably see the customer with some hostility, a potential hazard, particularly should the customer believe the propaganda.
The Secret Social Worker has this to say,
'The lack of political will and covering up of mistakes and failings, a management structure that prevents professionals protecting children properly, the process and organisation appear more important than the children....... no responsibility for mistakes and decision making from management and politicians, a concern about political correctness, a community that was unwilling or unable to be involved in child protection, whistleblowers censured, the de-professionalisation of expert child protection workers in favour of process and targets....... family court reforms looking at targets and money.'
It could relate to any aspect of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie as they lay their heavy thieving hands upon ordinary people.
Saturday, 7 March 2015
Feminist Russia
Why do our masters hate Russia so much?
Is it because they are more Christian than we are?
Is it because they pay less tax than we do?
Or is it because as far as women's rights are concerned, whilst we talk the talk they walk the walk?
We are forever told that 'equality' does not mean actual equality (the poor remain poor, the rich remain rich), but the rather Thatcherite notion of equality of opportunity, reduced still further to even narrower privilege of upper class women to enjoy leadership roles within the patriarchy.
By this definition, Russia is doing rather well, second in the world.
The Philippines are world champs with 48% of senior management positions held by women, followed by Russia with 42%, then Malaysia, Thailand and so on, way ahead of Soviet Britain on 22% or Feminazi Sweden and Spain on 28% and 26% respectively.
Perhaps, in reality our masters want to use women as cheap labour. Perhaps the micromanaging of our lives is designed to produce increased inequality. Perhaps they want to return the Russians to the servitude of their Soviet past?
Is it because they are more Christian than we are?
Is it because they pay less tax than we do?
Or is it because as far as women's rights are concerned, whilst we talk the talk they walk the walk?
We are forever told that 'equality' does not mean actual equality (the poor remain poor, the rich remain rich), but the rather Thatcherite notion of equality of opportunity, reduced still further to even narrower privilege of upper class women to enjoy leadership roles within the patriarchy.
By this definition, Russia is doing rather well, second in the world.
The Philippines are world champs with 48% of senior management positions held by women, followed by Russia with 42%, then Malaysia, Thailand and so on, way ahead of Soviet Britain on 22% or Feminazi Sweden and Spain on 28% and 26% respectively.
Perhaps, in reality our masters want to use women as cheap labour. Perhaps the micromanaging of our lives is designed to produce increased inequality. Perhaps they want to return the Russians to the servitude of their Soviet past?
Friday, 6 March 2015
Inequality In Justice
I read a headline the other day, something about the Liberal Democrat leader calling for a reduction of women in jail, and it made me wonder about how many women were in jail, and how many women were in the boardroom.
According to the statistics I have at hand approximately 22% of senior management positions in the UK are held by women, and only 4% of the prison population is female.
Surely, by the holy laws of equality 22% of prisoners should be women.
Ideally, sentences should be adjusted in favour of more jail sentences for women, until the prison population is 50-50, female - male.
Surely, it is unfair that more women are not allowed to experience jail simply because criminality is perceived to be a male attribute.
It is time that women were free to be criminals, free from the patriarchal tutelage of the capitalist state, free from the degrading sub-human label of Victim.
Go on girls, smash the glass ceiling, smash a window and take on the fully human mantle of the Criminal!
According to the statistics I have at hand approximately 22% of senior management positions in the UK are held by women, and only 4% of the prison population is female.
Surely, by the holy laws of equality 22% of prisoners should be women.
Ideally, sentences should be adjusted in favour of more jail sentences for women, until the prison population is 50-50, female - male.
Surely, it is unfair that more women are not allowed to experience jail simply because criminality is perceived to be a male attribute.
It is time that women were free to be criminals, free from the patriarchal tutelage of the capitalist state, free from the degrading sub-human label of Victim.
Go on girls, smash the glass ceiling, smash a window and take on the fully human mantle of the Criminal!
Wednesday, 4 March 2015
Class Is Defined By Power Not Income
I was reading some Labour Party websites yesterday concerning the detachment of the supposedly people's party from the people, particularly its base support, the working class. There seemed to be some confusion as to who the working class are. Some writers talked of the 'new' working class, a sort of rainbow coalition fantasy as opposed to the crusty indigenous 'male' working class.Other writers talked of money and attitudes.
Noticeably, none referred to the basis of class - power.
A working class person goes through most of his or her life receiving orders.
It is as simple as that, really.
Those who give orders - teachers, managers in bureaucracies, social workers, and so on can never really be 'left-wing', as they like to believe. Theirs is a socialism that dispenses with the people. Their experience is one of being integrated into the hierarchy. They can only see life (and here lies the root of their sympathy for Islam) as domination and submission.
The experience of corporals and overseers, not to mention that of the officer class and the generals, is quite different to that of the foot soldiers.
It is power, not wealth, which defines who is 'poor', though often enough, after the pious righteous moral thieves have done, having stripped us of our dignity and our autonomy, we are materially poor too.
Noticeably, none referred to the basis of class - power.
A working class person goes through most of his or her life receiving orders.
It is as simple as that, really.
Those who give orders - teachers, managers in bureaucracies, social workers, and so on can never really be 'left-wing', as they like to believe. Theirs is a socialism that dispenses with the people. Their experience is one of being integrated into the hierarchy. They can only see life (and here lies the root of their sympathy for Islam) as domination and submission.
The experience of corporals and overseers, not to mention that of the officer class and the generals, is quite different to that of the foot soldiers.
It is power, not wealth, which defines who is 'poor', though often enough, after the pious righteous moral thieves have done, having stripped us of our dignity and our autonomy, we are materially poor too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)