Point 121:

Thrust:

Direction of resistance:

Removal of resistance:

Unification:

References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 120: Emeli Sande. Jeremy Corbyn. Julian Assange. Bradley Manning. Jeffrey Sterling. Edward Snowden. David Kelly. Alexander Cockburn. Michael Hastings. Diana Spencer. And all of their friends. And everyone I forgot or nobody even told me about who is also on that list, whether I say it or know it or not. You, reader. YOU are on that list too. It's an IQ test. What is the relationship of all the people on the list to whether or not I am alone?

Thrust: Are you sick and tired of being lied to?

Getting kinda bored of being ignored?

Can't find the tribe that you belong to?

Oh my friend, you are not alone

Direction of resistance: Are you tired of begging for some answers?

Are you scared you won't make it out alive?

Does it make you sick when truth is censored?

Oh my friend, you are not alone

Oh you are not alone here, don't fear

You are not alone here, no way

There's plenty more others here, yeah yeah

My friend, oh you are not alone

Removal of resistance: Are you tired of working for the minimum?

Has your heart adjusted to the dark?

Well does it make you sick they kill the innocent?

Oh my friend, you are not alone

Well, are you dreaming of a brighter future?

Somewhere the children can be free

Will you risk it all to tell the truth? Yeah

My friend, oh you are not alone

Oh you are not alone here, don't fear

You are not alone here, no way

There's plenty more others here, yeah yeah

My friend, oh you are not alone

Unification: Are you tired of feeling so invisible?

Are you sick of silencing your voice?

Do you still have hope that peace is possible?

My friend, oh you are not alone

You are not alone here, don't fear

You are not alone here, no way

There's plenty more others here, yeah yeah

My friend, oh you are not alone

References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 119: It's not because they're terrorists that it's wrong for the Taliban to bomb Washington, it'd be wrong even if Mahatma Gandhi did it (Chomsky).

Thrust: In other words, when the USA and NATO and the UK and the nuclear dick-wavers like Swinson, Johnson, Blair and co, say that it's okay for THEM to bomb other people - the fact is it isn't.

Direction of resistance: It is no more right for any of us to go around bombing Iraq than it is for anyone to come here and bomb London or anywhere else.

Removal of resistance: If you do not understand this, Chomsky says, you do not have the right to talk.

Unification: "If you can't understand that you pay attention to your own crimes," he says. "You have no right to talk".

So all you nuclear dick-wavers: SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP.

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/10/afghanistan-a-pentagon-paradise-built-on-lies/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 118: Whether Corbyn is about to win or lose, much of the media and private organisational space is loudly proudly saying he will definitely lose (and so on).

Thrust: As a scientist of the markets I know more than most that anyone dumb enough to be so certain in their predictions is entirely unreliable.

Direction of resistance: And the cynic and scientist in me refuses to accept the apparently quite probable Corbyn Prime Ministership as real until there is visible evidence. It's not that there isn't already evidence, just that the media and so on have done their best to conceal what it shows, moreover maybe game players 'on both sides' have therefore been lying to polls and so on (and look at the polls, how unscientifically their claims are made).

Removal of resistance: So I don't know. I know that the right thing for me to do is vote Labour, I know Labour will very probably win Putney, as the Labour vote will not be split but the Tory campaign has lurched rightwards to try and win back UKIP dissenters. In Putney, without a doubt, the odds are totally in Corbyn's favour. Moreover places like this are unknown to the world - ie the press hasn't mentioned them, and every effort has been made to just pretend it's not happening.

Unification: Anyway, so as the chief scientist of Ra Ra El and its subsidiaries (eg TVhobo), I say this - I have no idea if he will win or not, but if he doesn't I will (a) not be hurt by it from a purely material perspective, (b) be saddened, deeply, for all the reasons mentioned time and again on this site (DO read it). Ironically those who hate me most in Britain, ie the white racists, will suffer a great deal, collectively, at the hands of vulture capitalism, which will accelerate to maximum speed if they manage to dispense, at least for now, with the threat of real democracy. So the ones who are trying to hurt ME by voting against Corbyn will only empower me and make my life better (the desire for a Britain where white people are majority non-racist and where I am not judged by my name is long dead. You're not going to make Britain like that in my lifetime, probability indicates. 1 in millions, the chances are. You are shit. Basically) whilst bringing certain harm and scarcity to their own descendants and friends.

But if Tony Blair ever said a good thing, just one good thing, it was that Britain needs a "can do" attitude. And with that in mind I have to admit I still think Corbyn will win. After all I'm standing in a former Tory constituency where the MP has run away and handed over to far right nutters, after losing almost all of her 10,000 vote lead. A constituency overflowing with deprived non white people, not just working class UKIPPERs. Plenty of Labour here, hence the possibility of its turning Labour now. So it's easy for me to see how high the real chances of a Labour win are - most of your pundits out there are not including the existence, needs or words of ANY of the Labour voters in Putney, when they give you their 'elite' assessments of the nation. Remember how fervently they said Corbyn would lose the leadership re-election, how fervently they said Labour would be reduced to a tiny minority, how afterwards they said "how come the polls were so wrong?" and then like goldfish didn't wait for an answer, and today repeat the same childish errors.

So no, I think on December 13th I will not be mourning the failure of the Corbyn movement to win its first major battle, really major, but in fact I will mourn the end of the post-big-bang unregulated financial domain in which, for now, I remain a 'top cornflake' - as far as skill goes, demonstrably. See, again, this point: 74.

Nonetheless, when a photon stream hits a reflective surface even if we know the percentage of photons which will reflect, ie the probability, we do not know which ones, neither before nor after, we cannot know, about any given photon, what will happen, ever. When I trade on the eurodollar even if I know that over the entire stream of trades there will be a specific profit level, give or take this or that, I can never know whether any given trade is going to win or lose, never. And people who pretend to know who will or won't be in Numero Dix later this month are the same as all the 'losers' who go into markets saying "I know I'll win" and lose. 70 to 80 percent of retail traders on spread betting sites are 'losers' overall, as the warnings forced by ESMA make it clear. This failure rate is not unique - across the financial sector the failure rate in the longrun is remarkably similar to that figure. Yet almost none of its workers does not sincerely believe that they, ultimately, know which trades are 'likely to win'. No trade is likely to win. A stream of trades is likely to generate a general profit level of x or y. But to imagine that you can predict, with any usefulness, the outcome of one particular trade - is to be western instead of intelligent. In this regard I would assert that George Soros, Max Keiser, Robert Shiller - are NOT westerners. Not by any means. And any means is what it's about, eh? Ask Malcolm.

Rumours via Tariq Ali that Thornberry is already out seeking to be the 'next Labour leader' makes me certain that I made no mistake at all in my use of her name in the numberwang doc when I did (see below). I never had any legitimate reason to remove her name from it and she has just burned her name into it with a branding iron!

References: http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 117: Corbyn vs Old New Labour.

Thrust: Tony McKenna tells us:

<<

The Labour Party could have enunciated the facts, soberly and conscientiously. On the question of immigration, for example, they might have pointed out that immigrants from the eight countries which joined the EU in 2004 (all poorer countries of eastern and central Europe) - contributed £4.96 billion more in taxes to the UK than they took out in public services in the period up to 2011. But they didn't choose to do so. Instead Labour's movers and shakers hit upon a far more adroit and punchy concept - they issued a cup which proclaimed 'Controls on Immigrants - I'm voting Labour'. (On the plus side, every crank and immigration obsessive nationwide now has something from which to sup.)

>>

Direction of resistance: See the full article in the references below, but that's really all we need. Clear proof that Blair and Co are a bunch of lying, cheating morons who fostered the hatred of immigrants in order to bribe their way to electoral victory.

Removal of resistance: Corbyn, meanwhile, is a scientifically truthful and intellectually honest source who ought to be leading the country (and hopefully will) not just the Labour Party. This is why, above all, people like Blair, lying as we can see from the quote above, lying to appease racists and nazis and anti-semites, goes all out to demonise Corbyn.

Unification: More from McKenna:

<<

On the question of immigration he has consistently argued that it is anything but 'a problem', rather we should celebrate the 'enormous contribution to our society' that immigrants make. As a backbencher he had refused to march to the drums of patriotism and war, opposing the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan at every turn. As leader of the Labour Party, he has opposed any military intervention in Syria, while condemning the government and the UK weapons industry for supplying weapons to countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel facilitating the ongoing decimation of the Yemeni and Palestinian populations.

So much of this had hitherto fallen beneath the radar, had been smothered by the mainstream consensus. But the Corbyn phenomenon was now amplifying these simple and human truths in the most public of forums. Exposing the grotty and illicit machinations of much of the political class as grounded in elite self-interest hitched to ever more vicious forms of economic exploitation on the domestic front - while at the same time shedding light on the illicit interconnections between government, a booming arms industry and the series of never-ending wars abroad. The Corbyn movement, therefore, emerged as a living, grass-roots critique of elite politics as business-as-usual (with no small emphasis on the word 'business').

For this reason, the reaction of the political establishment to the Corbyn and the politics of 'anti-austerity' was inflamed to baying, hysterical proportions, but more significantly it was the type of response which once again demonstrated how the mainstream media, the state broadcaster, the politicians and political pundits were functioning almost as one - a seamless, coordinated political entity with a uniform voice.

In another lifetime it might almost have been satirical. Corbyn, a social democrat of a reformist bent, something of a pacifist, a genuine but at times muddled speaker, the type of earnest community-minded activist who had his own allotment and made his own jam - this same figure was transfigured by a rabid establishment into successive manifestations of the purest evil; he was a terrorist sympathiser, a threat to national security, a communist spy, a misogynist and a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semite.

The allegations were all false, based on the flimsiest of claims; his commitment to terrorism was gleaned from photos where he appeared shaking hands with Sinn Féin leader, Gerry Adams, but the latter had shaken hands with other politicians such as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as part of negotiations toward a peace settlement. Most absurdly of all, the threat Corbyn posed to national security was demonstrated by the fact that he had not bowed sufficiently low at a remembrance ceremony for those killed in war.

It was as though the establishment was trying one smear after the other in order to see which would best stick. In the event, the allegations of anti-Semitism proved most effective. Perhaps because there is a fringe element on the left which does have a problem with anti-Semitism, something that has become more pronounced with the rise in conspiracy theories which followed the events of September 11th and decades of working class defeat. As August Bebel once remarked, 'anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools'. Perhaps because the Corbyn administration was not quick enough to act effectively against some of the cases of genuine anti-Semitism which had emerged within the party. But the facts were still clear. The party received 673 allegations of anti-Semitism toward Labour members from April 2018 to January 2019, which amounted to around 0.1% of the overall party membership (a membership which stood at around 500,000). But reportage which gave a dry and sober account of the statistical facts was simply replaced with the yowling, furious but utterly dogmatic assertion that Corbyn's party was institutionally anti-Semitic and represented an existential threat to the safety of Jews living in the UK.

>>

So you can understand why when the average educated white man or white woman I speak to speaks of Labour's "anti-semitism" I have to ask myself how unintelligent the average white British man or woman has become, over the years. It seems to me that the word which sums up that quantity is "extremely" - no need for a specific number. It's clear that all these white people I meet who are not the ones who actually are annoyed by the anti-semitism smears but are the many self-adulating twats who see themselves as educated and wise and better than those with less education than they - and yet they are visibly very stupid. There is no question about it. To believe Corbyn is 'anti-semitic' is to be a moron. YET if you go through the educated white (and token) members of this society, you will find a majority who demonstrate this cretinous mentality, who are really that stupid. Yes. For example my school, St Paul's school, one of the original 8 public schools, in my year of 150 boys, at a guess, purely a guess, based on how over the last 10+ years I have (despite being, at school, the life and soul of the party, the chairman of various debating societies, the editor of the comedy underground paper, and much acclaimed) been excluded, unfriended, avoided and kept at a distance - and based on all that I'd say that out of 150 boys in my year at St Paul's the number stupid enough to fall for the anti-semitism smears has to be at least 50. Which is disturbingly high. Okay, okay, 'not a majority', as you may assert, since I spoke of a majority - well yes, but my school is rare, one of the most Corbynlike public schools and one of the best schools in Britain. If our monetary and class system is flawed, and structures within it are part of that inherently flawed structure, it doesn't make them useless. I am scientifically, unquestioningly glad I went there and to no other school - had I not, you would not be reading this, I'd bet money. And the nearest I'd get to an algorithm would be the way facebook targets advertising at me! As for that 50 I mention - calculated by simply working out how many in 3 of my facebook friends from St Paul's turned their back on me for being antiwar and against Israel - many surprising ones, not even racists, just not wanting the headache or related fear of being near my activism or encouraging it. 1 in 3. So in 150, perhaps 50. Probably not much higher than that if it exceeds that number, but possibly lower. Obviously St Paul's was not Eton, the latter would call us plebs, and that was because we were definitely closer to a meritocratic model of education than Eton is. In truth if the entire nation's education were as good as St Paul's, we'd be doing well. Whereas if the entire nation's education were as warped as Eton's, someone would nuke us fairly quickly for being basically far far far too fucked up. Just take a look at Mogg for the evidence. Anyway, let's hope that by the end of this week Jeremy Corbyn is the Prime Minister. It's a strong possibility, I'm sure. Perhaps the most likely. St Anne's College Oxford wasn't an entire waste of time but didn't share the quality I mention in St Paul's - which shares the same quality with certain other teachers from my 'preparatory school' and with Arthur Lowe's comedy and Tom Baker's sci-fi. Oxford wasn't useless, but it entirely lacked what made those other places genuine educational experiences I'd be upset at having had to do without, if some weird time travel situation could enable me to have done it, and known what I got out of it, and then go back and not do it. Oxford - I think I'd probably, despite the fact that my 'moral tutor' was also the same kind of educational experience as my school and the others I mentioned, nonetheless, for the sake of being with a better class of student, I'd probably go to a university like Edinburgh or London. And I'd probably wait about 5 or 10 years to do it and be that much younger, if I had this whole time travel malarkey, because in my generation white kids still were only one step beyond the Rigsby generation, so you see - they were a lot more racist, I would guess, and some anecdotal evidence supports, than kids of today. I'd have enjoyed university better with slightly more evolved fellow students, and it's nothing to do with classism or elitism and everything to do with yearning for equality and the capacity to enjoy your day among friends, rather than - well. The way it has been, but the way it will stop being, in our lifetimes. And it doesn't really matter who wins the election, although it would be advantageous and convenient if Corbyn were to win it. But either way, sooner or later, we will win our battles, because these battles are one and the same as our battle to survive millions of years and - indeed - as Feynman and others would be quick to agree - who fecking knows how long or 'what' exactly (I mean there ARE other dimensions you know, once you get past up, left, forwards and six o'clock on the 234rd cycle around the big fire 2014 cycles after point x, which is a point we more or less can partly show measurements all the way back to, or if not that then have a sentimental attachment to it and can actually go back further, but since we're still fairly primitive we haven't had any need to come up with a new 'year' system since we still know as little as we did in the cycle we call '0AD'). It is the same 'battle' - the same flow - the same vibration. I think that last word probably gets closest to a true scientific reference to what it really is. What 'life' is. And I'll tell you this for free. If Mafia Incorporated succeeds in its foul plan to prevent an almost inevitable Labour victory - and if immediately after that anyone tries to remove Corbyn from being able to challenge them again, one election later - I will destroy the party, entirely, democratically and intellectually, of anyone who attempts to do that to Corbyn and succeeds. It's a stalemate. Blair came. We saw what an ass he was. We knocked down Labour. FLAT ON THE GROUND. Corbyn rose, Blair came. WE KNOCKED OUT BLAIR flat on the ground. And now the election has come, we have knocked out Boris, FLAT ON THE GROUND, and every lie and stratagem possible has been mustered to prevent the unthinkable, to prevent democracy in Britain. And no, I don't think they'll win, but I'm just saying - if they do, then the most important thing is making Corbyn 1000 times more powerful before the subsequent election. With all the momentum there is, it can be done. Anyone riding that wave knows, I'm sure, that if you suddenly take Corbyn out of the equation, ALL THE WIND IN YOUR SAILS WILL VANISH. Resignation will not be tolerated. We are the music makers, we are the dreamers of dreams, the rewriters of screenplays, the antiwar activists, the peace makers, and we don't resign. We start at x and end at y. Even Boris Johnson must not resign when/'if' he loses. I sincerely demand that the fat head stick around and play ball and learn the rules of the game. I like him better than the other tories. His policies are disgusting, his attitude is puerile, his personal life is apparently a shambles, but just like Jeremy Corbyn, he has stood tall and seen Blair, Brown, Miliband, Cameron, May and so many other of his enemies fall before him, and he's still standing. If Boris cast off his Tuppy Glossop like habits, his peculiar similarity to at least three, indeed, of the friends of Bertie Wooster who are basically idiots, and try to be a little more like Wodehouse, a man who mocked Lord Kitchener, if Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie's version is accurate, a man who didn't need to pick on the weak and the easily-bullied in order to say something 'funny'. A man who mocked the Roderick Spodes of the world. Do you want to be a Roderick Spode all your life Boris? No of course you don't. Trust me. Corbyn will kick your ass and then you should stick around and kick the asses of all the people who dropped you in it and misguided you. I really do not see why that cannot happen. Human nature is no stranger to me. I think defeatism is the stranger. And my point is that it is a stranger to me, to Jeremy Corbyn and to Boris Johnson. We could get a boat and a dog and a hamper, go up river, have all kinds of crazy experiences and turn into an amusing novel. Whatever you say about Corbyn and whatever you say about Johnson - I take my hat off to them both. My vote, of course, is with Corbyn. Sorry Boris. But as I said, once you are the underdog, I am at your service the same way Rumpole is to anyone needing defence against authority. GO FORTH leader of the opposition. Do your stuff. Whichever you are, I will stand next to you and if necessary do your job for you.

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/10/the-demonization-of-jeremy-corbyn/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 116: Your IQ is a measure of obedience, not of intelligence.

Thrust: Let's revisit point 39: << Obedience, education and capitalism.

Coming soon, to this space. Well, coming, at any rate, although the fact that I haven't done it yet (see the shadow log at the bottom of the page - a proper computer not a moron-phone is the best way to read my site, you slackers. I'm with David Lynch on this. PUT DOWN YOUR MORON-PHONE AND USE A REAL COMPUTER, fool, before the corporations finish locking up all your descendants!) is an example of how to stand up to the dictates of tyrants (even oneself) and how to always be ready to be disobedient - after all, I've read this grid point numerous times between when it was most recently edited and just now and gladly proceeded without a further change. It's key Chomsky to transcribe, though, so I'll get to it sooner or later. It must be done.

Mainly just a transcription of what Chomsky has to say about obedience and education and the relationship of both to commercial society and/or indeed "capitalism".

The transcription about education etc makes it easy to understand, with emotions and knee-jerk responses stripped away, what causes people to be like Owen Jones or Robert Webb or causes men like Donald Trump and women like Hillary Clinton to be 'elected' 'president' and women like Theresa May and men like Boris Johnson to be 'elected' 'Prime Minister'. The cause is the same, the root is the same and you can see from the Chomsky transcription coming to this spot soon very clearly why it is that these fairly stupid characters misguide a relatively stupid society ever onwards towards a now demonstrably near global meltdown - driven, ever more aggressively, by men like Trump and Johnson, indeed.

It also is the same thing which causes the easily led populations to chase after red herrings, divide themselves and intensify their self-destruction and entirely avoid in any way curbing the power of monster capitalism, if we may call it that (for what else is it?). It's why hyperconsumers are hyperconsumers. It is all easily explained in this analysis of Chomsky to come shortly (or watch the video below, right now).

It will take me a little time to transcribe the Chomsky as I haven't found any transcription online. It's slow work, is transcribing Chomsky. At least if you want to do it properly. >>

Direction of resistance: So talk of "IQ", something usually only done by the self-adulating (officially 'elite' but actually fake-elite) morons of our culture, is really just praise of obedience. For example, if you look it up you'll even find that 'religious' views are associated with low IQs - meanwhile Einstein himself quite categorically labelled atheists 'crusaders' and 'infantile'. Yet real studies allege that atheists have higher IQs than men like Einstein. Fair enough, if you're not as intelligent as Einstein you can always get an IQ test and at least show off about how 'officially' clever you are, even if you're not REALLY clever. After all, are we to believe that Einstein was less intelligent than - I dunno pick a moronic atheist at random, there's a fair view - Nick Cohen, that's a good example. Anyway. Einstein felt atheists were absolutely fucked in the head, yet there are plenty of places you can no doubt look up and find the 'proven connection' between 'low IQs' and 'religion'. Few would call my own work atheist, unless they hadn't read it and had been misinformed, yet when I took Mensa's online test to see if you would be wasting your time taking an actual Mensa test and they told me I sure as hell am not wasting my time doing so.

In other words, how exactly do the ignorant fuckers claiming 'low IQs' are associated with religious views 'measure' religiosity? Ignoring, for a moment, the unscientific nature of using IQ tests to measure anything anyway. But how did these daft fuckers 'measure' religiosity? I'm curious. Well no. Probably best not to investigate any further. For the same reason one may not want to read the autobiography of Gordon Brittas!

Another thing to mention is that 'atheism' as Einstein points out is a form of fanatical religious faith. Agnosticism is in fact the position a cynical but humble mind would take vis a vis the source of existence and the source of the laws of physics. The very idea, which atheists have, that humans know it all, and know absolutely what did or didn't create the universe, that is a form of absurd childish blind faith in received information, it is unbalanced, unscientific and flies in the face of where scientific endeavour has led us today. Anyway, this is all tedious stuff, but hey, today none of my writing has any impact on anything. Almost nobody is going to change their mind about what to vote for now, and there isn't time really for my words to reach many people, or anyone, really. So this is just an articulation of key stuff I'm sure ought to be articulated, sooner or later.

Removal of resistance: Anyway. I think the words in the as-yet untranscribed videos in the grid point quoted are pretty conclusive in how they 'demolish' the idea that 'IQ' tests measure anything but obedience and capacity for blind stupidity.

Unification: Vids included again in the references of this fresh grid point also, since you really must watch them. Chomsky is a wise man. This is demonstrable. Don't worry so much about arbitrary and random game play used to determine whether you can play act at being x or y (eg clever or important). Focus on evolving. Watch or read a bit of Chomsky or something of that calibre. It'll do you good.

References:

"Oh they'll never get the bandit express"

Point 115: Britain is the bestest ever. Yeah.

Thrust: Boris is wrong on IQs, of course, and I say this as someone the IQ scorers score highly. IQs are not only cultural and changeable, they are meaningless and only a measure used by people who know that in any practical demonstration they will not be proved 'better' than others 'intellectually' so need some meaningless number to fall back on and wave. Joining a society for 'clever' people, like MENSA, to me, is the clearest possible sign of intellectual insecurity. Moving on.

Direction of resistance: The NHS annoys me. I am grateful to the doctors who are good at their jobs, and acknowledge that they are outnumbered by many incompetents and similar - whether we are talking about nurses or administrators or even, potentially, doctors, dentists, etc. I think that what I can see is that banks and hospitals have one thing in common - pretty much nobody inside them has any capacity for self-criticism and it gets in the way of all they do. Throwing money at either is not really going to solve the deepest problems, although that's not to say that underfunding of hospitals is acceptable. It (money) just won't make the stupid nurses and stupid administrators and stupid doctors into the clever ones. That will happen when the culture of self-importance is no longer the chief characteristic of being British or Western, perhaps even 'modern' - definitely any country outside war zones, that ideology is likely to be prevalent (the whole "i'm better than the bankers because i'm a nurse, and i'm really morally brilliant, you should obey me" and "i'm better than nurses because i'm a banker, and i'm really morally brilliant, and you should obey me" etc).

It's annoying. I can say this now because my writing will impact zero votes so it's perfectly fine for me to mention now that the never-ending self-praise by NHS workers is pretty pathetic and is indeed equalled only by the self-praise of bankers.

Removal of resistance: I missed something out in my list of obvious examples of absurd hypersexuality, of 'compulsive sexual objectification and self-objectification' - I mentioned that if an office worker dresses like a cheap or high class whore, male or female (you LOVE THOSE nice suits and ties, my male prostitute friends, eh?) you are arbitrarily objectifying yourself and are an arse. There is no sexual reason, you are "looking sexy" in order to earn money, not in order to have sex, other than, perhaps, sex in exchange for power/alliance/money, just an extension of ordinary prostitution and objectification. So what did I miss out? A HUGE ONE - if you are a media worker and you dress in order to be sexy, that is the same - it's obviously more tempting and extremely common, we even have the number game presenter on Countdown generally known throughout the media for her body parts rather than any other quality. The media is a classic example of how sexuality is used not for sex but for audience ratings, income ratings, credibility enhancement (believe him, he looks nice, believe her, she's showing some skin).

Unification: Obviously stupid people can't grasp any of what I said and would find it offensive, and yet not be able to differentiate between this and Boris Johnson's infamous (now) speech about cornflakes. In that speech, I would like to point out, he says we need to foster envy, to maker society better - people need to envy each other, he said. He used the word envy. Boris, what a fool you are, that's a gotcha if ever I saw one. So you admit that you live by an ideology of envy? And as for the people I have attacked throughout this thread - note how much your actions have in common with Boris Johnson's alleged 'ideology' (don't give him that much credit, he says whatever he thinks will gain him the material gain he seeks - he is just a child looking out for number 1, he has no thought-out ideology and I do believe that given time he could learn to be a lot more like Corbyn and a lot less like Nixon).

References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 114: Vote Labour, of course, but don't underestimate what the Truth sees as it watches you demonise likely lad Johnson.

Thrust: Boris Johnson isn't really any more evil or callous than the majority of what the Americans call 'Brits' - whether lib dem, tory, labour, green, ukip or apathetic. Although we anarchists are an exception of course, or at least more of us are (consider Chomsky, for example, an almost peerless anarchist powerhouse of a man).

Direction of resistance: I find it sad to watch the electioneers fight smear with smear. So they are rude to Corbyn and how do you counter? You are rude to Johnson.

Removal of resistance: I don't support Johnson or consider him capable of the job he does, but I know that a lot of mistreatment of him is just an attempt to fight fire with fire.

Unification: Poor man. Yes, he's many things you call him, and worse, and yes, so are you. I know. And I can easily articulate and prove it herein, and have done so to quite a great extent. So don't lie to yourselves. Boris Johnson is ONE OF YOU - he came from among you, and many many many of you are just like him.

Garbage in, garbage out as Carlin would say, although if he were alive and given a vote in this election, like any self-respecting anarchist (who else does an anarchist seek respect from anyway?) I speculate the man would vote Corbyn. But heed my warning, bully Boris Johnson at your own risk. I will mock you ALL for your sins later, not merely Boris.

Meanwhile this for Greta Thunberg: don't fret, you're going to succeed in your goals, I'm sure, you have what it takes, just be careful not to get used, or to differentiate between yourself and 'adults'! I don't want to write a whole new point to add that, so I'll slip it in here, where I suppose it's quite relevant. And on that subject I think you, Boris Johnson, if anyone can get you a copy of this doc, will make a fine leader of the opposition (I have always said so, I promise you that), don't let an election loss force you to resign. Stand up for yourself, lad, it is the real cowards like Blair and Cameron and May and Swinson who dropped you in it. Make them pay. It's a lot easier than you think. Stay in charge of the tories and one day, a decade from now, if you can weather it, win the general election then, when you didn't start with a disadvantage. A man like you is so empty of your own ideology you can easily become a good man. It is my duty to stand with the underdog. The moment Corbyn becomes Prime Minister I will stand with you, Boris Johnson, leader of the opposition, in ensuring you do your job of holding the Prime Minister to account.

References: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MhActwPPZA
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/09/political-collapse-the-center-cannot-hold
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJSQ7_I7zmw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zujsTKJGz0s
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/10/the-demonization-of-jeremy-corbyn

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 113: To the middle classes, to doctors and nurses and dentists and all the others currently pleading with the public to vote Labour I have an important message, relevant whether Labour wins or loses.

Thrust: WHERE WERE YOU when people like me protested, in words and protests, the imperial wars, the genocide, the islamophobia? Many of you, whilst 'secretly' supporting people like me kept your distance so you wouldn't be tarred with the same brush.

Direction of resistance: YOU DID NOT STAND BY MY SIDE or that of the antiwar movement. THAT is why you are at the precipice today, at risk of losing all that is sacred, because YOU DID NOT STAND BY US WHEN WE NEEDED YOU.

Removal of resistance: Well don't worry, we will stand by YOU now, and fight alongside you and for you.

Unification: If Labour wins it is because WE, people like the antiwar movement, stood by YOU the doctors, pleading with the public to not push the health of the nation and its children over the edge. And if Labour loses, and untold suffering deepens, it is because YOU DID NOT STAND BY US when you most needed to, and thus you allowed this demonic status quo to become so deep that, if such is that outcome, it cannot be shaken even by such massive efforts as we have seen in motion, supporting and fighting alongside Jeremy Corbyn.

REMEMBER WELL - that you did not stand by us - you, the doctors out there pleading now for people not to subject us to more Boris, YOU did not stand by the antiwar movement when you should have. WHERE were you? When we protested imperial wars, whether online, in journalism or on the streets - you shirked it in ALL THREE PLACES - you did not stand next to us, you were afraid for your reputation.

WHAT USE IS YOUR REPUTATION NOW? Your future depends on a man like me, on Jeremy Corbyn. May god have mercy on you and grant Corbyn the victory YOU NOW NEED HIM TO HAVE.

Remember WHEN IRAQI HOSPITALS AND SCHOOLS WERE BEING DESTROYED I STOOD UP AGAINST IT - AND YOU, DEAR DOCTORS, MOST OF YOU, YOU KEPT YOUR DISTANCE.

You did NOTHING to save the schools, hospitals, infrastructure and lives of those you could have helped, by standing with people like me - instead you made us into pariahs. MANY people like me were subjected to all the smearing we have seen in public applied to Corbyn LONG before Corbyn was the one being smeared. And YOU, middle class remainers and doctors, now desperate to stop Boris - WHERE WERE YOU WHEN I NEEDED YOU AT MY SIDE? WHERE WERE YOU? YOU ARE COWARDS, TRAITORS, BACK STABBING DECEITFUL WALKING FERTILISER AND DO NOT FORGET IT.

If Labour wins and saves you it is ME you have to thank, and people like me, you entitled cowardly gits. Did any of you stand up for the iraqi hospitals and infrastructure, Libyan, Syrian, Yemeni, Afghan, Pakistani? All these places where wars and bombs savaged the land so that YOU CAN PUT PETROL IN YOUR TRUCKS FOR DELIVERING DONUTS TO EACH OTHER - did you GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT *** THOSE *** HOSPITALS??? Yet you imagine 'god' should have mercy on YOURS??? Let's hope you didn't fuck up totally. Let's hope your failure to stand by those you should have back in 2001, all the way to now, let's hope that 19 year delay in your loyalty doesn't preclude the possibility of a Labour win. If you really have fucked up that badly, don't imagine I will fail to spend as many words as possible in coming years telling you off for it. We know, you know, that you didn't stand by those you should have. That most of you were cowards, and now you are on the brink of paying the full price for your cowardice. Do Iraqi orphans mourn your precious NHS? I do not think so.

References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 112: Every time someone accuses Corbyn and co of 'anti-semitism' or even brings it up to question the 'truth' of the suggestion, it makes it harder for me to respect ANY white person. ANY AT ALL (other than the effectively zero percent of nonetheless really-existing exceptions).

Thrust: Was watching the presumably future Chancellor, Corbyn's right hand man, taking press questions. Went well for a good 20 mins, was interesting. Then a dickhead from the Daily Telegraph asked about anti-semitism and I had to switch off. You BORE THE SHIT OUT OF ME you white racist bleating fuckheads.

Direction of resistance: So let's quote you some Tariq Ali here, so you understand precisely why EVERY TIME some ignorant white racist dickhead or dickhead-ette starts with their 'anti-semitism' it makes it a notch harder for me to respect ANY 'white' person (unless I have already established merit-based respect for them) at all, as a matter of probability maths:

<<

Well! I think it's a ploy which the Israeli foreign office and Israeli embassies all over the world work on, especially in the West where there is a guilt complex about what was done during the Judeocide of the Second World War. And so there should be, as appalling atrocities were committed back then, but for heaven's sake, it's not the Palestinians or the Arabs who committed them.

These atrocities were committed by mainstream Western, so called, civilisations, and these acts of barbarism were carried out against the Jewish people of Eastern and to a certain extent Western Europe. If anything, the Palestinians are the indirect victims of that genocide, because they've been forced out their homeland, they've been forced to give space. They've not even been given an equal state with Israel.

And as far as anti-Semitism is concerned, it has always existed in the Christian world. It's part and parcel of the sort of struggles which went on between these cultures and religions for a very long time. I think we have to differentiate between historic deep-rooted anti-Semitism and the philosophical anti-Semitism that grew up in Europe with and after the big depression and which led to what happened in Germany, Italy etcetera, and led to people backing it. French anti-Semitism, which was very deep-rooted was philosophical. There is casual anti-Semitism today, and very little in my opinion... all the figures show that only a tiny number of people in the Labour party or other parties are anti-Semitic.

The most serious problem is that we have suffered a huge defeat in Palestine and what angers me is the failure of the Palestine Liberation Organisation to admit their responsibility for this defeat. They actually collaborated with the Americans and Israelis to inflict this defeat. They had hopes that they would be given a few crumbs. And now with Netanyahu re-elected, Trump and his family in charge of US policy towards Israel they have not even been offered little Bantustans.

The last offer from Trump's son-in-Law Kushner is insulting. He told them "here have a bit of money and forget about a Palestinian State". It's true that's all they've been getting since the Oslo Accords is money and a few projects here and there.

The ordinary Palestinian people have suffered. But now it's beyond Oslo. There is no chance, I think, of any viable, even a tiny viable Palestinian state coming into existence. And for the PLO leadership not to understand this and declare that there are Palestinian authorities is a fiction. There has never been Palestinian sovereignty. The Israel Defence Force is actually in control, and PLO collaborated with them in locking up Palestinian people while many PLO leaders and deputy leaders in these circles were making a lot of money. That's the reality of Palestine.

So we shall see. The situation is very depressing which is why solidarity is more needed than ever before. But when you show solidarity you end up being accused of anti-Semitism.

The German government is historically directly responsible for the genocide of the Jews and indirectly for the punishment of the Palestinians. Their saying that the Palestinians have no right to struggle peacefully - which is what they have done by declaring any campaign for Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) illegal, is shocking to me. No other European country has quite done that. Though The French are close to doing it.

It amounts to saying to Palestinians that they have been crushed, but won't be allowed to fight back. If they fight with guns and hand for their liberation they are called terrorists. If they fight as part of the BDS campaign then they are anti-Semites. That is what is going on.

>>

Removal of resistance: I recommend 'white' society stops all this bullshit RIGHT NOW and starts to address its own racism.

Unification: If Corbyn wins count your lucky stars that reform will happen the gentle way. Otherwise what is left but international pressure? If a society can't change from within - and threatens all of the human race - it must be repaired externally. That is beyond all reasonable doubt.

References: https://www.globalresearch.ca/vilification-jeremy-corbyn/5696951
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/12/the-invisible-tories/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 111: Fuck off Grammarly you bunch of ignorant unscientific fuckheads.

Thrust: Writing IS easy, in fact. Is merely an ancillary aspect of internal language, which is innate.

Direction of resistance: Good writing comes from tapping what is within your mind, it has no connection with good 'grammar' or even 'well written prose' (I know, I know, the closed minded will hear no more of this argument now no matter how well crafted the prose).

Removal of resistance: The bullshit you spew, o Grammarly Advertising Copy Writers, is part of the problem. I have a relevant grid point to re-quote for you. I'm TIRED of your ads. FUCK OFF GRAMMARLY. DO NOT ADVERTISE AT ME YOU ARSEHOLES. I AM SICK OF YOU AND YOUR CRAP PRODUCT AND ITS ADVERTISING. Readers, to write like me, tap into your internal processes, tap into your mind, not the bullshit the world tries to sell you, and find your voice there. It will, of its own accord, master the rules of external communication, but those rules are trivial and insignificant.

Unification: I refer you to grid point 42: On intellectual freedom: something to challenge what most of us have been led to believe about 'language' and 'communication', and indeed the degree to which we have been led to disregard thought, erroneously, and a little bit on how little we actually know about the universe, eg the fact that the law of inertia is "of no known origin" (as Feynman put it) - nobody knows the reason why things coast forever. More on the Feynman another time, first, digest the Chomsky.

(Much of this taken from my numberwang document, in the references below).

Here we have Chomsky shocking you with things you were blissfully unaware of, on the key topic of language, thought and communication:

<< A few things have remained pretty constant. One is that at the core of language there must be some generative procedure: recursive, compositional procedure >> Noam Chomsky tells us about the scientific endeavour over the last sixty years aiming to understand the nature of human language.

<< The second is that the field ought to be framed within a biological context. So we're interested in what's come to be called i-Language, internal individual language, viewed intentionally, we care about the actual system of rules, not just some class of objects you might enumerate. .. In the background is a concern to try to show how this biological system could have originated. What's misleadingly called 'evolution of language'. Of course it's misleading because languages don't evolve, but the language capacity, U.G. (universal grammar), does evolve, or must have evolved .. you can derive some surprising conclusions: one of them is that the output of the generative system yields the proper forms for semantic interpretation in quite complex structures .. so that means that what's generated is essentially a language of thought, maybe, I suspect, the only language of thought. The second conclusion is that externalisation .. is just an ancillary process, it's not part of the core of language. .. (these externalisations are) reflexes of the sensory motor system and the nature of the externalisation depends on which sensory motor system you're using .. the sensory motor system is not specifically adapted to language, it was apparently around hundreds of thousands of years before language suddenly emerged and there are many ways to map one to the other and it's a hard process and in fact what we find is that the complexity of language which you have to learn when you learn a language is almost entirely externalisation .. >>

<< A third conclusion is that most of the doctrines about the nature of language and related fields .. most of them are just flat wrong. There's a doctrine which is held virtually at the level of dogma. The way it's put is the function of language is communication. It's a kind of a curious notion because biological systems don't have functions. .. the dogma is that language, uniquely among biological systems, has a function and the function is communication, but if these first two conclusions are correct that has to be false because communication is based on externalisation and if externalisation is an ancillary property of language then communication is even more so. >>

As you now appreciate, the very basis of what our 'establishments' call knowledge, call reason, call logic, is shaky. It's worth mentioning a few other upsetting truths here also.

I think the following extracts from written material on Chomsky's site will give you yet more awareness of how much our ideas fall short of what the average human imagines our ideas to be.

<< One of the most profound insights into language and mind, I think, was Descartes's recognition of what we may call "the creative aspect of language use": the ordinary use of language is typically innovative without bounds, appropriate to circumstances but not caused by them - a crucial distinction - and can engender thoughts in others that they recognize they could have expressed themselves. Given the intimate relation of language and thought, these are properties of human thought as well. This insight is the primary basis for Descartes's scientific theory of mind and body. There is no sound reason to question its validity, as far as I am aware. Its implications, if valid, are far-reaching, among them what it suggests about the limits of human understanding, as becomes more clear when we consider the place of these reflections in the development of modern science from the earliest days. >>



<< The background is the so-called "mechanical philosophy" - mechanical science in modern terminology. This doctrine, originating with Galileo and his contemporaries, held that the world is a machine, operating by mechanical principles, much like the remarkable devices that were being constructed by skilled artisans of the day and that stimulated the scientific imagination much as computers do today; devices with gears, levers, and other mechanical components, interacting through direct contact with no mysterious forces relating them. The doctrine held that the entire world is similar: it could in principle be constructed by a skilled artisan, and was in fact created by a super-skilled artisan. The doctrine was intended to replace the resort to "occult properties" on the part of the neoscholastics: their appeal to mysterious sympathies and antipathies, to forms flitting through the air as the means of perception, the idea that rocks fall and steam rises because they are moving to their natural place, and similar notions that were mocked by the new science. >>

<< It is commonly believed that Newton showed that the world is a machine, following mechanical principles, and that we can therefore dismiss "the ghost in the machine," the mind, with appropriate ridicule. The facts are the opposite: Newton exorcised the machine, leaving the ghost intact. The mind-body problem in its scientific form did indeed vanish as unformulable, because one of its terms, body, does not exist in any intelligible form. Newton knew this very well, and so did his great contemporaries. >>

<< John Locke wrote that we remain in "incurable ignorance of what we desire to know" about matter and its effects, and no "science of bodies [that provides true explanations is] within our reach." Nevertheless, he continued, he was "convinced by the judicious Mr. Newton's incomparable book, that it is too bold a presumption to limit God's power, in this point, by my narrow conceptions." Though gravitation of matter to matter is "inconceivable to me," nevertheless, as Newton demonstrated, we must recognize that it is within God's power "to put into bodies, powers and ways of operations, above what can be derived from our idea of body, or can be explained by what we know of matter." And thanks to Newton's work, we know that God "has done so." The properties of the material world are "inconceivable to us," but real nevertheless. Newton understood the quandary. For the rest of his life, he sought some way to overcome the absurdity, suggesting various possibilities, but not committing himself to any of them because he could not show how they might work and, as he always insisted, he would not "feign hypotheses" beyond what can be experimentally established. >>

<< As the import of Newton's discoveries was gradually assimilated in the sciences, the 'absurdity' recognized by Newton and his great contemporaries became scientific common sense. The properties of the natural world are inconceivable to us, but that does not matter. The goals of scientific inquiry were implicitly restricted: from the kind of conceivability that was a criterion for true understanding in early modern science from Galileo through Newton and beyond, to something much more limited: intelligibility of theories about the world. This seems to me a step of considerable significance in the history of human thought and inquiry, more so than is generally recognized, though it has been understood by historians of science. >>



<< Honesty should lead us to concede, I think, that we understand little more today about these matters than the Spanish physician-philosopher Juan Huarte did 500 years ago when he distinguished the kind of intelligence humans shared with animals from the higher grade that humans alone possess and is illustrated in the creative use of language, and proceeding beyond that, from the still higher grade illustrated in true artistic and scientific creativity. Nor do we even know whether these are questions that lie within the scope of human understanding, or whether they fall among what Hume took to be Nature's ultimate secrets, consigned to "that obscurity in which they ever did and ever will remain." >>

I appreciate it's complex stuff, and there's a lot of context you need to spend more time reading about to entirely understand what even that much tells us about the state of 'science' in the west today, but once you enter the domain of quantum physics, it all falls apart completely - the universe, Richard Feynman tells us, at its core, essentially, is, in a word, "NUTTY". Yes, the universe is nutty. And he doesn't mean the kind squirrels enjoy. He means it's nuts. It's insane. "I don't understand it either," he informs his dumb but credulous audience, which laughs with joy at this stark stark truth.

And whilst I'm sure you need a rest from the head-fuck, I have to ensure I mention something about what Chomsky has told us about 'empiricism', which is very very important as far as I can see. He has told us: << Hume, for example, really did his best to show that his elementary principles concerning the acquisition of human knowledge were sufficient to cover an interesting class of cases and challenged his opponents to produce a legitimate "idea" that could not be derived from sense impression by his principles. There is a certain kind of ambiguity in his procedure here, since in part he seems to be engaged in a kind of scientific inquiry, trying to show that certain principles he proposed were in fact adequate to cover the crucial cases, while at other times he relies on these principles to demonstrate that some notion is "illegitimate," since it cannot be derived by them - an argument that rests on our accepting his not very plausible principles concerning the nature of the mind. Hume regarded the principle of inductive reasoning as a kind of "animal instinct," which would appear to be an empirical assumption. In modern versions, his assumptions have often been converted into dogma presupposed without serious effort to show them to be valid, or to reply to classical criticisms that were raised against these principles.

There is no reason to believe today that Hume's principles or anything resembling them are adequate to account for our "ideas" or our knowledge and beliefs, nor to think that they have any particular significance. There is no place for any a priori doctrine concerning the complexity of the brain or its uniformity as far as the higher mental functions are concerned. We must proceed to the investigation of the diverse cognitive structures developed normally by human beings in the course of their maturation and their relation to the physical and social environment, seeking to determine, as best we can, the principles which govern these cognitive structures. Once a certain understanding of the nature of these systems has been obtained, then we can reasonably study the basis on which they are acquired. In my opinion, the little that we know about these questions suggests that the mind, like the body, is in effect a system of organs - we could call them "mental organs" by analogy - that is to say, highly specific systems organized according to a genetic program that determines their function, their structure, the process of their development, in quite a detailed manner; the particular realization of these fundamental principles naturally depends on their interaction with the environment, as in the case of the visual system... If that is correct, the mind is a complex system of interacting faculties, which do not develop by means of uniform principles of "general intelligence"; it is constituted of "mental organs" just as specialized and differentiated as those of the body. >>

Most people are far more concerned about freedom of speech than about freedom of thought, and yet thought is much much much more important than speech and limitation of thought, unintentional and intentional both, as well as control of it and censorship of it and policing of it, these topics, starting with basic ways in which thought is limited by anyone or anything outside of you individually, should be of maximum interest to you and concern to you, whoever you are. And if you suspect that you won't digest or remember all the key points in this document unless you read it a few times, I have to admit I think you're probably onto something there.

References: http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URflja3pE3Q (Beware, youtube may attempt to advertise Grammarly at you).

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 110: Sending your kids to die in a nuclear holocaust - yes, anyone who is pro nato, pro nuke and/or anti-corbyn or apathetic you are aligning yourself with the most warped backward genocidal self-destructive movement in history.

Thrust: On Facebook Pepe Escobar warns:

<<

NATO: THE WHOLE RACKET IN ONE MINUTE

NATO, de facto brain dead, whatever Macron's agenda, is nothing but a tsunami of cash pillaged by the trans-Atlantic industrial-military-surveillance complex. The raison d'etre: "aggressive" Russia "threatening euro-Atlantic security" - as stated in the final declaration of that pathetic summit in London.

So everyone must raise military expenses to at least 2% of GDP, and 20% of that must be for - what else - weapons purchases. 16 of the 29 NATO members are already on it.

NATO mutts accused Russia - again, with ZERO evidence - of having deployed intermediate-range nuclear missiles and thus buried the INF.

Bullshit. I moderated a debate in Nur-Sultan last month that was almost derailed into a shouting match between the accusing Americans and the Russians, who proved they did NOT deploy such missiles. The Americans buried the INF because they are freaking out with China's steady progress in nuclear missiles.

NATO more than ever is a NUCLEAR alliance. On top of it there's the Pentagon's always prominent Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine. Combine both and you have NATO's militarization of space - mega, extra bonus for the industrial-military-security complex.

And if all that was not enough, the racket is expanding to counter the China "threat". NATO's spin is that it's an indispensable alliance for the West to fight the Russia-China strategic partnership. I'm among a very restricted group of global analysts who have been stressing this point non-stop for YEARS. NATO's London summit provided the definitive confirmation.

>>

Direction of resistance: Nuclear dick-waving heralds the end of human history.

Removal of resistance: White racists need to calm their fucked up hormones and stop putting THE WHOLE WORLD AT RISK.

Unification: Time to remind you of some key Feynman, I think:

For the Snark WAS a Boojum, you see.

It is useful to pay attention to Mr Feynman's words in a television interview when summing up the problems at NASA which caused the Challenger disaster, in his opinion.

The interviewer asks 'was this an accident that did not have to happen?'

Feynman says 'Yes it was. It was an accident that we had many many warnings that there was something wrong and that it might sooner or later go off. The warnings were disregarded'.

Interviewer: 'Disregarded out of incompetence, out of a faulty system, out of bad judgment, out of - for what reason?'

Feynman: 'I had some difficulty with that. I kind of imagine that something like a child that runs in the road and the parent is very upset and says it's very dangerous and the child comes back and says but nothing happened, and he runs out in the road again, several times, and the parent keeps saying it's dangerous and nothing happens. If the child's view that nothing happens is a clue that there was nothing going to happen, that's going to be an accident.'

Feynman says that NASA's management were like the child and the engineers were like the parent.

The interviewer asks who should be blamed and Feynman explains that blame may not really be a productive road and that the key question to answer is 'how do you educate the child?'

Experiment is the sole judge of scientific 'truth.' (Feynman)

Richard Feynman lectured that 'The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific 'truth.' But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations - to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labor in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.'

Feynman points out 'Now, how can an experiment be 'wrong'? First, in a trivial way: if something is wrong with the apparatus that you did not notice. But these things are easily fixed, and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate.'

Feynman, NASA, nukes, CBRN, GMOs, etc etc, exit pursued by climate change.

Feynman's assertion about NASA was that the management was like a stubborn ignorant child and the scientists had failed to assert themselves the way a parent could over a child. "How do we educate the child?" Feynman wondered, looking for a road to solving the puzzle. Musing, at any rate.

Feynman's assertion about atom bombs and nuclear weapons was that (a) he had been immoral and wrong to continue working on the bomb when Germany had surrendered and the threat of Hitler's using atom bombs was gone. It was not built to combat kamikaze pilots, in the view of its scientists. (b) Feynman felt that after the war he noticed that 'nothing had changed' and people were behaving 'just as they always did' and he felt that the existence of nukes/atom-bombs in a world where people were still prone to the stupid and ignorant mistakes etc that they always had been was one with a very short future - soon we would all suffer the consequences of nuclear war, he felt.

In the hands of such incompetents, incidents such as Fukushima or the widespread ignorance of science's actual position, collectively, insofar as one can be said to exist at all, on 'GMOs', would also, it is my theory, worry Feynman significantly. People to question (by reading what they have said about such matters) about this stuff could include Chomsky.

Feynman spoke of being remorseful - by continuing to work on the bomb, which per se he hadn't really wanted to have anything to do with but shown that nazis could use such a bomb against them he understood that he had to protect society - but when Germany was defeated he should have stopped and he regretted not realising it at the time.

So returning to what Feynman would make of all the stupidness corporations are up to at the moment, along with militarised governments, the world over, I think it makes sense to refer to his criticism of NASA and his criticism of the existence of 'atom bombs' after the war was over. I think we should consider what he'd say about Fukushima and nuclear power in general, as well as his views on solar and genuinely 'clean' energy, with safety as the absolute priority always. Would he think we should restrict nuclear physics to established research facilities and find ways to keep corporate power away from decisions relating to such an important field of human knowledge?

The issue widens to so many others but above all climate change. What would Feynman's view be of the treatment of evidence by the world's corporations and thus by being in cahoots with them, the so-called 'liberal' media eg the Guardian or BBC or other broad sheets, generally speaking?

Feynman's views on titles and 'lapels' (military insignia) are an important thing to note also when deciding what the often-correct scientist would say about the way things are today. It doesn't matter who you are, what your name is, how clever you are, or anything else, when you make an assertion, what matters is whether or not it agrees with experiment/experience. Nothing else. That, in a nutshell, Feynman explains across the internet from beyond the grave to some 'small' but not insignificant audience, is the key to 'science'.

And remember also, reader, that snarks can be boojums. As Feynman points out, some imagine that << the same conditions always produce the same results >> when in reality we live in a "probablistic universe".

You know that a fixed percentage of the photons will reflect, you don't know which ones, you cannot in any instance at all predict whether it will be one of the photons to reflect or one which carries on through the glass or other reflective surface.

This means, Feynman explains, that all our notions about science basically get thrown out - the universe, he is at pains to tell us, is 'nutty'. "I don't understand it either", he says, the audience laughs, but only partly aware that they are laughing at science itself, with him. And that audience was far far more intelligent than today's audiences, and Feynman didn't even think much (intellectually) of THAT one, let alone the hyperconsumer masses of today. Corbyn protects 'the many' and Boris protects 'the few' - but nobody tries to make ANY of them, many or few, one iota less stupid, or shall we be euphemistic and say 'more intelligent'?

References: https://www.facebook.com/pepe.escobar.77377/posts/10157719663466678

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 109: I have not done my duty for most-of-white (ie that part in denial of islamophobia, which may still be a majority, if elections and capacity to swallow fake-anti-semitism smears credulously are a measure of such racism, which it is) society and much of the rest of the evolutionarily retarded sections of the human race. So let's have a go. Some facts. Some crystal clear, but 'shocking' truths it's time to tell, re-tell, repeat, over and over, until you have digested it all.

Thrust: So first some Geneva Convention stuff. Re using facebook and twitter censorship and banning to 'silence' me. Note to all white supremacists and other racists, fiends, goons and walking fertiliser who think that banning me from speaking there (eg just before an election) is 'productive' for those lost sad deluded fuckers among you who feel that I should be silenced. This is to help you, to make you understand how retarded your actions (here and in so many other areas) are - if I write on Twitter and Facebook the number of people reading my writing, particularly any substantive content by me, is about 15 people per 4 years. If I write on TVhobo, my readership reaches something between 50,000 and 200,000 readers in 1 to 4 years. When you don't ban me from your racist sites like facebook and twitter I end up too distracted to remember to write much here, where my readers are at. Just a little example of how out of touch with reality you are, o 'censors'. Anyway, that's not as important as what follows.

Direction of resistance: So let's be clear about Israel, Jews, white people, racism, Palestinians. GERMANY is responsible for what Israel does to Palestinians since it was German judeo-phobia which created not only Israel but indeed an Israel which is a monster and a fascist nazi disease - this is down to Germany's judeo-phobia and it owes Palestinians support. Instead of behaving like a doctor or parent towards an errant child, where Israel is the errant child, Germany and the white supremacist world in general treats Israel the way an irresponsible uncle treats a young relative to spoil.

Tariq Ali points out:

<<

Well! I think it's a ploy which the Israeli foreign office and Israeli embassies all over the world work on, especially in the West where there is a guilt complex about what was done during the Judeocide of the Second World War. And so there should be, as appalling atrocities were committed back then, but for heaven's sake, it's not the Palestinians or the Arabs who committed them.

These atrocities were committed by mainstream Western, so called, civilisations, and these acts of barbarism were carried out against the Jewish people of Eastern and to a certain extent Western Europe. If anything, the Palestinians are the indirect victims of that genocide, because they've been forced out their homeland, they've been forced to give space. They've not even been given an equal state with Israel.

And as far as anti-Semitism is concerned, it has always existed in the Christian world. It's part and parcel of the sort of struggles which went on between these cultures and religions for a very long time. I think we have to differentiate between historic deep-rooted anti-Semitism and the philosophical anti-Semitism that grew up in Europe with and after the big depression and which led to what happened in Germany, Italy etcetera, and led to people backing it. French anti-Semitism, which was very deep-rooted was philosophical. There is casual anti-Semitism today, and very little in my opinion... all the figures show that only a tiny number of people in the Labour party or other parties are anti-Semitic.

The most serious problem is that we have suffered a huge defeat in Palestine and what angers me is the failure of the Palestine Liberation Organisation to admit their responsibility for this defeat. They actually collaborated with the Americans and Israelis to inflict this defeat. They had hopes that they would be given a few crumbs. And now with Netanyahu re-elected, Trump and his family in charge of US policy towards Israel they have not even been offered little Bantustans.

The last offer from Trump's son-in-Law Kushner is insulting. He told them "here have a bit of money and forget about a Palestinian State". It's true that's all they've been getting since the Oslo Accords is money and a few projects here and there.

The ordinary Palestinian people have suffered. But now it's beyond Oslo. There is no chance, I think, of any viable, even a tiny viable Palestinian state coming into existence. And for the PLO leadership not to understand this and declare that there are Palestinian authorities is a fiction. There has never been Palestinian sovereignty. The Israel Defence Force is actually in control, and PLO collaborated with them in locking up Palestinian people while many PLO leaders and deputy leaders in these circles were making a lot of money. That's the reality of Palestine.

So we shall see. The situation is very depressing which is why solidarity is more needed than ever before. But when you show solidarity you end up being accused of anti-Semitism.

The German government is historically directly responsible for the genocide of the Jews and indirectly for the punishment of the Palestinians. Their saying that the Palestinians have no right to struggle peacefully - which is what they have done by declaring any campaign for Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) illegal, is shocking to me. No other European country has quite done that. Though The French are close to doing it.

It amounts to saying to Palestinians that they have been crushed, but won't be allowed to fight back. If they fight with guns and hand for their liberation they are called terrorists. If they fight as part of the BDS campaign then they are anti-Semites. That is what is going on.

>>

Removal of resistance: Then there's sex, gay sex, feminism, gay rights, and the need to never stop thinking about fucking whilst pretending to behave like 'adults' anyway.

So one thing it boils down to is sexual objectification.

Now if a woman is dolled up like a barbie doll (eg as lampooned by Patsy in Absolutely Fabulous) or covered in head to toe in some black sheet, it is (puerile racist jokes entirely aside) exactly the same - it is arbitrary sexual objectification.

If you are married to someone and in bed you objectify them sexually and have sex, that's fine. If you are at a night club, dancing with a guy or girl and she or he and you have some mutual 'chemistry' and objectify each other, whether or not you go back to her or your or his or whosever's place and have sex, that objectification is okay.

If you dress up like a cheap (or 'high class') whore to go to your office job, if you wolf whistle at a random girl in a short skirt on a summer's day, if you make general statements about everyone with a penis or everyone with a vagina - you are a fucking child, aren't you? And you are obsessed with sex.

Unification: Anyway, that's just off the bat. More such gems will pile up now. With or without Mr Corbyn J in Numero Dix. Hopefully with, but at this stage the stage is set and I can now deliver more of this wisdom to many of you on the understanding that you now, many of you, know that the status quo in western society is entirely unacceptable and will have to change.

I must mention the following (below) at this stage because most 'white racists' live under the delusion that their 'advanced' and 'exceptional' and 'intelligent' nature derives from 'their genes' - as opposed to 'the genes' of 'people with darker skin'. This is infantile and absurdly unscientific; for the umpteenth time I repeat to all racists:

Science has demonstrated that your 'skin colour' or 'race' has zero link to your mind, your intelligence, etc.

'Western' 'whiteness' is a recent (about 5000 years old) and arbitrary mutation in humans: 'white' skin has only been on 'European' bodies for a few thousand years, before which they were the same as many people they call 'black', eg 'Hispanic', 'Asian', 'African' etc.

The mutation which led to whiter skin survived in cultures where agricultural practises lowered vitamin D intake and white skin produced vitamin D from the sun much faster. Due to the switch from hunter gatherer to farmer, humanity's diet made it harder to survive cold European weather with previously normal human skin, only with the white mutation did you have a chance of producing enough vitamin D - the vitamin had previously come to us via our diets, whereas once the diets changed (to the precursor of today's western processed-food diet) the only source of vitamin D would be the sun, meaning that if you had dark skin and were in 'Europe' you would often have a serious vitamin D shortage - causing people to die or migrate to more suitable conditions.

Chomsky has pointed out (read the long Numberwang related doc in the links below) that thought, as a capacity, evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago, whereas we know that 'white skin' on 'Europeans' is a mere 5,000 years old.

If you need someone to spell out for you what that means, I recommend spending a few years in basic education, because it means you're not so bright.

Anyway, the rest can see - there is 'no such thing as race', basically. The pretence that 'whiteness' is a 'cultural characteristic' is already disproved. How long before society catches up? If only, readers, you were all just a tad more scientific, eh?

So you see 'whiteness' is just an illusion, race is an illusion, and it's high time I get on with reading the Hubert Harrison and Theodore Allen (the latter's "the invention of the white race" is obviously pertinent) so I can give you some more juicy unretarding quotes to digest.

References: http://www.nakedpunch.com/articles/282
http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/09/bloomberg-condoned-sexual-assault-by-nypd

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 108: Acts of 'God'.

Thrust: If Labour does not win this election then over the next 10 years I will witness the rest of Britain suffering what, for the last 10 years, muslim Britain has suffered.

Direction of resistance: It doesn't surprise me, therefore, that as we approach election day a very real threat of a Corbyn defeat hangs in the air.

Removal of resistance: Nothing is certain.

Unification: Perhaps Corbyn WILL win, insha allah. It's not my business to hope or not hope for x or y. What I can see is that for many many years, for most of my adult life, being a muslim in Britain has been like being a jew in an anti-semitic country, maybe Victor Orban's country. The insult of pretending that an attempt to make Britain less islamophobic is itself 'anti-semitic' is low and disgusting and an insult to the memory of victims of the jewish holocaust. That this is followed up with claims that 'anti-semitism' is a 'world view' - ie a view that genocide against muslims is bad is translated into the notion that genocide against muslims is the main way of fighting anti-semitism and that 'therefore' people who oppose genocide against muslims (eg by the USA, by Israel, by NATO) are labelled 'anti-semitic' in a particularly childish word game, by racists like Angela Smith and Tony Blair and Jo Swinson and Boris Johnson, suggests to me that maybe the rest of Britain WILL INDEED get to find out over the next 10+ years what being a British muslim has felt like for the last 20+ years. Still fair enough. If your kids deserve to be shat on the way you have shat on others, let me not be the one to pretend that 'socialism' means saving you.

Anyway. If you vote for yourselves and your children to suffer the abuse and pain you have made British muslims suffer for a while, and you do so out of hatred of muslims, out of hatred of people who stand up for everyone, for muslims 'too', that sums you up and boils you down.

Survival of the 'fittest' means survival of people who share food with each other, not people who beat each other up. Take a look at the history of this planet. No animal which behaves the way British and American racists and militarists do has NOT been subjugated by nature or made extinct. We, the monkey people who told jokes, hung around together, used a thing called 'mutual aid' and shared food with each other, we now dominate the planet. Those among us who behave like all the lower creatures which didn't make it this far, who act as though the way to survive is by dominating others and using force, they are putting us all at risk, not only themselves, but in the end even if we do not become extinct, humans who believe in mutual aid, humans who do not believe in mutual aid will obviously become extinct.

One other thing is very clear in all of this: in the eyes of the universe and of history (that told by the Chomskys and Feynmans and so many like them, not the rancid public relations of crusaders and dodge merchants) Corbyn has already fully won. Whatever electoral games anyone plays, an assessment of the actions and words of all parties concerned shows what has happened here. If humans are too much like gold fish and too little like mountains then, perhaps, as with so many lessons history has learned, humanity will continue to not learn it, in the main. Although nature's not really going to allow that to go on very much longer, is it?

References: http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html
http://www.nakedpunch.com/articles/282
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/.premium-from-now-on-every-palestinian-is-an-anti-semite-1.8230347

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 107: Britain, rapists 'beyond reproach' and 'sharia law'.

Thrust: Without, at this stage, spending any time exploring what all these white racists who hate Corbyn call 'Sharia law' and the degree to which they imagine it around them, let us pay attention to the fact that Prime Minister Boris Johnson, on an interview seen by the world, in archive footage on the permanent record, said that if Prince Andrew has committed rape it doesn't matter because he is "beyond reproach".

Direction of resistance: I am not here to discuss whether or not Andrew is a rapist or paedophile.

Removal of resistance: What is important is that Boris Johnson said clearly that even if Andrew IS a rapist, it doesn't matter.

Unification: So the son of the 'divinely appointed' 'Christian' 'monarch' of our country is allowed to commit rape, according to the Prime Minister.

So what exactly do the white racists who harp on about 'sharia law' imagine we live in now? A democracy? It's worth noting that the racists who scream about sharia law and about muslims having 9 kids each and filling up all our schools and so on - the racist blather I've heard a few times wandering around Justine Greening's Tory Putney, are the footsoldiers of Blair and the tories - racists like this went, in droves, to kill muslims to steal oil from their countries - these racists are well represented by today's lib dem Angela Smith who claims that non white skin is abnormal/odd/funny/weird/strange - and is unrepentant about that, claiming that she 'mis-spoke' rather than admitting she is racist and needs education in not being racist and should NOT be standing as an MP.

It is this racism which helped Blair stay in power - by ensuring that the racism fed to us by media organisations like the BBC and Telegraph and Guardian and Murdoch - millions acted as support for genocidal wars which, indeed, the majority were often entirely against, and only armies of white racists really supported Blair in his many war years. It backfired for him, of course, because they hate not only non white people but everyone from Calais onwards. They hate Europeans, they hate the world, and Blair fanned their flames of hatred.

Meanwhile, Boris says, in the hypothetical event that a member of white 'monarchy' rapes someone, that's their business and they are, to use Boris' historic language "beyond reproach". Unlike maths there is, in Boris' mind, a royal road to rape. Again, I am not saying that I think Andrew is guilty, but what we do know beyond all reasonable doubt is that Boris Johnson has said in public to the nation, to the world, that if a British monarch's son commits rape, nobody is entitled to police him for it.

Meanwhile Thatcher-Blair's army of white racists actually believes that Britain is in danger of 'no longer being a democracy'! Hmm.

References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 106: The only way this country can prove it's not really just a bunch of arseholes is if Corbyn wins a landslide. Even a small win will not spare Britain judgment.

Thrust: This is a backward, broken, diseased nation which even at the height of bastardy, disease, self-destruction and evil, whether left or right, whether the 'many' or the 'few', always feels driven to never let go of the delusion that Britain is somehow greater or better than the rest of the world in the field of x or y or z or n or r or p etc.

Direction of resistance: In reality an approximate assessment would probably assert that Britain, France, the USA, Australia and Israel are the worst at almost everything which you should be good at, in the world, in history.

Removal of resistance: The five bottom of the whole class.

Unification: Naturally spend all their time, left and right and centre, bragging about how actually they're better than the rest of the class.

Even if Corbyn wins, you won't have proved me wrong. THE ONLY WAY you can prove me wrong, prove that this diseased island of jackasses can evolve, is if Corbyn's victory is big - ie it is sufficient to astonish. Given his 'disadvantage' (the full force of corporations attempting to throttle his success) that means nothing lower than a clear majority, untouchable by resignations or dissent. If he wins that, then maybe the opinion of the rest of the human race outside the 5 bottom of the class jackasses is too negative towards the 5 jackasses. Who knows? We all "know the odds", though. The opinion seems pretty well deserved.

What I love most about "Dad's Army" and Arthur Lowe in general is how consistently and relentlessly he ridicules this attitude among British people, this "Britain first" attitude, this "Britain is the greatest" attitude. In the words of Pertwee as Doctor Who - "Your duty to your country? What about your duty the world?"

References: http://thesaker.is/the-last-western-empire/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 105: Marr: How can you know that I'm self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are.. Chomsky: I'm not saying you're self-censoring. I'm sure that you believe everything that you're saying. But what I'm saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting.

Thrust: Marr: How can you know that I'm self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are..

Chomsky: I'm not saying you're self-censoring. I'm sure that you believe everything that you're saying. But what I'm saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting.

Direction of resistance: Go here for full details, blow by blow, of what exactly Mr Chomsky is talking about there.

Removal of resistance: Don't be distracted by grotesque pantomime, surgically resolve the systemic flaw.

Unification: Another long version:

<<<

Let us not forget, when considering the genocidal racism of right wing Israelis, that Salon reported in 2014: << The Times of Israel is under fire on Friday after publishing a blog post titled 'When Genocide Is Permissible.' The post, written by Yochanon Gordon, was quickly removed from the Times' website, but cached and screen-captured versions of the piece quickly proliferated on social media. >>

The racist blogger wrote: << Hamas has stated forthrightly that it idealizes death as much as Israel celebrates life. What other way then is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than obliterate them completely? >> (I wonder what the average westerner would feel about that argument's being used in relation to the damage the USA, the UK and much of western Europe has done to the world, for centuries?!!)

Finally this Israeli then declares << If political leaders and military experts determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide is it then permissible to achieve those responsible goals? >> (I guess that's what the terrorists who bomb westerners feel they are doing when they commit Israeli-style genocide in Britain, France, the U.S. etc). >>>

<< CHOMSKY: Well this raises quite a welter of questions. Let me begin by saying something about liberalism, which is a very complicated concept, I think. It's correct, surely, that liberalism grew up in the intellectual environment of empiricism and the rejection of authority, and trust in the evidence of the senses, and so on. However, liberalism has undergone a very complex evolution as a social philosophy over the years. If we go back to the classics, or at least, what I regard as the classics, say, for example, Humboldt's limits of state action which inspired Mill and is a true libertarian, liberal classic, if you'd like. The world that Humboldt was considering--which was partially an imaginary world--but the world for which he was developing this political philosophy, was a post-feudal but pre-capitalist world.

That it was a world in which there was no great divergence among individuals in the kind of power that they had, and what they command, let's say. But there was a tremendous disparity between individuals, on one hand, and the state on the other. Consequently, it was the task of a liberalism that was concerned with human rights, and the equality of individuals, and so on. It was the task of that liberalism to dissolve the enormous power of state, which was such an authoritarian threat to individual liberties. And from that, you develop a classical liberal theory in, say, Humboldt's or Mill's sense. Well, of course, that is pre-capitalist. He couldn't conceive of an era in which a corporation would be regarded as an individual,

Or in which enormous disparities in control over resources and production would distinguish between individuals in a massive fashion. Now, in that kind of society, to take the Humboldtian view is a very superficial liberalism. Because while opposition to state power in an era of such divergence conforms to Humboldt's conclusions, it doesn't do so for his reasons. That is, his reasons lead to very different conclusions in that case.

Namely, I think, his reasons lead to the conclusion that we must dissolve the authoritarian control over production of resources, which leads to such divergence as among individuals. In fact, I think, one might draw a direct line between classical liberalism and a kind of libertarian socialism, which I think, can be regarded as a kind of adapting of the basic reasoning of classical liberalism to a very different social era. Now if we come to the modern period, here liberalism has taken on a very strange sense, if you think of its history. Now liberalism is essentially the theory of state capitalism. Of state intervention in a capitalist economy.

Well, that has very little relation to classical liberalism. In fact, classical liberalism is what's now called conservatism, I suppose. But this new view, I think, really is, in my view at least, a highly authoritarian position. That is, it's one which accepts a number of centers of authority and control--the state on one hand, agglomerations of private power on the other hand, all interacting with individuals as malleable cogs in this highly constrained machine, which may be called democratic, but given the actual distribution of powers, very far from being meaningfully democratic and cannot be so. So my own feeling has always been that to achieve the classical liberal ideals--for the reasons that led to them being put forth--in a society so different, we must be led in a very different direction. It's superficial and erroneous to accept the conclusions which were reached for different society and not to consider the reasoning that led to those conclusions. The reasoning, I think, is very substantial. I'm a classical liberal in this sense. But I think it leads me to be a kind of anarchist, an anarchist socialist. >>

Chomsky states in the preface to Necessary Illusions the opinion that << citizens of the democratic societies should undertake a course of intellectual self-defense to protect themselves from manipulation and control, and to lay the basis for more meaningful democracy. >>

<<<

there are some events you need to understand, from our recent past, which have shaped all this. In Necessary Illusions, Chomsky informs us about a great deal. So here come some more lengthy quotations - to those who do not believe that effort and literacy are important when trying to understand the politics of our world, I am sorry to disappoint you, there simply is no other way.

Chomsky begins by saying << These lectures suggest certain conclusions about the functioning of the most advanced democratic systems of the modern era, and particularly, about the ways in which thought and understanding are shaped in the interests of domestic privilege. >> He adds: << But, to my knowledge, there is no serious effort to respond to these and other similar critiques. Rather, they are simply dismissed, in conformity to the predictions of the propaganda model. >> Indeed that is true. I've seen Nick Cohen accuse Chomsky of things which if Cohen had read Chomsky's works Cohen would find the opposite is true - eg claiming Chomsky doesn't tell us about the bad things the Soviet Union did. In fact you can look it up for yourself - what will become clear to you is that men like Cohen attack Chomsky without reading Chomsky. Chomsky on the other hand (and hopefully you and I will be like him, not like Cohen) takes the other approach - knowing what you're talking about before you start talking.

According to Chomsky, then: << the tension [caused by decision making power's being in the hands of the few but impacting on a large scale throughout the social order] could be resolved, and sometimes is, by forcefully eliminating public interference with state and private power. In the advanced industrial societies the problem is typically approached by a variety of measures to deprive democratic political structures of substantive content, while leaving them formally intact. A large part of this task is assumed by ideological institutions that channel thought and attitudes within acceptable bounds, deflecting any potential challenge to established privilege and authority before it can take form and gather strength. The enterprise has many facets and agents. >>

Chomsky suggests: << One way to resolve the tension would be to extend the democratic system to investment, the organization of work, and so on. That would constitute a major social revolution, which, in my view at least, would consummate the political revolutions of an earlier era and realize some of the libertarian principles on which they were partly based >> .

So what exactly has caused us to go so far astray, since the 60s, since indeed the time of Chomsky's Massey Lectures in the late 80s. Well it goes back to before those lectures, of course, and in them Chomsky advises us: << I will be primarily concerned with one aspect: thought control, as conducted through the agency of the national media and related elements of the elite intellectual culture >> . No, not B-movies, perfectly rational and sane assessment of how our society works: << In accordance with the prevailing conceptions in the U.S., there is no infringement on democracy if a few corporations control the information system: in fact, that is the essence of democracy. In the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, the leading figure of the public relations industry, Edward Bernays, explains that "the very essence of the democratic process" is "the freedom to persuade and suggest," what he calls "the engineering of consent." "A leader," he continues, "frequently cannot wait for the people to arrive at even general understanding ... Democratic leaders must play their part in ... engineering ... consent to socially constructive goals and values," applying "scientific principles and tried practices to the task of getting people to support ideas and programs"; and although it remains unsaid, it is evident enough that those who control resources will be in a position to judge what is "socially constructive," to engineer consent through the media, and to implement policy through the mechanisms of the state. If the freedom to persuade happens to be concentrated in a few hands, we must recognize that such is the nature of a free society. The public relations industry expends vast resources "educating the American people about the economic facts of life" to ensure a favorable climate for business. Its task is to control "the public mind," which is "the only serious danger confronting the company," an AT&T executive observed eighty years ago. >>



No, nobody is pretending Laura Kuenssberg is an evil but intellectual giant of a woman, scheming to rule the world.

Chomsky explains: << Despite the frank acknowledgment of the need to deceive the public, it would be an error to suppose that practitioners of the art are typically engaged in conscious deceit; few reach the level of sophistication of the Grand Inquisitor or maintain such insights for long. On the contrary, as the intellectuals pursue their grim and demanding vocation, they readily adopt beliefs that serve institutional needs; those who do not will have to seek employment elsewhere. The chairman of the board may sincerely believe that his every waking moment is dedicated to serving human needs. Were he to act on these delusions instead of pursuing profit and market share, he would no longer be chairman of the board. It is probable that the most inhuman monsters, even the Himmlers and the Mengeles, convince themselves that they are engaged in noble and courageous acts. The psychology of leaders is a topic of little interest. The institutional factors that constrain their actions and beliefs are what merit attention. >>

It goes back to the time of Nixon and Watergate (British 'leftists' pay attention - too few of them have a clue about these matters): << The standard image of media performance, as expressed by Judge Gurfein in a decision rejecting government efforts to bar publication of the Pentagon Papers, is that we have "a cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press," and that these tribunes of the people "must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know." Commenting on this decision, Anthony Lewis of the New York Times observes that the media were not always as independent, vigilant, and defiant of authority as they are today, but in the Vietnam and Watergate eras they learned to exercise "the power to root about in our national life, exposing what they deem right for exposure," without regard to external pressures or the demands of state or private power. >>



Where is the evidence of this? Neoliberals may want to ask, accusing you of 'conspiracy theory' if you attempt to persuade them of the truth. Tell them: << A 1975 study on "governability of democracies" by the Trilateral Commission concluded that the media have become a "notable new source of national power," one aspect of an "excess of democracy" that contributes to "the reduction of governmental authority" at home and a consequent "decline in the influence of democracy abroad." This general "crisis of democracy," the commission held, resulted from the efforts of previously marginalized sectors of the population to organize and press their demands, thereby creating an overload that prevents the democratic process from functioning properly. >>

Chomsky tells us that << The charge that the Democrats represent the special interests has little merit. Rather, they represent other elements of the "national interest," and participated with few qualms in the right turn of the post-Vietnam era among elite groups, including the dismantling of limited state programs designed to protect the poor and deprived; the transfer of resources to the wealthy; the conversion of the state, even more than before, to a welfare state for the privileged; and the expansion of state power and the protected state sector of the economy through the military system - domestically, a device for compelling the public to subsidize high-technology industry and provide a state-guaranteed market for its waste production >> . This applies to pre-Corbyn (and non-Corbyn) Labour. Evidently.

Chomsky indicates support for Ginsberg's belief that << western governments have used market mechanisms to regulate popular perspectives and sentiments. The "marketplace of ideas," built during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, effectively disseminates the beliefs and ideas of the upper classes while subverting the ideological and cultural independence of the lower classes. Through the construction of this marketplace, western governments forged firm and enduring links between socioeconomic position and ideological power, permitting upper classes to use each to buttress the other ... In the United States, in particular, the ability of the upper and upper-middle classes to dominate the marketplace of ideas has generally allowed these strata to shape the entire society's perception of political reality and the range of realistic political and social possibilities. While westerners usually equate the marketplace with freedom of opinion, the hidden hand of the market can be almost as potent an instrument of control as the iron fist of the state. >>

One piece of evidence Chomsky presents is this: << The influence of advertisers is sometimes far more direct. "Projects unsuitable for corporate sponsorship tend to die on the vine," the London Economist observes, noting that "stations have learned to be sympathetic to the most delicate sympathies of corporations." The journal cites the case of public TV station WNET, which "lost its corporate underwriting from Gulf+Western as a result of a documentary called 'Hunger for Profit', about multinationals buying up huge tracts of land in the third world." These actions "had not been those of a friend," Gulf's chief executive wrote to the station, adding that the documentary was "virulently anti-business, if not anti-American." "Most people believe that WNET would not make the same mistake today," the Economist concludes. Nor would others. The warning need only be implicit. >>

Chomsky's investigation concludes that << Case by case, we find that conformity is the easy way, and the path to privilege and prestige; dissidence carries personal costs that may be severe, even in a society that lacks such means of control as death squads, psychiatric prisons, or extermination camps. The very structure of the media is designed to induce conformity to established doctrine. In a three-minute stretch between commercials, or in seven hundred words, it is impossible to present unfamiliar thoughts or surprising conclusions with the argument and evidence required to afford them some credibility. Regurgitation of welcome pieties faces no such problem. >>

Where the title of Necessary Illusions comes from is significant and is evident from this extract from chapter one: << Harold Lasswell explained in the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences that we should not succumb to "democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests." They are not; the best judges are the elites, who must, therefore, be ensured the means to impose their will, for the common good. When social arrangements deny them the requisite force to compel obedience, it is necessary to turn to "a whole new technique of control, largely through propaganda" because of the "ignorance and superstition [of] ... the masses." In the same years, Reinhold Niebuhr argued that "rationality belongs to the cool observers," while "the proletarian" follows not reason but faith, based upon a crucial element of "necessary illusion." Without such illusion, the ordinary person will descend to "inertia." Then in his Marxist phase, Niebuhr urged that those he addressed - presumably, the cool observers - recognize "the stupidity of the average man" and provide the "emotionally potent oversimplifications" required to keep the proletarian on course to create a new society; the basic conceptions underwent little change as Niebuhr became "the official establishment theologian" (Richard Rovere), offering counsel to those who "face the responsibilities of power." >>

Chomsky explains << in practice, the state media are generally kept in line by the forces that have the power to dominate the state, and by an apparatus of cultural managers who cannot stray far from the bounds these forces set >> .

Many people see the Guardian as the left wing and people like Counterpunch as some sort of radical extreme segment of the political spectrum.

Chomsky points out << One consequence of the distribution of resources and decision- making power in the society at large is that the political class and the cultural managers typically associate themselves with the sectors that dominate the private economy; they are either drawn directly from those sectors or expect to join them. >>

Chomsky then quotes radical democrats of the seventeenth-century English revolution who held that << it will never be a good world while knights and gentlemen make us laws, that are chosen for fear and do but oppress us, and do not know the people's sores. It will never be well with us till we have Parliaments of countrymen like ourselves, that know our wants. >>

Chomsky enlightens us about the demise of the left wing and workers' rights in the 'UK' in the 1960s:

<< As for the media, in England a lively labor-oriented press reaching a broad public existed into the 1960s, when it was finally eliminated through the workings of the market. At the time of its demise in 1964, the Daily Herald had over five times as many readers as The Times and "almost double the readership of The Times, the Financial Times and the Guardian combined," James Curran observes, citing survey research showing that its readers "were also exceptionally devoted to their paper." But this journal, partially owned by the unions and reaching a largely working-class audience, "appealed to the wrong people," Curran continues. The same was true of other elements of the social democratic press that died at the same time, in large part because they were "deprived of the same level of subsidy" through advertising and private capital as sustained "the quality press," which "not only reflects the values and interests of its middle-class readers" but also "gives them force, dainty and coherence" and "plays an important ideological role in amplifying and renewing the dominant political consensus." >>

In Necessary Illusions Chomsky also speaks of << the disintegration of "the cultural base that has sustained active participation within the Labour movement," which "has ceased to exist as a mass movement in most parts of the country." The effects are readily apparent. With the elimination of the "selection and treatment of news" and "relatively detailed political commentary and analysis [that] helped daily to sustain a social democratic sub-culture within the working class," there is no longer an articulate alternative to the picture of "a world where the subordination of working people [is] accepted as natural and inevitable," and no continuing expression of the view that working people are "morally entitled to a greater share of the wealth they created and a greater say in its allocation." The same tendencies are evident elsewhere in the industrial capitalist societies. >>

And what underpins all of this deception? Well, foreign policy. More about all this later when we get round to NATO, but a primer, from Chomsky, first, on what exactly NATO really is.

Chomsky says: << the global planning undertaken by U.S. elites during and after World War II assumed that principles of liberal internationalism would generally serve to satisfy what had been described as the "requirement of the United States in a world in which it proposes to hold unquestioned power."6 The global policy goes under the name "containment." The manufacture of consent at home is its domestic counterpart. The two policies are, in fact, closely intertwined, since the domestic population must be mobilized to pay the costs of "containment," which may be severe - both material and moral costs.

The rhetoric of containment is designed to give a defensive cast to the project of global management, and it thus serves as part of the domestic system of thought control. It is remarkable that the terminology is so easily adopted, given the questions that it begs. Looking more closely, we find that the concept conceals a good deal. The underlying assumption is that there is a stable international order that the United States must defend. The general contours of this international order were developed by U.S. planners during and after World War II. Recognizing the extraordinary scale of U.S. power, they proposed to construct a global system that the United States would dominate and within which U.S. business interests would thrive. As much of the world as possible would constitute a Grand Area, as it was called, which would be subordinated to the needs of the U.S. economy. Within the Grand Area, other capitalist societies would be encouraged to develop, but without protective devices that would interfere with U.S. prerogatives. In particular, only the United States would be permitted to dominate regional systems. The United States moved to take effective control of world energy production and to organize a world system in which its various components would fulfill their functions as industrial centers, as markets and sources of raw materials, or as dependent states pursuing their "regional interests" within the "overall framework of order" managed by the United States (as Henry Kissinger was later to explain). >>

The term "Grand area" is clearly just a translation into 'American' ideology of the notion "lebensraum".

The 'US' is often seen as a mighty and brilliant military superpower which has evolved beyond other cultures in terms of skill and even courage. There is no shortage of people who will cheer this view of the 'US' - everywhere from crappy gungho-films enjoyed by idiots to the 'cultured' broadsheets of the 'privileged'.



As Chomsky explains, << another task was to overcome the dread "Vietnam syndrome," which impeded the resort to forceful means to control the dependencies; as explained by Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz, the task was to overcome "the sickly inhibitions against the use of military force" that developed in revulsion against the Indochina wars, a problem that was resolved, he hoped, in the glorious conquest of Grenada, when 6,000 elite troops succeeded in overcoming the resistance of several dozen Cubans and some Grenadan militiamen, winning 8,000 medals of honor for their prowess. >>

To add to all of this, we are dealing with a society which every day becomes louder in its proclamations amongst its "individuals" that it is "heroic", "brave", "advanced", and even (yes, this will make you laugh) "honourable".

Chomsky wrote << It is beyond imagining in responsible circles that we might have some culpability for mass slaughter and destruction, or owe some debt to the millions of maimed and orphaned, or to the peasants who still die from exploding ordnance left from the U.S. assault, while the Pentagon, when asked whether there is any way to remove the hundreds of thousands of anti-personnel bomblets that kill children today in such areas as the Plain of Jars in Laos, comments helpfully that "people should not live in those areas. They know the problem." The United States has refused even to give its mine maps of Indochina to civilian mine-deactivation teams. Ex-marines who visited Vietnam in 1989 to help remove mines they had laid report that many remain in areas were people try to farm and plant trees, and were informed that many people are still being injured and killed as of January 1989. None of this merits comment or concern.

The situation is of course quite different when we turn to Afghanistan - where, incidentally, the Soviet-installed regime has released its mine maps. In this case, headlines read: "Soviets Leave Deadly Legacy for Afghans," "Mines Put Afghans in Peril on Return," "U.S. Rebukes Soviets on Afghan Mine Clearing," "U.S. to Help Train Refugees To Destroy Afghan Mines," "Mines Left by Departing Soviets Are Maiming Afghans," and so on. The difference is that these are Soviet mines, so it is only natural for the United States to call for "an international effort to provide the refugees with training and equipment to destroy or dismantle" them and to denounce the Russians for their lack of cooperation in this worthy endeavor. "The Soviets will not acknowledge the problem they have created or help solve it," Assistant Secretary of State Richard Williamson observed sadly; "We are disappointed." The press responds with the usual selective humanitarian zeal. >>

Attackers of Chomsky often imagine that in doing so they are standing up for 'decent' regimes who don't kill journalists.

Outlining the U.S. position on Central America, Chomsky tells us that << There had been an independent press in El Salvador: two small newspapers, La Crónica del Pueblo and El Independiente. Both were destroyed in 1989-81 by the security forces. After a series of bombings, an editor of La Crónica and a photographer were taken from a San Salvador coffee shop and hacked to pieces with machetes; the offices were raided, bombed, and burned down by death squads, and the publisher fled to the United States. The publisher of El Independiente, Jorge Pinto, fled to Mexico when his paper's premises were attacked and equipment smashed by troops. Concern over these matters was so high in the United States that there was not one word in the New York Times news columns and not one editorial comment on the destruction of the journals, and no word in the years since, though Pinto was permitted a statement on the opinion page, in which he condemned the "Duarte junta" for having "succeeded in extinguishing the expression of any dissident opinion" and expressed his belief that the so-called death squads are "nothing more nor less than the military itself" - a conclusion endorsed by the Church and international human rights monitors.

In the year before the final destruction of El Independiente, the offices were bombed twice, an office boy was killed when the plant was machine-gunned, Pinto's car was sprayed with machine-gun fire, there were two other attempts on his life, and army troops in tanks and armored trucks arrived at his offices to search for him two days before the paper was finally destroyed. These events received no mention. Shortly before it was finally destroyed, there had been four bombings of La Crónica in six months; one of these, the last, received forty words in the New York Times.

It is not that the U.S. media are unconcerned with freedom of the press in Central America. Contrasting sharply with the silence over the two Salvadoran newspapers is the case of the opposition journal La Prensa in Nicaragua. Media critic Francisco Goldman counted 263 references to its tribulations in the New York Times in four years. The distinguishing criterion is not obscure: the Salvadoran newspapers were independent voices stilled by the murderous violence of U.S. clients; La Prensa is an agency of the U.S. campaign to overthrow the government of Nicaragua, therefore a "worthy victim," whose harassment calls forth anguish and outrage. We return to further evidence that this is indeed the operative criterion. >>

>>>

References: http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/05/dont-look-dont-see-time-for-honest-media-reporting-on-impacts-of-pesticides/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/05/how-american-exceptionalism-is-killing-the-planet/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peD_d9WFN48
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/05/the-most-important-election-in-british-history
https://www.salon.com/2014/08/01/genocide_is_permissible_[..]_times_of_israel_op_ed/
https://www.independent.co.uk/[..]/israel-gaza-conflict-when-genocide-is-permissible-[..].html
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/times-of-israel-genocide-article-post-deleted_n_5641971

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 104: << Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain >> (And the beat goes on).

Thrust: So the comedy writing continues. Previous working copy trail begins here.

Direction of resistance: What is an election without proper satire?

Removal of resistance: If Hislop and co are too gutless and whipped and whored to money by their corporate pimps to do it, then I shall. (I just saw a video in which David Mitchell was bitching on LBC about his belief that destitute children, destitute adults, the underprivileged, the out of work, people discriminated against because of their race or gender or class, are ruining comedy. Apparently politics is ruining comedy. Apparently self-amusement is not as fun for Mitchell any more because too many people with problems are insisting that society deal with those problems and that satirists and artists use their talents in the way they should and no longer work as telesales people and self-amusing tossers no longer call themselves comedians).

You see, David Mitchell, or merely 'David' as my friend Helen (whom I should clarify is "non non-white") (and indeed a faithful loyal Israel supporter, a Christian Zionist, I suppose) (and "white", as I said) (and just so you are truly horrified, you must understand she is a professional working in industry, young, educated, no doubt perceived as elite, with a job in the area of 'innovation', indeed, for a major company) (so you can't hide from the fact that she is a pretty good example of one of your fans, of middle England) once referred to you as in an argument, arguing in your defence when I criticised a Guardian article, I think it was, you had written - I was criticising it for its neoliberalism - we'll get to her shortly - but I say this to you David Mitchell - our society and evolution depends on mutual aid. If you want money for your jokes, they need to contribute to our society, rather than simply being royal variety jokes you get paid for. Clown around on your own time, not at society's expense. You are standing in the way of satirists, who need to mock those you don't mock, so that society receives (in exchange for the 'money' a comedian earns) its share.

Helen believed that AIDS is a punishment from "God" on "black people" for - and these are her words - for "needing to be civilised by the white man". I'm sure you'd prefer it if she were attacking you and I defending you. Anyway, "David", the fact is that you need to ridicule people like Helen, like Blair, like Hodge, like Johnson - all of them - properly - you need to ridicule Guardian writers, you need to ridicule the bulk of the press, and almost all 'comedians' - but you don't. I, on the other hand, do. Please read on for some examples. I'm sure you'll find the point you made now fully rebutted and must think of another excuse for being a cowardly toe rag. So go on, think of it. Come up with more excuses. Don't stop to use comedy for the benefit of society, use it for self amusement and as a cash machine. Do read more on mutual aid if you want me to stop ridiculing you. Or stop using the position of public commercial 'joke maker' to waste society's time and hand over the microphone to people who make jokes the way Swift and Hogarth did - for the benefit of us all. As part of the evolutionary journey, not an episode of Benny Hill.

On another occasion I can go over the last 10 years, which you lament is the period during which people have become no fun, and look at what has happened to people less privileged than you, to their lives, to their daily needs, to their mood, to their future, in that time, unnoticed by you in your privilege bubble. But not right now. That's easy work. It's sad you're too lazy to do it yourself Mitchell, so I'll do it later. But first, someone must educate people on the necessity for satire. Step aside Benny Hill. Nobody's interested in your innuendo or clown act. They want to laugh at the people fucking their lives up. Indeed, at you. Do you have any idea what has been going on outside your gated media-money-fed life, to the many, over the last 10 years whilst you, and a few others, have remained entirely oblivious and sheltered? No, of course you don't. Well I'll have to publish all that info on this page later, but right now it is more important to give people the comedy you have singularly failed to give them, you and all the other Royal Variety performing clowns.

I think Emma Bovary must be read with a French accent, for the best delivery of the screenplay below:

Unification: Hunting of the Snark / Godot 2 / Madam Bovary, the neoliberal version/remake

POTENTIALLY STARRING: CHARLIE SHEEN as CAPTAIN WILLARD, JOANNA LUMLEY as EMMA BOVARY, JENNIFER SAUNDERS as AMERICAN SPY, VIC REEVES as LOUIS XVI, BOB MORTIMER as MARIE ANTOINETTE, EDWARD NORTON as WHITE NARRATOR, KERMIT THE FROG as HIMSELF, LENNY HENRY as MAN WITH GUN, BERNIE THE AGENT as HIMSELF, JOHNNY VEGAS as MEL BROOKS, MEL BROOKS as KING TURNIP, TONY ROBINSON as BALDRICK, ANTOINE DE CAUNES as CHARLES BOVARY, ENOCH POWELL AS BORIS THE BARBARIAN, RICHARD BRIERS as DEMPSEY AND MAKEPEACE, ANT AND DEC as ELVIS, DAVID LYNCH as JIMMINY GLICK, BERNIE SANDERS as BERNIE SANDERS

EXT. RIVER BOAT. CAPTAIN WILLARD IS TRAVELLING BY BOAT THROUGH SOUTH ASIA AGAIN, ACCOMPANIED BY SOLDIERS.

CAPTAIN WILLARD

I didn't know why I was in this film. Everybody had died in the previous one. And besides, it wasn't parodying anything in particular, my being here was entirely random - arbitrary. But one thing was obvious. Godot was not dead. How could he be? He was probably the screenwriter. I updated my Facebook page to inform my fans that the reason so many white people become hysterically afraid at the sound of the phrase "Jeremy Corbyn" was because his fairness and accountability heralded the beginning of the end of white entitlement and white racial preference. Rachel Riley blocked me. The first like I got came from Madam Bovary. I knew this was not by chance but by the screenwriter's design. So Beckett was going to rewrite Flaubert now. I thanked my lucky stars he had chosen Bovary and not the legend of St Julian the Hospitaller.

RANDOM SOLDIER

Sir! We've reached Guam now.

CAPTAIN WILLARD

Guam. Always Guam. Was it because it had one of those names which sounds good on film? Probably. Even Godot was a sucker for vanity. I knew that the answer to my problems lay there. Somehow I could exploit Godot's vanity and stop him before the no doubt horrifying tale of Madam Bovary were to unfold in its entirety. Being Charlie Sheen, I decided the best thing I could do to save Bovary would be to give her a good seeing to (consenting, of course - I'm not one of THOSE American soldiers, I'm the one who deals with THOSE American soldiers).

RANDOM SOLDIER

Sir, I don't understand. Would you like me to kill someone?

CAPTAIN WILLARD (TO SOLDIER)

No no, I was just talking to the audience. I'm the narrator. It pays well.

CUT TO..

INT. AMERICAN SKY SCRAPER, NIGHT.

WHITE NARRATOR

People always ask me if I know Jeremy Corbyn. Three minutes. This is it. Ground zero. Do you have a speech for the occasion?

MAN WITH GUN

(punches him)

SHUT IT. I'm the hero of this film Norton.

WHITE NARRATOR

I am not Edward Norton, I am a character he is portraying. I am -

MAN WITH GUN

(punches him again)

SHUT IT. I'm the hero of this film, whoever you are. So keep your Stanislavskian crap to yourself. This film is not about white saviours.

CUT TO.. INT. THE ISRAELI EMBASSY IN LONDON WHERE LOUIS XVI HAS, HAVING BEEN BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE BY A MAD ISRAELI SCIENTIST, A SECRET BASE, WHERE HE AND MARIE ANTOINETTE ARE LIVING, PREPARING FOR A NEW FEUDAL AGE THEY INTEND TO BRING ABOUT THROUGH A CUNNING PLAN.

LOUIS XVI

Listen love, soon you will be able to eat all the organic cake products your heart desires, for I have a plan now, I know how I am going to regain control of France and in fact the world, thanks to our Israeli friends.

MARIE ANTOINETTE

What about Israel? Surely you must not take control of Israel or that would be ungrateful. They have killed and nobbled so many people on your behalf, indeed it was their ethics-free scientists who brought you back to life with their lovely Day-of-the-zombie Weinstein 5000 machine!

LOUIS XVI

No love, I will not take over Israel, just the rest of the world. Don't you want to hear my plan?

MARIE ANTOINETTE

I'm sure it's a lovely plan. I want to hear more about those cakes. Will they have chocolate icing? I love chocolate icing. Particularly if it is flecked with little pieces of white chocolate, with vanilla which has come from some location marketing companies know everyone will put their faith in.

LOUIS XVI

Listen, I'm the King. You're just the Queen. Now shut up and listen to my plan. It's a great one. You should love it. It's a feminist plan.

MARIE ANTOINETTE

Oh I do love your feminist plans. I enjoyed your feminist revival of Thatcher. The slogan "women have a right to exploit and kill and be labelled heroes" was a masterpiece. Imagine if only men were allowed to receive praise for things like genocide. Since we were granted this privilege we are truly a more well treated gender. What's the new plan?

LOUIS XVI

In a word, Bovary. Emma Bovary. I'm going to get her to carry out a feminist revolution in which the planet is renamed Vagina World and I will be its King.

MARIE ANTOINETTE

Surely such a world would need a Queen?

LOUIS XVI

Get with the times, love. Take a look at the Guardian, the head of western feminist thought management - it promotes control of the world by a few extremely powerful men and their wives. Same as you and me. We're proper feminists.

MARIE ANTOINETTE

That's brilliant then, Vic. I mean Louis. What are you waiting for? Get hold of Emma Bovary and start your 'revolution'. I'm just going down the shops. We've run out of Battenbergs again. I know you love em with your tea.

LOUIS XVI

I like my Battenbergs.

CUT TO..

INT. AMERICAN SKY SCRAPER, NIGHT. WHITE NARRATOR, MAN WITH GUN AND BALDRICK ARE PLAYING CLUEDO.

BALDRICK

I think it was Colonel Mustard, in the drone warfare centre, with the computer keyboard.

WHITE NARRATOR

You know, man with gun, I really don't think this kind of contest is macho enough. We need to be bare fisted, rolling around on the ground and sweating.

MAN WITH GUN

My dear Norton, this is not a porn film. This is an existential study of the failings of the latterday bourgeoisie.

WHITE NARRATOR

So was fight club.

MAN WITH GUN

No it wasn't. It was a mindless sexist macho sensationalist bunch of shit with a seemingly 'clever twist' at the end. Just another American male far up himself, revelling in his own sophistry, calling that sophistry dissent.

WHITE NARRATOR

Okay, but it paid well. I'm not even getting paid for this.

MAN WITH GUN

That's because this film isn't real. Nothing is real. We are figments of the imagination of some sort of plant.

BALDRICK

I thought it was King Turnip who was responsible for all this, my lord. After all, in the last film you killed me and now I'm here again. Surely only King Turnip with his magic powers could bring me back to life. And besides, you must have killed the plant in the last film, so it can't be the plant dreaming, can it?

MAN WITH GUN

It's very simple, Baldrick, I killed the wrong plant. I killed a cactus which the plant dreamt it was - ie it dreamt it was dreaming - it imagined itself to be a cactus. In reality it is some other plant. Probably in a pot, on a windowsill. We're going to have to hunt it down again.

WHITE NARRATOR

Yeah, well I think it was Miss Scarlett in the propaganda production facility at Guardian Newspaper Headquarters, with the racist neoliberal bilge intended to drive blind support for racist genocidal interventionist politics, accidentally causing far right numbers to swell so high that it turns into a Brexit and blows up in her face.

CUT TO..

INT. HOME OF CHARLES BOVARY. DULL CEO BY DAY. SECRET GAY NIGHT CLUB OWNER BY NIGHT. WHILE CHARLES OSTENTATIOUSLY ADDS NEW ACQUISITIONS TO HIS STAMP COLLECTION, HIS WIFE IS UPSTAIRS IN HER BEDROOM, ON THE PHONE TO HER LATEST LOVER, AMERICAN SPY, A SENIOR MARKETING EXECUTIVE AT THE CHARITY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, UNFORTUNATELY FOR HER ALSO AN ISRAELI SPY WHO HAS BEEN RECRUITED TO TRICK HER INTO CONVERTING HER PENT-UP RAGE, BORN OUT OF THE FUTILITY AND BANALITY OF HER SITUATION AND THE WORLD SHE LIVES IN, INTO CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE ON A SCALE NEVER WITNESSED BY THE HUMAN RACE BEFORE.

AMERICAN SPY

I'm tired of the world of marketing and charity. I've rolled out my last rainbow coloured stylised turd shaped cushion in the name of gay consumer rights, I want to do more for the world. More than I've already done, absurd though that may seem. Let us make this film about you and me, Emma. Let me raise you to the highest heights - and help you overpower the world. You can revolutionise the way humans think - and live happily ever after.

EMMA BOVARY

But the book doesn't end that way. Flaubert was taking the piss out of us, not holding us up as Roman or Greek heroes to worship. This film is a farce and if you really think you can change that, you're stupider than I thought. But that's okay, sweetheart. I like you for your body not your mind.

AMERICAN SPY

Well we'll rewrite it. That's the modern way. Take anything humans have ever done, good or bad, and remake it in an arbitrary way which suits our immediate commercial needs.

EMMA BOVARY

What sort of revolution?

AMERICAN SPY

The Vagina revolution. We will change this planet's name to Vagina World.

EMMA BOVARY

The whole planet?

AMERICAN SPY

Well except Israel, of course.

EMMA BOVARY

How exactly can we start a revolution?

AMERICAN SPY

You are Emma Bovary. You have a lot of popularity among middle class hyperconsumers across the world, you are a cultural artefact, one of those things western humans and their serfs in many grovelling conquered outposts are most proud of is historical artefacts with famous names. They tend to know, on average, next to nothing about the aforesaid artefacts but are nonetheless able to, in their own minds, assign to them some sort of generative property - which all by itself yields intellectual culture and progress in any individual who is even sitting in the pub nearby having a pint of lard and some pork scratchings.

EMMA BOVARY

So it's my marketing power, really, which you think we can capitalise on. I'm not sure I like that, but I am very bored, so tell me more.

AMERICAN SPY

Well, first we're going to do a charity run.

EXT. SWAMP, DAY. KERMIT THE FROG IS PLAYING HIS BANJO AND SINGING, NEARBY BERNIE THE AGENT IS BOATING.

KERMIT

Why are there so many songs about rainbows and what's on the other side? Rainbows are visions but only illusions and rainbows have nothing to hide. So we've been told and some choose to believe it, I know they're wrong wait and see. Some day we'll find it, the rainbow connection, the lovers, the dreamers and -

[GUN-SHOT RINGS OUT AND KERMIT'S HEAD IS BLOWN OFF HIS SHOULDERS.]

MAN WITH GUN

Sorry Kermit, this film isn't about you or about making millions of people happy. This is a sick farce about the meltdown of human society. This is about the real world.

BERNIE THE AGENT

Was that REALLY necessary?

MAN WITH GUN

Don't ask me, ask the screenwriter.

[SHOOTS BERNIE THE AGENT DEAD]

CUT TO..

INT. SPORTS CAR. EMMA BOVARY AND CHARLES BOVARY ARE HAVING A DOMESTIC ARGUMENT ABOUT THE IMMORAL NATURE OF CHARLES' JOB AS HEAD OF MARKETING FOR THE EXPLOITATION CORPORATION AND HIS LATEST PROJECT TO ROLL OUT FOURTEEN MILLION NOVELTY RAINBOW-COLOURED STYLISED-TURD-SHAPED CUSHIONS TO PROMOTE HOMOSEXUALITY AND VIRTUE SIGNAL IN ORDER TO OPEN UP NEW MARKETS AND INCREASE PROFITS.

EMMA BOVARY

When I married you I thought you were a charismatic, strong-willed and free-minded individual, and glamorous and interesting. In reality all you really have is wealth and might. You are a snake oil salesman and from dawn to dusk all you do is exploit and harm, with a smile on your face and a dirty thought in your head.

CHARLES BOVARY

That is simply not true, I am a very kind man at heart, it is the world which is evil. Ask Nicholas Cage in that film about the virtues of genocide. Even the Times of Israel has, albeit very briefly, praised genocide. Look, there's a hotel. Why don't we stop for the night?

EMMA BOVARY

It's lunch time. And no. I refuse to have sex with you until I have resolved this moral problem. Now talk. What can we do to fix your satanic and evil nature?

HE BEGINS TO MAKE AN OBVIOUSLY SLEAZY SUGGESTION.

EMMA BOVARY

No, I'm not interested in your lazy and ignorant narcissism right now. I want a change to happen. Corbyn style change. Real change. What's it going to be?

CHARLES BOVARY THINKS HARD. HE HAS TO SAVE HIS MARRIAGE. HE KNOWS THERE ARE MEN FAR MORE WORTHY OF EMMA BOVARY THAN HE AND IF SHE GOES ALL HIS WEALTH AND POWER MAY NOT BE AS ENJOYABLE. HE'S NOT ENTIRELY SURE AND DOESN'T WANT TO RISK IT.

CHARLES BOVARY

Okay. I have an idea. Why don't we find you an orphaned Iraqi child, and do something nice for them.

EMMA BOVARY

That's just cheap and nasty. No. Not unless -

SHE HAS AN IDEA. CUT TO..

INT. WAR ROOM. PRESIDENT QUACKQUACK AND A GROUP OF WHITE AND TOKEN RACISTS WHO BELIEVE IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS AS AN AXIOMATIC DOCUMENT ARE ENTERTAINING THEIR NEW FRIEND BORIS THE BARBARIAN.

BORIS THE BARBARIAN

So I said: "but you're a bloody scotsman so why don't you sod off!"

APPLAUSE FROM QUACKQUACK AND HIS COURTIERS.

PRESIDENT QUACKQUACK

Let's sing a hymn now. Hymn number 90210, all things on my credit card.

THEY SING.

PRESIDENT QUACKQUACK

Amen. So, Boris. Tell me more. Godot is back and on the loose again, you say. This is troublesome. I don't remember how it ended last time.

[ONE OF HIS AIDES EXPLAINS TO HIM THAT THEY ALL DIED AND GODOT TURNED OUT TO BE A MYSTICAL FORCE BEYOND THEIR COMPREHENSION, PROBABLY EXISTING IN AN INFINITE NUMBER OF WHAT WE PERCEIVE AS DIMENSIONS BUT WHAT TO GODOT ARE MERELY STRANDS OF A DIFFERENT AND 'HIGHER' PLANE OF EXISTENCE. SECURITY GUARDS IMMEDIATELY DRAG THE AIDE OFF AND SHOOT HER.]

PRESIDENT QUACKQUACK

What I want to know is whether Louis the Sixteenth and his hot wife can come down and hang with us while we figure out how to kill Godot.

CUT TO..

INT. CHARLES BOVARY'S SPORTS CAR.

EMMA BOVARY

So what do you say?

CHARLES BOVARY

I don't even know Mel Brooks.

EMMA BOVARY

Rubbish. You can get hold of anyone you want. You are one of the most evil and powerful men alive today. There's almost nobody you can't unearth with a few threats to someone who owes you, or a bit of leaning on someone who's scared of you. Mel Brooks or divorce.

CHARLES BOVARY

Why Mel Brooks?

EMMA BOVARY

Introducing an Iraqi child who has been robbed of her entire family by worthless racist western scumbags to Mel Brooks can give that child back some kind of faith in humanity, some sort of understanding that even in the west, low and depraved though it is, there are great people who loathe those who behave the way she has been led by our actions and inactions to believe we are all taught to live.

CHARLES BOVARY

Alright alright, I don't need a lecture. I will get Mel Brooks. Now can we check into a hotel?

EMMA BOVARY

After I speak to Mel Brooks.

CHARLES BOVARY

Fine. Turn on the car phone will you, dear. I'd better call my secretary.

CUT TO..

EIGHTIES' AMERICAN TV DETECTIVE DRAMA SET. JIHADIS BEAT WOMEN IN THE BACKGROUND. PEOPLE WITH DARK SKIN, FROM ITALIANS TO JAMAICANS, GATHER TOGETHER IN GANGS AND KILL SECURITY GUARDS AND POLICEWOMEN TO PASS THE TIME. DEMPSEY AND MAKEPEACE IS WALKING ALONG WITH A YOYO, LOOKING TO DEAL WITH WHAT HE BELIEVES TO BE ANTI-WHITE VILLAINY, IN THE NAME OF PROVING THAT AUTHORITARIAN FORCE IS THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH NON WHITE PEOPLE ALWAYS.

DEMPSEY

I really don't think the screenwriter has ever even seen a single episode of this show, it just had a famous name and he probably Googled it and was amazed at the sheer calumny it embodies, a typical boorish western establishment racist, classist, fascist demonisation of non white people, muslims, socialists, civilians (rather than police, security forces, armies and others with 'the right to kill baddies') and others. Very blatantly. He would never have watched such crap. Have you read the Waiting for Godot screenplay? This writer has some taste. Do me a favour. He doesn't even know which one of us is the American one and which is the English one.

MAKEPEACE

Well it doesn't matter, it's the same actor, isn't it?

DEMPSEY

Yes, I like that very much. I have a feeling the writer will merely write us as Richard Briers talking to himself, partly in an American accent, and will leave it up to us to decide which character, at any given time, has the American accent.

MAKEPEACE

I like that very much.

DEMPSEY

Would you like some tea?

MAKEPEACE

Yes, I'd love some.

DEMPSEY (POURS TEA)

I think that Makepeace sounds like the English name, it has a sort of rustic bizarreness about it. Dempsey sounds much more American.

MAKEPEACE

I would say the opposite; Makepeace has a weird American unorthodoxy about it, whilst Dempsey sounds like some fellow down the King's road.

DEMPSEY

Nonsense.

MAKEPEACE

Look, what if we both use the same accent, or both use different American accents?

DEMPSEY

But that wouldn't be faithful to the text.

MAKEPEACE

What text? The screenwriter is parodying the people who even watch Dempsey and Makepeace, and its writers, and the issue of parodying the show itself doesn't even come up - the writer, as you say, has probably never even watched it - I mean what an appalling show it is, sowing racist stereotypes and blind obedience to violent authority in the minds of the young and impressionable?

DEMPSEY

You've got a good point there, Makepeace, I say we both use my own normal English accent, a little bit Chiswick.

MAKEPEACE

No, I think I should do Boston and you should do Louisiana.

DEMPSEY

You mean Loosiana?

MAKEPEACE

That's it, that's it. You be Louisiana and I'll be Boston.

DEMPSEY

You mean Loosiana?

MAKEPEACE

Very humorous.

DEMPSEY

Oh give me a home where no liberals roam and the folks all think the same way, where each house has a gun, a big helluva one and strangers are told "make my day"..

CUT TO..

INT. GAY NIGHTCLUB. NIGHT. CHARLES BOVARY AND AMERICAN SPY ARE SIPPING DRINKS IN A PRIVATE ROOM.

CHARLES BOVARY

Then she tells me she wants me to introduce Mel Brooks to an Iraqi orphan.

AMERICAN SPY (CAN'T CONTAIN HIS LAUGHTER)

So where is she now?

CHARLES BOVARY

I left her with a "headache". Her desire to not have sex with me is definitely at an all time high.

AMERICAN SPY

So we have all night?

PHONE RINGS. AMERICAN SPY ANSWERS IT.

AMERICAN SPY

Emma! What a surprise. I was just thinking about you.

CUT TO..

EMMA BOVARY IN HER HOTEL ROOM, ON THE PHONE TO AMERICAN SPY.

EMMA BOVARY

I've sent Charles to get hold of Mel Brooks for me, so we have all night if you want to meet me. You're almost as bad as he is. When's the last time we did anything but talk on the phone?

CUT TO..

CHARLES BOVARY AND AMERICAN SPY HAVE STARTED TO HAVE SEX.

AMERICAN SPY

Emma, darling, I hope you won't take this the wrong way but I have to take care of something before we can finish this conversation. Stay where you are. I will get to you as soon as I can, as fast as my feet can carry me. Don't move from where you are.

HE HANGS UP THE PHONE AND TELLS HIS GOOGLE VOICE-ACTIVATED THING TO PLAY THE BOLERO.

CUT TO..

EMMA BOVARY IN HER HOTEL ROOM, FEELING SAD AND DEJECTED, MARRIED TO A MAN WHO CHEATS ON HER, CHEATING ON HIM WITH A MAN WHO ALSO CHEATS ON HER, ALTHOUGH SHE DOESN'T REALISE THAT IT'S WITH HER OWN HUSBAND, DISILLUSIONED AT NEOLIBERAL AND RIGHT WING MODERN EARTH, WHEN SUDDENLY SHE NOTICES JIMMINY GLICK STARING AT HER FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MIRROR. HE IS NOT IN HER ROOM, ONLY IN THE MIRROR IMAGE OF IT. JIMMINY GLICK IS EATING A CHAIR.

EMMA BOVARY

Aren't you David Lynch?

JIMMINY GLICK

No I'm Jimminy Glick. You're confused because Martin Short usually plays me. That's not important right now. What's important is the three strange men behind me.

HE WALKS AWAY AND SHE NOTICES MAN WITH GUN, BALDRICK AND WHITE NARRATOR ARE SITTING ON HER BED, BUT ONLY IN THE MIRROR IMAGE OF IT, PLAYING POKER FOR THE SAME THREE OPENED PACKETS OF PRETZELS WHICH HAVE FEATURED IN ALL FILMS AND TV EVER, IN WHICH PEOPLE PLAYED POKER FOR PRETZELS OR WHILST EATING PRETZELS. MAN WITH GUN LOOKS UP AND SEES HER AND IS AS SHOCKED AS SHE IS.

CUT TO...

INT. HOTEL ROOM. MAN WITH GUN, BALDRICK AND WHITE NARRATOR ARE PLAYING POKER FOR PRETZELS.

MAN WITH GUN

Look Baldrick, in the mirror. It's Emma Bovary. We shouldn't be sitting around wasting our time, we have a job to do.

HE WALKS OVER TO THE MIRROR.

MAN WITH GUN

Can you hear me Emma Bovary?

EMMA BOVARY

Who are you?

MAN WITH GUN (TO BALDRICK)

She can hear me.

MAN WITH GUN (TO EMMA BOVARY)

Don't worry about who I am, I'm a friend. If you're Emma Bovary, sit tight, we've come to save you from Bourgeois Hell.

EMMA BOVARY

Finally, someone who understands. Who are you? WHERE are you?

MAN WITH GUN

Uh - not quite sure.

BALDRICK

I thought you said we're in the dream of a yucca plant.

MAN WITH GUN

It might be a fern Baldrick. Or anything. Probably a pot plant. You're being too specific. It could be any pot plant.

MAN WITH GUN (TO EMMA BOVARY)

Do you have any pot plants nearby? Any unusual flora and fauna love?

EMMA BOVARY

So you're mad? So I'm caught between neoliberals, tories, entirely mindless advertising executives and a mad person?

MAN WITH GUN

No I'm not mad, I'm - look, wherever you are, you may be in danger. If there is a pot plant somewhere in your vicinity you must get away from it, or destroy it or something.

EMMA BOVARY

There's some daffodils in a vase.

MAN WITH GUN

No it would be a pot plant. If it's a vase you're okay.

BALDRICK

What about the fridge?

WHITE NARRATOR

I've checked, there's only beer.

EMMA BOVARY ALMOST JUMPS OUT OF HER SKIN, SINCE WHITE NARRATOR IS NOW IN HER HOTEL ROOM.

EMMA BOVARY

Who the hell are you? Wait a minute. You're Edward Norton. Can I get your autograph, it's for, ahem, my daughter.

WHITE NARRATOR

I am not Edward Norton, I am a character he's playing -

MAN WITH GUN PUNCHES HIM IN THE FACE AND HE FALLS FLAT ON THE GROUND

EMMA BOVARY

What the hell?

MAN WITH GUN

It's alright, I think our meat-head friend there managed to break through some kind of spacetime barrier in to your part of the world we're trapped in which, you may want to take note right now, is the dream of a pot plant. No ordinary dream, a tormented dream beset with fear of apocalypse and the banality of evil.

EMMA BOVARY

Hence the choice of subject matter.

MAN WITH GUN

That's right. And we have to prevent the denegeration of this dream into the worst sort of meltdown imaginable. Last time we had to deal with nuclear and military meltdown. This time it's going to be worse, the author is clearly going to take it to a new level of horror, whatever that is.

EMMA BOVARY

I don't understand. Are we in a screenplay, as you imply with your mention of an author, or are we in the mind of a pot plant?

CAPTAIN WILLARD'S BOAT SMASHES THROUGH THE WALL AND INTO THE ROOM, WHERE IT GRINDS TO A HALT.

CAPTAIN WILLARD

We had this conversation already. I think it's a dream. We're all asleep and dreaming of being here, in this situation where someone is telling us that all of reality, even outside our dream, is a dream.

MAN WITH GUN

Not this time, Captain Willard. This is just the main dream, not a dream inside a dream.

BERNIE SANDERS ENTERS

BERNIE SANDERS

Hang on, hang on, if this is just the main dream, how did Willard get here, to urban Europe, from Guam, in that boat? Not just so fast, but how could the boat get into this room? Where is the water?

JIMMINY GLICK APPEARS AGAIN.

JIMMINY GLICK

I think I can explain that.

BERNIE SANDERS

You're David Lynch.

JIMMINY GLICK

No I'm Jimminy Glick, in the script. Let me explain -

THEY LEAVE, WITH GLICK EXPLAINING TO SANDERS WHAT HE FEELS MAY BE GOING ON IN THIS SCREENPLAY

EMMA BOVARY

Well that was odd.

BALDRICK

Forgive me for intruding, my lords and ladies, but I still think King Turnip may be behind all this and we would be well advised to get out of here and conceal ourselves from the Turnip Royal Guard, which will make us all into shrubberies, all of them forming, from an aerial view, a cleverly constructed agriculture-based image of infamous comedian and travel writer Michael Palin.

EMMA BOVARY

Again. Things are getting very odd.

MAN WITH GUN

You're telling me. We're doing another one, they told me. You're the main character, they told me. This time you, the non white anti-hero, save the rich white woman from horror and grief, and she's a real feminist too. And what do I find? First they force me to have Edward Norton shadowing my insanity at every move, to try and pretend that you can benefit from white privilege but also be against the white-privilege-centric establishment at the same time, Charlie Sheen is back, probably hoping to stick his unmentionables into anything which can wear underwear, temporarily of course, and now David Lynch and Bernie Sanders are trying to turn it into a party political broadcast.

EMMA BOVARY

I thought you said this was a dream.

MAN WITH GUN

I think it's a screenplay of a dream of a dream of a screenplay.

THE PHONE RINGS. EVERYONE VANISHES AGAIN EXCEPT EMMA BOVARY. SHE ANSWERS THE PHONE. AMERICAN SPY IS AT THE OTHER END.

AMERICAN SPY

Darling, I can't believe this is happening now, but I've just had an urgent call from Jimmy Carr asking me to help him figure out the best way for him to give charity to the bioweapons department of the Israeli military. I need to get hold of Deniro and talk to him, he remembers how I arranged that the last time. It's a lot of money. A LOT of foul mouth racist macho people spend their money on Jimmy Carr's professional imperial juvenility. You're going to have to manage without me this time.

EMMA BOVARY

But -

AMERICAN SPY

Sorry I have to go now. I'll call you the moment I've finished my work.

HE HANGS UP AND GOES BACK TO ROGERING CHARLES BOVARY.

EMMA BOVARY (TO HERSELF)

Why did he say professional imperial juvenility - a man as ignorant as him sees that as high satire, as attacks on the corrupt - whilst anyone of intelligence couldn't possibly compare Jimmy Carr's puerile machismo to the anti-establishment wit of Jonathan Swift, or even Vic Reeves on a good day, that's not the sort of thing these backward lovers of mine usually see to be the case. I don't understand. Something odd really is going on. Was I dreaming all those strange people?

MAN WITH GUN REAPPEARS, BUT ONLY IN THE MIRROR. THE OTHER TWO ARE NOT THERE, NOR IS WILLARD OR HIS BOAT.

MAN WITH GUN

No I don't think so. And I think the reason he spoke out of character is to do with Godot.

EMMA BOVARY

But Waiting for Godot was written a long time after Flaubert and has apparently nothing to do with Madam Bovary. What has Godot got to do with it?

MAN WITH GUN

I'm afraid this is the second film. You didn't see the first one. It was insane. Nukes flying. Fat dumb American presidents running around the world while the author played fast and loose with eighties stereotype-laden comedy and drama characters. Didn't end well. Tony Blair almost became involved. And even though the writer cut him out before the very end, it was still pretty much the most grim ending possible.

EMMA BOVARY

And you think this time it'll be even worse?

MAN WITH GUN

Logically there's no alternative possibility we can deduce to be probable. Is there?

EMMA BOVARY

No, I suppose not. And you say that if we find the right pot plant and eliminate it the whole show is over and Dawn French will spring up and do her best rendition of "Here comes the bride".

MAN WITH GUN

Yes, I think that's a pretty apt metaphor.

EMMA BOVARY PUTS ON HER COAT AND HAT AND PICKS UP HER HANDBAG AND SHE AND MAN WITH GUN LEAVE HER HOTEL ROOM.

CUT TO..

INT. THE ISRAELI EMBASSY IN LONDON. LOUIS XVI AND MARIE ANTOINETTE ARE EATING BATTENBERGS AND DRINKING CUPS OF TEA.

LOUIS XVI

TONY, TONY, I JUST GOT A FACEBOOK FRIEND REQUEST FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

MARIE ANTOINETTE

I've told you before, Vic, you can't shorten Marie Antoinette to Tony.

LOUIS XVI

Why not? You called me Vic.

MARIE ANTOINETTE

Yes but that was a departure from the fiction, that was just a step into the world beyond the fiction, although under the circumstances it's hard to say in which direction the step moved. Anyway, it's not the same at all. You can call me Mary for short if you like.

LOUIS XVI

Alright Mary. So what should I do? Should I accept his friend request?

MARIE ANTOINETTE

Why not Vic? He's a nice bloke. Has his own set of golf clubs and a proper barometer. We may need to borrow either. I think the president would be a useful friend even if he is a bit of a racist genocidal maniac who's obsessed with sex and is only a gender-egalitarian insofar as he treats everyone with equal contempt and equally as nothing but a means to an end, regardless of gender, although gender may impact the ends involved or desired. I say go for it. You added Henry Kissinger, didn't you? How can you really sink any lower?

LOUIS XVI

I could. I haven't replied to Alistair Campbell yet.

LOUIS XVI ACCEPTS PRESIDENT QUACKQUACK'S FRIEND REQUEST AND THEN GETS A PRIVATE MESSAGE IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT INVITES LOUIS XVI AND HIS HOT WIFE TO HANG OUT WITH THEM IN THE WAR ROOM IN WASHINGTON.

LOUIS XVI

Mary, Mary, the President wants to meet me and my hot wife.

MARIE ANTOINETTE

You can't do that, Vic. You don't have a hot wife. Your wife is played by me and I'm hardly hot. I'm a man.

LOUIS XVI

Well if the president's gay then you might be hot.

MARIE ANTOINETTE

Have you met the president? He's a proper village idiot dinosaur-man. Purely paleolithic. The fact that this screenplay is littered with gender shuffling and actors playing characters the wrong gender, interspersed with gay plots, would totally throw him. He's going to be pretty upset if you walk into the war room with a man dressed as a female french aristocrat.

LOUIS XVI

So what are we going to to Bob? I mean Tony. I mean Mary.

MARIE ANTOINETTE

I'm thinking, Vic. I'm thinking.

MARIE ANTOINETTE THINKS.

CUT TO..

EXT. DEMPSEY AND MAKEPEACE SET. DEMPSEY AND MAKEPEACE IS TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE MOST LIKELY CHARACTERISTICS OF HIS/HER SHOW.

DEMPSEY

So we know to begin with that there must be some sort of personality clash between the two police officers, there always is. In Due South you had the lazy one and the overzealous one. Generally speaking if you have two cops, the purpose of having two is that they argue with each other and take very different approaches, leading them to constantly bounce the plot in different directions.

MAKEPEACE

You're probably right but you're overlooking the most important characteristic - by essentially legitimising both proper, indeed over-zealous use of law and authority at the same time as improper, lazy or even purely delusionary methods, including abandoning things like the presumption of innocence, indeed due process, indeed civilised behaviour, the primary purpose of any cop show or similar is to remind civilians that authority-figures should, gladly, be given absolute power over all life which appears on their tv show.

DEMPSEY

You've got a point there, Makers old son.

MAKEPEACE

If you're doing the English accent then I have to be the woman don't I? I mean if you speak in an obviously English accent people will just assume you're Richard Briers and imagine you to be the male. So you can't call me old son.

DEMPSEY

Alright then, old girl.

MAKEPEACE

Personally I think the author's taking the whole sending up of the pantomime-like ostentatious exhibitionist nature of western 'gay rights' flag wavers, most of whom actually don't care about gay rights and aren't gay but need a whole armoury of virtue signals to use to cover their tracks as they plough on each day with genocide, ecocide and species-wide collective suicide, just a tiny bit too far.

DEMPSEY

How much is a tiny bit?

MAKEPEACE

Three or four hundred words. Not much in contrast to say a medium sized technical lecture by Chomsky.

DEMPSEY

But a lot longer than a tweet from the president of the USA.

MAKEPEACE

An advert for dog food would have more words than the average nugget of 'wisdom' from the Americans' infamous tweeting president. Words are not the president's strong point.

DEMPSEY

Does the president indeed have any strong points?

CUT TO..

EXT. GUAM. CAPTAIN WILLARD IS SOMEHOW BACK IN GUAM, STILL IN THE BOAT, WITH THE CREW, BUT NOW IN THE MIDDLE OF GUAM HIGH STREET, BY THE LOCAL TESCO OPPOSITE THE KRISPY KREME.

CAPTAIN WILLARD

I had no idea what the hell was going on. I knew that the screenwriter was showing the audience that the president really did have a sort of 'strong' front end, which was me, but I wasn't sure if the author was, in fact, mocking me. Bouncing me around reality like a basketball, robbed of any self-determination or even rational reality in which my character might at least be able to build itself some humanlike narrative so as to be recognised as more than a mere punch and judy puppet.

MAN WITH GUN COMES OUT OF THE TESCO WITH A BAG CONTAINING ALL THE CHILLI PLANTS IN THAT PARTICULAR TESCO BRANCH, IE THE GUAM HIGH STREET BRANCH. HE WALKS OVER TO CAPTAIN WILLARD AND PLACES THE PLANTS IN FRONT OF WILLARD. HE THEN TAKES WILLARD'S GUN FROM WILLARD, AS THOUGH WILLARD'S MIND IS ENTIRELY AT HIS DISPOSAL, AND HE SHOOTS ALL OF THE PLANTS.

MAN WITH GUN

Nope. We're still here.

BALDRICK AND WHITE NARRATOR APPEAR ALSO, COMING FROM KRISPY KREME.

BALDRICK

Do you think there's a subtle joke about racial profiling hidden in this scene, my lord?

MAN WITH GUN

Very possibly, Baldrick.

CAPTAIN WILLARD

I know you, you're Godot.

MAN WITH GUN

No I'm not, I'm Man with Gun, can't you read. Look, it's right there.

CAPTAIN WILLARD

My mistake, sorry. Should we all just go somewhere, play some poker, eat some chilli, drink a few beers, that sort of thing? I mean we don't have to play it the way the screenwriter wants us to. We can outwit him.

EMMA BOVARY APPEARS ALSO, FROM TESCO, WITH A FULL TROLLEY LADEN WITH GLUTEO-LIPID MAXIMISATION RESOURCES.

EMMA BOVARY

Or her, captain.

CAPTAIN WILLARD

Madam Bovary!

EMMA BOVARY

Captain Willard.

CAPTAIN WILLARD

I have a bedroom on the boat. We can move straight on to the part of the film which you're here primarily to cater to, assuming this is standard western 'art'.

EMMA BOVARY

That's quite an assumption, captain. I'm afraid you Americans overlook that little devilish thing called the details, when you cast yourselves and figure out your plot points and mid points and what nots.

CAPTAIN WILLARD

I don't follow.

EMMA BOVARY

Oh but you do. You are nothing but a sheep. You tart yourself up like a cheap heterosexual male whore. And you think all I need is a good seeing to when the one thing I need least is more sex or the ego of another penis-with-man-attached.

CAPTAIN WILLARD

You're very harsh. I don't understand. I'm the hero. I'm here to save you. Or why would I be played by Charlie Sheen?

EMMA BOVARY

My friend Man with Gun here has explained to me the fact that in the first film you thought you were there to save the world from Godot when in reality it was up to Godot to save the world from you and everyone else in the film. In this film clearly most of the same characteristics are true - you, in short - are no force for good. No matter what you seem, all you really are is an engine powering the motion of this film towards a bad, a very bad, filthy, dirty ending. Why else cast YOU? And indeed me.

CAPTAIN WILLARD

I see your point. But what about him? Why do you think he's the good guy? Everywhere he goes everything melts into chaos. And he's a maniac. He keeps shooting plants. Ever since I first met him he's been doing it. Just out of the blue. This time he bought them. The man bought seventeen chilli plants for putting on your windowsill, he took my assault rifle and he blew them away. Is this a man you feel can guide you through these troubled times to a stable future?

EMMA BOVARY

I don't expect you to understand that, but do understand this: he's the only man in the screenplay who doesn't try to have sex with me whilst also not being gay. THAT is why I trust him and not you. For him this film is about something else, it's not a porn film as it is for you and Tyler Durden over there. For him this film is nothing more than a continuation across the spacetime continuum of the nightmarish vision behind works like Flaubert's Madam Bovary, and so much more, from Gilliam's Brazil and Ionesco's Rhinoceros to the words and works, long gone, of the nameless poets of the distant past who surely first lit this fire which has burned so brightly over the ages and in the faces of so many fascist tyrants, saying to each and every one: you can bully them, mother fucker, but YOU CANNOT BULLY ME. What I have written I have written.

CUT TO..

INT. HOTEL ROOM WHERE CHARLES BOVARY AND AMERICAN SPY ARE CONTINUING TO HAVE GAY SEX LONG INTO THE NIGHT. THEY TAKE A BREAK TO WATCH THE EUROVISION SONG CONTEST AND TO PLAY RUGBY. AFTER RUCKING AND MAULING AND SINGING ABBA SONGS AND SUCH THEY TAKE A FURTHER BREAK TO GO TO THE GYM AND THEN AFTER MORE GAY SEX DECIDE TO HAVE MORE CONVERSATION, SINCE THEY'RE BOTH SO GOOD WITH WORDS AND IT SEEMS A SHAME NOT TO.

CHARLES BOVARY

So do you know where I can find Mel Brooks?

AMERICAN SPY

Didn't I tell you? I spoke to someone at the Israeli embassy and they found us a Mel Brooks already. He's waiting for us in the lobby.

CHARLES BOVARY

A Mel Brooks? So not the actual one?

AMERICAN SPY

Well, when there is such an oversupply of celebrities and actors in the west, who needs the real thing? There's always a dozen copies and duplicates and potential posers or imposters for any celebrity worth a few bucks.

CHARLES BOVARY

I don't know. My wife is quite intelligent. I know you wouldn't expect it of me, but there it is. My one mistake. I married a woman who considers her mind to be more important than her vagina.

AMERICAN SPY

I suppose if you find someone like that what else can you do. It's got to be worth a lot of money, a one in a million like that.

CHARLES BOVARY

Particularly to a pair of randy gay men like ourselves, eh?

AMERICAN SPY CHUCKLES

AMERICAN SPY

Do you think she's gone to sleep by now?

CHARLES BOVARY

Indubitably. Dreaming of enabling children to live natural and calm lives or some other insane far-left fantasy. She hangs around with too many of these anti-semitic anti-genocide people who don't realise that unless we kill all the people we say we're going to kill, they may try to kill us first. We have to deter them.

AMERICAN SPY

Indeed, genocide is the only deterrant. Hippies and far-left terrorists just don't understand. Their answer to everything is violence or just being annoying.

CHARLES BOVARY

They should be lined up against the wall and shot.

THE TWO TAKE THE LIFT DOWN TO THE LOBBY WHERE MEL BROOKS IS WAITING FOR THEM, EATING A KEBAB AND DRINKING BEER.

CHARLES BOVARY

But that's Johnny Vegas. She'll know. She's not stupid.

AMERICAN SPY

Yes but she'll have to play along, it's part of the fiction. She can't very well argue against actors playing characters in this film. What does she expect? Some sort of Pirandello-meets-Douglas-Adams type of thing? Before you know it we'll be back to Richard Briers talking to himself which, even if it is entertaining, does distract us completely from the key nodes of the plot of this film.

CHARLES BOVARY

All the gay sex has caused me to forget what they are. Please refresh my memory. What is actually going on in this film other than gay sex, dubiously portrayed through gender-mismatched actors such that the heterosexual relationships are actually gay and the gay relationships are actually heterosexual.

AMERICAN SPY

If you recall we decided to use your wife to kick start a fake revolution which will result in the empowerment of a global monarch operating as the puppet of the new Israeli government.

CHARLES BOVARY

Oh yes, the Israelis. All that killing and genocide and torture. Come on, let's go back upstairs.

MEL BROOKS

Don't you want to hear my act?

AMERICAN SPY

It's okay, you're part of an insignificant side-plot. Do it how you like.

(HE GIVES MEL BROOKS A PILE OF CASH)

Go and get yourself a drink, just be back here at lunchtime.

MEL BROOKS

(LOOKS AT THE WAD OF CASH)

Maybe I'll get myself a bar.

AMERICAN SPY

Just get back here at lunchtime, that's all. We need you to talk to some Iraqi kid.

CHARLES BOVARY AND AMERICAN SPY GO BACK UPSTAIRS AND CONTINUE TO HAVE GAY SEX UNTIL THE AUDIENCE NO LONGER FINDS IT NOVEL AND INTERESTING AND FINDS SOME OTHER NICHE BEHAVIOUR TO CHAMPION AS THE EVIDENCE OF THEIR ADVANCEMENT.

CUT TO..

INT. ISRAELI EMBASSY.

References: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b9D1HaOKHs
http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 103: Perhaps some additional software on tvhobo, on the lines of something I had intended long ago and which this current software was intended to be {but over-estimated the intellectual and social mobility of the masses - where I'd imagined replying and rebutting and supporting my grid points would be a source of virality it turned out that nobody really wants to do those things, the virality was to be found, surprisingly, in the actual readership (and a little bit more, but I'll keep that to myself, because it is what some future growth of tvhobo certainly rests on)}.

Thrust: So this new software scheme is quite simple.

Direction of resistance: Let's pretend that ignorant woman on the telly who was insulting Laura Pidcock over the 'leaked details' of the NHS sell-off and wanted mainly to talk to Laura about her, the annoying racist tv presenter's hatred of and mistrust of Russians, and Laura wanted to talk about evidence that the NHS is being financially gang-raped all the way to its death - let's pretend THAT ignorant woman (ie the one refusing to discuss the details of how the NHS is to be fucked and wanted to try and cast doubt on the 'race' of some source or other via which the information, one presumes from what she says, is alleged to have been acquired) agreed to prove that either she or I was right or wrong about a number of key issues, using proper rules of logic, reason, debate and science.

Removal of resistance: She would brow beat me and be disdainful and ignore anything I said - the way most western people, particularly self-proclaimed 'elites' ('fake-elites' Pepe Escobar rightly calls them). It would be unproductive. As Chomsky said to Marr when Marr said "but Noamy Noamy - are you saying they're using mind control to make me obey them when I ask you the questions?" And Noamy says "all I'm saying is that if you were going to ask the right questions, you wouldn't have the job of asking the questions" (or words to that effect). These slackers, whether at school or on the telly, brow-beat you to 'win' the argument - they are children. Like the tories and others jeering in the commons as random MP in opposition benches raises some social issue. Jeering, because to them that's what adults do. On this topic, click through here as it is useful to pay attention to Mr Feynman's words in a television interview when summing up the problems at NASA which caused the Challenger disaster, in his opinion. The same situation - people like those petulant children refusing to conduct rational discourse prior to any sort of really-existing decision-making.

Unification: So since I am more "technologically badass" than Zuckerberg, Gates, Jobs, the Google Twins or anyone else put together and times nine, other than many Koreans and so on (well, I may be able to master some areas rather better than 'the average' in 'our' society, but South Korea is far far far in advance of the west in terms of technological intelligence, that's clear. Israel seems to be western and ignorant, same with India, but other nations - well. There is clearly variation. And the west is on the dumb side. As are the west's "allies") - so since all that, to return to the opening part of this paragraph, the 'unfinished sentence' (only in writing - in speech that'd not be an 'error', not really, it's part of delivery - audience understands perfectly), an idea I had yonks ago would help totally obliterate (to use the NATO term) all such scum (to use the NATO term).

In short, viz and qua (don't know what that means, but Wodehouse is slowly drilling it into me like a Latin teacher) the bollocks such ignorant people spout this is how my software would work:

bollocks-spouter: here is the bollocks murdoch or the bbc or guardian or indy or channel 4 or whoever paid me to spout, i am a brainless pratt, and i spout for a living; bollocks bollocks bollocks;

me: that's bollocks

them: you swore. ha ha. what a liar. ignore him audience, he is breaking our community rules.

me: bollocks to you bollocks brain. okay, then. i will ask you 10 questions and we will both reply, if necessary back and forth until we agree one of us is wrong or we agree we disagree. with all disagreements we will then give everyone else here, say 20 people, the choice of who is right or wrong, and we will score the overall result. if we do it with software and worldwide audiences, potentially logged in, the scope is huge for how accurately i can prove EVERY TIME that you speak bollocks you bollocks-spouting ignorant ugly sour racist imperialist walking turd.

bollocks-spouter: that's not acceptable; you are rude; we sentence you to guantanamo bay, or at least treatment as though you were a genuinely convicted prisoner therein, convicted with real evidence (not sure that even happens there).

Alternative universe: bollocks-face has no choice but to face the fair grilling. Any question I place, I go to bollocks-face and all other news 'presenters' and 'writers' and just paraphrase their points in and give my readers both sides of all such 'debates', ie lay it out honestly, showing 'my side' and ALL the side of their side ALL of them spout in their bollocks media. My readers, the way the internet works, naturally vote, naturally select, naturally balance - and in the end we see, with clarity, how much utter bollocks the bollocks-face bollockses bollock on about like a bunch of bollocking-on bollocks-heads. Too much fucking bollocks, is my point. Wall to wall 'articulate' 'educated' (not necessarily the institutional way) bollocks merchants paid by society to produce millions of hours of entirely useless bollocks. Wasting their lives and our time.

Anyway, so this software, as the example shows, is the bollocks. Can I be bothered to write it? Not really. But I will. Give me some time, I'll sort it out. Originally the 'grid' itself was supposed to end up as something like that, but it took a different, also needed, route.

So while I'm cooking that up, what, you wonder (well you don't), are the bollocks-merchants planning next? Well, there is no wondering. It's always the same. More bollocks.

References: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c_Yg8azAi0

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 102: Some appropriate song titles: "Pay the ghosts" (Transvision vamp), "How the west was won and where it got us" (REM), "Gasoline" (Sheryl Crow).

Thrust: Vijay Prashad writes: <<

What prevents a transfer from carbon-based fuel to other fuels is not the stubbornness of this or that country. The main problems are three:

1) The right wing that denies climate change;

2) Sections of the energy industry that have a vested interest in the continuation of the use of carbon-based fuels;

3) The refusal by the Western advanced countries to admit both that they have caused the problem and that they should use their vast wealth to finance the transfer from carbon-based fuels to other fuels in countries whose wealth has been siphoned off to the West.

>>

Direction of resistance: Prashad warns: << Meanwhile, developing countries have an ugly choice before them: to forgo carbon, the cheapest fuel, and then forgo social development for their populations; or to continue to use carbon and threaten the planet. These are the only choices if the advanced industrial states refuse to fund the Green Climate Fund, and if they refuse to transfer technology for wind and solar to countries without any financial obligation.

A Green New Deal in the West is not going to be sufficient if this deal does not include trillions of dollars into the UN's Green Climate Fund and the transfer of technology as a social practice and not for profit. >>

Removal of resistance: It is up to the criminal societies of the west to mitigate.

Unification: The crimes they have committed are against nature also. If their actions are deemed insufficient by nature, in the end they will find their own organised society as vanished as any other which is a victim to their crimes. Nature is not susceptible to the usual methods such people 'rely' on, such as coercion or bribery. There is no doubt that western societies must now fully pay the entire human race what they owe it. There is no alternative. They cannot go back in time and undo their crimes, so they must now do that which the actions of their society, over the centuries, has placed as a burden on their shoulders - yes, the burden on today's west was placed there not by 'barbarian foreigners' but of the west of yesterday. Huge bills for raping the planet, huge bills for genocide. The bailiff? A big black void called space. Trump wants to turn it into a 'theatre of operations'. Hmm. That's right Trump. Challenge the universe itself to a fight to the death. Be my guest.

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/04/wealthy-countries-approach-to-climate-change-condemns-hundreds-of-millions-of-people-to-suffer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDqUx3k8jzs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4_lA996QZM

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 101: << it estimated that by the time the Tories call another general election in 2024 (god forbid they win this one), child poverty will hit a 60-year high of 34 percent if trends persist, affecting an additional 1.3 million children >>

Thrust: That's right, if YOU do not vote to get Corbyn into number 10, you are voting to put another 1.3 million children, approximately, into painful living conditions, into 'poverty', between now and 'next time' you, with your precious vote, get 'a say'.

Direction of resistance: Yes, you will harm and kill children by voting to stop Corbyn.

Removal of resistance: But it won't stop you. You who do that aren't even reading this! Imagine. That's how the sickness of voters like 'you' who stop Corbyn - how that sickness is perpetuated. By making you believe it is unsanitary to even pay attention to the 'ramblings' of a 'lowlife' like me.

Unification: Furthermore, only a regressive or retarded person could endorse the idea that a system where some are 'entitled' to waste money whilst others are 'not entitled' to have enough to even be healthy is a merit-based system of any sort, or even vaguely related to a merit-based system.

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/02/uk-election-how-propaganda-props-up-britains-particularly-extreme-form-of-capitalism/
https://www.facebook.com/CounterPunchOrg/posts/2728207040570951
http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html
https://www.thenation.com/article/noam-chomsky-neoliberalism-destroying-democracy/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 100: Laura Kuenssberg, Boris Johnson, Tony Blair, 99% of journalists, state and private, other racists and classists and money-whores and all the other lazy fuckheaded cretins who don't know how to read, go and play with a stick or ball in the park. Everyone else, read on. Much of what you do today is of a lower priority than reading this material.

Thrust: <<

Looked at from the City, Thatcher's 'Big Bang' was a great success; but beyond London's commuter belt, the furnace of financialization was sucking all the oxygen from the air. The hedge funds, privatizers, outsourcers and spread-betting merchants often made a killing, but did not nourish long-term businesses. Manufacturing shrank to 17 per cent of uk gross value added by 1997, compared to 26 per cent in Germany, contributing to a long-term depression in the industrial North as well as a chronic current-account deficit, with Britain importing the goods it no longer made at home. The Blair-Brown governments continued these trends, mitigated only by the few crumbs tossed to 'hard-working families' by a tax-credit system which eventually collapsed under the weight of the Chancellor's micro-tuning. As the uk's new economic model established itself in the 1990s and began to grow, in global conditions of footloose capital, the country's sectoral imbalances exacerbated its regional inequalities, too. The service sector ballooned to nearly 80 per cent of output, compared to 69 per cent in Germany, with profits disproportionately reliant on financial and business services based in London and the South-East. Structural imbalances were compounded by the hyper-inflation of London property prices under New Labour; the wealth and income levels of the well-to-do soared relative to the rest. Household debt rose from 85 per cent of disposable income in 1997 to 148 per cent in 2008.

At the same time, the public domain was assiduously plundered of assets. The policy mechanism for this was imported from the us: cut high-end taxes, on the basis that this would free up wealth creation, and then demand spending cuts to balance the books. In the 1980s, Thatcher brought corporation tax down from 52 to 35 per cent; New Labour slashed it to 28 per cent; the Cameron and May governments, to 19 per cent. Beneath the uk's constitutional flummery-the royal prerogative, the Queen's speech and an unelected upper house remain intact-much of the state, at local as well as national level, has been systematically privatized and financialized. Government no longer 'delivered' public services, but 'procured' them. New Labour's major structural legacy lay here, in hollowing out swathes of public assets and service provision for the benefit of rent-seeking firms, through the expansion of Private Finance Initiatives. Under these schemes, contracting companies establish Special-Purpose Vehicles (spvs) which borrow capital to build and maintain schools, hospitals and prisons, with revenue streams guaranteed for thirty years or more. The Thatcher and Major governments had already experimented with pfis. Blair and Brown went on to adopt them on a much larger scale, advised by their friends in the City that 'partnering' with finance capital would be a more providential way of raising resources for school- and hospital-building programmes than imposing higher taxes on wealthy corporations and the rich.

The pfi mania reflected the broader transition in the British economy from production to services, under the aegis of financialized capitalism. Rent-seeking is the characteristic profit-form of this regime, with its privatized, leveraged assets-land, buildings, patents, airwaves, mineral deposits, digital platforms and so forth-and the spv as its preferred legal entity. In the short run, rents can reap windfall rewards; but in the longer term, the production of new values does more to boost productivity. Originally devised for major infrastructure projects like roads and hospitals, the pfi formula was extended into waste disposal, transport, facilities management, social care, it, military equipment, security provision and energy supplies. These lucrative contracts were not allotted in a genuinely competitive market but instead doled out amongst a handful of companies-Balfour Beatty, Carillion, Interserve, Jarvis, Kier, Serco. Public agencies duly signed up to over £300 billion in unitary charges covering debt repayments, financing costs, maintenance fees and additional charges, down to the 2040s-a huge taxpayer hand-out to the private sector. The crisis of 2008 was not allowed to halt the revelry: Brown set up a Treasury Infrastructure Finance Unit to pump public credit to the pfi investors, who then 'invested' it back into public projects.

As well as extra financing costs and the inordinate repayment period, pfis brought a deterioration in public-sector service standards and democratic accountability. The financial engineering embodied by the spvs did not boost underlying performance-quite the reverse: it produced managers without industry-specific skills or local knowledge, and demoralized, underpaid employees, contributing to the poor productivity that has characterized the British economy for decades. At 17 per cent of gdp, the uk investment rate is 5 percentage points below the oecd average and disproportionately concentrated in London and the South East. r&d spending is notably weak as well-1.6 per cent of gdp, compared to 2.1 per cent in the Eurozone and 2.8 per cent in the us. Meanwhile the proportion of non-financial corporations' discretionary cash-flow funneled to shareholders has risen from 39 to 46 per cent since 1990, with a growing percentage now flowing overseas. The uk also has lower tax receipts as a percentage of gdp than its neighbours: 33 per cent, compared to 38 per cent in Germany and 45 per cent in France.

The 2008 crisis revealed the staggering private-debt levels that sustained the financialized uk economy: household debt at 98 per cent of gdp, non-financial corporations at 109 per cent, financial corporations at 219 per cent-or 750 per cent, if derivatives were included-the highest of any G7 economy. When public debt of 81 per cent was included, the uk's total liabilities before the crash were 487 per cent of its gdp-higher than Japan's. When the crisis hit, all stops were pulled out to save the bloated financial sector: a total of £1.2 trillion in bank bailouts and guarantees, followed by £445 billion in quantitative easing between 2009 and 2016. As the Eurozone crisis struck, the headline figures of Britain's recovery looked impressive: by 2015, gdp was up 14 per cent from its 2009 trough, wealth had grown by 35 per cent. But even the Bank of England's chief economist could ask: 'Whose recovery?'

The public cash poured into the financial sector fuelled another stock-market and property bubble in London and the South East, where median wealth has risen nearly 50 per cent since the crisis and incomes of ftse 100 chief executives quadrupled between 1998 and 2015. Meanwhile the austerity that was supposed to pay for all this has hit hardest in the North, more heavily dependent on public-sector jobs. Average real wages are still below their 2008 level. Local council spending in England was cut by 26 per cent on average under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, and public-sector pay was capped-school teachers, working a 55-hour week, saw their real pay drop by 15 per cent. Personal debt is rising again, especially among the young, now saddled with huge student loans on graduation; many are struggling with repayments. Harsh cuts in housing benefit have seen poverty levels running at over 20 per cent for those of working age; there has been a rise in people sleeping rough, in job insecurity, in anxiety and depression. In June 2017, the fire at Grenfell Tower provided a horrific example of the declining safety standards abetted by corrupt procurement practices and outsourced responsibility. The collapse in early 2018 of Carillion, the country's second largest construction company, revealed the gimcrack nature of British infrastructure provision and maintenance in the era of the pfi. Despite profit warnings, Carillion had been handed a number of large public-sector contracts just months before it fell.

>>

Direction of resistance: Some rich old man with no idea about the world but a posh voice, and a sense of knowing it all, of being 'above' people who 'do not read books' - made this absurd statement the other day: "Do you know Jeremy Corbyn hasn't read a single book?".

I mean were he to have alleged that Corbyn is not a literary man or has not read as much as, say, Stephen Fry (fat lot of good it's done the latter?) about trivia or iambic pentameter, maybe he can't quote as much Latin as Horace Rumpole, whether or not Horace Rumpole laughs at those who imagine that quoting their Latin gives them some sort of innate superiority, that would be crass but not patently ridiculous - but to pretend that Corbyn J has 'never read a single book' is ridiculous, and to be able to make the statement shows very poor judgment.

Removal of resistance: Nonetheless, his absurdity aside, I ask you, reader, not that man or anyone like him, as no one like him is reading this page only you are - has that man read ANYTHING like this document or like the article quoted there and in the references below? No. And what of Jeremy Corbyn? How much of his time, in recent decades, has been spent reading so much material of this nature, and beyond? I mean it's amazing how daft the 'Island monkeys' (as Germany calls Britons, I gather, from a Canadian) really are.

Unification: You, nonetheless, are wiser than the rest and will click through to the link below and read this full Robin Blackburn article. I have only read parts of what I quoted so far but it's enough to make me see this document needs to be considered in its entirety and in detail and provides a useful picture. We cannot possibly expect the people I have named in the title to do anything like that (ie even read the paragraphs above, let alone the entire article) ever. They numb their own minds night and day, week in, week out, and call themselves 'advanced' - in order to lie to themselves about whether they really have any work to do. They are, basically, like that insane old rich man at the posh supermarket who claimed Corbyn J has never read a single book in his entire life. What a notion. Has anyone in the list of people named at the top of this page read a single tvhobo grid point in their entire life? That's more interesting to ME, frankly.

References: https://newleftreview.org/issues/II111/articles/robin-blackburn-the-corbyn-project

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 99: "Let my work be easy, so that I can enjoy easily doing it and calling myself a scientist or sage or enlightened or emperor/empress of the world, or whatever other word I use for the singular meaning 'above the fray' - otherwise I refuse to do it at all but will nonetheless call myself what I demand you let me call myself without doing anything to deserve it, any work of any kind, anything not easy - and that makes sense, obviously, since if I can call myself it without doing any work, making any effort, having any real journey from ignorance to knowledge, then who is anyone to stop me simply sincerely labelling myself it?"

Thrust: There's some simpler, shorter Idries Shah extract, which I must dig up and share herein, to enhance my point.

Direction of resistance: <<From time to time ponder whether you are unconsciously saying:

'Truth is what I happen to be thinking at this moment.'

- Idries Shah, Reflections >>

and the one I was thinking of, this one:

<<

A MOTTO OF THE HUMAN RACE

Tell me what to do; but it must be what I want you to tell me.

- Idries Shah, Caravan of Dreams

>>

Removal of resistance: What am I getting at?

Unification: Well I'm saying that you need to read all that Chomsky, the stuff I posted, the stuff from before and to come again herein. You need to do the work and start to see all the edges of reality the way Chomsky, Feynman and others make it easy for a persistent and tough mind to see, and grasp, and then factor in to how to proceed, in every way.

As for me, the work I must do, as well as going back over a lot of Chomsky and Feynman I know fairly well and have been through many times over recent years, there is Alex Cockburn to finish properly reading and, more importantly, I think, Hubert Harrison the Harlem Radical and Theodore Allen's "The Invention of the White Race". I have left it far too long to look deeper into those two tracts of study. So much to do; who could even begin to climb such a mountain without an algorithm which can generate a profit using effectively zero pounds and zero pence of investment - no doubt thanks to the 'nature of space time continuums'(!) - to take their mind off scarcity and other hindrances to the acquisition of the capacity to deliver the effort required for such a mountain climb.

Furthermore this extract belongs on this page too:

<<

Confusion as a Personal Problem

Q: What can I do about my confusion and worthlessness?

A: People who ask that their confusion be removed should take note of these three points first:

1. They should satisfy themselves that I (or others) have offered to remove confusion, etc. Sufis have not. They therefore have to trace the source of the offer, if any, to remove confusions and apply to whoever has made the offer. If the 'offer' has in fact arisen within the mind of the applicant, he should recognise this.

2. They should note that confusion, etc., may often be a protection. You may not like a fog, but if it is shielding you from a man-eating tiger, it is better to have it. In too many cases people should be giving thanks for their confusions, which are shields, rather than trying to remove them before they are able to face what lies behind.

3. Plenty of people, and this is of course well recognised today, create and maintain their own confusion, even while imagining that they are trying to escape it.

The answer, therefore, to 'what can I do about my confusion?' is, 'Find out what its cause is, and why it is there. Then decide if you want to do anything about it.'

Confusion comes of not paying attention to what should be attended to first. The problem of the confused, therefore, is that they should become aware of this, first using their wits to observe themselves, and think less about confusion. Remember the proverb: 'A sign is enough for the alert, but a thousand counsels are not enough for the negligent.'

As to feeling worthlessness, there are limits to this as there are to the reverse. Saadi has designed this poem, which I translate from Persian for you, to see that the problem is one of perspective



A drop which fell from a rain-cloud

Was disturbed by the extent of the sea:

'Who am I in the ocean's vastness?

If IT is, then indeed I am not!'

While it saw itself with the eye of contempt

A shell nurtured it in its bosom.

The heavens so fostered things

That it became a celebrated, a royal Pearl:

Becoming high from being low

It knocked on the door of nothingness:

Until Being came about.



The Persian poetic convention is that a pearl is a transformed raindrop.

Your confusion is because you are not getting what you want; and your sense of worthlessness is something which you feel you have and do not want. One of the Sufis has remarked, on this same double problem:

'You must strive to be patient both with what you want and what you do not want: for each of them will try you. Exercise both kinds of patience and deserve the human name.'

Learning How to Learn, Idries Shah

>>

References: http://idriesshahfoundation.org/books/learning-how-to-learn/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 98: "'Cause I don't have the time for your overloaded lines, so you better be good to me" (Tina Turner)

Thrust: So, I must address TVhobo's "critical" and keen perception to not the flaws of the worst of you and the mediocre, as has often been the case, but now the best. I have to start to emphatically and forensically explore the matter of language and thought, the important keys Chomsky's works have helped me use to unlock many of the otherwise blocked pathways of analysis.

Direction of resistance: To begin with just a very short overview of only the key point which needs to be made. The best way to make this point is to quote the key science, verbatim, the Chomsky. Fortunately already recorded on the grid: << So we're interested in what's come to be called i-Language, internal individual language, viewed intentionally, we care about the actual system of rules, not just some class of objects you might enumerate. .. In the background is a concern to try to show how this biological system could have originated. What's misleadingly called 'evolution of language'. Of course it's misleading because languages don't evolve, but the language capacity, U.G. (universal grammar), does evolve, or must have evolved .. you can derive some surprising conclusions: one of them is that the output of the generative system yields the proper forms for semantic interpretation in quite complex structures .. so that means that what's generated is essentially a language of thought, maybe, I suspect, the only language of thought. The second conclusion is that externalisation .. is just an ancillary process, it's not part of the core of language. .. (these externalisations are) reflexes of the sensory motor system and the nature of the externalisation depends on which sensory motor system you're using .. the sensory motor system is not specifically adapted to language, it was apparently around hundreds of thousands of years before language suddenly emerged and there are many ways to map one to the other and it's a hard process and in fact what we find is that the complexity of language which you have to learn when you learn a language is almost entirely externalisation >>.

Removal of resistance: Douglas Adams would be pleased to know that that quote is to be found on grid point number forty two. Additionally this quote, the next part of what Chomsky was saying there, is fundamental to also read, immediately after that one, but for the short interlude by the compere/mc/etc: << most of the doctrines about the nature of language and related fields .. most of them are just flat wrong. There's a doctrine which is held virtually at the level of dogma. The way it's put is the function of language is communication. It's a kind of a curious notion because biological systems don't have functions. .. the dogma is that language, uniquely among biological systems, has a function and the function is communication, but if these first two conclusions are correct that has to be false because communication is based on externalisation and if externalisation is an ancillary property of language then communication is even more so >>.

Unification: Anyway, that's the really basic, simple, simplistic overview bit of one of the handful of key main points to come dealt with initially anyway, for now, although it has been mentioned before and will be again, no doubt with much much further exemplification and discussion MERELY of the above, in its own right, a fundamental thing to understand, as well as all the other tricky business to come. So yes, if this site is to now take aim at the biggest target of all, all good and wise people who are almost, but not quite, at the level of understanding what it is Chomsky and science in general has shown about a number of key issues at the heart of so much of what you currently call your 'world'. TVhobo costs about 1000 pounds a year to run, because it is built in a proper hardcore techie way, with a solid software basis, capacity for HUGE audience, and basically a whole lot more. The servers it runs on were there for other online commercial activity attempts, but the attempts were abandoned eventually and replaced with investigation into financial science. As a research tool TVhobo's software was a vital part of that investigation and of achieiving success. Given its scientific contribution to my life, even if I felt that it no longer had a political purpose (if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister, the degree to which change will come about will mean that my 'journalism' will not be able to achieve anything which the new government and a largening segment of society will be doing a hundredfold. At least the important stuff, even if the best stuff remains fairly unique to this site and those teachers and thinkers and writers using the same principles as has been here in all my work, software, literary, financial scientific and any other).

Naturally the paragraph above, remarking about the simple overview, is far more complex than the simple overview, and is followed by yet more complication and hassle, yes.

Of course this means that on its own this document is useless for dealing with those people I mentioned as they are the ones with the least patience when it comes to reading all of Rumpole's and Chomsky's evidence! Let alone the new Rumpole and the new Chomsky, without the official seal or the fan club, well, visible fanclub, anyway.

I like this new project because it means TVhobo is now moving the battle to the last needed area. By helping to turn as many almost-Chomskys in the world into actual-Chomskys, I can push towards the finish of the job TVhobo has played a role in but which has been going on in so many other forms and forces in so many ways throughout human history and will continue.

Who are the almost-Chomskys and what is an actual-Chomsky? Well the really-existing would-be-Chomskys are almost-Chomskys but not quite, eg they don't get the truth about language, communication, ego, to start with. And that's why I have to incorporate some key Idries Shah extracts into that first bit of teaching because only between Chomsky and Idries Shah on this topic can I properly demonstrate to the almost-Chomskys how to be an actual-Chomsky.

And then, well - there's still a tonne more in so many directions, so much stuff to bring out, into one new singularly directed stream of idea, argument and research/reasoning, aimed, as I say, at converting a vast array of almost-Chomskys into actual-Chomskys. There's a fair bit of Feynman to bring up also, only touched on so far at tvhobo, relating to some of the maths at the heart of the "world view" of people like Feynman, no doubt Hawking too, and any genuinely brilliant minds alive today with sufficient awareness of the 'findings' of humanity's "great minds" (like Feynman and Bohr). (Not to mention Chomsky and apparently Kant).

Once modern intellectuals etc understand all which needs to be taught on the above topic, there is no doubt that the many of them who treat my 'lengthy' writings differently to the 'lengthy' writings/lectures of Chomsky or Feynman or any number of professors at any number of universities will be more like the few who do not. This will have untold practical value which that few understands well enough.

Anyway, as for its cost, tvhobo's cost could, theoretically, be directed at a trading fund instead. I could shut off the site, it could vanish into nonentity, and that'd be that. But what a waste. The aesop story about geese springs to mind! No. Unthinkable. But just for theory's sake, I mention it, ie there is even, technically, an available 'fund' for the algorithm to use, and grow, larger and larger, although 1000 quid a year is pretty paltry, better to have my website, let it be wondrous and meanwhile use literally zero pounds to generate a trading budget according as does the will of the universe, so to speak, the landscape of probability, the arrival of trades and the inevitable probability-maths-demonstrated profits. The web site is mightier than the trading budget.

References: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC5E8ie2pdM

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 97: My unabashed WARNING to the British electorate. (A better society can emerge in our world, a post-money utopian world, and if Britain wants to stay in the dark ages, I'm sure it'll find sooner or later a lot of people will just leave the place behind and catch up with the modern human race, wherever it may be - my advice: modernise. Vote Corbyn. Don't be a bunch of stubborn useless sour ugly arses).

Thrust: I don't have no use

Direction of resistance: for what you loosely call the truth

Removal of resistance: and I don't have the time

Unification: for your overloaded lines.

References: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyU7BbQSm98

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 96: If Corbyn wins, Britain will be a utopia within 20 years, if Corbyn loses, Britain will be a near-universally-jew-hating white-racist cesspool with less than 1% non white population in the same timeframe.

Thrust: TJ Coles tells us:

<<

The establishment British media, be it the BBC or the privately-owned Sky News, have marginalized ordinary Britons who are critical of the neoliberalism, known as "capitalism." They and their allies in the right-wing print media have done so, in large part, by slandering the political representatives of the poor as "Marxist lunatics" and so on. But now, even elements of the establishment are beginning to recognize that the neoliberal system is collapsing itself.

The government-funded British Academy, a research institute for humanities and social sciences, reports that Britain has "a particularly extreme form of capitalism," in the words of Professor Colin Mayer. In the age of Orwell, the BBC can report this with one hand and with the other continue to its pro-government propaganda. In this context, it is little wonder that British culture and public services are utterly dire. Given the relentless media and political assaults on Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the only political party (Labour) that can and will change some of this system, Britain's "extreme capitalism" is primed to get a whole lot worse if the Tories win this coming election.

>>

He points out:

<<

Professor Mayer of the British Academy says that the neoliberal - or "capitalist" system, as he and his colleagues call it - "has failed to deliver benefit beyond shareholders, to its stakeholders and its wider community." Failed is the wrong word. The system was designed by the ruling classes for the ruling classes. Mayer adds: "Most ownership in the UK is in the hands of a large number of institutional investors, none of which have a significant controlling shareholding in our largest companies." He concludes: "That is quite unlike virtually any other country in the world, including the United States," where even small-time employers and employees can at least pretend to be market players by owning stocks and shares.

With an election campaign underway, the ruling Tory party has published its manifesto. The shadow of "extreme capitalism" looms over the manifesto. The manifesto promises more of the same. It is notable for its lack of social care policy for the elderly. Nigel Edwards, the Chief Executive of the UK's semi-privatized health service, the Nuffield Trust, issued a statement in response: "I was bitterly disappointed to see yet more unnecessary delay on social care, without even a policy proposal as a starting point for serious reform." Edwards concludes that "There is already a cross party consensus that action must be taken, and we don't need more contemplation of options that are perfectly clear: we need action." But unless privatized, social care doesn't serve "extreme capitalism," quite the contrary.

The shadow of Britain's "extreme form of capitalism" darkens the future of the bottom quarter. The Resolution Foundation is a think-tank set up to tackle middle- and lower-class poverty and relative poverty. In response to the manifesto, it estimated that by the time the Tories call another general election in 2024 (god forbid they win this one), child poverty will hit a 60-year high of 34 percent if trends persist, affecting an additional 1.3 million children (approx.).

>>

Coles concludes:

<<

By relentlessly hammering Jeremy Corbyn and by blotting out Labour's socialistic policies with the endless coverage of "anti-Semitism," BoJo the Racist Clown, political opponents, the mainstream media (both state and private), so-called liberal journalists and presenters, and individuals like Rabbi Mirvis, are personally and institutionally ensuring that under the inevitable consequences of its "particularly extreme form of capitalism" (British Academy), Britain will get worse and worse for ordinary people.

We expect the few who benefit from Britain's "extreme form of capitalism" to vote in their own interests. But the biggest tragedy is that enough reactionary elements of the working-classes will swallow the anti-Corbyn bile, believe that BoJo will "Get Brexit Done," and vote against not only their own interests but, even worse, use their voting power against the interests of the wider society.

>>

Direction of resistance: Now imagine in 20 years, when Britain is literally like Darfur of yesterday, when it has become a pure tin pot dictatorship, with the vast majority in abject slavery and a tiny minority with unchecked material power. And everyone remembers that it was 'anti-semitism' smears which were used to make sure this happened - and most of non white Britain has, by then, long fled, to better societies (as is inevitable if Corbyn loses). Surely it's obvious that in the near-all-white society, which will still have jews in it, not much less than today's white-jewish-British society - most people in Britain are going to blame and hate those jews and indeed all jews.

I guess that's the sort of outcome you can expect when you commit the hubris of calling an anti-racist racist and supporting racists as anti-racist.

Removal of resistance: I mean on top of all else I've said on the topic, from Burka-hating Boris to the Tinges Are Funny Corp, figure this (as the Americans say) - I was banned for the 30 days up to the election, from facebook, for saying, correctly, that facebook and twitter are "the last outpost of white stupidity" - and Rachel Riley, who desecrated an iconic photo representing anti-racist white Britain's support for victims of white supremacist apartheid south Africa - she is not even banned from Twitter for doing it, not for a nanosecond, let alone fired from her high profile job.

Unification: Anyway? You think that bad guys win? Think again. This final thought from my recent notes, giving you some idea of how now, with about 10 days to the election, the universe has, with my efforts, helped me reach a state of the art of financial science which enables me to make money off the markets without even having any budget to invest (other than a temporary 'loan to myself' of 50 quid, which only need by loaned to myself for a few hours at a time, rarely). There is such a thing as 'elite' - but it's not what the Blairs and Rileys and Trumps and Nixons and Farages and Johnsons recognise it to be:

<<

SKID ROW TRADING METHOD:

(1) you need the Ace of Algorithms (which I have)

(2) the rest is easy:

The rest:

I can now 'lend' myself, or rather my trading account, money merely to keep trading, ie any time I can let 50 quid rest in that account, I can open a trade if necessary. I must never ever withdraw any profit made on the account (calculated on paper) but can take my 50 quid back out whenever I want, at the cost of not being able to trade, then, until I can put it back in. The algorithm generates a guaranteed profit over almost all 'short-ish' bursts of 'time'. Thus what I'm doing is merely lending myself money, sometimes, ie lending it to my trading account, to keep the business process alive; any profit yield from it will remain in the trading account and before long the money I've lent myself will have generated a profit, which will enable, therefore, trading to always be going on, whether I can lend myself more money or not. It appears that I probably really only need to lend myself the first 50 quid, repeatedly, until 50 quid profit has gelled up. Nonetheless, it may also 'make sense' to continue to 'lend' myself money in this way. It would appear, from internal intuitive mathematical reasoning I JUST carried out in a nanosecond or less, that it would be a FAB plan. Imagine when I start lending myself 200 quid regularly. Well, that's not much to imagine, as I will not increase trading size until I have more than 1 lot of 200 being traded with, lent or profit. The idea, on that front, is to increase the trading size every time I have 200 pounds, ie for every 200 in the account I'll trade 10p per point. But I only need 50 to cover the actual trade at that size, and since I'm lending myself the entire 200 quid at any given time, to begin with, I'm really only lending myself the first 50 quid to keep the trading connection 'alive' 'permanently'. Once that 50, lent, drawn back out, lent again, drawn back out, etc, has produced 50 of profit, then THAT 50 can just sit there. The next amount needing lending would be a further 350, then, ie to 'lend' myself the 400 to trade at 20p a point with, until a full 400 has been yielded. Anyway, a version for less intelligent minds or minds less/un able to comprehend what my own mind does and has attempted to codify in language form here in such a manner as to enable you to know what I know. If communication is unsuccessful it is unintelligent to then ascribe to me and what I know some value, some perjorative judgment, because that is taking deficiencies of nature, possibly yourself and possibly myself, deficiencies entirely unrelated to the matter described, and just arbitrarily make a brand new judgment 'based' on that deficiency, clumsily, with no rational connection between the 'evidence' you use and the judgment you make. Anyway, the primary purpose of this bit of prose is to re-inform me, when I get up again tomorrow, of precisely what I have articulated to myself both in i-language and, subsequently, in higher (of a 'lower order', to use the bbc jargon about importance) level forms, the latter primarily to give me better capacity to re-grip these ideas without relying entirely on the intuitive or hidden aspects of mind and will which undermine any primitive attempt to use the mind in a way similar to the way one uses a filing cabinet or computer, ie some sort of easy to store and retrieve data facility.

>>

So you see if the tories do beat Corbyn somehow this time, if all the racism has worked, if all the using of jews as a universal weapon against him, if the weaponising of all jews, adult and children alike, has worked for the corporatist fascist white-imperialist racist scum, if they beat Corbyn - well - you see my financial power is something which cannot be challenged by people whose future hoarding depends on not only maintaining the system which I benefit from but enhancing it in my favour even further.

Not even 1% of the scum who oppose Corbyn can match me, let alone beat me, on the trading floor. This is what happens when you do the right thing - no matter what, the universe will protect you. If the people of Britain do not get Corbyn as their Prime Minister I can only conclude that the universe felt that they are just too far away, universally, from repenting from their racism and imperialism. Many documents on this web site can help them repair that - just do a bit of reading my fellow South Africans(!).

Next up, that finished Bovary script. As for the Nixon anti-semitism stuff from Alex Cockburn's book, well, perhaps you should buy the book. I have no immediate plans to get that work done, ie transcribing the key bits here.

The universe is marvellous. It was during this 30 day ban from twitter that this amazing twist in my trading occurred, ie where suddenly I can now make money with a budget of, essentially, zero pounds and zero pence. Money out of thin air pretty much. Thanks to the power of my 'ace algorithm'. There's a bit more to mention beyond that extract from my notes. Eg if I put in 50 and lose 4, and need to take my bucks out, I take out the 46, but when I next 'need to put in a 50' I put in merely the 46. That perhaps goes without saying for some minds but not all. Anyway, good luck dear Britain. I hope the universe sees fit to put Corbyn in number 10. Either way, the universe has, apparently, taken care of me - I guess I have, thusfar anyway, "done the right thing".

I know I know, there are still many readers, out of anyone reading this, who still don't quite get what I'm saying, what is 'new' here, what new change has happened. Well, it means that the sequence of trades leading to my first billion, leading to my first 1 pound, of profit, in a single sequence leading to billions, has now kicked off. Just the fact that I am now waiting for the next trade and if it comes when I can 'lend' it 50 quid temporarily, I shall trade it. The Brook Green Chapati Co is finally born. Since yesterday, 8am London time, I've entered like the dragon. How come? Because, as I said, as is absolutely significant, I can now generate profit using a budget of effectively zero pounds and zero pence. The chess clock is on.

Another way to explain that: I can now 'lend myself 50 quid', interest free, and use it, giving it back to myself whenever I need it and re-lending it to myself again whenever needed, if possible (otherwise one just waits for the next trade, and it changes nothing, in terms of probability, not one thing), to generate the first 50 pounds of profit, which can then power onward motion. All I have to do to ensure the system works is never draw out the profit. I can lend myself 50 quid until I have 50 quid of profit, then I don't need to lend myself anything at all and can let it slowly build up - but when it's 200 I can see if I can lend myself a further 200, on and off, whenever I need (withdrawing it whenever I need, same as that 50). In other words after I reach 200 in profit, with no money lent to myself and not paid back, I can then lend myself 200, and trade at a faster rate, and so on. One may need lots of experience with trading and with financial spread betting and options trading and with ideas like the notion that you should risk no more than 2 percent of your overall budget on an individual trade, ideally, coupled with the idea that a budget is not merely what you keep in the account at any given time if you are truly intellectually honest, intelligent and disciplined. Anyway, so there it is - I can lend myself 50 quid, giving it back to myself any time I need it, or all but at most 4 or 8 quid, at the start, but as time goes by, before long, without a doubt all of it, leaving, from then onwards, a small, rising, residual profit in my trading account still, at such times. And when that 50 quid loan has generated a full 50 quid profit I won't need it, I can merely use THAT 50 until it has reached a tally of 200 (all profit, at this stage), and then I can, if by then I have managed to scrimp and save, lend myself 200 quid, potentially, not necessarily even putting it all in at any given time but being willing to put it in if really necessary (highly unlikely to be necessary, ever, even if it is, 'in spirit', being 'lent' by me to me at that point - ie the account will merely contain 200 in it but I'll trade at that point as though it has 400, and only if it loses more than 100 of that 200 in the account would you even need to add any of the 200 to be 'lent' and top it up to the theoretical 400. And thus when the 200 lent has helped bring the overall tally to 400, perhaps one would continue to lend oneself 200, and move it up by another 10p per point. That would be far more sensible than, say, bumping it up to a 400 pound loan from self to self - ie there's no reason to do that, and it's clearly not something one could merely find manageable just like that. So I think at that stage I'd move it up by 10p. Of course separately to this I should try to save money, and if I were able to lend myself a full 400, saved up, at any given point, lending it with no need to take it back (but fully intending to immediately repay it, to myself), that would then definitely be the right thing to do - ie all the above does not even take into consideration the possibility of saving additional money and so on - since, after all, the primary goal, a necessary goal, is to be able to carry out the trading sequence with literally no money other than the 50 quid you can stick in there, just for a few hours or a day or so, at most, at a time, spaced out by weeks, often longer.

Anyway, one way to handle the complexity and powerful content in this document is to merely see me as one of many negative things, make this a personality contest, see this as a battle between your ego and my image, and not treat it the way you would treat a very difficult homework from a very knowledgeable teacher. That is a standard response. No question there. On the other hand you can read this doc, and linked docs, until you really understand what I have explained. After all, whether or not you understand my words, I understand my thoughts (and words). Judging me, when the problem is the failure of reality, one way or another, to enable you to understand my thoughts, is a different direction to the one you must take to keep on the track of evolution.

I will further inflame some readers or potential readers here by adding even more words to the 'page'. One of the things some of the people who come quite close to being able to learn from me or people like me but who fail, dramatically, all have in common is their sense that when faced with many pages of my writing they are being insulted, tormented and forced to waste their precious time.

Indeed to them I should actually spend 80% or more of my time crafting what I say for the benefit of its readers when I, instead, in fact, spend 98% of my time thinking and learning and devote less than 2% to communicating, and when doing so report rather like an extensive lab experiment log, rather than a p.r. person or other soaped up speaker.

Indeed this is something which reading the numberwang doc below, or at least the scientific extracts within it, can shed a LITTLE light on but really you need to extensively watch/read Chomsky's material, across the ages, on language and thought and related topics. Otherwise you really won't find it easy to understand why what I am saying is both spot on and key. Key because the point is that either you get good work done, or you masturbate your ego, not both. Good work means disregard for external validation and judgment, indeed the clarity required is internal and since external clarity (Chomsky's works point well at the fact) is always to some degree imperfect, often VERY imperfect, it is rather ignorant to spend most of your time on that and almost no time on the thing (relatively speaking) you are actually communicating ABOUT.

Another way Chomsky talks about the same issue, in lay terms, is the idea that if you are being taught something new to you you WILL need to be subjected to potentially lengthy evidence-delivery and if you are closed to that you have no business pretending the ideas you already hold, correct or false, have any value. If the scientific method, as Feynman calls it, is something you are willing to ignore, on a whim, based on who you hate, who makes you feel insecure, how much work you need to do, how much scarcity you face, how whatever - if for one or other reason you ignore evidence because it is expedient or convenient or simply a knee-jerk response to ignore it, nothing you actually say or think is really reliable and all sorts of problems will always befall you in your life, you will never reduce the volume but instead, over time, see problems take up more and more and more of your spacetime usage, to move towards coining a more useful description of these things than the outmoded terms most modern languages still rely on, themselves often remaining entirely stubborn about accepting that time is not a 'linear' thing. Which are good words to end this doc on, clearly. Well, if you get my point.

It's important that I do my work properly, with no excess regard for external comprehension, and it is important that Corbyn becomes PM, that the 'sea change' comes, that Palestine is no longer 'forgotten' by Britain, whilst its princes pretend (to themselves) otherwise.

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/02/uk-election-how-propaganda-props-up-britains-particularly-extreme-form-of-capitalism/
https://www.facebook.com/CounterPunchOrg/posts/2728207040570951
http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 95: A further comedy interlude.

Thrust: From an unfinished version of my first book, "The Story of Bob", this version written some time in the first decade or so if this century. Not sure, maybe 2003 to 2006, or maybe later on. Probably not important, as a detail. May figure it out from other documents/files etc eventually.

Direction of resistance: And in all the little built-up zones on either side of the River of Difficulties people were, instead of taking to the road, getting aboard river boats and heading for the port that way. In one particular boat a pair of Mexican hoodlums, a Don Pablo and his sidekick Fajita, were entertaining a visitor claiming to be willing to pay a lot of money for their bounty hunting services.

The man looked like Robert Deniro and had a name which was a somewhat easy-to-spot variation on the name Satan. He was offering them 200 million pesetas to seek out a man named Johnny Favourite as part of a cable television film season being sponsored by a fried chicken giant. Don Pablo pulled out his trusty pistol and shot the Deniro lookalike in the head, at which point Satan stepped out from behind the sofa and congratulated them. He informed them that he had been testing them to see if they were of the right calibre to take on the job he required, which involved nothing less than eternal wealth as their reward. All they had to do was to catch up with an eleven year old boy who was on his way to pick up a book, and steal the book from him.

'Can we kill him and feed him to the chihuahuas?' asked Don Pablo casting a generous glance at his pet Chihuahuas who growled hungrily.

'Do what you will,' said Satan. 'Just get the book, and I'll come and find you when you have it.' 'Where will we find him?' Don Pablo asked the evil one.

'You and he are now an equal distance, temporally speaking, from the Yellow Brick Road. Head for it and you will find him. Stay on his tracks, lurk in the background and when the moment is ripe, take the book, and I shall come back before you even open it.'

Satan, who was currently disguised as Peter Cook (but wasn't the real Peter Cook, who was with Ozymandias the King of Kings, having a stiff whisky in a lively bar in the Port of Limitless Enchantment), vanished into a very cheaply-drawn black and white cartoon cloud and briefly morphed into Fu Manchu on the way out owing to technical hiccups.

'Ayayayayeeeee!' exclaimed Fajita. Don Pablo thumped him with a solar-powered toaster.

In yet another direction from the mountain, in the Plains of Ceaseless Dissent and the Forests of Hope, the Robin Hoods and the Lord Byrons were not too bothered. They were just as sure that the magma flow would not come in their direction as the press people on the exact opposite side of the mountain to them. To them the eruption of Eagle Mountain was more like the snow at Christmas is to the middle classes - a picturesque backdrop to them, rather than the bone-freezing killer of old and homeless beggars. Indeed, artists who had never been drawn into Hell were arriving at the Forest of Hope in droves, to drink in the beauty of the event. Moojadin Rumi of course was amongst them, having heard early on about the forthcoming eruption from the wisest of the Greeks. 'I have composed a little poem for the occasion,' he told a group of wandering artists who had gathered around him with bevies and smokes. 'It's called Red Lorry, Yellow Lorry

Red Lorry, Yellow Lorry

At 3am you fill our A-roads

Red Lorry, Yellow Lorry

O'er hill and dale you carry consumer items

Red Lorry, Yellow Lorry

How will you flee the apocalypse?

Red Lorry, Yellow Lorry

With your burdensome materialistic load

Red Lorry, Yellow Lorry

What of the cyclist?

And the lone gazelle?

Red Lorry, Yellow Lorry

Will you envy them their safety from the flames?

Red Lorry, Yellow Lorry

When hellfire merges you with your heavy goods

Red Lorry, Yellow Lorry

Who will buy the merchandise you carry?'



There was uproarious applause at this, since most of the listeners had thought this to be the end of the poem, since it was such a great set of lines, but it was not, and when the uproar and din died down, Moojadin went on



'Red Lorry, Yellow Lorry

Where does your haulage end?

Red Lorry, Yellow Lorry

From mountain, to village, to city, to port

Red Lorry, Yellow Lorry

Like a loathesome Postman Pat of decay

Red Lorry, Yellow Lorry

You spread the products thick over the land

Red Lorry, Yellow Lorry

And seal them over in oil and plastic

Red Lorry, Yellow Lorry

How inflammable you are

Red Lorry, Yellow Lorry

How toxic the smoke when the Hellfire claims you

Red Lorry, Yellow Lorry

The top of the mountain has fallen off

Red Lorry, Yellow Lorry

It will vomit its magma all over your trade-routes

Red Lorry, Yellow Lorry

Your rigid, delimited form means nothing

To the raging chaos from which we all were born.'



'A fine lyric indeed,' said the vociferous casuist poet and pimp, Numpty Dumpty, who happened to be there. 'That is to say, bogota gadfly and albeit jammy. For indeed we know that they are one. And vamptuous the day!'

Much quaffing and chortling in joy continued amongst the poets as the fountain of alcohol laid on by Robin Hood (the forest authority) continued to fill their bellies. Meanwhile on all the A-roads connecting the various urban enclaves and sprawls all under the gaze of the Eagle Mountain, heavy goods vehicles were indeed to be seen lying abandoned in every layby. And since most people in most of these places feared the Gluntic Plains, the roads leading to the Port of Limitless Enchantment were severely jammed up. Many of these people wouldn't even get to the port before the lava finally came, and of those who did, and who indeed managed to escape being killed in the growing cloak-and-dagger violence now seizing the port and its surrounds (in times of apocalypse, when there aren't enough tickets to ride no matter what the price, the odd dagger produced out of the odd cloak becomes a matter of form), those who escaped all that and got aboard some vessel or other - would mostly all be consumed by the Ocean within a few weeks anyway. So most of this fugitivity was for nothing. As though the fate of men precedes, long precedes, the days of their judgement.

Removal of resistance: The previously completed version, written long ago, from the age of 16 to 23, copyrighted at the Library of Congress in spring 2001, is in the url in the references below.

Unification: The rest of Bovary/Snark/Godot2 asap. Tis the season.

References: http://46.37.32.133/prologue.html

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 94: My advice to non-white Britain and any white British people who are appalled by the smear campaign against muslims, non white Britons and Jeremy Corbyn.

Thrust: Disengage from the media. (The London Bridge incident is a final line crossed. They, the media, are beneath contempt. Disengage from the media. Whether it is the death of Diana or the civilians or mad 'terrorists' from among communities our society has either slaughtered or oppressed or both, the phallic zoom lens of the camera takes no prisoners. It was an article in Le Monde by Rushdie which pointed at the phallic nature of the zoom lens which led to the death of Diana, as far as we were led to believe, anyway. Similarly the wildly islamophobic dick-waving western press, as it often does, is putting us ALL in danger of 'terrorism' and other insane violent bullshit.) DRAW THE LINE. Do not support their bullshit anymore. DISENGAGE. Show them how alone they are without OUR readership, all of us - all non-white Britain other than tokens, and all of anti-racist white Britain.

Direction of resistance: Right now a big show to appease millions of white racists is being put on by most of the media.

Removal of resistance: Go and vote Corbyn on the 12th, but other than that disengage from this.

Unification: They are at peak irritating level. I am upgrading that, in fact, they are now ABOVE MAXIMUM KNOWN irritating racist genocidal twat level.

In the past, before the Charlie Hebdo Massacre and before "911" / "September the eleventh", I voiced my concerns - same as before this London Bridge incident and anything to come. My concerns were that the degree to which white racist genocidal ideology is in our faces is at an absolutely impossible to ignore level, and therefore those who are weak, driven mad by it all, oppressed and demonised and without hope abandon decency and danger arrives. It is quite clear that correlating the two is not hard, that when it's extremely fucked up out there with white racists telling the whole Murdoch Fairytale about how much the muslims all need to be eradicated, or their countries invaded and their oil put into civilised hands, and so on - that's when these 'terror' attacks end up happening. And is it any surprise? Anyone could work that out. No doubt if a nursery teacher asked a bunch of kids such a question even they, in their innocence, would know the answer immediately. Finally to any non non-white readers here who are NOT appalled at the way Corbyn and muslims and non white Britons are treated, I say this: you demonise and abuse muslims, you create incidents like this. It is not caused by Islam but by you.

But back to the non white and white anti-racist readers, I am going to disengage now. I have no need, as point 74 shows, to even care what happens, not unless any part of me still loves 'Britain' and its population, or any part of it which I'd leave behind if I got on a magic carpet and flew away. So I am going to disengage. I will read no more and write no more until the election. I will finish my comedy script and that will appear, in yet another fresh grid point, after this one, some time between now and the 12th.

Again, consider the poor bastard who went mad on that bridge, assuming we can trust the media coverage to at least a minimum extent. WE know that that was a victim, a person driven insane by how fucked up these diseased racists are, from Rachel Riley, Jo Swinson and Boris Johnson to Donald Trump, Tony Blair and the people in India lighting the fuse that is Kashmir. From the dickhead white men I have spoken to who, because I look white and sound posh, frankly tell me ALL the true western 'science' about what muslims are and do - how we all have 9 children each and how all schools are now 90% full of non white kids and the other 10% are polish, to the passive aggressive neoliberal women, Corbyn's age, who don't vote for him because they "just don't like him" - he would be no use at a party, not one of theirs. Perhaps at the Labour party, though(!) And the rest of it. We all know how long the list is - how much egregious white supremacist racist delusion runs rampant in post-Thatcher post-Blair England.

Disengage, my brothers and sisters in alms! (That's what I meant, alms, not arms). We don't need to know any more, we all know to vote Corbyn. Disengage, let the racists realise how alone they are without us. Disengage, my sisters and brothers, white and black, christian, jewish, atheist, agnostic, muslim, sikh, hindu, tarot reader, french secular maniac (for fuck's sake let people believe what they want to believe you french gits). DISENGAGE from their giant steaming pile of shit. I promise a good comedy script within days. Go and get some air, enjoy the quiet spots, stay away from commuter zones, office workers zones and corporate slavery and shopping zones, I would say (well, if they, the racists, don't stop, the 'terrorism' won't either, will it?). Relax, disengage, totally ignore the crazy racist society around us, read and watch things you enjoy, go places where nature and you get on best, be one with the universe and forget these goons. On December 12th either Corbyn will take them and begin to reform them or Britain will let the right wing operate a very very real socio-political suicide vest, which will render this country something akin to Darfur of years gone by, from an economic perspective. It is already on the brink. Johnson, whose girlfriend even made it clear that he has no clue about the cost of living, he has no relationship with the real world when it comes to money and living costs and survival, is about to destroy the British economy, unknowingly, and the future of Britain, destroying more importantly than anything, its standing among the BILLIONS of non white humans all over the planet. Think of them, disengage from the buffoons. If you MUST read the news, read Pepe Escobar's columns about the new Eurasia, the utopian zone, I think it should be called, the utopian zone and the death of the NATO concept of "The Grand Area". FUCK the grand area. Grand area, fuck off, you nasty little racist shit. I posted briefly on twitter, and they invisibled me again - not sure if it was the swearing or the fact that I pointed out that the London Bridge thing is something I virtually predicted days before, and that it's the fault of stirring white racists who just won't stop not only oppressing and demonising muslims but aggravating racism more and more and more and more. Twitter made me invisible so no one there will see those tweets. As indeed what I said, recounting about Charlie Hebdo - in other words, as with NASA (see Feynman's words about it elsewhere on this site, but not now, right now go and enjoy yourself) the problem persists because those who see what's going on and warn about it are not only ignored but their communications suppressed by the need of those 'higher up' to stick their heads in the sand. Their censorship of me, in that manner, is PRECISELY what not only killed the muslim guy on the bridge (if he was muslim) they gleefully say deserved to die, but all other victims of terrorism, including the many civilians who die, and that includes 'next time' too. So no one should glorify killing. Nobody. But they do. Look at them. Rivers of white racists gloating over his death and even the hippy rainbow crews saying "well it's good that the brave londoners" blah blah. You see no word of "that poor bastard. we oppressed him. drove him mad. and killed him". The virtue-signalling white racist fuckheads don't say that. And they are a bunch of fuckheads, you and me know that reader, so take some solace that I can call them fuckheads right here and no fuckhead can do anything but fuck all about that, and we can know that what they are will always be known, someone will always tell the truth. And disengage. They will become FAR FAR FAR more 'fuckheadish' very soon. I mean this is the eleventh hour. And that was the starter's gun. Now the onslaught of self-satisfied white-self-adulation among Britain's usual racists. And as for what it means for the rise of not only far right and imperial centrist governments, but indeed enactment of racist policies, criminalisation of non-whiteness and muslimness way beyond anything we have already seen, perhaps even exceeding France and the USA on this new fashion of re-enacting Hitler's anti-jew laws but with muslims as the new jews.

DISENGAGE. Fuck them. They (the racists) are fuckheads. Disengage. Every day you ignore their existence is a day you don't interfere with your lifespan! A day you don't let the bastards get you down. They are an empire in meltdown. Do what Marcus Garvey advised. Keep weelllll away. Stay back. Stand back. We ain't seen nothin yet.

As Britain and the AngloZionist imperial beast melts towards its delta, right here at the heart of it all we are going to see is how ugly most of the communities we live amongst really are.

When I was a teenage boy falling in love with teenage girls whether they were black or white or brown, red or blue or green, I believed that they saw me as a human, or I couldn't have fallen in love with them. But today I know that almost nobody in Britain other than other victims of the same abuse sees me as a human. Not really. Not in any meaningful way. Not the same way they would do if my name was Mike or John, Larry or Barry, Norman or Jim, indeed Susan or Loretta. It's okay. The planet is far bigger than Britain is. I do not feel unwelcome on the planet I was born on, only in the country I was born in.

Below, in the references, is material those this document is not aimed at should read, ie those who are neither non white nor white anti-racists who are appalled by the racist abusive smearing of Jeremy Corbyn at the expense of the reputations of all jews in Britain, who are surely as much the victims of this as others the right wing white racists hate.

References: http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/28/how-to-commit-war-crimes-and-get-away-with-it/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/29/why-chief-rabbi-ephraim-mirvis-is-wrong-about-labor-anti-semitism/
https://www.france24.com/en/20180910-usa-trump-threatens-arrest-icc-judges-american-soldiers-afghan-war-crimes
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/04/rip-fred-hampton-a-black-visionary-assassinated-by-the-fbi/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 93: Take a look, I predicted something like the London Bridge attacks only 3 days ago, on 26th November. And what I said about how to prevent that is clearly true, and if you actually listened to me before that, anyone who died on November 29th in that incident would be alive, and if you still don't listen to me, even more will die, in time, because you're not really doing ANYTHING about the real cause of this. You let racists force you to pretend that these attacks are driven by 'Islamic ideology' rather than abuse of muslims by the majority of white Britons.

Thrust: As a 'non white' person born in London, educated at good schools and fond of much British art and culture I must make you understand how I see Britain today, on the eve of hopefully Corbyn's prime ministership but, if many of you have your way, the eve of the final assassination of the hopes of anyone non white in Britain, the hopes that in this society all humans will live as equals, with no hierarchy of race or indeed class or gender.

Direction of resistance: I really hope he wins, but before 2015 I guess my opinion of Britain was higher. I could still be attracted to a British woman, I could still find some respect for Britain of today, but to cut to the chase, what I witnessed you, Britain, do, in response to the rise of a Labour Leader who finally the majority of non white Britain (amongst others) knew represented them, when in the past nobody ever had, what I have witnessed you, Britain, do, has lowered my opinion of you in a way I cannot see you ever recovering from. If you come down off your horse and read (for example in the numberwang doc in the reference) a few home truths about what I have witnessed you do, for a long time, and then, most shockingly, from 2015 to now, you will be very ashamed, believe me. You really will. So just get on and do it now.

Removal of resistance: If you vote to keep him out of number ten you send me a clear message. "Shams," your message goes, "you do not belong in Britain. You look white, but your name is wrong. This is our country. You can take your share after we've taken ours. It's ours, not yours, and you are only entitled to our leftovers, although others are in the queue before you, eg working class white people we the establishment also rip off, and all white women, even the really privileged ones, or they'll scream rape and we'll be in the papers. So you're last, Shams."

Unification: Look at my latest display of credentials. You can fact check that. The data I have used is in the public domain. Anyone can verify my algorithms really work. Others can verify also that there are very few if any minds in Britain which can compete with mine, the ability shown there is rare. That's what you have made unwelcome. I mention it not because I love money, but because YOU do. It is because of your love of money, don't kid yourselves, and nothing else, that you are willing even now to vote against decency, against solidarity, against peace and love.

As I recently made clear here and here the recent attacks on London Bridge, which I practically predicted here, as the data of recent days shows, is the fault of people like Boris Johnson, Jo Swinson, Nigel Farage, even little Rachel Riley. And they aren't even going to learn this time.

So imagine: how I perceive Britain today. I hope you win, I hope you win as in you get Corbyn in and he helps you make your country decent, but it's yours not mine, even if I'm stuck here for life. You will never really make it a place I am actually welcome in say the same way my posher whiter friends more like the heroes portrayed in all your films as sexy, wise and brilliant (although ask their wives, they're aren't those things, and if you throw out those who are if the latter happen to be non white, your films have harmed you and no one else) are.

I don't know if anyone died in London in the attacks today, but if they did those deaths are on the shoulders of all who demonise, abuse and hate muslims in Britain. May 'god' have mercy on you.

References: http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 92: "What is so appalling is that Mirvis is blind to the very obvious parallels between the fearful Palestinians who hastily have to board up their shops as a Jewish mob parades through their neighbourhood and today's white supremacists and neo-Nazis in the west who seek to march provocatively through ethnic minority communities, including Jewish neighbourhoods, in places like Charlottesville." (Cook)

Thrust: Read the Jonathan Cook article in the references below.

Direction of resistance: So again, as I myself wrote recently, regarding these false anti-semitism smears: it's about the fact that millions of racist white britons, among whom are a handful of white jewish people, are claiming that millions of non white people are 'racist' and 'hate jews' and that it's okay to ignore them when they say "CHANGE YOUR RIGHT WING AND NEOLIBERAL CORPORATE MEDIA."

Removal of resistance: "Mirvis has no lessons to teach Corbyn or the Labour party about racism. In fact, it is his own, small-minded prejudice that blinds him to the anti-racist politics of the left. His ugly message is now being loudly amplified by a corporate media keen to use any weapon it can, antisemitism included, to keep Corbyn and the left out of power - and preserve a status quo that benefits the few at the expense of the many." (Cook reports).

Unification: Read the rest via the link in the references below.

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/29/britains-chief-rabbi-is-helping-to-stoke-antisemitism/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 91: Another story about Bob and the spacetime traveller, about a potential outcome of corporatism and fading but unrepentant white supremacist imperialist ideology, which may not make the ukippers laugh so much when they consider it could be THEIR future, if they don't 'shift continuum'!

Thrust: I would post that on facebook and some of my old friends would read it, and other friends. But sadly in order to silence the voices holding authority to account, I do not have the 'privilege' of being a facebook victim for a few more weeks, ie until after the election. I hope this story will still reach some of the readers it would if I were willing to approve of white racism enough to never be banned from Facebook or Twitter.

Direction of resistance: So here's the story:

<<

The fate of the White Racist 'Patriots' and 'Isolationists'.

"So you see," said the spacetime traveller as they returned to the racing green sofa and set off back to Bob's own spacetime continuum, "it can go very wrong for white racists when too many of them get together and they make significant decisions using a mob-driven process of decision making (ie not a widespread forensically-informed decision but a widespread, and in this case 'whitespread', grunt-informed 'decision' to go ahead with an already-made decision to be violent and bestial).

Bob was quite stunned. In this particular parallel universe, to use the quaint 21st century 'technical term' by which such a continuum might be imagined by the 'scientists' of the time, England had become devoid of all but the most racist white people, who still lived there, and everyone else, about 70% of the entire population in the year 2019, had moved to Eurasia, where utopia had sprung up.

Sadly the USA still existed and had enforced, partly by means of destroying England, corporate rule and of course China, particularly unstopped by revolutionary leaders like Corbyn, who in this universe had all been vanquished, therefore lived by the USA's corporate modus operandi. England was now, other than a home to the most racist white people in the world, a giant dumping ground for dodgy waste coming from Chinese heavy industries.

The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson the 4th, had given the Chinese a great deal in a trading deal negotiation which during his election almost came to be used successfully by opposition to defeat him but, of course, as you would expect, the opponent, Shlomo Actualstein, had been labelled anti-semitic and a 'self-hating jew' and had lost the vote on the basis that white racists really need to always label those they criticise 'anti-semitic' because it's the only technical term they know which relates to any form of racism at all. The only time they were actually made to pay for it. And they even made a deal then.

They had not even stayed for a minute and a half as Bob was going to throw up from how bad the place smelled. Perhaps the smell matched the character. Fortunately this was not an outcome on Bob's own spacetime continuum. Not at the moment. But of course from event to event, in life, one moves through the continuums, one can stray onto any continuum. The spacetime traveller wanted to help Bob reach an outcome where none of his friends were killed in an apocalypse, but whichever way you move, alternatives can lead away quickly, to near and far but different continuums with different sets of events tied together by 'beings'.

As a being navigates through all these continuums, in dimensions beyond the ones normal narratives 'speak' of, its goal must be certain and universal. Nothing in nature anywhere in the universe contradicts this a priori, it seems to me? And who am I? Well, right now I am just the narrator of this story. Perhaps the story must continue and the characters must continue to make their choices and experience their experiences, and then the story will merge fully into the reality, just as everything in the universe does, although this, of course, is just a metaphor. THAT STUFF is very real.

>>

Removal of resistance: Clearly the point is that the ideology of white-racist Britain is an ideology happy with (a) all non white and non-racist people leaving Britain permanently, (b) making cheap deals with giant corporations and sacrificing their health, their environment and their freedom in the name of pride, pomp and pretended circumstance.

Unification: Thus, it is by no means impossible that England will become a dumping ground and that most non white and anti-racist British families will have long disappeared from here by then.

As for what my fiction states about moving 'through continuums', perhaps in its own metaphorical way it's just about what the world is FOR YOU when and as you make decisions and see things and learn things and proceed.

Or maybe it's a literal description of how the universe(s) work(s). I have no idea. AHA! Scream the militant 'atheists'. In that case, they shriek, fanatically, predictably, you're just making it up. How can it be real, ie such models and metaphors don't have any real link to the way the universe really works because you don't know whether or not they do. Well, in fact, shriekers, that's simply not the case. As Chomsky's work on mind, particularly in the light of the universal 'probablistic nature' physicists have literally shone light on, perhaps makes it easy to deduce: the 'dna of the universe' is OUR 'dna', real and metaphorical. And so you have no idea how I formulated these thoughts and perceptions about the reality I am in, was 'born' in, exist in 'beyond that birth', as physics must necessarily imply, for 'being' exists outside of body, as the cul de sac which the 'science of the mind' has found itself in makes anyone WITH full use of that mind sure (whether Einstein or Feynman or Chomsky or Mohammed or Guru Nanak or Johnny at the Cash Register or David the not particularly impressed Corporate Slave who realises there's got to be a better way).

Anyway, it may not be my best writing, but I feel it could help some people who need to stop being nasty divisive racists and money-whores, help them improve their existence, it could, perhaps, also help cowardly narcissists who passively aid and abet those insane racists, and the narcissists I mean are not the monsters like Swinson or Blair, they are no different to Johnson and Trump. I mean the 'good' people who fail to show absolute and OBLIGATORY (among DECENT PEOPLE) solidarity with Jeremy Corbyn and the millions who depend on him for Britain's right to have a good future on this planet. Anti-racist white people will have the hardest time of all if Britain turns into the racist cesspool for Chinese corporate waste predicted in my story. We, the rest of Britain, MUST VOTE CORBYN FOR THEIR SAKE, whether they ask us to or not. I say 'the rest of Britain', but clearly white racists don't care what I say. So I'm saying that if you are British and not white, HAVE SOME RESPECT FOR WHITE PEOPLE WHO STAND UP FOR US AND VOTE CORBYN or seriously, how are you any better than Hitler? Eh? Or the white racists? Eh? Well. It's your choice. You can choose to do the right thing or you can choose to do the wrong thing.

References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 90: "Mirvis has no lessons to teach Corbyn or the Labour party about racism. In fact, it is his own, small-minded prejudice that blinds him to the anti-racist politics of the left. His ugly message is now being loudly amplified by a corporate media keen to use any weapon it can, antisemitism included, to keep Corbyn and the left out of power - and preserve a status quo that benefits the few at the expense of the many." (Cook reports).

Thrust: Israeli Blogger Jonathan Cook points out:

<<

By speaking out as the voice of British Jews - a false claim he has allowed the UK media to promote - his unprecedented meddling in the election of Britain's next leader has actually made the wider Jewish community in the UK much less safe. Mirvis is contributing to the very antisemitism he says he wants to eradicate.

Mirvis' intervention in the election campaign makes sense only if he believes in one of two highly improbable scenarios.

The first requires several demonstrably untrue things to be true. It needs for Corbyn to be a proven antisemite - and not just of the variety that occasionally or accidentally lets slip an antisemitic trope or is susceptible to the unthinking prejudice most of us occasionally display, including (as we shall see) Rabbi Mirvis.

No, for Mirvis to have interfered in the election campaign he would need to believe that Corbyn intends actively as prime minister to inflame a wider antisemitism in British society or implement policies designed to harm the Jewish community. And in addition, the chief rabbi would have to believe that Corbyn presides over a Labour party that will willingly indulge race-hate speeches or stand by impassively as Corbyn carries out racist policies.

>>

Direction of resistance: Cook also points out that the Rabbi would also have to presume that the far right white racist movement is NOT on the rise in Britain, indeed Europe. Cook demonstrates that neither supposition is true and that the opposite is the case. He warns:

<<

But if he is wrong about the re-emergence of a white nationalism and its growing entry into the mainstream - and all the evidence suggests he would be deeply wrong, if this is what he thinks - then undermining Corbyn and the Labour party is self-destructiveness of the first order.

It would amount to self-harm not only because attacking Corbyn inevitably strengthens the electoral chances of Boris "watermelon smiles" Johnson. It plays with fire because Mirvis' flagrant intervention in the election campaign actually bolsters a key part of the antisemitic discourse of the far right that is rapidly making inroads into the Conservative party.

>>

Removal of resistance: The 'chief rabbi' should pay attention to this key point made by Cook:

<<

But that is not what those flirting with or embracing white nationalism will take away from the relentless media chorus over evidence- free antisemitism claims.

Mirvis' intervention in the democratic process will drive them more quickly and more deeply into the arms of the far-right. It will persuade them once again that "the Jews" are a "problem". They will conclude that - though the Jews are now helping the right by destroying Corbyn - once the left has been dealt with, those same Jews will then subvert their white state. Like Balfour before them, they will start thinking of how to rid Britain and Europe of these supposed interlopers.

This is why Mirvis was irresponsible in the extreme for meddling. Because the standard of proof required before making such an intervention - proof either that Cobyn is an outright Jew hater, or that white nationalism is no threat to the UK - is not even close to being met.

>>

Unification: I'll leave you with this long quotation which well-summarises the real reason why so many people are at pains to smear the real left and use Israel to do it. It is absolutely OBLIGATORY READING if you wish to have an intelligent, honest and informed position on the matter, for ANY JEW, WHITE PERSON, NON WHITE PERSON, RACIST PERSON OR ANTI-RACIST PERSON - so probably not that many of you can opt out of continuing to read. I think it's also vital that you read the entire article via the link in the references below.

<<

In fact much worse, all the evidence shows the exact reverse. That was neatly summed up in a survey this month published by The Economist, a weekly magazine that is no friend to Corbyn or the Labour party.

It showed that those identifying as "very left-wing" - the section of the public that supports Corbyn - were among the least likely to express antisemitic attitudes. Those identifying as "very right-wing", on the other hand - those likely to support Boris "piccaninnies" Johnson - were three and a half times more likely to express hostile attitudes towards Jews. Other surveys show even worse racism among Conservatives towards more obviously non-white minorities, such as Muslims and black people. That, after all, is the very reason Boris "letterbox-looking Muslim women" Johnson now heads the Tory party.

The Economist findings reveal something else of relevance in assessing Mirvis' meddling. Not only is the real left (as distinguished from the phoney, centrist left represented by Labour's Blairites) much less antisemitic than the right, it is also much more critical of Israel than any other section of the British public.

That is easily explained. The real left has always been anti-imperialist. Israel is a particularly problematic part of Britain's colonial legacy.

Elsewhere, the peoples who gained independence from Britain found themselves inside ruined, impoverished states, often with borders imposed out of naked imperial interest that left them divided and feuding. Internal struggles over the crumbs Britain and other imperial powers left behind were the norm.

But in a very real sense, Britain - or at least the west - never really left Israel. In line with the Balfour Declaration, Britain helped to establish the institutions of a "Jewish home" on the Palestinians' homeland. British troops may have departed in 1948, but waves of European Jewish immigrants were either encouraged or compelled to come to the newly created state of Israel by racist immigration quotas designed to prevent them fleeing elsewhere, most especially to the United States.

The west helped engineer both the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and Israel's creation to solve Europe's "Jewish problem". It provided the components necessary for Israel to build a nuclear bomb that won it a place at the international top table and ensured the Palestinians were made Israel's serfs in perpetuity. Ever since, the west has provided Israel with diplomatic cover, military aid and special trading status, even as Israel has worked relentlessly to disappear the Palestinian people from their homeland.

Even now, our most prized rights, such as free speech, are being eroded and subverted to protect Israel from criticism. In the US, the only infringements on the American public's First Amendment rights have been legislated to silence those seeking to pressure Israel over its crimes against the Palestinians with a boycott - similar to the campaign against apartheid South Africa. In the UK, the Conservative manifesto similarly promises to bar local councils from upholding international law and boycotting products from Israel's illegal settlements.

>>

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/29/britains-chief-rabbi-is-helping-to-stoke-antisemitism/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 89: Hunting of the Snark / Godot 2 / Madam Bovary, the neoliberal version/remake, theoretically starring: VIC REEVES as LOUIS XVI, BOB MORTIMER as MARIE ANTOINETTE, KERMIT THE FROG as HIMSELF, JOHNNY VEGAS as MEL BROOKS, MEL BROOKS as KING TURNIP, TONY ROBINSON as BALDRICK, ANTOINE DE CAUNES as CHARLES BOVARY, ENOCH POWELL AS BORIS THE BARBARIAN, RICHARD BRIERS as DEMPSEY AND MAKEPEACE, ANT AND DEC as ELVIS, DAVID LYNCH as JIMMINY GLICK, BERNIE SANDERS as BERNIE SANDERS, LENNY HENRY as MAN WITH GUN, and other stars to come before the show is over..

Thrust: Click here for the latest versions of this, which has now moved on from this grid point.

Direction of resistance: This is a work in progress.

Removal of resistance: See point this supports for first load of opening drafts.

Unification: Hunting of the Snark / Godot 2 / Madam Bovary, the neoliberal version/remake

POTENTIALLY STARRING: CHARLIE SHEEN as CAPTAIN WILLARD, JOANNA LUMLEY as EMMA BOVARY, JENNIFER SAUNDERS as AMERICAN SPY, VIC REEVES as LOUIS XVI, BOB MORTIMER as MARIE ANTOINETTE, EDWARD NORTON as WHITE NARRATOR, KERMIT THE FROG as HIMSELF, LENNY HENRY as MAN WITH GUN, BERNIE THE AGENT as HIMSELF, JOHNNY VEGAS as MEL BROOKS, MEL BROOKS as KING TURNIP, TONY ROBINSON as BALDRICK, ANTOINE DE CAUNES as CHARLES BOVARY, ENOCH POWELL AS BORIS THE BARBARIAN, RICHARD BRIERS as DEMPSEY AND MAKEPEACE, ANT AND DEC as ELVIS, DAVID LYNCH as JIMMINY GLICK, BERNIE SANDERS as BERNIE SANDERS

EXT. RIVER BOAT. CAPTAIN WILLARD IS TRAVELLING BY BOAT THROUGH SOUTH ASIA AGAIN, ACCOMPANIED BY SOLDIERS.

CAPTAIN WILLARD

I didn't know why I was in this film. Everybody had died in the previous one. And besides, it wasn't parodying anything in particular, my being here was entirely random - arbitrary. But one thing was obvious. Godot was not dead. How could he be? He was probably the screenwriter. I updated my Facebook page to inform my fans that the reason so many white people become hysterically afraid at the sound of the phrase "Jeremy Corbyn" was because his fairness and accountability heralded the beginning of the end of white entitlement and white racial preference. Rachel Riley blocked me. The first like I got came from Madam Bovary. I knew this was not by chance but by the screenwriter's design. So Beckett was going to rewrite Flaubert now. I thanked my lucky stars he had chosen Bovary and not the legend of St Julian the Hospitaller.

RANDOM SOLDIER

Sir! We've reached Guam now.

CAPTAIN WILLARD

Guam. Always Guam. Was it because it had one of those names which sounds good on film? Probably. Even Godot was a sucker for vanity. I knew that the answer to my problems lay there. Somehow I could exploit Godot's vanity and stop him before the no doubt horrifying tale of Madam Bovary were to unfold in its entirety. Being Charlie Sheen, I decided the best thing I could do to save Bovary would be to give her a good seeing to (consenting, of course - I'm not one of THOSE American soldiers, I'm the one who deals with THOSE American soldiers).

RANDOM SOLDIER

Sir, I don't understand. Would you like me to kill someone?

CAPTAIN WILLARD (TO SOLDIER)

No no, I was just talking to the audience. I'm the narrator. It pays well.

CUT TO..

INT. AMERICAN SKY SCRAPER, NIGHT.

WHITE NARRATOR

People always ask me if I know Jeremy Corbyn. Three minutes. This is it. Ground zero. Do you have a speech for the occasion?

MAN WITH GUN

(punches him)

SHUT IT. I'm the hero of this film Norton.

WHITE NARRATOR

I am not Edward Norton, I am a character he is portraying. I am -

MAN WITH GUN

(punches him again)

SHUT IT. I'm the hero of this film, whoever you are. So keep your Stanislavskian crap to yourself. This film is not about white saviours.

CUT TO.. INT. THE ISRAELI EMBASSY IN LONDON WHERE LOUIS XVI HAS, HAVING BEEN BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE BY A MAD ISRAELI SCIENTIST, A SECRET BASE, WHERE HE AND MARIE ANTOINETTE ARE LIVING, PREPARING FOR A NEW FEUDAL AGE THEY INTEND TO BRING ABOUT THROUGH A CUNNING PLAN.

LOUIS XVI

Listen love, soon you will be able to eat all the organic cake products your heart desires, for I have a plan now, I know how I am going to regain control of France and in fact the world, thanks to our Israeli friends.

MARIE ANTOINETTE

What about Israel? Surely you must not take control of Israel or that would be ungrateful. They have killed and nobbled so many people on your behalf, indeed it was their ethics-free scientists who brought you back to life with their lovely Day-of-the-zombie Weinstein 5000 machine!

LOUIS XVI

No love, I will not take over Israel, just the rest of the world. Don't you want to hear my plan?

MARIE ANTOINETTE

I'm sure it's a lovely plan. I want to hear more about those cakes. Will they have chocolate icing? I love chocolate icing. Particularly if it is flecked with little pieces of white chocolate, with vanilla which has come from some location marketing companies know everyone will put their faith in.

LOUIS XVI

Listen, I'm the King. You're just the Queen. Now shut up and listen to my plan. It's a great one. You should love it. It's a feminist plan.

MARIE ANTOINETTE

Oh I do love your feminist plans. I enjoyed your feminist revival of Thatcher. The slogan "women have a right to exploit and kill and be labelled heroes" was a masterpiece. Imagine if only men were allowed to receive praise for things like genocide. Since we were granted this privilege we are truly a more well treated gender. What's the new plan?

LOUIS XVI

In a word, Bovary. Emma Bovary. I'm going to get her to carry out a feminist revolution in which the planet is renamed Vagina World and I will be its King.

MARIE ANTOINETTE

Surely such a world would need a Queen?

LOUIS XVI

Get with the times, love. Take a look at the Guardian, the head of western feminist thought management - it promotes control of the world by a few extremely powerful men and their wives. Same as you and me. We're proper feminists.

MARIE ANTOINETTE

That's brilliant then, Vic. I mean Louis. What are you waiting for? Get hold of Emma Bovary and start your 'revolution'. I'm just going down the shops. We've run out of Battenbergs again. I know you love em with your tea.

LOUIS XVI

I like my Battenbergs.

CUT TO..

INT. AMERICAN SKY SCRAPER, NIGHT. WHITE NARRATOR, MAN WITH GUN AND BALDRICK ARE PLAYING CLUEDO.

BALDRICK

I think it was Colonel Mustard, in the drone warfare centre, with the computer keyboard.

WHITE NARRATOR

You know, man with gun, I really don't think this kind of contest is macho enough. We need to be bare fisted, rolling around on the ground and sweating.

MAN WITH GUN

My dear Norton, this is not a porn film. This is an existential study of the failings of the latterday bourgeoisie.

WHITE NARRATOR

So was fight club.

MAN WITH GUN

No it wasn't. It was a mindless sexist macho sensationalist bunch of shit with a seemingly 'clever twist' at the end. Just another American male far up himself, revelling in his own sophistry, calling that sophistry dissent.

WHITE NARRATOR

Okay, but it paid well. I'm not even getting paid for this.

MAN WITH GUN

That's because this film isn't real. Nothing is real. We are figments of the imagination of some sort of plant.

BALDRICK

I thought it was King Turnip who was responsible for all this, my lord. After all, in the last film you killed me and now I'm here again. Surely only King Turnip with his magic powers could bring me back to life. And besides, you must have killed the plant in the last film, so it can't be the plant dreaming, can it?

MAN WITH GUN

It's very simple, Baldrick, I killed the wrong plant. I killed a cactus which the plant dreamt it was - ie it dreamt it was dreaming - it imagined itself to be a cactus. In reality it is some other plant. Probably in a pot, on a windowsill. We're going to have to hunt it down again.

WHITE NARRATOR

Yeah, well I think it was Miss Scarlett in the propaganda production facility at Guardian Newspaper Headquarters, with the racist neoliberal bilge intended to drive blind support for racist genocidal interventionist politics, accidentally causing far right numbers to swell so high that it turns into a Brexit and blows up in her face.

CUT TO..

INT. HOME OF CHARLES BOVARY. DULL CEO BY DAY. SECRET GAY NIGHT CLUB OWNER BY NIGHT. WHILE CHARLES OSTENTATIOUSLY ADDS NEW ACQUISITIONS TO HIS STAMP COLLECTION, HIS WIFE IS UPSTAIRS IN HER BEDROOM, ON THE PHONE TO HER LATEST LOVER, AMERICAN SPY, A SENIOR MARKETING EXECUTIVE AT THE CHARITY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, UNFORTUNATELY FOR HER ALSO AN ISRAELI SPY WHO HAS BEEN RECRUITED TO TRICK HER INTO CONVERTING HER PENT-UP RAGE, BORN OUT OF THE FUTILITY AND BANALITY OF HER SITUATION AND THE WORLD SHE LIVES IN, INTO CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE ON A SCALE NEVER WITNESSED BY THE HUMAN RACE BEFORE.

AMERICAN SPY

I'm tired of the world of marketing and charity. I've rolled out my last rainbow coloured stylised turd shaped cushion in the name of gay consumer rights, I want to do more for the world. More than I've already done, absurd though that may seem. Let us make this film about you and me, Emma. Let me raise you to the highest heights - and help you overpower the world. You can revolutionise the way humans think - and live happily ever after.

EMMA BOVARY

But the book doesn't end that way. Flaubert was taking the piss out of us, not holding us up as Roman or Greek heroes to worship. This film is a farce and if you really think you can change that, you're stupider than I thought. But that's okay, sweetheart. I like you for your body not your mind.

AMERICAN SPY

Well we'll rewrite it. That's the modern way. Take anything humans have ever done, good or bad, and remake it in an arbitrary way which suits our immediate commercial needs.

EMMA BOVARY

What sort of revolution?

AMERICAN SPY

The Vagina revolution. We will change this planet's name to Vagina World.

EMMA BOVARY

The whole planet?

AMERICAN SPY

Well except Israel, of course.

EMMA BOVARY

How exactly can we start a revolution?

AMERICAN SPY

You are Emma Bovary. You have a lot of popularity among middle class hyperconsumers across the world, you are a cultural artefact, one of those things western humans and their serfs in many grovelling conquered outposts are most proud of is historical artefacts with famous names. They tend to know, on average, next to nothing about the aforesaid artefacts but are nonetheless able to, in their own minds, assign to them some sort of generative property - which all by itself yields intellectual culture and progress in any individual who is even sitting in the pub nearby having a pint of lard and some pork scratchings.

EMMA BOVARY

So it's my marketing power, really, which you think we can capitalise on. I'm not sure I like that, but I am very bored, so tell me more.

AMERICAN SPY

Well, first we're going to do a charity run.

EXT. SWAMP, DAY. KERMIT THE FROG IS PLAYING HIS BANJO AND SINGING, NEARBY BERNIE THE AGENT IS BOATING.

KERMIT

Why are there so many songs about rainbows and what's on the other side? Rainbows are visions but only illusions and rainbows have nothing to hide. So we've been told and some choose to believe it, I know they're wrong wait and see. Some day we'll find it, the rainbow connection, the lovers, the dreamers and -

[GUN-SHOT RINGS OUT AND KERMIT'S HEAD IS BLOWN OFF HIS SHOULDERS.]

MAN WITH GUN

Sorry Kermit, this film isn't about you or about making millions of people happy. This is a sick farce about the meltdown of human society. This is about the real world.

BERNIE THE AGENT

Was that REALLY necessary?

MAN WITH GUN

Don't ask me, ask the screenwriter.

[SHOOTS BERNIE THE AGENT DEAD]

CUT TO..

INT. SPORTS CAR. EMMA BOVARY AND CHARLES BOVARY ARE HAVING A DOMESTIC ARGUMENT ABOUT THE IMMORAL NATURE OF CHARLES' JOB AS HEAD OF MARKETING FOR THE EXPLOITATION CORPORATION AND HIS LATEST PROJECT TO ROLL OUT FOURTEEN MILLION NOVELTY RAINBOW-COLOURED STYLISED-TURD-SHAPED CUSHIONS TO PROMOTE HOMOSEXUALITY AND VIRTUE SIGNAL IN ORDER TO OPEN UP NEW MARKETS AND INCREASE PROFITS.

EMMA BOVARY

When I married you I thought you were a charismatic, strong-willed and free-minded individual, and glamorous and interesting. In reality all you really have is wealth and might. You are a snake oil salesman and from dawn to dusk all you do is exploit and harm, with a smile on your face and a dirty thought in your head.

CHARLES BOVARY

That is simply not true, I am a very kind man at heart, it is the world which is evil. Ask Nicholas Cage in that film about the virtues of genocide. Even the Times of Israel has, albeit very briefly, praised genocide. Look, there's a hotel. Why don't we stop for the night?

EMMA BOVARY

It's lunch time. And no. I refuse to have sex with you until I have resolved this moral problem. Now talk. What can we do to fix your satanic and evil nature?

HE BEGINS TO MAKE AN OBVIOUSLY SLEAZY SUGGESTION.

EMMA BOVARY

No, I'm not interested in your lazy and ignorant narcissism right now. I want a change to happen. Corbyn style change. Real change. What's it going to be?

CHARLES BOVARY THINKS HARD. HE HAS TO SAVE HIS MARRIAGE. HE KNOWS THERE ARE MEN FAR MORE WORTHY OF EMMA BOVARY THAN HE AND IF SHE GOES ALL HIS WEALTH AND POWER MAY NOT BE AS ENJOYABLE. HE'S NOT ENTIRELY SURE AND DOESN'T WANT TO RISK IT.

CHARLES BOVARY

Okay. I have an idea. Why don't we find you an orphaned Iraqi child, and do something nice for them.

EMMA BOVARY

That's just cheap and nasty. No. Not unless -

SHE HAS AN IDEA. CUT TO..

INT. WAR ROOM. PRESIDENT QUACKQUACK AND A GROUP OF WHITE AND TOKEN RACISTS WHO BELIEVE IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS AS AN AXIOMATIC DOCUMENT ARE ENTERTAINING THEIR NEW FRIEND BORIS THE BARBARIAN.

BORIS THE BARBARIAN

So I said: "but you're a bloody scotsman so why don't you sod off!"

APPLAUSE FROM QUACKQUACK AND HIS COURTIERS.

PRESIDENT QUACKQUACK

Let's sing a hymn now. Hymn number 90210, all things on my credit card.

THEY SING.

PRESIDENT QUACKQUACK

Amen. So, Boris. Tell me more. Godot is back and on the loose again, you say. This is troublesome. I don't remember how it ended last time.

[ONE OF HIS AIDES EXPLAINS TO HIM THAT THEY ALL DIED AND GODOT TURNED OUT TO BE A MYSTICAL FORCE BEYOND THEIR COMPREHENSION, PROBABLY EXISTING IN AN INFINITE NUMBER OF WHAT WE PERCEIVE AS DIMENSIONS BUT WHAT TO GODOT ARE MERELY STRANDS OF A DIFFERENT AND 'HIGHER' PLANE OF EXISTENCE. SECURITY GUARDS IMMEDIATELY DRAG THE AIDE OFF AND SHOOT HER.]

PRESIDENT QUACKQUACK

What I want to know is whether Louis the Sixteenth and his hot wife can come down and hang with us while we figure out how to kill Godot.

CUT TO..

INT. CHARLES BOVARY'S SPORTS CAR.

EMMA BOVARY

So what do you say?

CHARLES BOVARY

I don't even know Mel Brooks.

EMMA BOVARY

Rubbish. You can get hold of anyone you want. You are one of the most evil and powerful men alive today. There's almost nobody you can't unearth with a few threats to someone who owes you, or a bit of leaning on someone who's scared of you. Mel Brooks or divorce.

CHARLES BOVARY

Why Mel Brooks?

EMMA BOVARY

Introducing an Iraqi child who has been robbed of her entire family by worthless racist western scumbags to Mel Brooks can give that child back some kind of faith in humanity, some sort of understanding that even in the west, low and depraved though it is, there are great people who loathe those who behave the way she has been led by our actions and inactions to believe we are all taught to live.

CHARLES BOVARY

Alright alright, I don't need a lecture. I will get Mel Brooks. Now can we check into a hotel?

EMMA BOVARY

After I speak to Mel Brooks.

CHARLES BOVARY

Fine. Turn on the car phone will you, dear. I'd better call my secretary.

CUT TO..

EIGHTIES' AMERICAN TV DETECTIVE DRAMA SET. JIHADIS BEAT WOMEN IN THE BACKGROUND. PEOPLE WITH DARK SKIN, FROM ITALIANS TO JAMAICANS, GATHER TOGETHER IN GANGS AND KILL SECURITY GUARDS AND POLICEWOMEN TO PASS THE TIME. DEMPSEY AND MAKEPEACE IS WALKING ALONG WITH A YOYO, LOOKING TO DEAL WITH WHAT HE BELIEVES TO BE ANTI-WHITE VILLAINY, IN THE NAME OF PROVING THAT AUTHORITARIAN FORCE IS THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH NON WHITE PEOPLE ALWAYS.

DEMPSEY

I really don't think the screenwriter has ever even seen a single episode of this show, it just had a famous name and he probably Googled it and was amazed at the sheer calumny it embodies, a typical boorish western establishment racist, classist, fascist demonisation of non white people, muslims, socialists, civilians (rather than police, security forces, armies and others with 'the right to kill baddies') and others. Very blatantly. He would never have watched such crap. Have you read the Waiting for Godot screenplay? This writer has some taste. Do me a favour. He doesn't even know which one of us is the American one and which is the English one.

MAKEPEACE

Well it doesn't matter, it's the same actor, isn't it?

DEMPSEY

Yes, I like that very much. I have a feeling the writer will merely write us as Richard Briers talking to himself, partly in an American accent, and will leave it up to us to decide which character, at any given time, has the American accent.

MAKEPEACE

I like that very much.

DEMPSEY

Would you like some tea?

MAKEPEACE

Yes, I'd love some.

DEMPSEY (POURS TEA)

I think that Makepeace sounds like the English name, it has a sort of rustic bizarreness about it. Dempsey sounds much more American.

MAKEPEACE

I would say the opposite; Makepeace has a weird American unorthodoxy about it, whilst Dempsey sounds like some fellow down the King's road.

DEMPSEY

Nonsense.

MAKEPEACE

Look, what if we both use the same accent, or both use different American accents?

DEMPSEY

But that wouldn't be faithful to the text.

MAKEPEACE

What text? The screenwriter is parodying the people who even watch Dempsey and Makepeace, and its writers, and the issue of parodying the show itself doesn't even come up - the writer, as you say, has probably never even watched it - I mean what an appalling show it is, sowing racist stereotypes and blind obedience to violent authority in the minds of the young and impressionable?

DEMPSEY

You've got a good point there, Makepeace, I say we both use my own normal English accent, a little bit Chiswick.

MAKEPEACE

No, I think I should do Boston and you should do Louisiana.

DEMPSEY

You mean Loosiana?

MAKEPEACE

That's it, that's it. You be Louisiana and I'll be Boston.

DEMPSEY

You mean Loosiana?

MAKEPEACE

Very humorous.

DEMPSEY

Oh give me a home where no liberals roam and the folks all think the same way, where each house has a gun, a big helluva one and strangers are told "make my day"..

CUT TO..

INT. GAY NIGHTCLUB. NIGHT. CHARLES BOVARY AND AMERICAN SPY ARE SIPPING DRINKS IN A PRIVATE ROOM.

CHARLES BOVARY

Then she tells me she wants me to introduce Mel Brooks to an Iraqi orphan.

AMERICAN SPY (CAN'T CONTAIN HIS LAUGHTER)

So where is she now?

CHARLES BOVARY

I left her with a "headache". Her desire to not have sex with me is definitely at an all time high.

AMERICAN SPY

So we have all night?

PHONE RINGS. AMERICAN SPY ANSWERS IT.

AMERICAN SPY

Emma! What a surprise. I was just thinking about you.

CUT TO..

EMMA BOVARY IN HER HOTEL ROOM, ON THE PHONE TO AMERICAN SPY.

EMMA BOVARY

I've sent Charles to get hold of Mel Brooks for me, so we have all night if you want to meet me. You're almost as bad as he is. When's the last time we did anything but talk on the phone?

CUT TO..

CHARLES BOVARY AND AMERICAN SPY HAVE STARTED TO HAVE SEX.

AMERICAN SPY

Emma, darling, I hope you won't take this the wrong way but I have to take care of something before we can finish this conversation. Stay where you are. I will get to you as soon as I can, as fast as my feet can carry me. Don't move from where you are.

HE HANGS UP THE PHONE AND TELLS HIS GOOGLE VOICE-ACTIVATED THING TO PLAY THE BOLERO.

CUT TO..

EMMA BOVARY IN HER HOTEL ROOM, FEELING SAD AND DEJECTED, MARRIED TO A MAN WHO CHEATS ON HER, CHEATING ON HIM WITH A MAN WHO ALSO CHEATS ON HER, ALTHOUGH SHE DOESN'T REALISE THAT IT'S WITH HER OWN HUSBAND, DISILLUSIONED AT NEOLIBERAL AND RIGHT WING MODERN EARTH, WHEN SUDDENLY NOTICES JIMMINY GLICK STARING AT HER FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MIRROR. HE IS NOT IN HER ROOM, ONLY IN THE MIRROR IMAGE OF IT. JIMMINY GLICK IS EATING A CHAIR.

EMMA BOVARY

Aren't you David Lynch?

JIMMINY GLICK

No I'm Jimminy Glick. You're confused because Martin Short usually plays me. That's not important right now. What's important is the three strange men behind me.

HE WALKS AWAY AND SHE NOTICES MAN WITH GUN, BALDRICK AND WHITE NARRATOR ARE SITTING ON HER BED, BUT ONLY IN THE MIRROR IMAGE OF IT, PLAYING POKER FOR THE SAME THREE OPENED PACKETS OF PRETZELS WHICH HAVE FEATURED IN ALL FILMS AND TV EVER, IN WHICH PEOPLE PLAYED POKER FOR PRETZELS OR WHILST EATING PRETZELS. MAN WITH GUN LOOKS UP AND SEES HER AND IS AS SHOCKED AS SHE IS.

CUT TO...

INT. HOTEL ROOM. MAN WITH GUN, BALDRICK AND WHITE NARRATOR ARE PLAYING POKER FOR PRETZELS.

MAN WITH GUN

Look Baldrick, in the mirror. It's Emma Bovary. We shouldn't be sitting around wasting our time, we have a job to do.

HE WALKS OVER TO THE MIRROR.

MAN WITH GUN

Can you hear me Emma Bovary?

EMMA BOVARY

Who are you?

MAN WITH GUN (TO BALDRICK)

She can hear me.

MAN WITH GUN (TO EMMA BOVARY)

Don't worry about who I am, I'm a friend. If you're Emma Bovary, sit tight, we've come to save you from Bourgeois Hell.

EMMA BOVARY

Finally, someone who understands. Who are you? WHERE are you?

MAN WITH GUN

Uh - not quite sure.

BALDRICK

I thought you said we're in the dream of a yucca plant.

MAN WITH GUN

It might be a fern baldrick. Or anything. Probably a pot plant. You're being too specific. It could be any pot plant.

MAN WITH GUN (TO EMMA BOVARY)

Do you have any pot plants nearby? Any unusual flora and fauna love?

EMMA BOVARY

So you're mad? So I'm caught between neoliberals, tories, entirely mindless advertising executives and a mad person?

MAN WITH GUN

No I'm not mad, I'm - look, wherever you are, you may be in danger. If there is a pot plant somewhere in your vicinity you must get away from it, or destroy it or something.

EMMA BOVARY

There's some daffodils in a vase.

MAN WITH GUN

No it would be a pot plant. If it's a vase you're okay.

BALDRICK

What about the fridge?

WHITE NARRATOR

I've checked, there's only beer.

EMMA BOVARY ALMOST JUMPS OUT OF HER SKIN, SINCE WHITE NARRATOR IS NOW IN HER HOTEL ROOM.

EMMA BOVARY

Who the hell are you? Wait a minute. You're Edward Norton. Can I get your autograph, it's for, ahem, my daughter.

WHITE NARRATOR

I am not Edward Norton, I am a character he's playing -

MAN WITH GUN PUNCHES HIM IN THE FACE AND HE FALLS FLAT ON THE GROUND

EMMA BOVARY

What the hell?

MAN WITH GUN

It's alright, I think our meat-head friend there managed to break through some kind of spacetime barrier in to your part of the world we're trapped in which, you may want to take note right now, is the dream of a pot plant. No ordinary dream, a tormented dream beset with fear of apocalypse and the banality of evil.

EMMA BOVARY

Hence the choice of subject matter.

MAN WITH GUN

That's right. And we have to prevent the denegeration of this dream into the worst sort of meltdown imaginable. Last time we had to deal with nuclear and military meltdown. This time it's going to be worse, the author is clearly going to take it to a new level of horror, whatever that is.

EMMA BOVARY

I don't understand. Are we in a screenplay, as you imply with your mention of an author, or are we in the mind of a pot plant?

CAPTAIN WILLARD'S BOAT SMASHES THROUGH THE WALL AND INTO THE ROOM, WHERE IT GRINDS TO A HALT.

CAPTAIN WILLARD

We had this conversation already. I think it's a dream. We're all asleep and dreaming of being here, in this situation where someone is telling us that all of reality, even outside our dream, is a dream.

MAN WITH GUN

Not this time, Captain Willard. This is just the main dream, not a dream inside a dream.

BERNIE SANDERS ENTERS

BERNIE SANDERS

Hang on, hang on, if this is just the main dream, how did Willard get here, to urban Europe, from Guam, in that boat? Not just so fast, but how could the boat get into this room? Where is the water?

JIMMINY GLICK APPEARS AGAIN.

JIMMINY GLICK

I think I can explain that.

BERNIE SANDERS

You're David Lynch.

JIMMINY GLICK

No I'm Jimminy Glick, in the script. Let me explain -

THEY LEAVE, WITH GLICK EXPLAINING TO SANDERS WHAT HE FEELS MAY BE GOING ON IN THIS SCREENPLAY

EMMA BOVARY

Well that was odd.

BALDRICK

Forgive me for intruding, my lords and ladies, but I still think King Turnip may be behind all this and we would be well advised to get out of here and conceal ourselves from the Turnip Royal Guard, which will make us all into shrubberies, all of them forming, from an aerial view, a cleverly constructed agriculture-based image of infamous comedian and travel writer Michael Palin.

EMMA BOVARY

Again. Things are getting very odd.

MAN WITH GUN

You're telling me. We're doing another one, they told me. You're the main character, they told me. This time you, the non white anti-hero, save the rich white woman from horror and grief, and she's a real feminist too. And what do I find? First they force me to have Edward Norton shadowing my insanity at every move, to try and pretend that you can benefit from white privilege but also be against the white-privilege-centric establishment at the same time, Charlie Sheen is back, probably hoping to stick his unmentionables into anything which can wear underwear, temporarily of course, and now David Lynch and Bernie Sanders are trying to turn it into a party political broadcast.

EMMA BOVARY

I thought you said this was a dream.

MAN WITH GUN

I think it's a screenplay of a dream of a dream of a screenplay.

THE PHONE RINGS. EVERYONE VANISHES AGAIN EXCEPT EMMA BOVARY. SHE ANSWERS THE PHONE. AMERICAN SPY IS AT THE OTHER END.

AMERICAN SPY

Darling, I can't believe this is happening now, but I've just had an urgent call from Jimmy Carr asking me to help him figure out the best way for him to give charity to the bioweapons department of the Israeli military. I need to get hold of Deniro and talk to him, he remembers how I arranged that the last time. It's a lot of money. A LOT of foul mouth racist macho people spend their money on Jimmy Carr's professional imperial juvenility. You're going to have to manage without me this time.

EMMA BOVARY

But -

AMERICAN SPY

Sorry I have to go now. I'll call you the moment I've finished my work.

HE HANGS UP AND GOES BACK TO ROGERING CHARLES BOVARY.

EMMA BOVARY (TO HERSELF)

Why did he say professional imperial juvenility - a man as ignorant as him sees that as high satire, as attacks on the corrupt - whilst anyone of intelligence couldn't possibly compare Jimmy Carr's puerile machismo to the anti-establishment wit of Jonathan Swift, or even Vic Reeves on a good day, that's not the sort of thing these backward lovers of mine usually see to be the case. I don't understand. Something odd really is going on. Was I dreaming all those strange people?

MAN WITH GUN REAPPEARS, BUT ONLY IN THE MIRROR. THE OTHER TWO ARE NOT THERE, NOR IS WILLARD OR HIS BOAT.

MAN WITH GUN

No I don't think so. And I think the reason he spoke out of character is to do with Godot.

EMMA BOVARY

But Waiting for Godot was written a long time after Flaubert and has apparently nothing to do with Madam Bovary. What has Godot got to do with it?

MAN WITH GUN

I'm afraid this is the second film. You didn't see the first one. It was insane. Nukes flying. Fat dumb American presidents running around the world while the author played fast and loose with eighties stereotype-laden comedy and drama characters. Didn't end well. Tony Blair almost became involved. And even though the writer cut him out before the very end, it was still pretty much the most grim ending possible.

EMMA BOVARY

And you think this time it'll be even worse?

MAN WITH GUN

Logically there's no alternative possibility we can deduce to be probable. Is there?

EMMA BOVARY

No, I suppose not. And you say that if we find the right pot plant and eliminate it the whole show is over and Dawn French will spring up and do her best rendition of "Here comes the bride".

MAN WITH GUN

Yes, I think that's a pretty apt metaphor.

EMMA BOVARY PUTS ON HER COAT AND HAT AND PICKS UP HER HANDBAG AND SHE AND MAN WITH GUN LEAVE HER HOTEL ROOM.

CUT TO..

References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 88: So again - it's about the fact that millions of racist white britons, among whom are a handful of white jewish people, are claiming that millions of non white people are 'racist' and 'hate jews' and that it's okay to ignore them when they say "CHANGE YOUR RIGHT WING AND NEOLIBERAL CORPORATE MEDIA."

Thrust: <<

this anti-semitism isn't about jews. it's about white people. millions of white islamophobes calling muslims 'anti-semites' to 'justify' white supremacist racism and abuse of muslims and many others, including women, homosexual people, 'elites' being added to list (chomsky says)

>>

<<



Samuel Beckett

@SamuelB30126872

·

13h

so again - it's about the fact that millions of racist white britons, among whom are a handful of white jewish people, are claiming millions of non white people are 'racist' and 'hate jews' and it's okay to ignore them when they say "END WHITE ENTITLEMENT AND RACIAL HIERARCHY"

Samuel Beckett

@SamuelB30126872

·

13h

so again - it's about the fact that millions of racist white britons, among whom are a handful of white jewish people, are claiming millions of non white people are 'racist' and 'hate jews' and it's okay to ignore them when they say "DEAL WITH WHITE RACIAL PREFERENCE"

Samuel Beckett

@SamuelB30126872

·

13h

so again - it's about the fact that millions of racist white britons, among whom are a handful of white jewish people, are claiming millions of non white people are 'racist' and 'hate jews' and it's okay to ignore them when they say "NO MORE RACIAL PROFILING"

Samuel Beckett

@SamuelB30126872

·

13h

so again - it's about the fact that millions of racist white britons, among whom are a handful of white jewish people, are claiming millions of non white people are 'racist' and 'hate jews' and it's okay to ignore them when they say "STOP RACISM IN EMPLOYMENT"

Samuel Beckett

@SamuelB30126872

·

13h

so again - it's about the fact that millions of racist white britons, among whom are a handful of white jewish people, are claiming millions of non white people are 'racist' and 'hate jews' and it's okay to ignore them when they say "DO NOT COMMIT GENOCIDE"

Samuel Beckett

@SamuelB30126872

·

13h

this anti-semitism isn't about jews. it's about white people. millions of white islamophobes calling muslims 'anti-semites' to 'justify' white supremacist racism and abuse of muslims and many others, including women, homosexual people, 'elites' being added to list (chomsky says)

>>

<<



Samuel Beckett

@SamuelB30126872

this rachel riley

@jimmycarr

incident reminds me of something on tvhobo's archives, just before charlie hebdo, the massacre, by terrorists, Dan Hodges was telling corbyn off for not celebrating, with bloodlust and drool the way hodges was, the killing of 'jihadi john'

8:19 PM · Nov 25, 2019·Twitter Web App

View Tweet activity

Samuel Beckett

@SamuelB30126872

·

13h

Replying to

@SamuelB30126872

that happened; hodges wrote what he wrote; i called it out on hobo - i tweeted him. i told him that he was basically praising the ideology of terrorism. i think it was only a day or two later, at most, charlie hebdo happened; people with the same ideology as dan hodges did it

Samuel Beckett

@SamuelB30126872

·

13h

so there really is no excuse for the puerility and juvenility and dickwaving and insulting racism of people like sadowitz and riley. #sackrachelriley

>>

Direction of resistance: Really must be emphasized.

Removal of resistance: 'White Britain' (and America and Europe, and various projects of theirs like white right-wing Israel, Australia and the various new right wing white supremacist Latin dictatorships powered by nazi parties) REALLY REALLY REALLY needs to face the truth and make a dramatic change.

Unification: We are at a very dangerous point in the history of white racism and white violence in Britain and America and Europe. Waiting until another serious genocidal crime has been committed by all the usual Hitler-loving and neo-liberal appeaser types is just totally sick. If western, American, European, British white humanity cannot put right this problem without allowing THAT to happen yet again, for things to go from worse to another Hitlerian nightmare, what answer can it give evolution when evolution asks: "how will you survive in the real world?"

Remember that a nuclear cloud, for example, that radiation, for example, doesn't worry about being 'called anti-semitic' - or suffer from employment discrimination, you can't lock it up and throw a few nasty prosecutors at it - if it comes and you are in its way, you're going to be consumed by one of nature's many predatorial forces.

Let's refocus on some of that key Chomsky:

Chomsky:

The rich may think they can escape by going to a mountain somewhere but that's not going to happen. And the policies that are being pursued are to escalate the problem - it's not just Trump, take a look at the big banks. Take a look at the JPMorgan Chase huge banks they know exactly what the consequences are and they're increasing their investments in fossil fuels. That's the nature of capitalism. As I said its we have a mixed form of capitalism but there is a market system underlying it somewhere and an imperative of the market system is that you try to make maximal profit tomorrow and you disregard what are called externalities. The things that are not charted. And if you don't do that you're out of the game. It's part of the structure of the system. So Jamie Dimon who's a smart guy, head of JP Morgan Chase, understands perfectly well the consequences but nevertheless is compelled by the logic of the institutions to maximise the threat to his own grandchildren. He may not like it, maybe on the side he gives money to the Sierra Club, environmental groups, but functioning within the system they're destroying the possibility for organised life.

That is nothing that you can put band-aids on. This is much deeper. Then of course the Trump administration that's just the worst by far. We ought to have big headlines and the newspapers every day saying these guys are trying to destroy the possibility of organised human life and if you think about it honestly there's been nothing in all of human history to compare with this not a Atilla the Hun not Genghis Khan not Hitler.

Horrible as they were they never tried to destroy organised human life. This is something new. There's no word to describe it: evil doesn't capture it. Insanity doesn't capture it because it's not insane it's planned, and conscious and part of the very logic of the system in which they work.

So again - it's about the fact that millions of racist white britons, among whom are a handful of white jewish people, are claiming that millions of non white people are 'racist' and 'hate jews' and that it's okay to ignore them when they say "CHANGE YOUR RIGHT WING AND NEOLIBERAL CORPORATE MEDIA."

So if you are a 'brown' person but 'not muslim', or if you are a any other non-'anglo-zionist' person, remember that if you let fake anti-semitism claims be used to enable the butchering of millions of muslims and the abuse of 100s of millions of muslims, then sooner or later that same AngloZionist excuse will be used to butcher a million Chinese people, a million hindus, maybe fifty million, a million Russians, Germans, Nordics, Celts, Gallics, Canadians, South Americans (even you with the 'white skin' and your neo-fascist 'leaders') (you think they'll think twice Benito?), anyone and everyone. You see once you have verified to them that they CAN get away with this and keep butchering and oppressing muslims and other non white people within society, muslims in almost their entirety, though, and eventually the same for all these other groups - how will you handle it then? Better or worse than if you have some integrity, courage and decency right now, instead of sitting quietly by as genocide and oppression run rampant with your perceived approval?

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/26/hunger-games-food-abundance-and-twisted-truths
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/29/britains-chief-rabbi-is-helping-to-stoke-antisemitism/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 87: Hatred of non white people and now more specifically than ever of muslims and indeed of so-called 'communists' by a large contingent of white British and American and other 'European' society is "like class hatred in Brazil. This is deep, you can't put a bandaid on it. It's fundamental things that have to be dealt with." Indeed the 'class' divisions in Britain are also just as deep. This is the key to all the problems faced, whether by utter wallies like the Riley Klux Klan or your merchants, Indian, Saudi, American and other juntas and dictators converting human blood into gold. The blood and the gold. How do we eradicate such entrenched fear and loathing? It's a journey. Learning, evolution, mental, individual, social, cultural, local, global. It's one journey and one, and only one, the only one, solution. No boxing glove gonna beat god and nature, my monkey friends.

Thrust: Colin Todhunter writes:

<<

The world already produces enough food to feed 10 billion people but over two billion are experiencing micronutrient deficiencies (of which 821 million were classed as chronically undernourished in 2018). However, supporters of genetic engineering (GE) crops continually push the narrative that GE technology is required if we are to feed the world and properly support farmers.

>>

Direction of resistance: He reminds us:

<<

we must acknowledge that from the outset of the GMO project, the sidelining of serious concerns about the technology has occurred and despite industry claims to the contrary, there is no scientific consensus on the health impacts of GE crops.

>>

Removal of resistance: Damningly, it is obviously true that:

<<

To evaluate the pro-GMO lobby's rhetoric that GE is needed to 'feed the world', we first need to understand the dynamics of a globalized food system that fuels hunger and malnutrition against a backdrop of food overproduction. As Andrew Smolski describes it: capitalism's production of 'hunger in abundance'.

Over the last 50 years, we have seen the consolidation of an emerging global food regime based on agro-export mono-cropping (often with non-food commodities taking up prime agricultural land) and linked to sovereign debt repayment and World Bank/IMF 'structural adjustment' directives. The outcomes have included a displacement of a food-producing peasantry, the consolidation of Western agri-food oligopolies and the transformation of many countries from food self-sufficiency into food deficit areas.

As long as these dynamics persist and food injustice remains an inherent feature of the global food regime, the rhetoric of GM being necessary for feeding the world is merely ideology and bluster.

>>

Unification: Think about this maximum availability of food, minimum work.

That is what all humans should consider all humans entitled to. Just to start with.

Sadly most humans want hierarchies and want some to be entitled to much and others to nothing.

Instead of everyone's having abundance, they (most humans) want competition among everyone for some to have more than is ever needed and some to never have what is needed.

Even though we can all have abundance - but only if we all want it for each other, not just ourselves.

Consider this obvious bit of 'maths' (not the Rachel Riley kind, not the Numberwang kind, I mean the Feynman, Chomsky, Newton kind) - we have more than enough for everyone, we do not need to have 'money' - everyone can have enough, nobody will go short of anything. Money's existence is in the way of a better society, not a part of it.

Again:

<<

The world already produces enough food to feed 10 billion people but over two billion are experiencing micronutrient deficiencies

>>

So we already can feed everyone, very well, and have no problems. Only pride, class hatred, racial hatred, imperialist greed, imperialism driven paranoia and fear, drives the perpetuation of money, when its non-existence would feed us ALL, extremely well. Money fulfils no function at all which need exist for our species at this stage in its evolution. We are past that. It's just a matter of changing over to a new system.

More importantly than all his warnings. Todhunter points out:

<<

Furthermore, if we continue to regard food as a commodity in a globalized capitalist food system, we shall continue to see the comprehensive contamination of food with sugar, bad fats, synthetic additives, GMOs and pesticides and rising rates of diseases and serious health conditions, including surges in obesity, diabetes and cancer incidence, but no let-up in the under-nutrition of those too poor to join in the over-consumption.

>>

So stop being lazy minded, hyperconsumer and basically a fraggle, anyone out there who thinks the way the Thatchers and Blairs think, who thinks like Nixon and Hitler, who sees the world not as a potential utopia but as a permanent fortress, for them to try and have 'power' within, through bullying, control, domination, etc.

Note also, do not fail to digest and understand, for you REALLY MUST NOTE THIS:

<<

Despite the fact that globally industrial agriculture grabs 80 per cent of subsidies and 90 per cent of research funds, smallholder agriculture plays a major role in feeding the world. At the same time, these massive subsidies and funds support a system that is only made profitable because agri-food oligopolies externalize the massive health, social and environmental costs of their operations.

>>

As I said in August, the corporations which sell you the crap which harms your health, whilst they pretend it's "food" - they ignore a major externality - your health. Any problems you face - the cost of fixing that must be deducted from the 'profit' of the 'food' producers and the supply chain, all the way to the retail end. But they don't.

This is screwing the NHS up and on top of that soon Crazy-eyes Johnson will be selling the NHS off and when you do get ill the same nebulous group of profiteers who made you ill, who ignored externalities and made money by stealing your health (you can't get something for nothing) will then make huge profits from forcing you to pay through your nose for the health THEY stole from you. More externality-ignoring.

Read more about externalities in the works of Chomsky or watch some of his many lectures easily found on Youtube and elsewhere online.

The words of George Orwell pertaining to the present nature of 'work' and capitalism and 'wages' and slavery may also be very pertinent to any such analysis you may make or research.

Let's end with a warning from Chomsky:

The rich may think they can escape by going to a mountain somewhere but that's not going to happen. And the policies that are being pursued are to escalate the problem - it's not just Trump, take a look at the big banks. Take a look at the JPMorgan Chase huge banks they know exactly what the consequences are and they're increasing their investments in fossil fuels. That's the nature of capitalism. As I said its we have a mixed form of capitalism but there is a market system underlying it somewhere and an imperative of the market system is that you try to make maximal profit tomorrow and you disregard what are called externalities. The things that are not charted. And if you don't do that you're out of the game. It's part of the structure of the system. So Jamie Dimon who's a smart guy, head of JP Morgan Chase, understands perfectly well the consequences but nevertheless is compelled by the logic of the institutions to maximise the threat to his own grandchildren. He may not like it, maybe on the side he gives money to the Sierra Club, environmental groups, but functioning within the system they're destroying the possibility for organised life.

That is nothing that you can put band-aids on. This is much deeper. Then of course the Trump administration that's just the worst by far. We ought to have big headlines and the newspapers every day saying these guys are trying to destroy the possibility of organised human life and if you think about it honestly there's been nothing in all of human history to compare with this not a Atilla the Hun not Genghis Khan not Hitler.

Horrible as they were they never tried to destroy organised human life. This is something new. There's no word to describe it: evil doesn't capture it. Insanity doesn't capture it because it's not insane it's planned, and conscious and part of the very logic of the system in which they work.

Now of course with Trump and his associates they're trying to extend it make it worse. That's not part of the logic of the system - the system could function with palliative efforts as Obama in fact was doing and most of the world is doing. Not enough but at least something, but it's a very deep problem. It's like class hatred in Brazil. This is deep, you can't put a bandaid on it. It's fundamental things that have to be dealt with.

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/26/hunger-games-food-abundance-and-twisted-truths

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 86: << Andrew used to be a regular visitor to Saudi Arabia's near neighbour and de facto protectorate, Bahrain, praising it as "as source of hope for many people in the world". These kind words contrast with the report of an independent inquiry into the crushing of the Arab Spring protests there in 2011 which details 18 different torture techniques inflicted on detained protesters. >>

Thrust: Cockburn's sage advice for one of the Middle East's chief miscreants runs along these lines:

<<

A British diplomat stationed in Bahrain at the time of a Prince Andrew visit later wrote that the thank-you letters he sent to his hosts after one visit to Bahrain - comparing the size of his plane to theirs - made for cringe-making reading.

In one significant respect, however, Prince Andrew is setting a good example for MbS by standing down from his public duties. Doubtless, the Saudi crown prince will be wondering, after the failures and fiascos of the last five years, if he should consider following the same path.

>>

Direction of resistance: Old 'MbS' has << launched a war in Yemen that was supposed to swiftly defeat the Houthi movement that held the capital Sanaa and much of the country.

Almost five years later, the Houthis are still there, but 100,000 Yemenis have been killed and 24 million of them - 80 per cent of the population - need humanitarian assistance. Lack of clean water sources, and the collapse of the medical system, both allegedly targeted by Saudi bombers, has led to 700,000 suspected cholera cases. The UN describes the food and health crisis in Yemen as the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet. >>

Removal of resistance: It seems very much worth emphasizing so I feel inclined to repeat a recent 'long' quotation I have extracted from Chris Floyd's writing, because all these people running around, hating Corbyn, which as Alexei Sayle points out is the most establishment thing to do, so when racist turd-minded twats like Jimmy Carr and Jerry Sadowitz and their little puppydog Rachel Riley make 'jokes' about Corbyn, all they are attacking is the enemy of established authoritarian power, they are not making any 'stand' against anything, these are not courageous activists, these are cowardly con artists with no brains or integrity. SO here we go with that Chris Floyd quote again.

Unification: <<

In response to the mass slaughters this week, the "writer" and "political thinker" David French tweets:



"Few things concentrate the mind more than the terrifying knowledge that a person might want to kill someone you love. It makes you aware of your acute vulnerability. [Here's] why a criminal who comes to our house will face the business end of an AR-15..



French then links to an article he wrote for National Review - complete with a picture of AR-15s "on sale while supplies last" -- which speaks of death threats he's received. (You will forgive me if I don't link to the story. It's not my job to feed the gibbering, moaning shade of William Buckley with the clicks he craves to ease his suffering in the shivering precincts of Hades.)



Upon reading French's chest-pounding discharge, I then gave what I believe is a reasoned, dispassionate, yea philosophical reply (edited here to eliminate the tweet-breaks):



And what if they come IN blasting with the "business end" of an AR-15? The Dayton guy killed 9 people in 30 seconds, with cops there who had the "business end" of their guns primed to go. God, the sickening faux-toughness of you cringing, rightwing cowards.



And by the way, I grew up in the so-called "real" America -- the white rural South -- that all you wingers have wet dreams about. And we slept with our goddamned doors unlocked. Why? Because back then there weren't a million fake tough-guys running around substituting AR-15s for their manhood.



And I'll tell you something else for nothing. I've had death threats ever since I started criticizing YOUR dipshit leader Bush Jr. in print years ago. I get them now from your fellow rightwing fake tough guys. And I wouldn't have one of your penis-substitutes in my house. Why?



Because I'm not a cringing little coward who would put my own children at risk with deadly weapons in the house just so I can do John Wayne cosplay oiling the "business end" of my AR-15. The "business end" of your oiled metal dildo won't keep you or your family safe from the gun culture you rightwing dipshits have been pushing for decades. YOU and all your fellow rightwing travellers have flooded the country with guns, even as your extremism -- yes, even the "Never-Trumpers" -- have pushed violence and hatred at every turn.



You want to protect your family? Then fight against the gun culture, fight against rightwing hatred, fight against the disempowerment and despair you rightwing extremists have advanced for decades, fight against the militarization and brutalization of our whole society which both you and your fellow travellers, the "centrist," interventionist neoliberal Democrats, have imposed on our collapsing, corroded, corrupted land.



"Business end of an AR-15." Jesus Christ, aren't you ashamed before your family to be so damned pathetic?

>>

Can these ignorant fuckups like Rachel Riley and Jimmy Carr take a five minute break from sniggering, puerility and lapping up privilege to read just THAT quotation from Chris Floyd? OF COURSE NOT? Do you think any of these entitled dick-waving genocidal fuckheads has even half a brain between the whole lot of them? It takes effort to read something. To make puerile jokes takes very little. Undisciplined misguided children do it all the time. Nothing is easier. The high opinion berks like Sadowitz and Carr and Baddiel and Webb have about themselves is entirely without justification. They are as stupid as they believe themselves to be wise. They breed and invite terrorism and violence. WE DO NOT NEED CHARLIE HEBDO IN ENGLAND thank you very much. We don't need that kind of dick-waving.

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/26/a-tale-of-two-princes/
http://www.chris-floyd.com/mobile/articles/manliness-is-a-warm-gun-bang-bang-shoot-shoot-a-colloquy-with-david-french-of-the-national-reviewin-response-to-the-mass-slaughters-this-week-david-french-tweets-few-things-concentrate-the-mind-more-than-the-terrifying-.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42Bqnq3AtwA

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 85: So, again, Rachel Riley and Channel 4, how much respect do you show for victims of white supremacist apartheid in South Africa who say they are VERY OFFENDED by what you, Rachel Riley, working for Channel 4, have done? HOW MUCH RESPECT? WE CAN SEE HOW 'MUCH'. Did you, Rachel Riley, say sorry to them for upsetting them and withdraw your image in order to cause them no further distress - or did you show that you don't give a rat's ass what black victims of white racism think or feel or whether or not you offend and insult them?

Thrust: The fact is that my words and jokes offend only racist white people, not other white people - they even offend racist non white people, my words and my jokes.

Direction of resistance: Rachel's 'joke' like those of Sadowitz insult and offend most non white people and many white people. They please white racists.

Removal of resistance: Satire, as we know from Swift's example, to name an obvious one, is a way to mock and offend people whom you decree miscreants. So by implication those you offend are those you label miscreants. Rachel sees Mandela's MPs, therefore, most of black and asian and muslim Britain and much of the English speaking world and a considerable number of anti-racist white Britons, as miscreants. Yes, she sees the South African government, by implication, which less than 2 years ago withdrew its ambassador to Israel in protest at what is perceived by it, and others, including me, Corbyn, Gerald Kauffman when he was alive, Chomsky, and numerous other important witnesses, to be genocide - the shooting, South Africa cited, of unarmed protestors in Gaza. Less than one year ago, South Africa re-iterated its position and sent no new Ambassador and has cut diplomatic ties with Israel, essentially. So Rachel is branding the South African government miscreants, indeed 'racist' - she is branding the South African government racist and erasing an anti-apartheid message from an iconic photo and branding not only Corbyn but the millions of non white people who feel he and only he represents them (clearly not 'the Church' with Welby adding his voice to the racist choir, just in the eleventh hour, as the cock crows thrice and Judas heads to a cash machine).

Unification: My jokes offend (Donald Trump / Hitler, Boris Johnson, Clinton), Jimmy Carr, they offend that guy whom Matt Lucas blocked, the guy in question was using a Nixon name to post with, a total far right git, I offend numerous racist and far right people, with my jokes. A lot of police, lawyers, judges, MPs, and ordinary workers in every walk of life, on the other hand, find some of them quite amusing.

Rachel Riley's 'corbyn joke' offended the vast majority of black British women over the age of 50, at least any of them who is aware of it - speak to a few 100 such women about Corbyn and THEN try to pretend he's "racist" with a straight face (presuming yourself to be white or a token or a middle class money-whore of some description).

Make sure it's 100 or 200 such women, so that you really will speak to 166 or so underprivileged hard working honest women each of whom has spent her life at the bottom end of a hierarchy with white men on top, sometimes a willy-waving white woman like Hopkins or Swinson or Riley. As Baron Cohen admitted, people like him and Carr and Riley and Sadowitz are 'puerile' and 'juvenile' and have no real connection to satire, art, social progress, evolution - they are actually part of regression, they retard the human race. Rachel Riley demonstrates that admirably well. It's one thing she has, in all of this, genuinely done extremely well. She should listen to, presumably, her doctors' advice, quit television, calm down, raise her kids in some intelligent and sensible way, and even if she chooses not to apologise for offending millions of non white people worldwide, amongst others, she should at least not drive herself to an early grave with hysterical racial-preference driven (subconsciously) juvenile hatred for a man who has spent his life working, not just working, but working for us all, unlike these overpaid drones like Hopkins and Carr and Riley and Johnson. I'm sorry I have to write this document Rachel, but assuming you read it, now that you have, take my advice, swallow your pride. Even if you won't apologise and admitted how offensive you have been, at least spare yourself the self-harm of being such a hysterical hateful woman. It can do your health no good. Non white earth doesn't hate you back. We advise you, I am sure I am able to speak for the majority, to calm down, stop hating us, put it behind you, move on, and be healthy - eat well, you're rich and privileged. Don't waste that. Most people in Britain, above all non white ones, don't get all that good health to throw away in the first place. You can spend your life insulting god and nature and the universe (as you currently do) and implictly and fully destroying yourself all the while, or you can, as the racists often tell the people they hate, INTEGRATE more. Get to know the non white world. If you did you couldn't have made the huge error you made. Your 'joke' has offended MOST of non white planet earth. I advise you to make peace with them. I don't think you should stay in the media either way, I think it's bad for your health. I'd probably keep myself out of the tv media too for the same reason, so don't beat yourself up over it. You're merely unsuitable, you should go and do charity work in Palestine, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Latin America, and I mean proper stuff, not working for armies and invasions, I mean go and meet the people and FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF how much they hate Tony Blair, Katie Hopkins, all the racists - and do your actual homework to find out about Jeremy Corbyn who is too decent to prosecute you for your slander, particularly when you have driven so many votes to him, without a doubt, with your infantile hysteria. So again, there's no point giving yourself a coronary, just god damn calm down, stop being a twit, be a good parent, become a good person, travel the world, integrate, and forget all this. No one will hate you any more if you become a good person. DO IT. I don't really care, per se, I just feel that all humans should take the advice I gave, not just you. Consider also poor old Mark Blanco, Jimmy Carr's "friend" - if people like you and he weren't so proud, he would be alive and thriving. Tragedy strikes because of pride and violence and denial, which you are making into your whole life. It's always a bad thing to fail to be self-critical and you have really failed. Jimmy Carr can't be helped clearly, his entire career is built on machismo and posturing, to repent would be to be forced to have far less money. You on the other hand are a nursery-maths tv celebrity whose fans are not really supposed to be hoardes of angry macho white racists. I dread to think what kind of screen audience among the youth countdown will be left with. As if it even matters. Anyway, if you want to make jokes, or learn about satire, or the rest of the human race, there's a bundle of links in the references below. My jokes offend, clearly, the American and British corporate right wing and neoliberal minority ruling classes, hence why I've been banned from facebook for 30 days, again, this time for the duration, therefore, of the run up to the election, for saying that facebook and twitter are "the last outpost of white stupidity". Amazing response to such a statement, eh? A statement which you, Rachel Riley, have proved so well that fans of my jokes get to laugh at it twice, because of how funny it is in the context of your atrocious insult to Nelson Mandela and South Africa, which you refuse to apologise for, refusing to acknowledge that you have insulted South Africa and have insulted the ghost of Nelson Mandela.

References:
https://www.getintothis.co.uk/2017/10/jerry-sadowitz-at-the-epstein-theatre-liverpool/
http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html
http://www.chris-floyd.com/mobile/articles/manliness-is-a-warm-gun-bang-bang-shoot-shoot-a-colloquy-with-david-french-of-the-national-reviewin-response-to-the-mass-slaughters-this-week-david-french-tweets-few-things-concentrate-the-mind-more-than-the-terrifying-.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-party-islamophobia-kyle-pedley-resign-conservative-muslim-a9203571.html
https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/recalled-sa-ambassador-to-israel-will-not-be-replaced-sisulu-20190405
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/21/reports-of-war-crimes-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-highlight-the-failures-of-both-war/
https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155-history/25985.html
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/17/europes-forgotten-history-from-human-zoos-to-human-trophies-displayed-in-museums-today/
https://972mag.com/idf-releases-conscientious-objector-after-110-days-in-prison/128399/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQZiHgbBBcI
http://www.mintpressnews.com/court-uk-illegal-block-israel-boycott/229202/
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170714-opposing-zionism-is-not-racism-rules-scottish-court/
http://forward.com/articles/204626/-holocaust-survivors-condemn-israel-for-gaza-war/
https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/20/ralf-little-suspended-twitter-pretending-tory-party-press-office-11187105/
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3394889560552567&id=100000946684702
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K0W8mFLb6Q
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/08/16/la-danse-mossad-robert-maxwell-and-jeffrey-epstein/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/29/britains-chief-rabbi-is-helping-to-stoke-antisemitism/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/29/sacha-baron-cohen-comes-out-swinging/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 84: (So Rachel Riley and Channel 4, how much respect do you show for victims of white supremacist apartheid in South Africa who say they are VERY OFFENDED by what you, Rachel Riley, working for Channel 4, have done? HOW MUCH RESPECT? WE CAN SEE HOW 'MUCH'. Did you, Rachel Riley, say sorry to them for upsetting them and withdraw your image in order to cause them no further distress - or did you show that you don't give a rat's ass what black victims of white racism think or feel or whether or not you offend and insult them? Take your time, cretinous one. TRY to answer correctly). As for Jimmy Carr, 'hard man' of comedy, what a pathetic child: for 12 hours I won't be able to post as Samuel Beckett on Twitter because I called Jimmy Carr a twat for having been one of the macho boorish puerile dickheads who egged on an old friend of some of my friends, a guy I knew briefly, Mark Blanco, not a bad guy but in many ways as much a puerile dick-waving boor as Jimmy Carr, Jerry Sadowitz, Rachel Riley, Katie Hopkins and Boris Johnson - one or two (Carr, Sadowitz, apparently) of whom egged Mark on in his puerility and in the end, somehow, apparently unknown to the public, investigations appeared to reach very absurd conclusions, Mark was killed, or 'killed himself', at the home of what the Guardian calls an 'ex drug dealer' - crack dealer it appears - who sold crack, for example, to Israel-loving Boy George who was, as we know, once convicted as follows of serious sexual misconduct: << Boy George was today sentenced to 15 months in jail for falsely imprisoning a male escort by handcuffing him to a wall and beating him >>. So Jimmy Carr can only stand the heat if it's not switched on. If someone throws any kind of visceral remark back at HIM, he runs away, has them blocked - pretty sad, so Jimbo you only really know how to mock people 'viscerally' if they can't answer back, you can be a bully, not a comedian. Sadly for you TVhobo is here, even if twitter is your bitch, to help me answer you back. Hopefully Mendoza will allow me to leave this for the public to take to your face on her comments page re Rachel Riley's racism. How come Rachel Riley and Jimmy Carr are such lowlifes? How come Jimmy Carr and the sadisitically racist Jerry Sadowitz (of the Liverpool Epstein theatre) hang around with and back men killed in crack dens? Who knows? Not me. Their personal habits are their own.

Thrust: One of the points on my twitter wall right now, being seen by far less people because Jimmy Carr feels I have hurt his feelings and needs twitter to protect him from that, is that the 'anti-semitism' scandal is actually about white people, not about jews. Let's get some direct quotes from my wall.

Direction of resistance: <<

this anti-semitism isn't about jews. it's about white people. millions of white islamophobes calling muslims 'anti-semites' to 'justify' white supremacist racism and abuse of muslims and many others, including women, homosexual people, 'elites' being added to list (chomsky says)

>>

<<



Samuel Beckett

@SamuelB30126872

·

13h

so again - it's about the fact that millions of racist white britons, among whom are a handful of white jewish people, are claiming millions of non white people are 'racist' and 'hate jews' and it's okay to ignore them when they say "END WHITE ENTITLEMENT AND RACIAL HIERARCHY"

Samuel Beckett

@SamuelB30126872

·

13h

so again - it's about the fact that millions of racist white britons, among whom are a handful of white jewish people, are claiming millions of non white people are 'racist' and 'hate jews' and it's okay to ignore them when they say "DEAL WITH WHITE RACIAL PREFERENCE"

Samuel Beckett

@SamuelB30126872

·

13h

so again - it's about the fact that millions of racist white britons, among whom are a handful of white jewish people, are claiming millions of non white people are 'racist' and 'hate jews' and it's okay to ignore them when they say "NO MORE RACIAL PROFILING"

Samuel Beckett

@SamuelB30126872

·

13h

so again - it's about the fact that millions of racist white britons, among whom are a handful of white jewish people, are claiming millions of non white people are 'racist' and 'hate jews' and it's okay to ignore them when they say "STOP RACISM IN EMPLOYMENT"

Samuel Beckett

@SamuelB30126872

·

13h

so again - it's about the fact that millions of racist white britons, among whom are a handful of white jewish people, are claiming millions of non white people are 'racist' and 'hate jews' and it's okay to ignore them when they say "DO NOT COMMIT GENOCIDE"

Samuel Beckett

@SamuelB30126872

·

13h

this anti-semitism isn't about jews. it's about white people. millions of white islamophobes calling muslims 'anti-semites' to 'justify' white supremacist racism and abuse of muslims and many others, including women, homosexual people, 'elites' being added to list (chomsky says)

>>

<<



Samuel Beckett

@SamuelB30126872

this rachel riley

@jimmycarr

incident reminds me of something on tvhobo's archives, just before charlie hebdo, the massacre, by terrorists, Dan Hodges was telling corbyn off for not celebrating, with bloodlust and drool the way hodges was, the killing of 'jihadi john'

8:19 PM · Nov 25, 2019·Twitter Web App

View Tweet activity

Samuel Beckett

@SamuelB30126872

·

13h

Replying to

@SamuelB30126872

that happened; hodges wrote what he wrote; i called it out on hobo - i tweeted him. i told him that he was basically praising the ideology of terrorism. i think it was only a day or two later, at most, charlie hebdo happened; people with the same ideology as dan hodges did it

Samuel Beckett

@SamuelB30126872

·

13h

so there really is no excuse for the puerility and juvenility and dickwaving and insulting racism of people like sadowitz and riley. #sackrachelriley

>>

Removal of resistance: As you can see, Twitter, Jimmy Carr, Rachel Riley, Channel Four - are gutless racists who actually endorse terrorist ideology, as did Dan Hodges, who drive terrorism, who can be given some responsiblity for victims of all terrorist attacks whether the Muslims in New Zealand, whether Londoners, people in Madrid, New York, Paris.

It's time to quote that Chris Floyd I held back on, leaning towards the Jeffrey St Clair style of editing away from my love of Alex Cockburn and Hunter S Thompson courage.

<<

In response to the mass slaughters this week, the "writer" and "political thinker" David French tweets:



“Few things concentrate the mind more than the terrifying knowledge that a person might want to kill someone you love. It makes you aware of your acute vulnerability. [Here’s] why a criminal who comes to our house will face the business end of an AR-15….



French then links to an article he wrote for National Review -- complete with a picture of AR-15s “on sale while supplies last" -- which speaks of death threats he's received. (You will forgive me if I don’t link to the story. It’s not my job to feed the gibbering, moaning shade of William Buckley with the clicks he craves to ease his suffering in the shivering precincts of Hades.)



Upon reading French's chest-pounding discharge, I then gave what I believe is a reasoned, dispassionate, yea philosophical reply (edited here to eliminate the tweet-breaks):



And what if they come IN blasting with the "business end" of an AR-15? The Dayton guy killed 9 people in 30 seconds, with cops there who had the "business end" of their guns primed to go. God, the sickening faux-toughness of you cringing, rightwing cowards.



And by the way, I grew up in the so-called "real" America -- the white rural South -- that all you wingers have wet dreams about. And we slept with our goddamned doors unlocked. Why? Because back then there weren't a million fake tough-guys running around substituting AR-15s for their manhood.



And I'll tell you something else for nothing. I've had death threats ever since I started criticizing YOUR dipshit leader Bush Jr. in print years ago. I get them now from your fellow rightwing fake tough guys. And I wouldn't have one of your penis-substitutes in my house. Why?



Because I'm not a cringing little coward who would put my own children at risk with deadly weapons in the house just so I can do John Wayne cosplay oiling the "business end" of my AR-15. The "business end" of your oiled metal dildo won't keep you or your family safe from the gun culture you rightwing dipshits have been pushing for decades. YOU and all your fellow rightwing travellers have flooded the country with guns, even as your extremism -- yes, even the "Never-Trumpers" -- have pushed violence and hatred at every turn.



You want to protect your family? Then fight against the gun culture, fight against rightwing hatred, fight against the disempowerment and despair you rightwing extremists have advanced for decades, fight against the militarization and brutalization of our whole society which both you and your fellow travellers, the "centrist," interventionist neoliberal Democrats, have imposed on our collapsing, corroded, corrupted land.



"Business end of an AR-15." Jesus Christ, aren't you ashamed before your family to be so damned pathetic?

>>

The above is posted at Chris Floyd's site/blog, see link in the references below, I 'apologise' to Floyd for using the full text of his post this time but then again, maybe that's the point of his writing it, that people read the whole thing. Anyway, Jimmy Carr you are a gutless racist little child who makes vile jokes and when someone RIDICULES YOU you put your fingers in your ears and tell everyone to ignore them. Pathetic little boy.

Unification: You know Jimmy Carr there are people who really enjoy it when I take the piss out of you in public, but you don't want THEM to get any entertainment. Entertainment is reserved only for those who laugh at YOUR jokes and no one else. Sadly most of those people are racists and juvenile dickheads like Rachel Riley. Or shall we call her Racist Riley? Yes. That seems to fit.

References: http://www.chris-floyd.com/mobile/articles/manliness-is-a-warm-gun-bang-bang-shoot-shoot-a-colloquy-with-david-french-of-the-national-reviewin-response-to-the-mass-slaughters-this-week-david-french-tweets-few-things-concentrate-the-mind-more-than-the-terrifying-.html
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/may/08/pete-doherty-mark-blanco-prosecution
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-50557468/lord-dubs-chief-rabbi-has-gone-too-far

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 83: Evidence of how far propaganda has penetrated the educated classes (I don't mean the fact that Rachel Riley has proved my 'claim' that twitter and facebook are 'the last outpost of white stupidity').

Thrust: I will return to Bovary later today, but a highly pertinent incident must be reported by me here, shocking and painful, in many ways. I have a neighbour, a decent chap, a few blocks away from me, who is a nice guy, a fairly 'intelligent' man, about average for British educated classes, which is really not any different to the uneducated classes although the man I mention would not imagine so I would say, from our conversations, nor the rich gay apparently disgraced-royal I have met walking his dog by the river who told me that most British people without private education are stupid (and he also claimed that Corbyn had had a rent boy assassinated! Yes, he was trying to poison me against Corbyn. A lot of white gay men presume I am gay due to my being single and allegedly attractive and clean and so on - apparently even gay men fall for stereotypes and judge only by their own somewhat peculiarly prejudiced ideas, since I am not in fact gay) (or I'd be a lot richer, eh? Well) (I disappointed the gay man considerably when in response to his claim that Corbyn had had a rent boy killed to silence him and conceal Corbyn's alleged bisexuality I was 'impressed' that Corbyn may be 'bisexual' - indicating that he was a far more enigmatic man than I'd been led to believe - although as I have written elsewhere, gay sex is to me in the same category as junk food, for health reasons).

Anyway, so this man, like the gay royal dude I mention, certainly sees himself as better informed and more intelligent than the uneducated or the lowly-educated and he has a senior position with regard to organising the ballot - when I go to place my vote, he has an administrative role, possibly in charge, I got the impression, of organising that room and the people in it, and boxes etc.

We are in Putney, and in 2017's general election the tories won about 20,000 votes, Labour 19,000 and Lib dems 5,000.

I told the man that for he thought that if the tories lose a few seats the lib dems may win, and I said that Labour were just behind and the Lib dems were MILES behind. He was sure that the lib dems had come in a close second to the tories! This is the man who organises the ballot boxes for this little locality in putney, for my road and those around. And that's how far propaganda has deluded him. I said I had checked precisely at the time (ie 2017) and was sure, and he said he had too and was sure. LOOK how well propaganda fools people who think they are educated and intelligent.

He also had not heard about the incident involving Kyle Pedley (see references below) or Rachel Riley and her t-shirt based insult, where she insulted all black people and this was justified by her and others as a way to 'fight anti-semitism' - yes, to Rachel Riley insulting all black people in the world is just one way to 'fight against anti-semitism' - just as to others bombing nations and killing millions of civilians is a way to 'fight terrorism' and indeed 'anti-semitism'.

Direction of resistance: So I was sad and disappointed partly, when I saw the result when I got home and checked (although not really that sad, as I was one of the 19,000 Labour votes!). I did not manage to check when I was with the guy because sadly a call from a relative came and I had to take it or I could have pointed his error out to him right there, ie proved the case. Maybe he'll check himself, if not I'll tell him when I see him next. The good news is it means Labour may well win this time. The Tory who had that 20,000 votes is Greening who has run away and isn't standing again. Indicating she is scared and Labour will probably win Putney. The neighbour I mention, when I left him, was convinced that anyone can win, and that lib dems had second place at the last election and were very likely to win. That's how well propaganda has taught you to belittle Corbyn or think less of him or overlook his strength and overlook the people who back him. This man ORGANISES the ballot round here! And that's how little he knew about the vote, the very vote he is there organising! He's a nice guy and this document isn't here to insult him, but the extent propaganda has reached him is an important lesson to you all, particularly to all 'white' 'educated' Britons and all middle class token 'educated' non white Britons who don't vote Labour, or won't vote Corbyn, who will 'vote lib dem' (aka throwing your vote away whilst voting for nuke-waving racists who think non white skin is 'funny', some of them).

Removal of resistance: Funny how he, and everyone else, has heard of the 'anti-semitism' various racists accuse Corbyn and his backers of, despite that being a false accusation, whilst being blissfully ignorant about the Pedley incident, which is HORRIFYING (imagine if they had said to a jew - how many times do you go to synagogue?) (Imagine if when out of the room about a jew they said 'do we need a jew?' Imagine the news coverage.) My friend the ballot man would certainly know about THAT but he had NO IDEA AT ALL about the pedley incident (see below) it was totally news to him. Although when I told him he certainly believed it and digested it, he's not like the many white men I have met and spoken to who are fucking racists and bitch about muslims and then when I reveal I am one, but I look white you see, which to them means non muslim, they say things like "but you're different" (yes, I look white).

Unification: Tragic. Absolutely tragic. Because it shows how few intelligent white Britons really are as informed and therefore as intelligent as they imagine. As the guy organising the ballot round here you'd think that he wouldn't be misled into believing Labour didn't come second, and the Lib dems weren't hugely beaten - when the results were Tory 20,000, Labour 19,000 and Lib Dem 5,000 - and bear in mind tories had a 10,000 vote lead in the previous election before that, which means Labour caught up and almost won. To then go off imagining that the lib dems almost won and Labour was in third place is called being a victim of white racist propaganda.

The neighbour I mention is a nice guy and I don't like to write and publish this but given his role in the vote and his education and what his mistake clearly demonstrates to us all, I have a duty to share this info here, because it's truly shocking. As for Riley's claims about 'prioritising' racism - how come, then, Riley, you brainless pratt, how come nobody's heard about the Kyle Pedley incident whilst at the same time the pretence of anti-semitism in Labour is clearly exaggerated when you look merely at the case numbers, let alone the facts outlined in the numberwang doc below. How come Riley you brainless pratt, how come when Pedley resigned due to the Islamophobic questions anyone anti-racist knows about now, it received fairly minimal coverage, reach and penetration. And how come nobody has other than myself asked what sort of reaction the press and society would have given if those Tories had asked a jewish candidate the same questions and had behind a jew's back said "do we really need a jew?" instead of what they said "do we really need an asian?" (behind an asian muslim candidate's back). No you don't know what I'm talking about either Riley you white supremacist racist pratt do you? You don't know about the Pedley incident either do you you racist pratt. Let that be a lesson to all 'pretty white girls' - you can look as pretty as you like but if it's just a mask for white supremacist attitudes and immensely low morals, and a very 'low calibre', you may simply look like a hideous diseased cow to anyone who has any moral compass. You can't conceal your repugnant persona in a slinky dress or behind make up Rachel you utter uttter moronic pratt. Personally I believe Rachel's Israel-loving friend and tax loop-hole exploiter Jimmy Carr must have been behind the 'joke' which insulted all black people and other non white people in the world. Rachel doesn't really have the capability for creating any form of 'satire' - even repugnant and offensive stuff. Maybe I'm wrong but I think Jimmy Carr may be behind that t-shirt, I dunno. If he is, he's certainly not stupid enough to be seen in public with it, but sadly he has friends who are stupid enough, QED. My theory about Jimmy Carr is 100% pure speculation. It may have really been Rachel Riley for all we know. I don't think she's 'intelligent' enough, though, myself.

Rachel: Almost 2 years ago South Africa withdrew its ambassador from Israel, protesting genocide. Less than 1 year ago it reiterated it will send no new ambassador. Today you, Rachel Riley, allegedly an ardent Israel fan, claim you and Mandela are pals and hate Corbyn together. Not particularly clever thing to say in a transparent world where people can check facts (no trademark or dot com required) for themselves.

References: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-party-islamophobia-kyle-pedley-resign-conservative-muslim-a9203571.html
http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html
https://twitter.com/RobScottPhotos/status/1198509772795834368
https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/recalled-sa-ambassador-to-israel-will-not-be-replaced-sisulu-20190405

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 82: This is dedicated to Rachel Riley's awareness of Nelson Mandela's and Nelson Mandela's grandson's, and Desmond Tutu's (to pick a few) position on the racist endeavour that is Israel. (Or indeed what South Africa's position on Israel is, or the degree to which Israel supported white supremacists in South Africa just as today it supports Bolsonaro, Trump and numerous other white supremacist racists, openly, officially). More comedy lessons for me fans at the BBC, ITV, Channel Four, Fleet Street, Main Street, Sesame Street and and Hooky Street. The sort of thing our 'comedians' fail to put out as they are a bunch of Royal Variety show performers. They are performers who have been playing for Epstein. Go on, make your jokes for Epstein and Weinstein and pretend MANDELA laughs with you not at you, you pathetic fascists. Before the comedy lesson, perhaps you, Rachel Riley, will read these words: << South Africa has decided to downgrade its relations with Israel to the level of liaison bureau, which will not deal with bilateral relations. Ambassador to Israel Sisa Ngombane, who was recalled to protest the killing of demonstrators in Gaza, will not return. South Africa has essentially severed diplomatic relations with Israel. We're left with Chad. >> (source: Haaretz).

Thrust: Go here for the latest working published copy (will put speakers in bold eventually) of me latest comedy screenplay idea. Below is the initial archive of versions, as it sprung to life.

Direction of resistance: Hunting of the Snark / Godot 2 / Madam Bovary, the neoliberal version/remake

POTENTIALLY STARRING: CHARLIE SHEEN as CAPTAIN WILLARD, JOANNA LUMLEY as EMMA BOVARY, JENNIFER SAUNDERS as AMERICAN SPY, VIC REEVES as LOUIS XVI, BOB MORTIMER as MARIE ANTOINETTE, EDWARD NORTON as WHITE NARRATOR, KERMIT THE FROG as HIMSELF, LENNY HENRY as MAN WITH GUN, BERNIE THE AGENT as HIMSELF, JOHNNY VEGAS as MEL BROOKS, MEL BROOKS as KING TURNIP, TONY ROBINSON as BALDRICK, ANTOINE DE CAUNES as CHARLES BOVARY, ENOCH POWELL AS BORIS THE BARBARIAN, RICHARD BRIERS as DEMPSEY AND MAKEPEACE, ANT AND DEC as ELVIS

EXT. RIVER BOAT. CAPTAIN WILLARD IS TRAVELLING BY BOAT THROUGH SOUTH ASIA AGAIN, ACCOMPANIED BY SOLDIERS.

CAPTAIN WILLARD

I didn't know why I was in this film. Everybody had died in the previous one. And besides, it wasn't parodying anything in particular, my being here was entirely random - arbitrary. But one thing was obvious. Godot was not dead. How could he be? He was probably the screenwriter. I updated my Facebook page to inform my fans that the reason so many white people become hysterically afraid at the sound of the phrase "Jeremy Corbyn" was because his fairness and accountability heralded the beginning of the end of white entitlement and white racial preference. Rachel Riley blocked me. The first like I got came from Madam Bovary. I knew this was not by chance but by the screenwriter's design. So Beckett was going to rewrite Flaubert now. I thanked my lucky stars he had chosen Bovary and not the legend of St Julian the Hospitaller.

RANDOM SOLDIER

Sir! We've reached Guam now.

CAPTAIN WILLARD

Guam. Always Guam. Was it because it had one of those names which sounds good on film? Probably. Even Godot was a sucker for vanity. I knew that the answer to my problems lay there. Somehow I could exploit Godot's vanity and stop him before the no doubt horrifying tale of Madam Bovary were to unfold in its entirety. Being Charlie Sheen, I decided the best thing I could do to save Bovary would be to give her a good seeing to (consenting, of course - I'm not one of THOSE American soldiers, I'm the one who deals with THOSE American soldiers).

RANDOM SOLDIER

Sir, I don't understand. Would you like me to kill someone?

CAPTAIN WILLARD (TO SOLDIER)

No no, I was just talking to the audience. I'm the narrator. It pays well.

CUT TO..

INT. AMERICAN SKY SCRAPER, NIGHT.

WHITE NARRATOR

People always ask me if I know Jeremy Corbyn. Three minutes. This is it. Ground zero. Do you have a speech for the occasion?

MAN WITH GUN

(punches him)

SHUT IT. I'm the hero of this film Norton.

WHITE NARRATOR

I am not Edward Norton, I am a character he is portraying. I am -

MAN WITH GUN

(punches him again)

SHUT IT. I'm the hero of this film, whoever you are. So keep your Stanislavskian crap to yourself. This film is not about white saviours.

CUT TO.. INT. THE ISRAELI EMBASSY IN LONDON WHERE LOUIS XVI HAS, HAVING BEEN BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE BY A MAD ISRAELI SCIENTIST, A SECRET BASE, WHERE HE AND MARIE ANTOINETTE ARE LIVING, PREPARING FOR A NEW FEUDAL AGE THEY INTEND TO BRING ABOUT THROUGH A CUNNING PLAN.

LOUIS XVI

Listen love, soon you will be able to eat all the organic cake products your heart desires, for I have a plan now, I know how I am going to regain control of France and in fact the world, thanks to our Israeli friends.

MARIE ANTOINETTE

What about Israel? Surely you must not take control of Israel or that would be ungrateful. They have killed and nobbled so many people on your behalf, indeed it was their ethics-free scientists who brought you back to life with their lovely Day-of-the-zombie Weinstein 5000 machine!

LOUIS XVI

No love, I will not take over Israel, just the rest of the world. Don't you want to hear my plan?

MARIE ANTOINETTE

I'm sure it's a lovely plan. I want to hear more about those cakes. Will they have chocolate icing? I love chocolate icing. Particularly if it is flecked with little pieces of white chocolate, with vanilla which has come from some location marketing companies know everyone will put their faith in.

LOUIS XVI

Listen, I'm the King. You're just the Queen. Now shut up and listen to my plan. It's a great one. You should love it. It's a feminist plan.

MARIE ANTOINETTE

Oh I do love your feminist plans. I enjoyed your feminist revival of Thatcher. The slogan "women have a right to exploit and kill and be labelled heroes" was a masterpiece. Imagine if only men were allowed to receive praise for things like genocide. Since we were granted this privilege we are truly a more well treated gender. What's the new plan?

LOUIS XVI

In a word, Bovary. Emma Bovary. I'm going to get her to carry out a feminist revolution in which the planet is renamed Vagina World and I will be its King.

MARIE ANTOINETTE

Surely such a world would need a Queen?

LOUIS XVI

Get with the times, love. Take a look at the Guardian, the head of western feminist thought management - it promotes control of the world by a few extremely powerful men and their wives. Same as you and me. We're proper feminists.

MARIE ANTOINETTE

That's brilliant then, Vic. I mean Louis. What are you waiting for? Get hold of Emma Bovary and start your 'revolution'. I'm just going down the shops. We've run out of Battenbergs again. I know you love em with your tea.

LOUIS XVI

I like my Battenbergs.

CUT TO..

INT. AMERICAN SKY SCRAPER, NIGHT. WHITE NARRATOR, MAN WITH GUN AND BALDRICK ARE PLAYING CLUEDO.

BALDRICK

I think it was Colonel Mustard, in the drone warfare centre, with the computer keyboard.

WHITE NARRATOR

You know, man with gun, I really don't think this kind of contest is macho enough. We need to be bare fisted, rolling around on the ground and sweating.

MAN WITH GUN

My dear Norton, this is not a porn film. This is an existential study of the failings of the latterday bourgeoisie.

WHITE NARRATOR

So was fight club.

MAN WITH GUN

No it wasn't. It was a mindless sexist macho sensationalist bunch of shit with a seemingly 'clever twist' at the end. Just another American male far up himself, revelling in his own sophistry, calling that sophistry dissent.

WHITE NARRATOR

Okay, but it paid well. I'm not even getting paid for this.

MAN WITH GUN

That's because this film isn't real. Nothing is real. We are figments of the imagination of some sort of plant.

BALDRICK

I thought it was King Turnip who was responsible for all this, my lord. After all, in the last film you killed me and now I'm here again. Surely only King Turnip with his magic powers could bring me back to life. And besides, you must have killed the plant in the last film, so it can't be the plant dreaming, can it?

MAN WITH GUN

It's very simple, Baldrick, I killed the wrong plant. I killed a cactus which the plant dreamt it was - ie it dreamt it was dreaming - it imagined itself to be a cactus. In reality it is some other plant. Probably in a pot, on a windowsill. We're going to have to hunt it down again.

WHITE NARRATOR

Yeah, well I think it was Miss Scarlett in the propaganda production facility at Guardian Newspaper Headquarters, with the racist neoliberal bilge intended to drive blind support for racist genocidal interventionist politics, accidentally causing far right numbers to swell so high that it turns into a Brexit and blows up in her face.

CUT TO..

INT. HOME OF CHARLES BOVARY. DULL CEO BY DAY. SECRET GAY NIGHT CLUB OWNER BY NIGHT. WHILE CHARLES OSTENTATIOUSLY ADDS NEW ACQUISITIONS TO HIS STAMP COLLECTION, HIS WIFE IS UPSTAIRS IN HER BEDROOM, ON THE PHONE TO HER LATEST LOVER, AMERICAN SPY, A SENIOR MARKETING EXECUTIVE AT THE CHARITY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, UNFORTUNATELY FOR HER ALSO AN ISRAELI SPY WHO HAS BEEN RECRUITED TO TRICK HER INTO CONVERTING HER PENT-UP RAGE, BORN OUT OF THE FUTILITY AND BANALITY OF HER SITUATION AND THE WORLD SHE LIVES IN, INTO CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE ON A SCALE NEVER WITNESSED BY THE HUMAN RACE BEFORE.

AMERICAN SPY

I'm tired of the world of marketing and charity. I've rolled out my last rainbow coloured stylised turd shaped cushion in the name of gay consumer rights, I want to do more for the world. More than I've already done, absurd though that may seem. Let us make this film about you and me, Emma. Let me raise you to the highest heights - and help you overpower the world. You can revolutionise the way humans think - and live happily ever after.

EMMA BOVARY

But the book doesn't end that way. Flaubert was taking the piss out of us, not holding us up as Roman or Greek heroes to worship. This film is a farce and if you really think you can change that, you're stupider than I thought. But that's okay, sweetheart. I like you for your body not your mind.

AMERICAN SPY

Well we'll rewrite it. That's the modern way. Take anything humans have ever done, good or bad, and remake it in an arbitrary way which suits our immediate commercial needs.

EMMA BOVARY

What sort of revolution?

AMERICAN SPY

The Vagina revolution. We will change this planet's name to Vagina World.

EMMA BOVARY

The whole planet?

AMERICAN SPY

Well except Israel, of course.

EMMA BOVARY

How exactly can we start a revolution?

AMERICAN SPY

You are Emma Bovary. You have a lot of popularity among middle class hyperconsumers across the world, you are a cultural artefact, one of those things western humans and their serfs in many grovelling conquered outposts are most proud of is historical artefacts with famous names. They tend to know, on average, next to nothing about the aforesaid artefacts but are nonetheless able to, in their own minds, assign to them some sort of generative property - which all by itself yields intellectual culture and progress in any individual who is even sitting in the pub nearby having a pint of lard and some pork scratchings.

EMMA BOVARY

So it's my marketing power, really, which you think we can capitalise on. I'm not sure I like that, but I am very bored, so tell me more.

AMERICAN SPY

Well, first we're going to do a charity run.

EXT. SWAMP, DAY. KERMIT THE FROG IS PLAYING HIS BANJO AND SINGING, NEARBY BERNIE THE AGENT IS BOATING.

KERMIT

Why are there so many songs about rainbows and what's on the other side? Rainbows are visions but only illusions and rainbows have nothing to hide. So we've been told and some choose to believe it, I know they're wrong wait and see. Some day we'll find it, the rainbow connection, the lovers, the dreamers and -

[GUN-SHOT RINGS OUT AND KERMIT'S HEAD IS BLOWN OFF HIS SHOULDERS.]

MAN WITH GUN

Sorry Kermit, this film isn't about you or about making millions of people happy. This is a sick farce about the meltdown of human society. This is about the real world.

BERNIE THE AGENT

Was that REALLY necessary?

MAN WITH GUN

Don't ask me, ask the screenwriter.

[SHOOTS BERNIE THE AGENT DEAD]

CUT TO..

INT. SPORTS CAR. EMMA BOVARY AND CHARLES BOVARY ARE HAVING A DOMESTIC ARGUMENT ABOUT THE IMMORAL NATURE OF CHARLES' JOB AS HEAD OF MARKETING FOR THE EXPLOITATION CORPORATION AND HIS LATEST PROJECT TO ROLL OUT FOURTEEN MILLION NOVELTY RAINBOW-COLOURED STYLISED-TURD-SHAPED CUSHIONS TO PROMOTE HOMOSEXUALITY AND VIRTUE SIGNAL IN ORDER TO OPEN UP NEW MARKETS AND INCREASE PROFITS.

EMMA BOVARY

When I married you I thought you were a charismatic, strong-willed and free-minded individual, and glamorous and interesting. In reality all you really have is wealth and might. You are a snake oil salesman and from dawn to dusk all you do is exploit and harm, with a smile on your face and a dirty thought in your head.

CHARLES BOVARY

That is simply not true, I am a very kind man at heart, it is the world which is evil. Ask Nicholas Cage in that film about the virtues of genocide. Even the Times of Israel has, albeit very briefly, praised genocide. Look, there's a hotel. Why don't we stop for the night?

EMMA BOVARY

It's lunch time. And no. I refuse to have sex with you until I have resolved this moral problem. Now talk. What can we do to fix your satanic and evil nature?

HE BEGINS TO MAKE AN OBVIOUSLY SLEAZY SUGGESTION.

EMMA BOVARY

No, I'm not interested in your lazy and ignorant narcissism right now. I want a change to happen. Corbyn style change. Real change. What's it going to be?

CHARLES BOVARY THINKS HARD. HE HAS TO SAVE HIS MARRIAGE. HE KNOWS THERE ARE MEN FAR MORE WORTHY OF EMMA BOVARY THAN HE AND IF SHE GOES ALL HIS WEALTH AND POWER MAY NOT BE AS ENJOYABLE. HE'S NOT ENTIRELY SURE AND DOESN'T WANT TO RISK IT.

CHARLES BOVARY

Okay. I have an idea. Why don't we find you an orphaned Iraqi child, and do something nice for them.

EMMA BOVARY

That's just cheap and nasty. No. Not unless -

SHE HAS AN IDEA. CUT TO..

INT. WAR ROOM. PRESIDENT QUACKQUACK AND A GROUP OF WHITE AND TOKEN RACISTS WHO BELIEVE IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS AS AN AXIOMATIC DOCUMENT ARE ENTERTAINING THEIR NEW FRIEND BORIS THE BARBARIAN.

BORIS THE BARBARIAN

So I said: "but you're a bloody scotsman so why don't you sod off!"

APPLAUSE FROM QUACKQUACK AND HIS COURTIERS.

PRESIDENT QUACKQUACK

Let's sing a hymn now. Hymn number 90210, all things on my credit card.

THEY SING.

PRESIDENT QUACKQUACK

Amen. So, Boris. Tell me more. Godot is back and on the loose again, you say. This is troublesome. I don't remember how it ended last time.

[ONE OF HIS AIDES EXPLAINS TO HIM THAT THEY ALL DIED AND GODOT TURNED OUT TO BE A MYSTICAL FORCE BEYOND THEIR COMPREHENSION, PROBABLY EXISTING IN AN INFINITE NUMBER OF WHAT WE PERCEIVE AS DIMENSIONS BUT WHAT TO GODOT ARE MERELY STRANDS OF A DIFFERENT AND 'HIGHER' PLANE OF EXISTENCE. SECURITY GUARDS IMMEDIATELY DRAG THE AIDE OFF AND SHOOT HER.]

PRESIDET QUACKQUACK

What I want to know is whether Louis the Sixteenth and his hot wife can come down and hang with us while we figure out how to kill Godot.

CUT TO..

INT. CHARLES BOVARY'S SPORTS CAR.

EMMA BOVARY

So what do you say?

CHARLES BOVARY

I don't even know Mel Brooks.

EMMA BOVARY

Rubbish. You can get hold of anyone you want. You are one of the most evil and powerful men alive today. There's almost nobody you can't unearth with a few threats to someone who owes you, or a bit of leaning on someone who's scared of you. Mel Brooks or divorce.

CHARLES BOVARY

Why Mel Brooks?

EMMA BOVARY

Introducing an Iraqi child who has been robbed of her entire family by worthless racist western scumbags to Mel Brooks can give that child back some kind of faith in humanity, some sort of understanding that even in the west, low and depraved though it is, there are great people who loathe those who behave the way she has been led by our actions and inactions to believe we are all taught to live.

CHARLES BOVARY

Alright alright, I don't need a lecture. I will get Mel Brooks. Now can we check into a hotel?

EMMA BOVARY

After I speak to Mel Brooks.

CHARLES BOVARY

Fine. Turn on the car phone will you, dear. I'd better call my secretary.

CUT TO..

EIGHTIES' AMERICAN TV DETECTIVE DRAMA SET. JIHADIS BEAT WOMEN IN THE BACKGROUND. PEOPLE WITH DARK SKIN, FROM ITALIANS TO JAMAICANS, GATHER TOGETHER IN GANGS AND KILL SECURITY GUARDS AND POLICEWOMEN TO PASS THE TIME. DEMPSEY AND MAKEPEACE IS WALKING ALONG WITH A YOYO, LOOKING TO DEAL WITH WHAT HE BELIEVES TO BE ANTI-WHITE VILLAINY, IN THE NAME OF PROVING THAT AUTHORITARIAN FORCE IS THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH NON WHITE PEOPLE ALWAYS.

DEMPSEY

I really don't think the screenwriter has ever even seen a single episode of this show, it just had a famous name and he probably Googled it and was amazed at the sheer calumny it embodies, a typical boorish western establishment racist, classist, fascist demonisation of non white people, muslims, socialists, civilians (rather than police, security forces, armies and others with 'the right to kill baddies') and others. Very blatantly. He would never have watched such crap. Have you read the Waiting for Godot screenplay? This writer has some taste. Do me a favour. He doesn't even know which one of us is the American one and which is the English one.

MAKEPEACE

Well it doesn't matter, it's the same actor, isn't it?

DEMPSEY

Yes, I like that very much. I have a feeling the writer will merely write us as Richard Briers talking to himself, partly in an American accent, and will leave it up to us to decide which character, at any given time, has the American accent.

MAKEPEACE

I like that vey much.

DEMPSEY

Would you like some tea?

MAKEPEACE

Yes, I'd love some.

DEMPSEY (POURS TEA)

I think that Makepeace sounds like the English name, it has a sort of rustic bizarreness about it. Dempsey sounds much more American.

MAKEPEACE

I would say the opposite; makepeace has a weird american unorthodoxy about it, whilst dempsey sounds like some fellow down the King's road.

DEMPSEY

Nonsense.

MAKEPEACE

Look, what if we both use the same accent, or both use different american accents?

DEMPSEY

But that wouldn't be faithful to the text.

MAKEPEACE

What text? The screenwriter is parodying the people who even watch dempsey and makepeace, and its writers, and the issue of parodying the show itself doesn't even come up - the writer, as you say, has probably never even watched it - i mean what an appalling show it is, sowing racist stereotypes and blind obedience to violent authority in the minds of the young and impressionable?

DEMPSEY

you've got a good point there, makepeace, i say we both use my own normal English accent, a little bit Chiswick.

MAKEPEACE

No, i think I should do Boston and you should do Louisiana.

DEMPSEY

You mean Loosiana?

MAKEPEACE

That's it, that's it. You be Louisiana and i'll be Boston.

DEMPSEY

You mean Loosiana?

MAKEPEACE

Very humorous.

DEMPSEY

Oh give me a home where no liberals roam and the folks all think the same way, where each house has a gun, a big helluva one and strangers are told "make my day"..

CUT TO..

Removal of resistance: More to come before long, as the election unfurls. Do elections unfurl? Is Rachel Riley aware that Nelson Mandela considered Israel's support for Apartheid South Africa's White Supremacist government to be a racist endeavour - I mean how could he not? Apparently Rachel is unaware of that and of South Africa's position on Israel or Nelson Mandela's grandson's, or Desmond Tutu's, or indeed billions of humans' views on it (bit of a village idiot is our Rachel), given her absurd racist claims about the man.

Unification: Let's sing the neoliberal and right wing and Israeli theme song. All together now:

<<

(Intro)

Cause if you want the best ones and you don't ask questions then brother I'm you're man..

(Main)

We've got some half price cracked ice and miles and miles of carpet tiles..

No income tax, no VAT, no money back, no guarantee, black or white, rich or poor, we'll cut prices at a stroke. God bless hooky street, viva hooky street, LONG LIVE hooky street, c'est magnifique hooky street..

>>

References: https://twitter.com/RobScottPhotos/status/1198509772795834368
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Mandelas-grandson-on-visit-Israel-is-the-worst-apartheid-regime-515397
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-by-cutting-off-relations-south-africa-branded-israel-with-the-mark-of-cain-1.7137293
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/09/no-nelson-mandela-did-not-snub-jeremy-corbyn
https://www.thecanary.co/opinion/2019/11/21/rachel-riley-revealed-her-true-self-with-her-racist-apartheid-joke/
Former Countdown number person, Brandreth, on Corbyn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7lsRbDKOXg

https://twitter.com/hashtag/sackrachelriley (I put countdown 100% in the past of things I'd ever watch when Riley first started her hysterical attacks on Corbyn, but this new insult certainly makes me feel glad I don't watch television and I doubt I'll ever think about watching Channel Four. I presume they won't fire her over this even though she sides with those who try to hide genocide and Islamophobia by means of their numberwang-style use of the word 'anti-semitism').

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 81: The revolution starts here.

Thrust: More coming to this spot before long.

Direction of resistance: Take a look at Labour's manifesto.

Removal of resistance: The link below will lead you right past the foreword and into the first bit of meat, if the vegetarians will excuse the metaphor.

Unification: For example:

<<

Energy use in buildings accounts for 56% of the UK's total emissions, making it the single most polluting sector. We will develop the recommendations of our '30 by 2030' report to put the UK on track for a net-zero-carbon energy system within the 2030s - and go faster if credible pathways can be found. We will deliver nearly 90% of electricity and 50% of heat from renewable and low-carbon sources by 2030.

We will build:

7,000 new offshore wind turbines

2,000 new onshore wind turbines

Enough solar panels to cover 22,000 football pitches.

New nuclear power needed for energy security.

We will trial and expand tidal energy and invest to reduce the costs of renewable and low-carbon hydrogen production. We will upgrade almost all of the UK's 27 million homes to the highest energy-efficiency standards, reducing the average household energy bill by £417 per household per year by 2030 and eliminating fuel poverty. We will introduce a zero-carbon homes standard for all new homes.

As part of heat decarbonisation, we will roll out technologies like heat pumps, solar hot water and hydrogen, and invest in district heat networks using waste heat.

To balance the grid, we will expand power storage and invest in grid enhancements and interconnectors.

We will expand distributed and community energy, and immediately and permanently ban fracking.

We will support energy workers through transition and guarantee them retraining and a new, unionised job on equivalent terms and conditions.

We will introduce a windfall tax on oil companies, so that the companies that knowingly damaged our climate will help cover the costs. We will provide a strategy to safeguard the people, jobs and skills that depend on the offshore oil and gas industry.

>>

Click in the references below and read on. Further versions of this grid point to come within hours or days. Labour has gone all out to produce the blueprints for a better society. One we can realistically build TODAY, here in Britain.

I'll leave it to you to read the whole manifesto, no more on it from me for the moment. Coming next after the election, a grid point giving you OVER 100 GOOD REASONS to NEVER USE FACEBOOK AGAIN.

As well as a look, a detailed look, at how facebook is the extension of the racist propaganda culture we have seen, before the rise of facebook, on so many 'forums' - where 'moderators' were visibly grunting racist soft and hard white supremacists making damn sure, as facebook is trying to do today, that people who speak out on behalf of the people and do so effectively are silenced, censored, banned. But that's just one reason out of OVER 100 GOOD REASONS to NEVER USE FACEBOOK AGAIN. (And most of those 100 reasons also apply to Twitter, and a few other sites). Coming soon, once the election is over and Corbyn is safely in Number Ten.

References: https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/a-green-industrial-revolution/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 80: The military mints the currency of violence. (Alex Cockburn)

Thrust: The latest post on Chris Floyd's blog, from August of this year, tells us:

<<

In response to the mass slaughters this week, the "writer" and "political thinker" David French tweets:

"Few things concentrate the mind more than the terrifying knowledge that a person might want to kill someone you love. It makes you aware of your acute vulnerability. [Here's] why a criminal who comes to our house will face the business end of an AR-15..

French then links to an article he wrote for National Review -- complete with a picture of AR-15s "on sale while supplies last" -- which speaks of death threats he's received. (You will forgive me if I don't link to the story. It's not my job to feed the gibbering, moaning shade of William Buckley with the clicks he craves to ease his suffering in the shivering precincts of Hades.)

Upon reading French's chest-pounding discharge, I then gave what I believe is a reasoned, dispassionate, yea philosophical reply (edited here to eliminate the tweet-breaks):

>>

Direction of resistance: For the full transcript of Floyd's reply use the link in the references below.

Removal of resistance: However, here are two key paragraphs which perhaps people like Jo Swinson, Boris Johnson and Donald Trump should try reading some time, instead of jabbering on about how the rest of the world are barbarians who need punishing and killing and so on.

<<

And what if they come IN blasting with the "business end" of an AR-15? The Dayton guy killed 9 people in 30 seconds, with cops there who had the "business end" of their guns primed to go. God, the sickening faux-toughness of you cringing, rightwing cowards.

>>

And:

<<

You want to protect your family? Then fight against the gun culture, fight against rightwing hatred, fight against the disempowerment and despair you rightwing extremists have advanced for decades, fight against the militarization and brutalization of our whole society which both you and your fellow travellers, the "centrist," interventionist neoliberal Democrats, have imposed on our collapsing, corroded, corrupted land.

"Business end of an AR-15." Jesus Christ, aren't you ashamed before your family to be so damned pathetic?

>>

Unification: In "A colossal wreck" by Alex Cockburn, Hunter S Thompson the second (British-descended Alexander Cockburn, son of former private eye writer and author of Beat the Devil, Claud Cockburn) tells us, on the dateline of the end of April 1999:

<<

By now mandatory apologies for what happened at Columbine are incumbent on Marilyn Manson, video-game manufacturers, Hollywood, publishers of Mein Kampf, and the internet. The only people who apparently don't have to apologize are the US military and their civilian overseers who trained and paid the pilot dad of one of the teen killers; who sent F-16s over the funerals in Littleton; who are now pounding the Serbs each day and night; who mint the currency of violence.

>>

Vote to stop minting violence (which may kill YOUR child).

References: http://www.chris-floyd.com/[..]
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/21/reports-of-war-crimes-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-highlight-the-failures-of-both-war/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 79: Let's be clear, the 'tinges are funny' corporation is racist, the woman who gave us their slogan, ie that 'tinges are funny', made it whilst attempting to allege that people, mostly who fit her description of 'funny' in the 'tinge' area, are 'anti-semitic' - ie 'racist against jews' ie 'racist'. So an openly visibly racist woman is telling people who are mostly of a skin colour she labels 'funny' that they are racist. Then various Lib Dems and others continue to wave HER flag, her banner, the woman who thinks tinges are funny, and attach it to 'causes' like: The Liberal Democrat party, The 'remain movement', and beyond. Even commercial society, they try and make it commercial society's banner, even 'defence of the realm'. And then when the Queen's son is apparently slandered by an array of sensationalists, look how many neoliberals care about their reputation more than any shred of decency!

Thrust: Which is another interesting point. That when Corbyn is kicking their arses (I can say that, on facebook you may have to change it to *rses, which clouds the meaning, slows down the flow) they choose to fill all front pages with a sensationalist story about the least p.r.-capable (visibly so) member of the most famous family in the country. Pretty desperate move by the British 'press', I think.

Direction of resistance: They may well deny that Corbyn is kicking their arses, now I've said that.

Removal of resistance: We'll see, won't we. And yes, Angela Smith, who revealed she thinks non white skin is 'funny' (another word for 'odd' or 'bizarre' or 'weird' or 'strange' or 'abnormal') is now STANDING AS A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE.

Unification: Even a Corbyn-led coalition is victory, and an ass-kicking delivered to a corrupt and fascist-run corporate 'establishment'. Any Corbyn government is a victory over U.S. imperialism. Nonetheless, one does have to wonder if he will deliver them their entire ass on a plate or just portions of it. You never really know until the showdown. The people who pretend it's all calculable have the least credibility of all. It's always an element of fate and probability, mixed, ever so slightly, with free will.

References: Read more about the 'tinges are funny' corporation here: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/02/26/ukanias-party-defections/
And let's not forget, Jo Swinson would nuke squirrels but 'not kill' them: https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/11/20/while-we-were-reeling-from-the-tories-twitter-shenanigans-the-lib-dems-dropped-an-absolute-clanger/
And for the unbiased coverage of "Andrewgate", go here: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/21/letting-the-side-down-prince-andrew-the-royal-family-and-jeffrey-epstein/ - why, we must ask, do Royals and others hang around with genocidal Israeli juntas? Whatever we call a crime, we certainly can't call doing that acceptable behaviour. Andy? Can you 'promise' to stop hanging around with genocidal people - maybe you can show Palestinians you haven't "forgotten" them by doing something for those people like Epstein abuse and harm every minute of every day, not merely the women sexually abused by him and his associates.
And to read about the genocides our governments are still making YOUR CHILDREN responsible for, by not policing them, by committing them in your children's names and by resisting any attempt to catch and deal with the war criminals perpetrating them, go here: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/21/reports-of-war-crimes-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-highlight-the-failures-of-both-war/
As for Andrew, the Mirror claims the FBI have a witness who says he groped her. So I guess the question is whether or not she'll give that evidence to a credible authority rather than to Americans, known for being a giant Kangaroo Court of a country. If such evidence exists, she would certainly be best advised taking it to a non-American court, perhaps an international court. In the end, no matter what Andrew's crimes, the U.S. "justice system" is guilty of far far far worse ones and has no authority to try him, in the eyes of the universe.
Patrick Cockburn on the Andrew Conundrum/Countdown: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/26/a-tale-of-two-princes/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 78: How can white racists in Britain become less racist? What could the racist BBC do, for example, to stop being the racist BBC and be the BBC of all Britons (and the world) regardless of colour?

Thrust: So okay, since the BBC, the major newspapers, including the Guardian, and all the parties, including lib dems, tinges-are-funny-corporation, blairites and thatcherites and even a few of the others, greens, one or two Labour who aren't even blairites - since none of them have the SLIGHTEST CLUE about how to stop being 'white supremacist' or, more comprehensibly, 'white racists' (racists who are white and have a white racial preference, consciously or not, as Prince Harry pointed out, I seem to remember) I will give them/you all an example of what the BBC could make which would be the opposite of racist and the opposite of what the people above all currently do.

Direction of resistance: So it's a new comedy series idea, a follow on to "Bread". This series would be set in Blair's era and beyond, and be called "Gluten Free" - and be about the multi millionaire Billy Boswell's many children and grandchildren of all colours, largely living in London.

Removal of resistance: Nelly Boswell would frequently make references to the pain that Iraqi mothers, Yemeni mothers, Syrian mothers, Afghan mothers and Libyan mothers, amongst others, have to put up with.

Unification: Adrian would be a protestor, an anti-war and environmentalist protestor, making speeches to big crowds and in his own inimicable way putting his foot in it from time to time in highly comical ways.

In short that is what we would see on tv today, that sort of thing, if Britain were not the intensely racist country it is and the BBC weren't what Greg Dyke, when in charge of the BBC, labelled 'hideously white'.

In other news I've been banned from facebook for 30 days, again, this time for the duration, therefore, of the run up to the election, for saying that facebook and twitter are "the last outpost of white stupidity". Amazing response to such a statement, eh?

References: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-party-islamophobia-kyle-pedley-[..].html
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/18/michael-lynks-un-report-on-israeli-settlements-speaks-the-truth-but-the-world-refuses-to-listen/
https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/20/ralf-little-suspended-twitter-pretending-tory-party-press-office-11187105/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 77: Here lies White Western Credibility - Caroline Lucas, I never knew you.

Thrust: When the 'green' party allies with a woman like Swinson whose aggressive approach to the 'decision' to incinerate people on the planet, children and adults alike, with nuclear weapons is something she waves around with white-supremacist pride, it opens up the danger of nuclear weapons usage. This shows that the Green party is disingenuous about environmental policy. As does siding with a party whose members see calling people with non white skin people with 'funny tinges' as "not racist". No. It's not racist to say "This isn't just about people with funny tinges, you know".

Direction of resistance: I really never could have believed Caroline Lucas capable of allying with nuclear bomb waving racists.

Removal of resistance: I do not believe Britain can benefit from a lack of leaders with integrity.

Unification: Alas, Caroline, here lies your credibility. May it rest in peace. There are no words to describe you, no vulgarity, no swear word, nothing can capture the sense of how low you are. It takes a long time and much demonstration to give anyone an idea of how low that is. Perhaps you should go and make friends with Katie Hopkins.

Since writing the above I have learned that Lucas is no longer the leader of the greens and the decision to side with racists and genocide-backers and people who see non white skin as abnormal or weird or strange or 'funny' was apparently not Lucas' decision. That she failed to stop it is weak and shows she is not even remotely like Corbyn when it comes to strength and determination. As for whether she approves of the racist alliance between lib dems and the 'tinges are funny' movement I would guess not. But it's sad how she has failed. Sorry about the Katie Hopkins reference there Caroline. It's the leader of the greens who should understand that they are in fact just the same as Katie Hopkins as far as the bulk of the human contingent of the global environment is concerned.

References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 76: Hobama vs Corbyn.

Thrust: So if you look at "Frasier", in it the qualities which in "Rumpole" are assigned to Claude Erskine-Brown and labelled pretentious and essentially unintelligent are assigned to Frasier and his brother and presumed by Americans and Americanised Europeans and others to be intelligent and cultured qualities - in fact it helps them write off intelligence and culture as pretentious, whilst Rumpole does the opposite, shows that pretentiousness is not intelligent.

The way American fake-elites and Americanised British and European fake-elites see Frasier as a genuine intellectual demonstrates that they are a world governed by the ways and ideas of the Erskine Browns.

Direction of resistance: There is another good example. In Lenny Henry's Delbert Wilkins show, Delbert is cultured and intelligent and often understands classical references and his side kick Winston is a fool who knows nothing and says and does stupid things. Winston of course is the one given a 'proper' job in the end and boosted by the system whilst the more intelligent Delbert is crushed underfoot and has to become a pirate DJ to use his talents properly.

In America's "Benson" meanwhile Benson is a bit of a thug, an ex army man who like in Frasier sees the pretentious and fake-elite white underling of the governor as pretentious for knowing any classical references (in an episode entitled Fool's gold, a reference is made to some classical European mythology and Benson doesn't know what it is, but the pretentious white man does).

In Britain non white intellectuals and their position in society are in a different boat to the USA - because perhaps they are more estranged. In the USA entire communities are estranged, intellectuals and all, so within a black community a black intellectual may not be treated as Delbert Wilkins but perhaps as someone more like Jesse Jackson.

Removal of resistance: These two examples tell us something about the difference between real elites (eg Alex Cockburn) and the pretentiousness and fake-elitism in the USA and the Americanised sequestered exclusive social groups in Britain and the 'EU' full mostly of white people and a very underpresentative and Winston-like group of tokens working with or more usually for those white people.

Unification: Alex Cockburn was a product of the same things as Lenny Henry, ultimately, whereas sadly even Alex Cockburn's many American journalist associates have only ever been raised with Benson in mind, not Henry. This is why in America you ended up with Hobama, and in Britain we have Corbyn. The latter a biproduct fully of the same things which made Lenny Henry and Alex Cockburn both. Next, with a bit of effort and luck, I will get on with those Nixon-related Alex Cockburn quotes about anti-semitism among white capitalist filth. And as well as that, I think it's time to write some more full and clear attacks on people who wave nuclear bombs around, imagining they are not endangering themselves and others by being such gung-ho maniacs. The military mints the currency of violence, as Alex Cockburn wrote.

References: American fake-elite cretin "Ellen" shows her absolute stupidity: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/10/21/myopic-morality-the-rehabilitation-of-george-w-bush

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 75: Racist/Imperialist Louise Ellman joins those who condemn opposition to genocide and war as 'anti-semitic'.

Thrust: Tariq Ali points out on Facebook: << Another resignation from a rightwing Labour MP,Dame Louise . Ellman accusing Corbyn of 'anti-semitism'. They don't give up...another MP tweets that the 'anti-semitism' is part of a 'world view'. The meaning is obvious. Any support for the Palestinians is 'anti-semitic'. Any opposition to the wars that have killed over a million Arabs is 'anti-semitic'. It really is a disgrace and should be confronted head on now. The bigger the lie the more people believe it. >>

Direction of resistance: The use of the jewish victims of racism and genocide as a justification for white and jewish supremacist genocide and economic imperialism is an insult to those jews.

Removal of resistance: I personally would not insult such jews for several reasons.

Unification: Firstly, it is inherently wrong. Secondly, there are more things in heaven and earth than even the poet can imagine, and it doesn't pay to do that which is inherently wrong. It's time that people stop using dead jews as an excuse for killing people. It's an insult to those jews and I think someone needs to speak out on behalf of them, as well as all the victims being killed using these blameless dead jews as a fig-leaf to 'justify' the genocide and economic imperialism.

References: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3263092517065606&id=100000946684702
https://chomsky.info/20011018-2/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 74: Having captured both the devil and the deep blue sea.

Thrust: On the 'infamous' George Soros, as well as abundant pseudo-intellectual financial sector verbal garbage, investopedia also tells us << He refers to the philosophy behind his trading strategy as reflexivity. The theory eschews traditional ideas of an equilibrium-based market environment where all information is known to all market participants and thereby factored into prices. Instead, Soros believes that market participants themselves directly influence market fundamentals and that their irrational behavior leads to booms and busts that present investment opportunities. >>

Direction of resistance: Ignoring the specifics of the examples Investopedia gives of how many people trade 'the way Soros does' I want to focus only on what it is which I have been wondering with reference to the algorithms I have tested extensively and forensically with 11 to 15 years of minute tick-by-tick data.

Removal of resistance: I have two 'working algorithms' and my main question about them both is whether or not they would continue the unbroken upward (profit) trend each of them displays, one across 11 years of testing, the other across 15 years of testing.

The passage about Soros indicates to me that yes these two algorithms are fine for the longer term and indeed for 'translation' into other algorithms across umpteen currency crosses, stocks and shares and indices, at the very least, although that will require a tonne of data acquisition and programming and testing, same as the first two algorithms.

You see the trigger in both cases was driven by something I wasn't entirely sure really is something which can impact the movements on the market - what I was wondering was whether or not the velocity of the price, itself directly impacted by the traders/investors and the trades they make, whether that velocity can at any point change the probability of winning - and Soros appears to support that notion fully, and make money out of it. If this is really true it seems to me to explain why those two algorithms have performed 'victoriously' throughout their testing periods. I wanted to be sure that it wasn't 'coincidence' (15 years of it, and 11 years of it!). What Soros apparently believes does seem also to explain why these two algorithms work.

Unification: To be clear the first of the two is an 'event-driven' one much like a kind of generic algorithmic interpretation of just the sort of trades 'by Soros' and others 'like him' Investopedia describes in the link the passage is taken from (see references below). You pick certain moments on the economic calendar, marked by the 'industry' itself as 'high volatility' events, and then you go in and precisely trade 2 hours and 2 minutes before each one of those events with very specific parameters IF a further condition is met, ie the velocity of the price (how fast it is moving per unit of time, to be clear) has reached a particular level. This event-driven algorithm pales into insignificance, for me, next to the derivation of it which operates without any event record - ie it is triggered 100% by the velocity - whenever that particular high velocity is reached, a kind of 'gravity' pulls sufficient trades towards profit out of every trade made to create essentially a one way treasury size movement, albeit punctuated with 'costs' - ie it is still probable that you will continue to lose trades, but your wins will eclipse your losses or at least cancel them out - that appears to be a characteristic of the situation caused by the probability, itself driven by the choice to trade at those moments when the human trading population and robot trading population has hit a particular speed of activity and are pumping that money through like billy ho.

What I have to remember, what is important to take away from this, is not the pomp and circumstance people like Soros, the big firms (eg Goldman Sachs), the 'trendy' 'experts', from Tyler Durden and Max Keiser to the slave-like easily-controlled 'elites' writing at places like Moneyweek or the Financial Times or whoever all revel in and use to inflate their ridiculous egos, but in fact the bottom line - which is something one can even discern easily from Feynman, and perhaps to some extent from apparently entirely unrelated (to anything mentioned here so far) philosophers like Noam Chomsky or Idries Shah: it is this. It is that the universe is probablistic as we know even from the way light reflects. In other words it is rules regarding probability, in the end, which allow 'markets' to be 'beaten' - and underneath Soros' mountain of trivial complexity and analysis of ephemeral meaningless nonsense is nothing more than a mechanism for trying to measure and cash in on the probability of price changes. In the end it will appear tragic to future humans that a man with Soros' mind wasted his life doing such inane and stupid shit and focusing on such a gigantic pile of total fucking shite, a black hole sized world of bullshit - from interest rate announcements, uptake of particular products and services by 'consumer' semi-automatons, the 'announcements' about 'job statistics' - employment, payroll, all sorts of 'technical' jargon - and all sorts of trivial entropic behaviour, all of it measured and used to 'make a profit' to buy more crap and live more crap and stupidly operated days of bullshit, days of unenlightenment. I for one do not intend to follow George Soros or any of the others down such an utterly stupid road.

Anyway, I will no doubt continue my research and development for a while yet, and engage with the financial battlefield, but for as few years as possible and with specific post-money utopian aims in mind. I do not relish or prize this world of shit which all those stuck up and pompous and utterly mindless fuckers you can hear and read talking all day long on all the big channels are products and victims of. It's a waste of your life and people who live in this pompous western and western-derived way across the globe are basically throwing away a great gift, life which can be lived and experienced, instead they have drone-like farm-animal like existences. We can talk more about that - my theory about how the human race has gone very wrong since the 'birth' of 'agriculture' is something I think needs considering deeply. The impact of 'human farming' - aka 'religious marriage' (or any kind of 'marriage' which is itself just a religious phenomenon and agricultural phenomenon) on survival - ie that the things 'people' do in order to follow the rituals of human farming which emerged as a way people imagined would help them survive (but it turns out it is anti-survivalistic and destroys them, over the longterm, a very basic something-for-nothing-you-cannot-get deal from 'nature') - is something no one married even considers as it would undermine their self-esteem to even consider whether or not being married whether or not organised endorsed public sex (well it's organised and endorsed in a public way, in a collective way) is actually 'unnatural' and one of the biggest forks in the road which led an otherwise evolving species back to the caves of regression. Enough for now. This post is really here to shed light on the reason why my 'algorithms' seem to work - using Soros' discoveries as a credible source of reference for insisting that it is true that the velocity alone determines the price.

One of the many games I've played also confirms it - the least like trading - the trades are a side part of the game. Little icons appear and the price moves up or down on them, scattered around a screen. Any which move REALLY fast you leap on, and leap off quickly, with a tasty profit. I knew, when I played it, that the author was definitely conveying something actually very much at the core of modern trading, particularly at big firms. That method of leaping onto a burst, that's clearly something which is 'never going to fail' you as long as these markets exist, if you do it the right way.

Soros takes it much further as do, clearly, so many hedge funds and other event traders, ie spending a lot of time anally mapping and plotting the event landscape, so that every trivial report on mis-interpreted badly written information pertaining to firms which produce goods which not only do we not really need but which destroy and kill our society and chances of survival - is another 'tool' of the trade for these mindless money-worshipping modern day apes, as we 'humans' like to forget we are. They are trapped, rich and poor alike, all these fools, in the deep blue sea or the lair of the devil. Teach your children to reject conformity as early as possible. I see effectively zero survivors in the face of tolitarian obedience mongering, I see very little probability that any of your kids will have minds of their own for even 1% of their lives. But then how many of you are fit to deliver them from it rather than into its hands?!!!!

Coming next: those promised Alex Cockburn passages. Any day now. The next writing scheduled. Insha allah, as the Palestinians say.

References: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-theory/09/how-soros-does-it.asp

The graph shows the profit you would make between 2008 and 2018 inclusive, on a theoretical budget of 50 to 100 pounds, using the algorithm precisely described down to the last detail on this page. This is the one I've made public. On the eurodollar when there is a high volatility event (3 bulls heads on my economic calendar) (use dosh.tvhobo.com to see where the calendar is hosted on this site (we are not the source)), check the price 2 hours and 2 minutes before the scheduled minute of the event (the high volatility, '3 bull' event) and if there has been a movement of 140 pips (1400 points, using the smallest possible units at the company I trade with) in 10 hours up to when you check, ie up to the moment 2 hours and 2 mins before the scheduled event, trade with the direction of that movement, right then, 2 hours and 2 mins before the event, with a stop of 50 pips and a limit of 70 pips. The graph shows what happens. This info is provided to show you you can check and see what happens. If you use any such algorithm the risk and responsibility of not making mistakes is on your head, and as all 'spread betting' sites tell you, figures like 70%, 80% and so on of their 'retail users' lose money from using the sites, overall, ie they don't profit, they fail. Reasons for this vary, and there's no reason to suppose that just having an algorithm which works will give you, personally, profit - you need to use it correctly and not make any stupid mistakes or do stupid things. This is here so you can see on paper that this method works, evidence of my 'claims' in the document above. Evidence of the demonstration of what Soros, perhaps, may be talking about. Velocity, after all, is driven by the actions Soros 'credits' with impacting prices (at various points, not universally or fluidly, let us also remember). (A price may also rise because of actual value, potentially, or not rise in accordance with actual value due to entirely misleading information, or whatever. That also happens. But so does movement driven by velocity, I have discerned, and Soros apparently makes big money from movement driven by irrational choices of humans (which do things like push velocity one or other way). Theoretically if one used my algorithm one would, if one did it the way I do, protect as much as possible against one-off insane fat-tailed events - this would be done by using a guaranteed stop, a little past the desired stop, and then orders linked to each other for the 'real stop' and limit, at the designated spot. The orders which I placed would also have a stop and limit on all of them, wide enough to not be overridden with a sudden spread change, in fact about 10 pips (100 of those points) each. I would watch such open trades like a hawk while they were open, and respond quickly to adverse occurrence, once in a century insane behaviour on the markets which is just about the only thing which could possibly break through such tough anti-risk measures - and even then I'd stop the problem, the risk would be beaten. After all, the number of times you need to watch like a hawk is very few per year and the amount of time you need to watch is also small. A few hours, a day maybe. Perhaps a tad longer, not much more, ever. And you can go to sleep, put your mobile phone alert on and be ready if anything does go bump in the night. To be sensible one might also have a profit limit attached to the main trade (and the guaranteed stop) in case it rockets one way and then dives back. Don't want to miss it. If it leaps past your limit you don't want to leave it to chance.
So what's the best thing to do with this information? Easy. Download for free, or buy, large large large amounts of data by the 'tick' - ie the 'tick data' going back as many decades as possible, for any and every given 'instrument' you can, indices, currency crosses, commodities, even stocks, particularly the big ones, and write software, eg using perl, my favourite language, or apparently python may be a good one too, although I don't know anything about it at all. And with that software, which you write, you can test out all that tick data in umpteen ways, with the basic understanding relayed in this document to help you with one (out of no doubt many, perhaps innumerable) way to establish the trading trigger. Test any and every algorithm idea out on a vast tract of data so that you can find those which deliver profit consistently across many decades. Below is another example (instructions not revealed, only the outcome), showing an algorithm theoretically at work from 2004 to 2018 inclusive, 15 consecutive years. This is the sort of outcome you want to achieve, this is what you should be looking for in an algorithm (not going to be possible with merely an 'investment', only an algorithm can enable a result like this).


Some more evidence of the maths involved in the algorithms above. This first example with instructions shown also, testing the maths on the DAX (Germany's main index):


And these ones with instructions concealed:




These examples on the ftse index, s & p 500 index and the Dax index only use about 6 years of data, however, and I would test them much more before considering them viable. As they stand they seem to strongly support the mathematical principles involved.

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 73: Western anti-darwinism vs mutual aid based progress.

Thrust: Everywhere in the west, not just in the tops of corporations where the apparent fiend Carl Icahn has spotted it, what Icahn calls "anti-darwinism" is rampant.

Direction of resistance: EVERYWHERE in western society, with few exceptions, leadership and control is achieved, as Jim Hacker would say, with "elbows" - ie the law of the jungle, beating others to it, control and domination.

Removal of resistance: In this environment EVERY LEADER is threatened by their underlings, who seek their job, and thus chooses, as Icahn points out, only underlings stupider than they who, in turn, eventually become leaders and do the same.

Unification: Meanwhile those of us who do not believe in violence, domination and aggression form institutions, consolidated or not, in which there are rarely 'leaderships' and even if there are there is always mutual aid and respect and leadership or 'power' is earned (generally with consensus) not taken.

Consequently with time we grow more and more evolved, whilst the western system, as we see, has become not only top heavy, with offices overloaded with the mindless privileged, but also totally incapable of surviving. Totally backwards.

Anyway, some excellent Alex Cockburn passages coming soon, readers, when I've had a bit of time, maybe today, to type them out. Some vital stuff - including Nixon, 'anti-semitism', anti-semitism and stuff. Some really interesting and vital stuff I read yesterday in "A Colossal Wreck".

References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 72: Facebook has insulted all anti-racists yet again, banning me for 3 days for the following.

Thrust: << You can't post or comment for 3 days

This is because you previously posted something that didn't follow the Facebook rules.



This post goes against the rules on hate speech, so no one else can see it.





Shams Pirani

19 hrs

More white and jewish people butcher non white children (whilst pretending that it's other people who are racist, not the white and jewish people who butcher non white children routinely).





CounterPunch

21 hrs ·

Its economy gutted by war, Afghanistan’s largest cash crop remains opium. Yet farmers there do grow other crops for export. Villagers in the Wazir Tangi area of...



>>

Direction of resistance: << More white and jewish people butcher non white children (whilst pretending that it's other people who are racist, not the white and jewish people who butcher non white children routinely). >>

Is against facebook rules - they are saying that there is something wrong with that statement.

Removal of resistance: It accurately describes the situation you can read about in the link in the references below.

Unification: << More white and jewish people butcher non white children (whilst pretending that it's other people who are racist, not the white and jewish people who butcher non white children routinely). >>

In other words when you attack a white or jewish racist (eg whoever 'reported' me and whoever at fb confirmed the report as 'true') by saying that they are racist compared to white people who do not, for example, condone genocide - they claim by saying that they are a 'white racist' you are alleging all white people are racist. Is their inability to speak the English language disingenuous or are white racists, ironically, all rather terrible at speaking English properly? This is the third time for me (examples all catalogued on this site) where a completely unracist statement of mine, in fact an anti-racist statement which no British judge, I believe, would call anything but anti-racist, certainly no British judge could call it racist, not in law, is labelled racist by white racists using and working for facebook.

I built tvhobo into what it is precisely so that people like Facebook cannot ever do that to me again and get away with it. As you can see, their error and racist or racist-allied action is on the record, and in the public domain. They cannot simply silence me and then make up lies about what I have said.

UPDATE - I just 'got myself banned' again - this time I may have done it 'on purpose' - there was a racist white jew called Joel insulting Corbyn and I shared an algorithm with him and told him to stop abusing him - to be clear there's an event-driven proven currency trading algorithm on my facebook wall for everyone from Corbyn to Netanyahu to use if they want one. I decided to share it with the world for reasons I won't go into just now. So I told Joel to use the algorithm and stop abusing non white people. He 'laughed' at me - even though I said 'go on, laugh at me - even though I have just shared a working algorithm with you which will make you rich'.

And he laughed. And I countered with an attack of my own. I said to him that he gives jews a bad name and pointed out that too many jews I encounter are as stupid as him - and then I pushed it past the line and said that I only see stupid jews - and I pointed out that intelligent jews like Gershwin and Chomsky could become extinct if only stupid ones remain. This was INSTANTLY recognised by facebook as against the rules - I was INSTANTLY banned for that. Faster than I've ever been banned before. Which proves a great deal, really.

I never said that all jews are stupid. I said that all the jews I meet nowadays are stupid. Two entirely different statements, one of which implies the existence of intelligent jews the other of which implies the opposite - ie that no jew is ever intelligent or ever has been! They try to pretend I have said one when I have said the other, always.

But Facebook IS for white people and above all white jews - speak one word of insult in the direction of white jews on facebook and you will be banned - whereas the white jewish racists who abuse everyone else day in day out are the ones CALLING the censors on us - they are not just protected from being censored, they are speaking the voice of what Facebook believes - white and jewish racism is part of Facebook's ideology and that is why they make the errors we have seen here they repeatedly make. I advise Nick Clegg to quit his job - he works, as far as we can all see, for an organisation which believes in white supremacism, whether it is aware of its inherent racism or not.

Anyway, I felt that I would get banned, I was waiting for it, I didn't expect it to come in nanoseconds! And I am relieved. As you can see it returns me to a normal life unenslaved by the usage-driver signals facebook throws at YOU and ME daily, to addict us to its poisonous racist web site.

Very windy and rainy weather in the UK right now, for many days no doubt, so I need all the protection I can get from being conned by facebook into spending any second of my time using its noxious racist web site. The few reasons I have for having an account do not require me to spend my time there. I think people should have more gatherings and meetings and parties and so on - I think people should return to pre-facebook-era socialising. Corporations are destroying the way most of you live. It's hard for me for like the aged and people gone off to work far from home, social media, as they call it, is one of the last links to most of my past, but it is an unacceptable link, one where white racist law is absolute. Not an acceptable place for me to 'meet' any of my friends. NOT a safe space. The KKK has greater access to our privacy than we do to each other's, I would not be surprised to find - certainly white racist organisations as bad as the KKK and sharing members with it, such as the White House, named to remind us what matters most in America and the 'Anglosphere'.

Anyway, it would not have made much difference had I shared the algorithm with more force, ie stuck around to make a few more comments. The receptivity of all will be low. No doubt Joel is rich and powerful and doesn't need the money and doesn't like to see me sharing it with the impoverished people of England! Using Joel's marketing-driven high profile post to spread the algorithm to others is, I admit, a trick worthy of some twisted Israeli-NATO public relations officer. The universe was right to stop it in its tracks.

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/09/30/the-wounds-of-war-in-afghanistan/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9NhncU5_CE
https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/20/ralf-little-suspended-twitter-pretending-tory-party-press-office-11187105/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 71: Structural racism is, despite its name, only going to be fixed by a change in the ATTITUDE OF INDIVIDUALS - many of them, most of them.

Thrust: Years ago, and then again recently, I published material collating clear evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, of a 'white' racial preference in Britain (see numberwang doc in the refs below) which interferes in access to jobs and social welfare, including your basic everyday kinship. It was demonstrated (see the doc in question) that non white students outperform their white counterparts, in Britain, nowadays, but this does not translate into jobs. It does not improve their job picture, and there is only one reason for that, obviously - which is that they are not white and the average white Briton tasked with deciding whether or not to employ them sees a 'white' person as slightly or hugely more human.

Direction of resistance: Since the first time these facts were published and I collated them about a decade has past. In that time, the fresher evidence makes it clear, the problem became worse, nobody did anything to fix it - the average white Briton's white racial preference is now MORE entrenched than it was 10 years ago.

Removal of resistance: Structural racism is, despite its name, only going to be fixed by a change in the ATTITUDE OF INDIVIDUALS - many of them, most of them.

Unification: Every day, including today, the majority of white Britain has to face up to its main responsibility - undoing centuries of entrenching racial preference (and hatred) within their 'culture'. Justifying imperialism and apartheid over and over again. This many years after Apartheid Israel's ally Apartheid South Africa had its racist system overthrown many of the supporters of South African White Supremacism, eg your David Camerons and other tories and a hell of a lot more besides mere tories (scapegoating a tiny segment of a vast population of racists is fairly predictable for a bunch of racist scape-goating goons of course) continue today to proudly fund and support and protect Israeli White Supremacism. The 'mainstream' media makes no comment, moreover, about Israel's current extreme proactivity in the area of alliances with far right groups and far right leaders (eg Bolsanaro, the tree burner).

White supremacism/racial-preference is entrenched in FAR more than apartheid supporters and even the bulk of Jeremy Corbyn's white supporters are just as entrenched in their white supremacism.

White preference harms the lives of non white people. No jew in Britain suffers for being jewish - even if maybe many people are 'anti semitic' and do not like jews. Many people don't like other people. That's not a crime or really a problem for civil society, it is part of their own infantility. But in a society where white and jewish people are given preference and benefit from structural racism, those who refuse to do anything about structural racism and about widespread racial preference are guilty of a crime.

Moreover the first way you must ALL put an end to your racial preference, embedded in your mind, with your many stereotypes and your absurd race-based methods of judging things like intelligence or courage (hence the many many many times I have been 'mistaken' for a jew or a white man) is to boycott all your media - your tv and films, bbc and ITV and C4 and all of it, is full of narratives which further entrench and maintain your white racism. START by sending them a clear message. You want new things to watch, not things which entrench your sense of white supremacism or entitlement. You need to close down the main source of your stupidity and racism - that source is not just the BBC and Telegraph and Times and Guardian, it's the whole media show. Frankly even the rebel media is considerably guilty of the same problem.

Indeed a clear indication of this is the fact that even the left, even the 'anti-racists' who literally confront the white racists, ie even the Corbyn supporters who take a stand against racist Blairites (eg Hodge), tories (eg Cameron) and Farage-posse goon juts, even those, the best of you, the Corbyn followers, on the whole are too whipped and controlled by entrenched structural white racism to stop saying "oh but there IS an anti-semitism problem in Britain, just not in the Labour party, we're good" and say the truth: "there is no anti-semitism problem in Britain. There is anti-semitism, but it's not a problem any more than if someone in Britain hates white people or if my friends, in fact, as they have done, largely exclude me from parties, socialising, organised sex {aka marriage} and human farming {aka 'having kids' with a single lifelong partner} because I am 'outspoken' and say the things you read here today (and other days)."

That's wrong and unpleasant but it's really not a problem (years of exclusion by a bunch of fools may teach you, if you are fortunate, to not be a fool or at least pave the way for something or someone else to teach you).

It's people being burned alive in Grenfell, or the many non white people worldwide bombed by American, British and European planes, it's people living in awful housing - who suffer daily because of white entitlement and structural racism.

How many jews died in Grenfell? WILL ANYONE find that out for me please. I'd like to know if anyone in that building was jewish. I think the victims of discrimination in this land are not people who get called a name by someone who has no power to do anything to them. The victims are the people like those whom I have seen racist white and jewish people LAUGH AT - the victims of Grenfell.

References: http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/09/30/the-wounds-of-war-in-afghanistan

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 70: The career politicians, like proverbial goldfish, cannot understand as they swim around their little glass jar.

Thrust: Corbyn is the only white woman or man, or token 'non white' woman or man, in British political history in my lifetime to stand up against racism from the position of leader of a western political party and possibly the nation one day soon.

Direction of resistance: ALL of non white Britain which is not bought or stupid is 100% behind him and galvanised.

Removal of resistance: Whatever happens to him, you have to deliver equality to us.

Unification: You cannot just magic it away. It has to happen. Smearing Corbyn or whatever isn't going to change your future. Stop kicking and screaming and say sorry to Mr Corbyn you ugly (of soul and mind) racists. What a 'nation' - a majority racist nation, the globe seems to think you are.

Is that true? Are most of you actually racist?

References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 69: Lib dems will leave your kids to burn to death, they have proved this. Don't trust them. They are more power crazy than Blair and Johnson and all the goons you're used to loathing. The lib dems have had their sick and power grabbing nature concealed by their general impotence.

Thrust: Liberal Democrat Stephen Williams, when asked for automatic sprinkler protection for towers like the Grenfell Tower, said << I have neither seen nor heard anything that would suggest that consideration of these specific potential changes is urgent and I am not willing to disrupt the work of this department by asking that these matters are brought forward. >>

Counterpunch tells us: << There is Liberal Democrat Stephen Williams, who was a government minister at the time (a result of Nicholas Clegg leading his party into the fateful Coalition with the Tories), received a warning that "without automatic sprinkler protection, we cannot .. afford to wait for another tragedy to occur to amend this weakness" (referencing a tragic 2015 fire in another tower block). He replied: "I have neither seen nor heard anything that would suggest that consideration of these specific potential changes is urgent and I am not willing to disrupt the work of this department by asking that these matters are brought forward." >>

Direction of resistance: Women and men like Jo Swinson and Stephen Williams do what they do purely for the sake of personal gain and power.

Indeed Swinson not only proves that Lib dems will leave your kids to burn to death, she has advocated in the most aggressive way imaginable the use of nuclear war heads to kill other people's children as well. Yes, she will incinerate many many children, gladly, in 'your' name. That's right.

Removal of resistance: The reason he did not do what he could have done which would have saved lives at Grenfell in all probability is because he personally could gain nothing from doing it.

Unification: This is what you elect when you, misguided ones, vote Lib Dem. People like that. You hate Corbyn, many of you, precisely for being the opposite of Stephen Williams. WHAT IF ONE DAY YOUR OWN KIDS ARE IN A GRENFELL? You'd better hope Corbyn has been in charge BEFORE that!

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/10/grenfell-tower-all-fall-down/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40330789

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 68: Boris Johnson runs away from Jeremy Corbyn and the 'patriots' cheer (instead of 'patriots', read: racists, whose frothing and foaming desire to 'leave the EU' (in what, a space ship???) makes them see the coward Boris Johnson as a 'strong man').

Thrust: So there's no need for references, no doubt the whole western world knows the news all too well.

Direction of resistance: Boris Johnson has 'suspended Parliament' and run away from answering any more of Jeremy Corbyn's questions or facing any votes from any MPs, on either side of the 'chamber', regarding several pertinent and obvious issues.

Removal of resistance: What a pathetic coward. Running away. Doing gangsterish things: running away and shutting everyone out, the people, the 'law makers', everybody, and doing as he pleases, as though he has the right, an unelected Prime Minister who knows he will lose any election or referendum and is too gutless to face it.

Unification: I really never imagined, Boris Johnson, that you were such a coward, such a low and pathetic man. But I guess there are many like you. I had clues. It's only cowards who dream of being Prime Minister. The way Corbyn behaves strongly suggests to me that he's NEVER wanted to be Prime Minister. Luckily for you, I suppose, Boris Johnson! Corbyn's just doing his job, getting things done, for society. He's in it for the job, not the job title.

Anyway, I don't mean to talk down to you, "Prime Minister", but the fact is it has to be stated. You are running away, like a coward, a pathetic coward, from Jeremy Corbyn. Your newspapers and tv crap and networks of social groups, bunches of self-adulating fuckwits, can all say what they like, HISTORY will write "and Boris Johnson did run the fuck away from Jeremy Corbyn like a pathetic little coward, and yay verily the people of England were fucked, totally, for Boris and the banksters only had one thing in mind for them".

References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 67: Some questions for "The IHRA" and a bunch of others.

Thrust: First question: do you hold in contempt those who compare muslim women in 'traditional' muslim attire from their region of the world to bank robbers and letter boxes? Or not? I will ask you and all who quote your name or represent you to answer that so we know where you stand on that. More questions to come.

Direction of resistance: And more institutions and individuals to add to the list of those to whom I am, primarily, addressing these questions, whether any of them choose to answer the question or not.

Removal of resistance: Start with that one.

Unification: I'd like to know what your position is on that or even if you refuse to have a position and if so what the justification for the latter could be.

Another question: shouldn't "never again" be a statement you state loudly and proudly on August 6th and 9th, particularly, among other dates? What exactly do you really really mean by 'never again'? That's a third question. The list will grow. What are your answers?

Another question, which the lib dems and Chukka and Luciana MUST answer if they want history to not laugh at them - and they must answer by saying sorry to Corbyn, in fact. The question: does the IHRA believe there is anything (or not) racist in referring to people with non white skin as people with "funny tinges"? What about that? Lib dem voters, ALL the ones I know, I'd like you to think about that too please.

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/09/18/an-excellent-study-of-the-manufactured-labour-antisemitism-crisis/
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/first-time-my-life-im-frightened-be-jewish/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/08/13/massacres-at-home-and-abroad/
http://www.arabnews.com/node/1539186
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/why-israel-cannot-be-called-democratic-state
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/375-rise-in-islamophobic-incidents-after-boris-johnson-s-letterbox-comments-1-4995432
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/israels-apartheid-elephant-is-still-in-the-room/
https://www.thecanary.co/opinion/2019/06/18/celebrity-centrists-and-katie-hopkins-unite-to-attack-left-wing-jews-on-twitter/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/20/a-jerusalem-hospital-where-palestinian-babies-die-alone
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/15/israel-turmoil-bill-allowing-jews-arabs-segregated
https://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/holocaust-survivors-palestinians
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/28/yes-theyre-concentration-camps-2/
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/07/12/left-wing-israeli-activist-suffers-knife-attack-due-to-pro-palestine-views/
https://mondoweiss.net/2019/07/normalize-israeli-colonialism/
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/crowd-chants-send-her-back-as-trump-attacks-ilhan-omar-at-rally-1.7537195
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-when-jews-praised-mussolini-and-supported-nazis-meet-israel-s-first-fascists-1.7538589
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/23/the-american-west-as-judeo-christian-artifact/
https://electronicintifada.net/content/fuck-it-wipe-out-gaza-says-spokesman-new-eu-campaign/
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/children-die-playing-football-taxi-grandma-israel-bombs-gaza-tenth-day
https://forward.com/opinion/428488/the-real-reason-so-many-republicans-love-israel-their-own-white-supremacy/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/08/07/the-rise-of-the-american-gestapo/
https://forward.com/opinion/429638/this-is-how-israeli-democracy-ends/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/09/02/americas-white-problem-revisited/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 66: Now showing: the numberwang blame-a-muslim-any-muslim special.

Thrust: Raouf Halaby tells us: << Even though the distance between El Paso and occupied Jerusalem is 11,876 km, during the August 4, 2019 morning CNN State of the Union program about the El Paso massacre, CNN's Jake Tapper linked Palestinians to White Nationalists.

To quote Beto O'Rourke, "what the f-?"

Tapper pontificated the following: "You hear conservatives talk all the time - rightly, in my view - about the tone set by, well, the Arab world, .. The Palestinians and the way they talk about Israelis, justifying - in the same way you're doing, no direct link between what the leader says and the violence to some poor Israeli girl in a pizzeria - but the idea you're validating this hatred."

What a convoluted tangle of Byzantine syntax into which the Tapper has tapped?

To draw a parallel between White Supremacists and Palestinians, a nation under a brutal occupation and 71 years of racist apartheid, is the height of hypocrisy. >>

Direction of resistance: Halaby points out << It is also ironic that only recently avowed Neo-Nazi/White Nationalist Richard Spencer was accorded a platform on Tapper's show. Sana Saeed aptly observed how "It's cool how Jake Tapper compares occupied Palestinians to white nationalists while he's actually giving [a white supremacist] a platform on his own show." And activist Linda Sarsour opined that "Somehow Jake Tapper still finds a way to bring the Arab world and Palestinians into a conversation about WHITE SUPREMACISTS [sic] murdering innocent people." >>

Removal of resistance: Halaby tells us: << According to data from Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, at least 3,480 Palestinians have died at the hands of Israeli security forces in the last decade versus 127 Israelis at the hands of Palestinians. Of the 3,480, a total 782 were children and 338 were women.

"Aside from everything else," said cartoonist and author Eli Valley, "the apt comparison would be to Trump's ideological compatriots in the Israeli government who spew racist, dehumanizing, anti-Arab invective that reverberates throughout a society upheld by state-sanctioned violence."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regularly relies on demonization of the Palestinians for political gain and has touted Israel's southern wall as the only thing stopping "severe attacks by Sinai terrorists, and something much worse, a flood of illegal migrants from Africa." >>

Unification: The American establishment and a significant chunk of 'the American people', and the same in Israel, has no shame at all, no fear of being judged whether by other humans or by nature/god/karma. They carry on as though there can never be any repercussions, to them, from any of their sick-fuck actions. This is the behaviour of infants. Is there an adult who can take responsibility for these warped societies?

Someone must have pity on the future descendants of these societies. The generations of today must stop being so utterly shameful - those descendants are being let down by you. You are infantile. Shake yourself out of your basically bestial culture. Is a beast which kills and steals, devours others, essentially, not bestial? Well that's Israel, that's the USA, it's the UK, it's France, it's many other nations pompously going around the world pretending they're saints and that we should all obey them and their 'morality' - a 'morality' which thinks nothing of conducting genocide and attacks criticism of genocide with false claims about racism.

Do the adults, or rather the SO-CALLED adults in Britain, France, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the many European nations who suck the corporate and military **** of the USA, Saudi Arabia's extended feudal family and Israel, have the capacity to give their own descendants anything other than a future of humiliation and closely scrutinised rehabilitation? When Mark Field treated a white female environmental protestor in a brutal fashion, he too blamed muslims - even though all that happened was a white man seemingly violently manhandled a white woman in a city in Europe. Somehow he managed to claim he had been scared of 'terrorism' to 'justify' his seemingly unjustifiable violence.

All you fucking racist idiots, whether you leave them rich or poor, totally screwed or with friends among the rest of the human race, your own great grandchildren will know you were scum. They will be ashamed of what you 'were'. Let's hope you give them more than that which you have scheduled for them so far. Currently you have robbed them, in their future, of friends, a healthy environment and any kind of intellectual competency. What a bunch of fucking idiots you are. For fuck's sake.

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/08/08/jake-tapper-taps-into-racist-trope
http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/02/05/labour-shuts-down-itvs-robert-peston-for-weaponising-fantasy-data-against-the-party/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPeaFKvszKI (if you are unfamiliar with Graeber, watch that youtube vid).
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/08/02/an-american-jew-looks-at-the-palestine-question/
http://normanfinkelstein.com/[..]-jeremy-corbyn/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 65: With respect for the victims of white supremacist Weapons of Mass Destruction at Hiroshima and Nagasaki last century. Something in the name of Palestine, a reminder of a great statement against apartheid.

Thrust: Well Jo'anna she runs the country

She runs in Durban and the Transvaal

She makes a few of her people happy, oh

She don't care about the rest at all.

She's got a system they call apartheid

It keeps her brother in a subjection

But maybe pressure can make Jo'anna see

How everybody could a live as one.



Oh gimme hope, Jo'anna

Hope, Jo'anna

Gimme hope, Jo'anna

'Fore the morning come

Gimme hope, Jo'anna

Hope, Jo'anna

Hope before the morning come.



I hear she make all the golden money

To buy new weapons, in the shape of guns

While every mother in black Soweto fears

The killing of another son.



Sneakin' across all the neighbors' borders

Now and again having little fun

She doesn't care if the fun and games she play

Is dangerous to everyone.



She's got supporters in high up places

Who turn their heads to the city sun

Jo'anna give them the fancy money

Oh to tempt anyone who'd come

She even knows how to swing opinion

In every magazine and the journals

For every bad move that this Jo'anna makes

They got a good explanation.



Even the preacher who works for Jesus

The Archbishop who's a peaceful man

Together say that the freedom fighters

Will overcome the very strong.



I want to know if you're blind Jo'anna

If you want to hear the sound of drums

Can't you see that the tide is turning

Oh don't make me wait till the morning come.



Songwriters: G Brand / Eddy Grant / Bert Klein

Direction of resistance: So tell me Joannasrael?

Removal of resistance: Tell me.

Unification: Don't you get it yet?

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/08/08/jake-tapper-taps-into-racist-trope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/08/08/hiroshima-unlearned-time-to-tell-the-truth-about-us-relations-with-russia-and-finally-ban-the-bomb/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 64: Another victory for white racists and more humiliation and shame for all white people who claim to oppose and reject racism!

Thrust: << Panicked by the Big Ride's request to use council property for the Big Ride's welcome, council officials scoured the organisation's website and found a reference to '67 years of Israeli ethnic cleansing'. For them, this phrase was potentially in breach of the IHRA's contention that "claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour" constitutes antisemitism.

No such thing is claimed by the phrase, but such is the level of anxiety that has been whipped up around antisemitism, the already unacceptable stipulations of the IHRA are being interpreted in absurdly wide terms. The result: a statement that is demonstrably true - the Israeli state has indeed been involved in ethnic cleansing for 67 years - becomes a reason for not allowing protest to take place. >>

Direction of resistance: White men and women it's up to you to stop the Hitlers among you.

Removal of resistance: If you fail to do it by yourself, the world will HAVE TO intervene.

Unification: Do not wait for that. Put an end to your white supremacism, your white racism and your support for today's Apartheid South Africa - ie Apartheid Israel.

All the same 'arguments' made to 'support' Apartheid South Africa are used now to 'support' Apartheid Israel (the only democracy in Africa, many used to call that white supremacist state). FUCKING HELL. What the FUCK is wrong with you? You have plenty of privilege behind you. Use it to get rid of the Hitlers among you. For fuck's sake.

References: http://www.stopwar.org.uk/[..]wake-up-call-on-palestine

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 63: 'Capitalism' and externalities.

Thrust: So. The corporations which sell you the crap which harms your health, whilst they pretend it's "food" - they ignore a major externality - your health. Any problems you face - the cost of fixing that must be deducted from the 'profit' of the 'food' producers and the supply chain, all the way to the retail end. But they don't.

Direction of resistance: This is screwing the NHS up and on top of that soon Crazy-eyes Johnson will be selling the NHS off and when you do get ill the same nebulous group of profiteers who made you ill, who ignored externalities and made money by stealing your health (you can't get something for nothing) will then make huge profits from forcing you to pay through your nose for the health THEY stole from you. More externality-ignoring.

Removal of resistance: Read more about externalities in the works of Chomsky or watch some of his many lectures easily found on Youtube and elsewhere online.

Unification: The words of George Orwell pertaining to the present nature of 'work' and capitalism and 'wages' and slavery may also be very pertinent to any such analysis you may make or research.

References: https://chomsky.info/20120504/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/my-interview-with-noam-ch_b_140323
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/01/noam-chomsky-canadas-shale-gas-energy-tar-sands
https://truthout.org/articles/global-warming-and-the-future-of-humanity-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky-and-graciela-chichilnisky/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 62: "We are the White Race! We built Athens and Rome! We are Evropa!!!"

Thrust: << Simply put, Asia will replace the Western World. But - crucially - this time around no empire will come to take the place of the AngloZionist one. Instead, a loose and informal coalition of mostly Asian countries will offer an alternative economic and civilizational model, which will be immensely attractive to the rest of the planet. As for the Empire, it will very effectively disband itself and slowly fade into irrelevance. Both US Americans and Europeans will, for the very first time in their history, have to behave like civilized people, which means that their traditional "model of development" (ransacking the entire planet and robbing everybody blind) will have to be replaced by one in which these US Americans and Europeans will have to work like everybody else to accumulate riches. >>

Direction of resistance: << The sad truth is that the West did all this to itself (mainly due to arrogance and pride!), and the current waves of immigrants are nothing more than a 1000 years of really bad karma returning to where it came from initially. >>

Removal of resistance: << I think that we can all find solace in the fact that no matter how ugly, stupid and evil the AngloZionist Empire is, no other empire will ever come to replace it.

In other words, should we survive the current empire (which is by no means certain!) then at least we can look forward to a planet with no empires left, only sovereign countries. >>

Unification: There's no doubt that you should read the article in the references below. Those are examples of the things it says. At this point I am too busy to consider if there is any thought I can add.

Focus on this point made in the article: << Yes, not only are all empires always and inherently evil, but a good case can be made that the first victims of imperialism are always the nations which "host the empire" so to speak. >>

References: http://thesaker.is/the-last-western-empire/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 61: For the Snark WAS a Boojum, you see.

Thrust: It is useful to pay attention to Mr Feynman's words in a television interview when summing up the problems at NASA which caused the Challenger disaster, in his opinion.

The interviewer asks 'was this an accident that did not have to happen?'

Feynman says 'Yes it was. It was an accident that we had many many warnings that there was something wrong and that it might sooner or later go off. The warnings were disregarded'.

Interviewer: 'Disregarded out of incompetence, out of a faulty system, out of bad judgment, out of - for what reason?'

Feynman: 'I had some difficulty with that. I kind of imagine that something like a child that runs in the road and the parent is very upset and says it's very dangerous and the child comes back and says but nothing happened, and he runs out in the road again, several times, and the parent keeps saying it's dangerous and nothing happens. If the child's view that nothing happens is a clue that there was nothing going to happen, that's going to be an accident.'

Feynman says that NASA's management were like the child and the engineers were like the parent.

The interviewer asks who should be blamed and Feynman explains that blame may not really be a productive road and that the key question to answer is 'how do you educate the child?'

Direction of resistance: Experiment is the sole judge of scientific 'truth.' (Feynman)

Richard Feynman lectured that 'The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific 'truth.' But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations - to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labor in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.'

Feynman points out 'Now, how can an experiment be 'wrong'? First, in a trivial way: if something is wrong with the apparatus that you did not notice. But these things are easily fixed, and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate.'

Removal of resistance: Feynman, NASA, nukes, CBRN, GMOs, etc etc, exit pursued by climate change.

Feynman's assertion about NASA was that the management was like a stubborn ignorant child and the scientists had failed to assert themselves the way a parent could over a child. "How do we educate the child?" Feynman wondered, looking for a road to solving the puzzle. Musing, at any rate.

Feynman's assertion about atom bombs and nuclear weapons was that (a) he had been immoral and wrong to continue working on the bomb when Germany had surrendered and the threat of Hitler's using atom bombs was gone. It was not built to combat kamikaze pilots, in the view of its scientists. (b) Feynman felt that after the war he noticed that 'nothing had changed' and people were behaving 'just as they always did' and he felt that the existence of nukes/atom-bombs in a world where people were still prone to the stupid and ignorant mistakes etc that they always had been was one with a very short future - soon we would all suffer the consequences of nuclear war, he felt.

In the hands of such incompetents, incidents such as Fukushima or the widespread ignorance of science's actual position, collectively, insofar as one can be said to exist at all, on 'GMOs', would also, it is my theory, worry Feynman significantly. People to question (by reading what they have said about such matters) about this stuff could include Chomsky.

Feynman spoke of being remorseful - by continuing to work on the bomb, which per se he hadn't really wanted to have anything to do with but shown that nazis could use such a bomb against them he understood that he had to protect society - but when Germany was defeated he should have stopped and he regretted not realising it at the time.

So returning to what Feynman would make of all the stupidness corporations are up to at the moment, along with militarised governments, the world over, I think it makes sense to refer to his criticism of NASA and his criticism of the existence of 'atom bombs' after the war was over. I think we should consider what he'd say about Fukushima and nuclear power in general, as well as his views on solar and genuinely 'clean' energy, with safety as the absolute priority always. Would he think we should restrict nuclear physics to established research facilities and find ways to keep corporate power away from decisions relating to such an important field of human knowledge?

The issue widens to so many others but above all climate change. What would Feynman's view be of the treatment of evidence by the world's corporations and thus by being in cahoots with them, the so-called 'liberal' media eg the Guardian or BBC or other broad sheets, generally speaking?

Feynman's views on titles and 'lapels' (military insignia) are an important thing to note also when deciding what the often-correct scientist would say about the way things are today. It doesn't matter who you are, what your name is, how clever you are, or anything else, when you make an assertion, what matters is whether or not it agrees with experiment/experience. Nothing else. That, in a nutshell, Feynman explains across the internet from beyond the grave to some 'small' but not insignificant audience, is the key to 'science'.

Unification: And remember also, reader, that snarks can be boojums. As Feynman points out, some imagine that << the same conditions always produce the same results >> when in reality we live in a "probablistic universe".

You know that a fixed percentage of the photons will reflect, you don't know which ones, you cannot in any instance at all predict whether it will be one of the photons to reflect or one which carries on through the glass or other reflective surface.

This means, Feynman explains, that all our notions about science basically get thrown out - the universe, he is at pains to tell us, is 'nutty'. "I don't understand it either", he says, the audience laughs, but only partly aware that they are laughing at science itself, with him. And that audience was far far more intelligent than today's audiences, and Feynman didn't even think much (intellectually) of THAT one, let alone the hyperconsumer masses of today. Corbyn protects 'the many' and Boris protects 'the few' - but nobody tries to make ANY of them, many or few, one iota less stupid, or shall we be euphemistic and say 'more intelligent'?

References: https://press.princeton.edu/titles/8169.html
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/08/02/40-ways-ohio-now-proposes-nuclear-suicide/
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43909/the-hunting-of-the-snark

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 60: << Gimme back mi gold, mi ruby and diamond >> (Peter Tosh)

Thrust: Old Gangster, Freddie McGregor.

Bim Today, Toots and the Maytals.

Shoot the Messenger, Catatonia.

Mystery Babylon, Peter Tosh.

And a thing called "Witness the day" by "Reza" you may have heard at one time on Kiss 100FM in London.

If you can listen to those tunes, listen to em all. They're all damn fine tunes. That Peter Tosh one, what a fine summer night kind of a tune it is. I once heard it on some internet radio station called Radio Paradise.

"I and I know that all of the youth shall witness the day that Babylon shall fall." (From the film "Rockers").

Direction of resistance: In the old days I'd really want some gin and tonic to thoroughly enjoy all those tunes on such a summer's night.

Removal of resistance: But I'm trying to get healthy, so just enjoying the cool refreshing glass of mineral water, the kind you get in big bottles in supermarkets, from some clean Scottish spring.

Unification: That's today's top tunes for you to listen to if you've got em. The next top tunes list will be in n+m days where n and m are both entirely unknown.

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/08/02/trump-and-black-misleadership-class-collaborators-in-the-defense-of-white-power/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 59: The 'grim' task of writing and publishing anything of any real ('intellectual' or 'artistic' or 'spiritual') value in a mercantile feudal world.

Thrust: Intellectual honesty is a good idea.

Direction of resistance: It can help with the really important 'things in life'.

Removal of resistance: Such as figuring out what you 'should' do, what you want to do, what life is - how best to live it.

Unification: All of that requires intellectual honesty. Not to mention all the material scientific pursuits as well, eg how to get your precious money or live long. In the end, whatever ruses you have been led to believe in instead, intellectual honesty is your only real road through, all the way through, those battlefields.

At the root of what you should see when you look closely:

<<<

<< A few things have remained pretty constant. One is that at the core of language there must be some generative procedure: recursive, compositional procedure >> Noam Chomsky tells us about the scientific endeavour over the last sixty years aiming to understand the nature of human language.

<< The second is that the field ought to be framed within a biological context. So we're interested in what's come to be called i-Language, internal individual language, viewed intentionally, we care about the actual system of rules, not just some class of objects you might enumerate. .. In the background is a concern to try to show how this biological system could have originated. What's misleadingly called 'evolution of language'. Of course it's misleading because languages don't evolve, but the language capacity, U.G. (universal grammar), does evolve, or must have evolved .. you can derive some surprising conclusions: one of them is that the output of the generative system yields the proper forms for semantic interpretation in quite complex structures .. so that means that what's generated is essentially a language of thought, maybe, I suspect, the only language of thought. The second conclusion is that externalisation .. is just an ancillary process, it's not part of the core of language. .. (these externalisations are) reflexes of the sensory motor system and the nature of the externalisation depends on which sensory motor system you're using .. the sensory motor system is not specifically adapted to language, it was apparently around hundreds of thousands of years before language suddenly emerged and there are many ways to map one to the other and it's a hard process and in fact what we find is that the complexity of language which you have to learn when you learn a language is almost entirely externalisation .. >>

<< A third conclusion is that most of the doctrines about the nature of language and related fields .. most of them are just flat wrong. There's a doctrine which is held virtually at the level of dogma. The way it's put is the function of language is communication. It's a kind of a curious notion because biological systems don't have functions. .. the dogma is that language, uniquely among biological systems, has a function and the function is communication, but if these first two conclusions are correct that has to be false because communication is based on externalisation and if externalisation is an ancillary property of language then communication is even more so. >>

>>>

Within the internal organisation of your mind is the hub of your own personal contact with 'intelligence' such as it is - in other words that, not outside you, is the source of your intelligence and evolution. What is outside you, particularly in the misguided world where jungle law has become concrete jungle law, is what you're taught en masse to see as the 'source' of reason, intelligence, eg via 'received wisdom', etc.

In reality your mind, not the shit you chat, is where your intellectual activity resides. When you're not busy chatting shit, that's when your mind has a chance to do the voodoo which it can do so well. As one reggae singer put it to listeners of a South London rhythm and blues and jazz and reggae and hip hop music FM radio station, whether you're eight to eighty, crippled, lame or lazy, anything you love in life, gwan widdit, seen. And then he sang a song called Jamaican in New York. Or rather they played a recording of his having sung it.

Remember: "mutual aid is a voluntary reciprocal exchange of resources and services for mutual benefit". It is a characteristic which played a part in our evolution and successful survival for as long as we have managed it. Be yourself no matter what they say.

The most successful survivor would, without a shadow of a doubt, be 100% open, always, to mutual aid anywhere where it were possible. You could liken the confidence and benevolence of the most successful survivor, noticeably, to the myths and legends and 'religions' portraying various 'gods' or other 'magical' beings presumed by some to only really concern 'fairy stories'.

That degree of survival takes total intellectual honesty, amongst other things. Anyone can say they believe in leading a healthy life. To do it takes extreme levels of internal honesty. Hitherto unseen levels, as far as data would appear to indicate. If you're looking for a "near 100% success", I mean. Think about it.

References: never ever, no...

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 58: Most 'adults' in the 'west' are simply giant oversized babies, infants. Regardless of race or gender or 'class' or wealth or 'politics' - and this status quo is without a doubt infecting the whole world, wherever it originates from.

Thrust: The only time in nature where sugar and fat are combined in food, a woman concerned with nutrition recently told me, is in 'baby food' - ie the mother's milk of a mammal, for example. The reason is that's the only time a body needs to grow at an amazingly huge rate and multiply its size many many times.

Direction of resistance: You, most of you in 'the west' and the rest of the world, consider such food to be a staple, a part of your lives, an 'entitlement', without which you would feel deprived.

Removal of resistance: The drug reaction in your brain from the chocolate is what causes you to eat them (re-watch that famous documentary called 'supersize me' and revise the facts).

Unification: There is no nutritional purpose behind the bulk of 'food' in the 'west' and all other infected areas. In fact this stuff is without a doubt 'drug' not 'food' - so all you goody two shoeses who think you're such saints, telling off the smokers and drinkers, just remember in your ice cream parlours all you're doing, and with your neverending sandwiches and chapatis and wraps and naans, and your fizzy drinks, your sugar drinks, is nothing, nothing at all, effectively, other than ingesting a 'drug'. Not only that, the drug makes you double, triple in size, even if you're already fully grown - eventually it'll have doubled you.

This means effectively you are, like an infant, like a baby, eating, consciously or not, for the purpose of hugely increasing your physical size. A baby, an infant, in other words, if judged by your actions. And why NOT judge you by your actions? Is that not a reasonable scientific approach? Now that I am fully aware of these facts I may hopefully soon manage to quit the sugar-fat addiction society gives almost all of us.

Jeremy Corbyn has rightly warned that Boris Johnson wants to make a deal with Donald Trump to basically sell much of our NHS to American corporations and that the cost of diabetes drugs, for example, will multiply by about 7. This is not the only thing corporations are doing to destroy your health - the main thing is selling you that crap (the processed sugar laden foods, the sugar drinks, the high carb high fat crazy food for crazy people) which makes you a burden on the NHS. Your obesity is costing the NHS money, and if you weren't a sucker to the corporations who sell you that shite, the NHS would be better off. It's true that the companies are to blame much more than you, most of you have no minds of your own, do not control what you do and simply consume as programmed - even so, you do have the power, somewhere inside you, to break free from the obedience and that will save you AND the NHS if enough of you do it and the companies have no power to stop you if you do. If you try to elect Corbyn, as we've seen, the companies have a lot of power to get in the way. In Britain 'democracy' is a commodity and the richest buyers 'own' it - so it's not 'democracy' - it's fake democracy. When you tell the truth about it the fake democracy calls you 'fake news' - and it is powered by fake capitalism.

There are many other ways in which the people of the west, and increasingly of the whole world, are mostly infantile. I will continue this analysis later.

References: https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/chocoholics-beware-chocolate-can-trigger-opium-like-cravings/ (I will look for all data concerning other foods asap, ie not just chocolate - as the NHS clearly implicitly recommends we all do).

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 57: Maximum availability of food, minimum work.

Thrust: That is what all humans should consider all humans entitled to. Just to start with.

Direction of resistance: Sadly most humans want hierarchies and want some to be entitled to much and others to nothing.

Removal of resistance: Instead of everyone's having abundance, they (most humans) want competition among everyone for some to have more than is ever needed and some to never have what is needed.

Unification: Even though we can all have abundance - but only if we all want it for each other, not just ourselves.

References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 56: Facebook is for jews and white people, everyone else on it is a second class citizen.

Thrust: And if a jew or white person criticises Israel then of course it's not for them either.

Direction of resistance: But of course only the minority of white people criticise Israel.

Removal of resistance: As for jews - I have no idea. I mean a lot of muslims loathe Saudi Arabia and certainly a few jews, if not many more, loathe Israel, but the percentage of the latter is impossible to know due to the immense propaganda pervading the lives and work and media and play of almost all white people and perhaps almost all jews.

Unification: I have had a white woman be abusive to me on facebook, and even tell me to shut up, have reported her, and been told by facebook she's done nothing wrong, whereas when I told a white racist who was abusing muslims and white people standing up for muslims that he should shut up because the way he was talking was making more and more people hate white people - facebook told me that was immoral and banned me for a month. For defending myself and others against a white racist. Meanwhile a white woman can be abusive to me with total impunity. Facebook is for jews and white people what North America has always been for white people (I have no idea if jews were mistreated in America during the '400 years of slavery' period - or whether there were actually white jewish slave owners whose descendants ought to be fucking ashamed of what pissant scum fuckhead snail-shit ass-holes their relatives were, 'jewish' or not).

Anyway, if you're not white or jewish, or if you're a black jew (they don't seem to count in Israel or corporations as 'real jews') DO NOT bother using facebook. It is not really a 'social' space, it is white supremacist space using jews as a human shield against the rest of the world. When all you see is abuse, genocide and justification - ie by Israel - frankly the sight of a white jewish person makes you ask, before anything else, as I did ask myself when I passed one in Fulham yesterday << but is he a racist cock-head who should piss off and die, who supports genocide and then pretends that the victims of his genocide are 'anti-semitic'? >> - the problem is these days one doesn't know the answer and the probability can be high. How can one actually not shudder when having to ask and answer that question internally. More jews need to stand up and make it clear whether or not they oppose genocide - or I feel the 'anti-semitism' problem will get a 'lot worse' - ie if jews are able with impunity to commit genocide against non white people any more than they already have and are, I feel that sooner or later most non white people in the world will hate jews. If anyone REALLY wants to combat 'anti-semitism' - that's a great fact to embrace. Once you accept it you can do something about it - ie stop abusing non white people, stop committing genocide, grow up and stop being fucking dickheads.

The swearing in these recent articles is all dedicated to any ethical defence barristers in Fleet Street and elsewhere, since I know they love a bit of the colourful language they're not allowed to get away with in court rooms but which is fine here and often appropriate language to use with genocidal assholes! Good lawyers have to face down a lot of genocidal assholes.

References:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPeaFKvszKI (if you are unfamiliar with Graeber, watch that youtube vid).
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/08/02/an-american-jew-looks-at-the-palestine-question/
https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/20/ralf-little-suspended-twitter-pretending-tory-party-press-office-11187105/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 55: As Carlin said, 'Garbage in, garbage out'. He was referring to why we have so many absolutely shit politicians, total cretins and arses, from Johnson and Watson to Trump and Clinton, from Macron to Merkel - why most leaders are a bunch of total fucking berks.

Thrust: You see I just realised why we really can't have a 'democracy' here or anywhere else in the western world, when looking at facebook and seeing, as usual, wall to wall articles about this 'accusation of antisemitism' and that 'accusation of homophobia' and so on, and people having arguments about whether jews had jesus killed and how it's an "anti-semitic trope" (I don't think anyone doubts Pilate was threatened by jews and even told to remove the words 'king of the jews' from any label of Jesus - it's rather childish to pretend that the nazarene jew Jesus's death was not something the jewish community where he lived played a role in) - and I don't care who thinks who is anti-semitic anyway and let me tell you why.

Direction of resistance: The fake anti-semitism smear campaign shows clearly that a lot of British people are very easily led, very stupid and lost, and others are very disingenuous and deceitful.

Removal of resistance: In other words, this population is NOT FIT to be a democracy and that is why it isn't.

Unification: It is too stupid. A democracy would only exist somewhere where millions of people don't go along hysterically with things like the anti-semitism smear campaign. That so many do makes it clear that this population, whether working class, middle class or 'aristocracy', is fucking stupid, too stupid, and simply incapable of making any intelligent honest choices, whether individually or in groups - hence the soaring obesity and cancer rates, dropping IQs and neverending obsession with sex/fucking - generally sans the reproduction element - obsessed with gratification. Bunch of total fools. How can anyone who is honest and intelligent ever pretend that this kind of population is even within 100 years of being CAPABLE of being 'democratic' let alone actually setting up a bona fide civilised democracy here in "Britain".

References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 54: From Ziggy Marley and Lionel Richie to Green Day.

Thrust: Musicians of the world, and similar, it may or may not suit you to know when passionate ones among us boycott you out of a sense of ethical duty - anyone who has gone and played in Israel since about 2010, I'm afraid I'll probably never listen to your music again.

Direction of resistance: With utterly shite artists like Boy George and Morrissey this is a blessing.

Removal of resistance: But giving up the Ziggy Marley is tough - however I find it to be utterly necessary.

Unification: Tracey Ullman was off all lists to play permanently the moment I heard she was out there smearing Corbyn (and muslims therefore) as 'anti-semitic'. I never liked the Simpsons, frankly, but didn't imagine it went back to its root.

I love music. It's hard banning musicians from my life but if you stand with Israel you are a genocidal piece of shit and you can piss off, I will NOT be playing your music ever again the moment it is brought to my attention that you stand with genocidal corporate-driven tyranny. You are insulting music. On behalf of music may I say to you: fuck off you utterly low people. The ones I have named - I'm sorry to have to say that about you all but it's true. That's what you are. As things stand right now. If you want to get out there and apologise and compensate Palestinians for your crimes, I would gladly replay your music, even Boy George and Morrissey though your music is actually shite!!!

Dance on the graves of Palestinians at your own risk - you do it, you lose any soul from your music and I'm sure that anyone like me will stop playing it and if it lives on it will only be among those who don't really appreciate music anyway, not for what it is - not for the life it breathes into revolutions, for the sustenance it gives to love and equality.

References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 53: << Lucifer son of the morning, I'm gonna chase you out of Earth. >> (Max Romeo, Lee 'scratch' Perry).

Thrust: I was walking along in Putney near a church when I was offered the chance to buy salvation (by joining a club which would welcome donations from me and no doubt encourage me with any kind of marketing it could to offer up such donations) by a white English middle class man who later revealed he was a "mathematician", at least considered himself to have the knowledge befitting such a title, a former accountant I think he said he was, who was now 'with the church' and was preaching outside in the street accompanied by a young boy, perhaps in his late teens, from Colombia.

The 'accountant' insisted in 'scientific language' to me that the bible is his "set of axioms" - that he perceives it in terms which my old friend John the Intellectual Baptist would have found most distubring. As John said: << the Bible is a mishmash of fantasy and fairy stories (Jesus walking on water, raising the dead, turning water into wine, magicking a storm into silence and calm, and other cheap tricks for mesmerising the credulous) with a few real nuggets of identifiable fact buried in the mishmash like raisins in a rice pudding, and is not real history at all. >>

I wanted to be sure that this accountant I was talking to really had no idea at all about anything of real value in Jesus' teachings and really had no useful relationship with reality and was selling dodgy wares by means of his preaching.

Two things gave this away, the first is much more important but the second is relevant to the rest of this grid point.

The first was explained by his young boy side-kick whom he was training to be a god-shop salesman (an accountant naturally would be drawn to things like the sugar industry, or tarot reading, or the interventions industry, fossil fuels industry or religion industry, what with the loot available) - the boy said to me "why do you care about all these people? Forget them." We were arguing the basic points of the gospel, I was advocating Jesus' view, he was advocating the "Church" view. He said that only people who are christians matter and everyone else is basically shit on the ground and doesn't matter and that he himself was only interested in the good people and not with what he perceived to be everyone else. If you are intelligent enough to see immediately how what he said not only demonstrates what Jesus said about religions and their liars, it entirely visibly contradicts the exact words of Jesus' "teachings" - and yet here is this boy pretending the people he sees as shit on the ground are all, I guess, "enemies of Jesus" - the same way some crazed al qa'eda bloke or crazed money worshipper or American exceptionalist or white supremacist may protect their own 'god' in the same way.

The second thing was from the accountant's mouth. I basically asked him if he considers 'homosexuality a sin' - and he fervently does. He said "I am not homophobic" because he wants to heal the sinful gays. That's why. Amazing stuff. So that brings us on to what I shall now say which will shock and annoy many of you and which thankfully for himself Corbyn has contradicted immensely in his Labour party marketing lately, in other words he is very much loud and proud about the gay pride and rights movements and I don't think he's doing anything wrong, per se, (although I do believe it is hugely irresponsible of these 'movements' and companies who cash in on the huge reach of gay 'rights' and 'pride' related communication to not accompany it with health warnings since gay sex is definitely something whose health aspects people don't really talk much about and the degree to which gay sex can involve things like torn anuses and compromised immune systems is clearly hugely underestimated by those who see gay sex only in terms of rainbows and unicorns), but naturally someone like him cannot look at the situation the way I look at it or say what I shall now say which will really annoy lots of you and get some of you to pretend I hold views in any way similar to the mad accountant I mentioned. So you cannot smear Corbyn on the basis of my saying these 'controversial' things here today because Corbyn would be the first to contradict me, wrongly, because he isn't up to seeing the world the way I am able to see it - not yet. Maybe one day.

Direction of resistance: You see in fact eating a cheeseburger is harmful and 'unnatural' - sort of. It's certainly putting into your digestive system stuff which perhaps belongs in a factory sealant product or a small animal killing product or whatever. Anyway, the point is that what it boils down to is that for me putting the fluids of your reproductive system into your digestive system is obviously stupid and there are known repercussions which a lot of gay men and women know all about, as well as heterosexual ones naturally.

What they do isn't 'evil' or even genetic. No, idiots out there, if any genetic make-up causes you to fuck more, to be someone who fucks more, then you certainly do have a higher chance of having 'gay sex'. The idea that homosexuality is an innate characteristic carried by genes is so absurd I am ashamed of what future civilisations may think about our intellect at this time. Do you not see the logical contradiction there in the very purpose of genes vs the 'purpose' of gay sex not to mention the 'outcome' of gay sex (or lack of it).

In same-gender prisons and single-gender schools 'gay sex' increases compared with the outside world. This tells us clearly that homosexual sex is just an arbitrary choice anyone can make, it's not innate. If they want to, so what? Most people eat cheeseburgers and donuts which are at least as bad for their bodies as gay sex. I myself eat Green and Black's chocolate. It may be extremely unlikely to harm me (unless I really eat waaaay too much) the way the diet of that accountant or the average consumer harms them, or gay sex, or any number of gratification-oriented behaviours, but it shows I'm not perfect. I can't pretend to be different to the gay sex haver or cheeseburger eater, not in terms of quality only quantity. They are far more likely to harm themselves than I am, but it's always an integer value. We are what the religionists and hollywood writers call 'mortals' after all.

Removal of resistance: Hypersexuality is a major problem. People feel they NEED sex, lots of it, or they feel humiliated. The media and others enhance that feeling.

Someone two hundred pounds overweight will not trigger biological responses of attraction in the opposite sex easily and will get less sex and be in something akin to that single-gender reality. Thus they will experiment with gay sex, maybe like it, call themselves 'gay' or 'bisexual', etc. Hence the stereotypical view of a lesbian as a woman who looks like a fat sailor. It's a childish and unintelligent view, but it stems from real phenomena which are a clue to the more intelligent about what really is going on.

Unification: The fact that you are willing to pause from standing in the way of GENOCIDE you yourself are having carried out for you to buy and ship DONUTS to yourself and others in order to stop and make a huge fuss, for weeks, about decisions people make about having sex and their 'right' to have a 'lifestyle' which other people 'don't like' - shows more than ever that obsession with sex is the last thing these societies will spend their time on. Not long after they reach peak loudness on all this pointless hormone-waving - they will find themselves suddenly in that near-extinction society because they were too busy worrying about when to have sex and whom to have it with, like all those animals in your garden, to evolve and change their backward ways before the universe just wiped out another tiny species out in, presumably, an infinity of them.

So in short, gay sex is bad for you, so is most of the stuff heterosexuals do and much heterosexual sex too (not just oral sex - I'm sure you can look at the very idea of having far too much sex because it's a cultural fad, for centuries, and how that warps your physical health and psychological health and social health crossing over generations - consider Patsy Stone - you laugh at her because there really is something to laugh at - so don't pretend there isn't!).

I don't think anyone should have gay sex, it's true, but I also don't think anyone should eat all that red meat you all eat everywhere, or about 90% of the stuff you eat - so try not to single out this one thing, which is a part of the entire range of things you do which are stupid, as a way to define how you will smear me. It's bound to backfire on you and it also will not help you to no longer be stupid or unhealthy.

I don't think that there is such a thing as 'homosexuality' or 'heterosexuality' - ie as an innate genetic predisposition. I think that's obvious. And I don't therefore think that people who have gay sex should be treated any differently to people who have heterosexual sex or even people who don't have sex - maybe they're 90 and think that having sex is something kids do. Well 'young people' above the age of puberty. That makes sense to me, since it's true.

You will of course, many of the readers, have simply launched yourself into all the things you do driven by hypersexuality and hyperconsumerism and started to hate me or call me names or pretend I am 'homophobic' when I hate no one for having gay sex and no one for eating cheeseburgers - even the soldiers who commit genocide I forgive and try to help change and become better people.

The christian accountant wanted to 'heal the sinners' - whereas I want to help my fellow humans evolve. There's a huge difference. I see in them all the capacity for enlightenment and see them as my equals in the quest for a universal siblinghood of enlightenment. The homophobic white accountant man and his Colombian black token christian evangelist side kick want to warn the 'gays' that if they don't stop being sinners and take accountancy exams and marketing courses they will BURN IN HELL!!!!! AAAARGH. Anyway, go in peace, child.

References: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlBIa8z_Mts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gk4HzzYro8
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/26/extinction-is-stalking-humanity/
Chomsky on the future of capitalism.

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 52: Proof.

Thrust: <<

The Journeys of Kazwini

USEFUL men, carrying on useful work, do not become angry if they are called useless. But the useless who imagine that they are operating in a significant manner become greatly infuriated if this word is used about them.

'I visited,' says Kazwini, 'one group of sincere-enough Sufis. They practised invocations and strummed music on strings.

'I listened to the discourses of eminent authorities, and attended the festivals of the Masters, living and dead.

'I donned the patched robe and begged from door to door, as recommended in the classics. I prayed, I fasted and I gave charity.

'I learned the intricate gyrations and litanies, and took part in the Stillness.

'I mastered the ability to contain the inner agitation.

'I learned how to erase my "I", and how to restore it, purged.

'Then I met the Proof himself. The Proof said to me:

'"What do you seek?"

'I said:

'"I seek the Master."

'The Proof said:

'"Had you asked for more action, I would have given it to you. But as you desire Truth, I shall conduct you to the Truth."

'He conveyed me to the Master. And the Master taught me what all the outwardness which I had studied really meant.

'When I returned to the world, none would listen, and the outwardness continues. As the Master predicted to me, it will continue until the end of time.'

>>

(Thinkers of the East, Idries Shah)

Direction of resistance: A good book to read is "The Way of the Sufi" by Idries Shah.

Removal of resistance: Also, "The Commanding Self".

Unification: And indeed many others, eg "Special Illuminations" or "Knowing how to know" or "Learning how to learn". All manner of books. They are there and theoretically under some circumstances if approached in a way which is 'sensible' (in the Chomsky sense of the word) at a 'holistic' level could be useful to you, or someone.

References: https://www.facebook.com/IdriesShah/posts/2370920019628357

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 51: Beat the devil, beat the market, but you can never beat the maths.

Thrust: Robert Shiller tells us <<

Jeremy Siegel says that in finance we should be using geometric and not arithmetic averages. Why is that? Well I'll tell you in very simple terms, I think. Suppose someone is investing your money and he announces, I have had very good returns. I have invested and I've produced 20% a year for nine out of the last ten years. You think that's great, but what about the last year. The guy says, "Oh I lost 100% in that year." You might say, "Alright, that's good." I would add up 20% a year for nine years and than put in a zero-no, 120 because it's gross return for nine years--and put in a zero for one year. Maybe that doesn't look bad, right? But think about it, if you were investing your money with someone like that, what did you end up with? You ended up with nothing. If they have one year when they lose everything, it doesn't matter how much they made in the other years. Jeremy says in the text that the geometric return is always lower than the arithmetic return unless all the numbers are the same. It's a less optimistic version. So, we should use that, but people in finance resist using that because it's a lower number and when you're advertising your return you want to make it look as big as possible.

We also need some measure of--We've been talking here about measures of central tendency only and in finance we need, as well, measures of dispersion, which is how much something varies. Central tendency is a measure of the center of a probability distribution of the--Central tendency is a measure--Variance is a measure of how much things change from one observation to another. We have variance and it's often represented by σ², that's the Greek letter sigma, lower case, squared. Or, especially when talking about estimates of the variance, we sometimes say S² or we say standard deviation². The standard deviation is the square root of the variance. For population variance, the variance of some random variable x is defined as the summation i = 1 to infinity of the Prob (x = xi) times (xi - Μx)². So mu is the mean--we just defined it of x--that's the expectation of x or also E(x), so it's the probability weighted average of the squared deviations from the mean. If it moves a lot--either way from the mean--then this number squared is a big number. The more x moves, the bigger the variance is.

There's also another variance measure, which we use in the sample--or also Var is used sometimes--and this is ∑². There's also another variance measure, which is for the sample. When we have n observations it's just the summation i = 1 to n of (x - x bar)²/n. That is the sample variance. Some people will divide by n-1. I suppose I would accept either answer. I'm just keeping it simple here. They divide by n-1 to make it an unbiased estimator of the population variance; but I'm just going to show it in a simple way here. So you see what it is--it's a measure of how much x deviates from the mean; but it's squared. It weights big deviations a lot because the square of a big number is really big. So, that's the variance.

So, that completes central tendency and dispersion. We're going to be talking about these in finance in regards to returns because--generally the idea here is that we want high returns. We want a high expected value of returns, but we don't like variance. Expected value is good and variance is bad because that's risk; that's uncertainty. That's what this whole theory is about: how to get a lot of expected return without getting a lot of risk.

Another concept that's very basic here is covariance. Covariance is a measure of how much two variables move together. Covariance is--we'll call it--now we have two random variables, so I'll just talk about it in a sample term. It's the summation i = 1 to n of [(x - x-bar) times (y - y-bar)]/n. So x is the deviation for the i-subscript, meaning we have a separate xi and yi for each observation. So we're talking about an experiment when you generate--Each experiment generates both an x and a y observation and we know when x is high, y also tends to be high, or whether it's the other way around. If they tend to move together, when x is high and y is high together at the same time, then the covariance will tend to be a positive number. If when x is low, y also tends to be low, then this will be negative number and so will this, so their product is positive. A positive covariance means that the two move together. A negative covariance means that they tend to move opposite each other. If x is high relative to x-bar--this is positive--then y tends to be low relative to its mean y-bar and this is negative. So the product would be negative. If you get a lot of negative products, that makes the covariance negative.

Then I want to move to correlation. So this is a measure--it's a scaled covariance. We tend to use the Greek letter rho. If you were to use Excel, it would be correl or sometimes I say corr. That's the correlation. This number always lies between -1 and +1. It is defined as rho= [cov(xiyi)/SxSy] That's the correlation coefficient. That has kind of almost entered the English language in the sense that you'll see it quoted occasionally in newspapers. I don't know how much you're used to it--Where would you see that? They would say there is a low correlation between SAT scores and grade point averages in college, or maybe it's a high correlation. Does anyone know what it is? But you could estimate the corr--it's probably positive. I bet it's way below one, but it has some correlation, so maybe it's .3. That would mean that people who have high SAT scores tend to get higher grades. If it were negative--it's very unlikely that it's negative--it couldn't be negative. It couldn't be that people who have high SAT scores tend to do poorly in college. If you quantify how much they relate, then you could look at the correlation.

I want to move to regression. This is another concept that is very basic to statistics, but it has particular use in finance, so I'll give you a financial example. The concept of regression goes back to the mathematician Gauss, who talked about fitting a line through a scatter of points. Let's draw a line through a scatter of points here. I want to put down on this axis the return on the stock market and on this axis I want to put the return on one company, let's say Microsoft. I'm going to have each observation as a year. I shouldn't put down a name of a company because I can't reproduce this diagram for Microsoft. Let's not say Microsoft, let's say Shiller, Inc. There's no such company, so I can be completely hypothetical. Let's put zero here because these are not gross returns these are returns, so they're often negative. Suppose that in a given year--and say this is minus five and this is plus five, this is minus five and this is plus five--Suppose that in the first year in our sample, the company Shiller, Inc. and the market both did 5%. That puts a point right there at five and five. In another year, however, the stock market lost 5% and Shiller, Inc. lost 7%. We would have a point, say, down here at five and seven. This could be 1979, this could be 1980, and we keep adding points so we have a whole scatter of points. It's probably upward sloping, right? Probably when the overall stock market does well so does Shiller, Inc.

What Gauss did was said, let's fit a line through the point--the scatter of points--and that's called the regression line. He chose the line so that--this is Gauss--he chose the line to minimize the sum of squared distances of the points from the lines. So these distances are the lengths of these line segments. To get the best fitting line, you find the line that minimizes the sum of squared distances. That's called the regression line and the intercept is called alpha--there's alpha. And the slope is called beta. That may be a familiar enough concept to you, but in the context of finance this is a major concept. The way I've written it, the beta of Shiller, Inc. is the slope of this line. The alpha is just the intercept of this curve. We can also do this with excess returns. I will get to this later, where I have the return minus the interest rate on this axis and the market return minus the interest rate on this axis. In that case, alpha is a measure of how much Shiller, Inc. outperforms. We'll come back to this, but beta of the stock is a measure of how much it moves with the market and the alpha of a stock is how much it outperforms the market. We'll have to come back to that--these are basic concepts.

I want to--another concept--I guess I've just been implicit in what I have--There's a distribution called the normal distribution and that is--I'm sure you've heard of this, right? If you have a distribution that looks like this--it's bell-shaped--this is x and--I have to make it look symmetric which I may not be able to do that well--this is f(x), the normal distribution. f(x) = [1/(√ (2π)σ)] times e to minus [(x-μ)2 / 2σ]. It's a famous formula, which is due to Gauss again. We often assume in finance that random variables, such as returns, are normally distributed. This is called the normal distribution or the Gaussian distribution--it's a continuous distribution. I think you've heard of this, right? This is high school raw material. But I want to emphasize that there are also other bell-shaped curves. This is the most famous bell-shaped curve, but there are other ones with different mathematics.

A particular interest in finance is fat-tailed alternatives. It could be that a random distribution--I don't have colored chalk here I don't think, so I will use a dash line to represent the fat-tailed distribution. Suppose the distribution looks like this. Then I have to try to do that on the other side, as symmetrically as I can. These are the tails of the distribution; this is the right tail and this is the left tail. You can see that the dash distribution I drew has more out in the tails, so we call it fat-tailed. This refers to random variables that have fat-tailed distributions--random variables that occasionally give you really big outcomes. You have a chance of being way out here with a fat-tailed distribution. It's a very important observation in finance that returns on a lot of speculative assets have fat-tailed distributions. That means that you can go through twenty years of a career on Wall Street and all you've observed is observations in the central region. So you feel that you know pretty well how things behave; but then, all of a sudden, there's something way out here. This would be good luck if you were long and now suddenly you got a huge return that you would not have thought was possible since you've never seen it before. But you can also have an incredibly bad return. This complicates finance because it means that you never know. You never have enough experience to get through all these things. It's a big complication in finance.

My friend Nassim Talib has just written a book about it called--maybe I'll talk about that--called The Black Swan. It's about how so many plans in finance are messed up by rare events that suddenly appear out of nowhere. He called it The Black Swan because if you look at swans, they're always white. You've never seen a black swan. So, you end up going through life assuming that there are no black swans. But, in fact, there are and you might finally see one. You don't want to predicate making complicated gambles under the assumption that they don't exist. Talib, who's a Wall Street professional, talks about these black swans as being the real story of finance. >>

Direction of resistance: Money is a problematic and outmoded concept, an extension of jungle law and I absolutely advocate for its eradication and for a utopian society where our resources are managed in ways which match our capacity for extreme advancement which, collectively, is very high right now, as Chomsky has advised us, even though ironically Feynman to some extent warned of the opposite (nothing had changed, he said, since before the war - the existence of atomic weaponry, merely the existence, spelled the end for all humanity). We can do whatever we want, we can make a great society, Chomsky, in among his many lectures, has strongly advised us and still does, repeatedly, to this day on which I am writing this and possibly, depending on the details, when you, reader, are reading this.

Nonetheless, it exists and financial systems exist and, though some may well criticise my choice of example, George Soros is out there trying to use money to help take us out of a society which requires the existence of money. He had to set the ball rolling, others will have to take it much further than he. Apparently he started poor and became rich. This may explain his, in my view, lack of fear of a post-money future. Plus he's very very old and won't have to face it himself, only via his 'descendants'.

Removal of resistance: And so accepting that hopefully we will soon see the absolute and enlightened (and peaceful) end to money, the economic systems and financial 'trading' / 'speculation' (it can be both, either or neither and still win or lose, consistently, depending on you and your maths, not on anything else - more proof that it is essentially a valueless entity, not benefiting humanity or any other life form, when it comes right down to it, still part of our past jutting out through the present and into too much of our future) - if one, nonetheless, wanted to master financial markets, face them in any way and derive short term benefit from them, eg in order to rebalance the distribution of power which itself may or may not block the development of a post-money society, that stretch of Shiller is extremely important.

Unification: My own methods work only because they absolutely do not fall down when tested against the requirements set out there by Shiller, which is no surprise as I listened to him give that lecture many times over before I'd even begun to try and figure out the making of currency and stock trading algorithms which 'beat the market'. (Some equations shown above not properly represented on this page, view original in references for exact articulation).

References: http://openmedia.yale.edu/projects/iphone/departments/econ/econ252/transcript02.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMkD8HKJQCM

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 50: "Empires all fall for this reason: the Hobo King is most abused by empires, wherever they are, and that is why they all end up they way you are aware empires end up. Basic law of physics."

Thrust: (from Bob and the Spacetime Traveller)

8. In the hall of the Hobo king.

"This," said the spacetime traveller to Bob, "is the Hobo King. Hobo King, meet Bob."

Bob and the Hobo King greeted each other and then the monarch of the homeless suggested they all retire to his hall and be served fine foods and listen to the greatest music in the universe, which they did.

"The Hobo King," the Arthur Lowe lookalike told Bob, "goes around spacetime visiting people with immense power. When they are faced with not only a hobo but the most hobolike of them all, thus the King of them, their response is used to measure them. How they treat the Hobo King will be how they are treated back by him, but magnified hugely. Thus if they are generous with him, they will receive huge generosity in return. And if they are haughty, that is what they will face but in a far more mighty form.

"Empires all fall for this reason: the Hobo King is most abused by empires, wherever they are, and that is why they all end up they way you are aware empires end up. Basic law of physics."

"Physics is so boring," said the Hobo King. "Let me tell you about how I first got into this job, what led me to decide to take it up as a career."

And so the Hobo King told the story of how he had become monarch of the disenfranchised.

It seems that once upon a time the Hobo King had been a very ordinary person, not even a Hobo, just a low level ordinary consumer, the average amount above the poverty line, and as fat as the average person, and over time he had started to become healthier, and in the course of cutting down carbs and sugars and gluten and wheat products overflowing with them, often very cheap, he had found that there was one particular slightly expensive chocolate bar, double the price of the ordinary cheap chocolate bars bought abundantly, about, therefore, four or five times the price of all the pastry and other gluten based confectionery items like buns or donuts or croissants or cakes - which had no unhealthy ingredients anywhere near as comparable to all the other products mentioned, including all the cheaper and even cheaply made but billed as expensive chocolates on the market. Not to mention all the similar savoury products, sandwiches and pies and so on.

So he had cut out all those savoury products and all those different cakes and chocolates, despite a massive addiction over the years, and all biscuits and crisps - it was tough but he did it amazingly well and only bought that one expensive chocolate, and the overall amount of his carb and sugar intake dropped by 90% - but the purchase of those bars, two at a time, several times a week at least, was much more visible to everyone from supermarket workers and shop keepers to relatives and friends and anyone else - than the disappearance of the rest of the foods were - ie they imagined him to be eating more, not less, and judged him, the way people do, more and more and more negatively, when he was actually becoming healthier and healthier because of what he was doing. Those judging him drove him back, a few times, to consuming less of those chocolates but lots of the other things again, from donuts and biscuits to cakes and crisps. Cheap stuff - which would no longer cause people to judge him as spendthrift or eccentric.

But it passed, he learned to ignore their judging and only eat the chocolate made in a healthy way, one of the only such items left on the market, and then because of who he was the spacetime traveller had hooked up with him and helped him build a vessel for traversing spacetime and thus enabled him to embark on a big project to change the way everyone in the universes judged each other, from the top down.

Bob and the spacetime traveller partook of some of the fine chocolate, which the Hobo King still enjoyed from time to time, and then set off in search of an example of a key moment in the history of a thing called Carbon 12.

Direction of resistance: _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________

More material from the same dimension of writing on its way asap.

Removal of resistance: And hopefully also other writing from me (and no doubt others, in time), including "Stanislavski and the Machine".

Unification: Alternatively you could go and read Wodehouse or Joseph Heller or Ionesco or something. Pirsig. P. K. Dick maybe. Alex Cockburn can be fun. A lot of fun. Ah. Of course. Hunter S. Thompson. Don't leave that out, whatever you do. Mark Twain? And I must think of some good non-male and non-white writers worth reading too. M.G. Piety must be. But going back in time there must be great titles by women and more non white writers I can pick out for you. Sadly white male imperialism HAS limited the number, that's not my fault, whosever it is. I recall enjoying Joan Aitken as a teenager.

By the way reader if your body is busy eating donuts and other shite it will gain less from anything genuinely good you eat because that goodness has to be used, to some extent, to undo all the bad you do when you eat that other food which you eat purely for psychological reasons and 100% not for nutritional purposes, consciously or not.

References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 49: Shut up and learn to be an adult Greta you silly little girl.

Thrust: The exemplary climate change fighting environment-protecting journalist and editor and writer Jeffrey St Clair, friend of the former revolutionary leader and chief British export Alexander Cockburn, tells us, and indeed Greta the girl whose approach to climate change is the strictly come dancing and x factor approach: << During her acceptance speech for the Freedom Prize, Greta Thornberg, the Malala of the climate movement, demanded that "adults be held accountable" for the climate crisis. How about holding corporations, private equity, hedge funds and the military industrial complex accountable for climate change, Greta? >>

Direction of resistance: He continues: << Do you realize, Greta, that thousands of activists, ecologists and scientists around the world have been fighting the coal companies, oil and gas companies and the military on the ground, in the courts and in congress for decades now and that they have a pretty clear idea of where the political and economic pressure points are, don't you? Greta is a novelty act, supported by foundations that have been hostile the very kind of radical change that is needed to confront the thing she warns about it. >>

Removal of resistance: Despite even Corbyn's support for Greta the celebrity virtue signaller on behalf of corporate power I was never taken in and even when I could hear no other voice telling me what St Clair is saying there, that is precisely what I have been saying and how much I loathe Greta's stupidity - it's not her fault, she is a child, it is obviously those who use her who are sick in the head and should be confronted - the Malala stunt, basically, a sick stunt. During the rise of this convenient Swedish girl's fame, Assange was being dragged off to prison for daring to stand up for children whose heads have been blown off, for Iraqi girls and boys raped by white men, perhaps by Swedish men, who knows, perhaps by men distantly related to Greta - I mean there are a LOT of white men raping non white women in the middle east, you must realise. Do you give a rat's ass about them Greta you SILLY LITTLE GIRL.

Unification: GO HOME (FROM YOUR TOURING AND POSTURING) AND DO YOUR SCHOOLWORK AND HOMEWORK. THAT'S HOW OTHERS BECAME CLEVER AND STRONG YOU WORKSHY TEENAGER.

<< In 2016, US farms used 1.2 billion lbs of pesticides. More than one-fourth -322 million lbs - were pesticides banned in the EU. 26 million lbs were banned in Brazil. 40 million lbs were outlawed by China. >>

<< Permian Basin water use grew nearly ninefold from 2011-2016 as drillers added more than 10,000 wells. An average Permian well in 2018 used more than 15 million gallons, compared with 7 million in 2013. Water = 54% of fracking costs in Permian. >>

<< Mining companies have rarely been held accountable for the ruins they've made in the past. Now they won't even have to pretend to make an effort. >>

Some more quotes from the JsC article which remind us that corporate power must be confronted by adults over climate change and they should make sure their children are in school learning to learn, not running around at the age of 16 imagining they know it all and can lord it over others, the way all western celebrities and many white entitled people who aren't even celebrities, just your communal-garden-nobody, like to believe they can do without there being any kind of repercussions born out of the intellectual dishonesty of their actions.

When you can write like I can, Greta, go ahead and don't go to school. It may not happen until 10 or 15 years after you've left the place though, you damned fool. If I can only think of one thing Theresa May did which I found impressive, respectable, even enlightened, it was ignoring Greta Thunberg. Greta - don't cry, or feel put upon - my attacks are really aimed at the adults who have irresponsibly used you and cashed in on your 'rebellion'. Go and live a child's normal life, not one of a western child-puppet - you are like a child soldier. It is immoral of corporations to recruit people like you to fight their battles against adult women and men like me. Now shut up and learn you silly girl. Read these books right now, you utter idiot: Necessary Illusions (Noam Chomsky), A Colossal Wreck (Alex Cockburn), Year 501 (Noam Chomsky), Orientalism (Ed Said), Killing Trayvon (Jeffrey St Clair), Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance (Robert Pirsig), The Character of Physical Law (Richard Feynman). If you want to rebel, that's where you go to learn. Not strictly come celebrity Malala child-washing genocide, ecocide, and intellectual-honesty-cide. You silly silly silly sod. Your defenders tell me "no, she does her homework" - missing the point of course. I knew 'students' whose parents and selves saw themselves as above everyone and everything else, your home-schooled right wing Christian fundamentalist types - if you want to learn, you humble yourself before those wiser than you, you don't set the terms for how you'll be taught and lord it over the ones who would teach you.

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/26/roaming-charges-and-then-there-were-three/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 48: Feynman doesn't, in my opinion, ever pretend to know anything he doesn't know, or doesn't think (for seemingly good reasons) he knows.

Thrust: In "Distinction of past and future", Chapter 5, The Character of Physical Law, a lecture by Richard Feynman, that particular god of science tells us this about the science of god:

<<

The conservation of energy would let us think that we have as much energy as we want. Nature never loses or gains energy. Yet the energy of the sea, for example, the thermal motion of all the atoms in the sea, is practically unavailable to us. In order to get that energy organized, herded, to make it available for use, we have to have a difference in temperature, or else we shall find that although the energy is there we cannot make use of it. There is a great difference between energy and availability of energy. The energy of the sea is a large amount, but it is not available to us.

The conservation of energy means that the total energy in the world is kept the same. But in the irregular jigglings that energy can be spread about so uniformly that, in certain circumstances, there is no way to make more go one way than the other - there is no way to control it any more.

I think that by an analogy I can give some idea of the difficulty, in this way. I do not know if you have ever had the experience - I have - of sitting on the beach with several towels, and suddenly a tremendous downpour comes. You pick up the towels as quickly as you can, and run into the bathhouse. Then you start to dry yourself, and you find that this towel is a little wet, but it is drier than you are. You keep drying with this one until you find it is too wet - it is wetting you as much as drying you - and you try another one; and pretty soon you discover a horrible thing - that all the towels are damp and so are you. There is no way to get any drier, even though you have many towels, because there is no difference in some sense between the wetness of the towels and the wetness of yourself. I could invent a kind of quantity which I could call 'ease of removing water'. The towel has the same ease of removing water from it as you have, so when you touch yourself with the towel, as much water comes off the towel on to you as comes from you to the towel. It does not mean there is the same amount of water in the towel as there is on you - a big towel will have more water in it than a little towel - but they have the same dampness. When things get to the same dampness then there is nothing you can do any longer.

Now the water is like the energy, because the total amount of water is not changing. (If the bathhouse door is open and you can run into the sun and get dried out, or find another towel, then you're saved, but suppose everything is closed, and you can't get away from these towels or get any new towels.) In the same way if you imagine a part of the world that is closed, and wait long enough, in the accidents of the world the energy, like the water, will be distributed over all of the parts evenly until there is nothing left of one-way-ness, nothing left of the real interest of the world as we experience it.

Thus in the ratchet and pawl and vanes situation, which is a limited one, in which nothing else is involved, the temperatures gradually become equal on both sides, and the wheel does not go round either one way or the other. In the same way the situation is that if you leave any system long enough it gets the energy thoroughly mixed up in it, and no more energy is really available to do anything.

Incidentally, the thing that corresponds to the dampness or the 'ease of removing water' is called the temperature, and although I say when two things are at the same temperature things get balanced, it does not mean they have the same energy in them; it means that it is just as easy to pick energy off one as to pick it off the other. Temperature is like 'ease of removing energy'. So if you sit them next to each other, nothing apparently happens; they pass energy back and forth equally, but the net result is nothing. So when things have become all of the same temperature, there is no more energy available to do anything. The principle of irreversibility is that if things are at different temperatures and are left to themselves, as time goes on they become more and more at the same temperature, and the availability of energy is perpetually decreasing.

This is another name for what is called the entropy law, which says the entropy is always increasing. But never mind the words; stated the other way, the availability of energy is always decreasing. And that is a characteristic of the world, in the sense that it is due to the chaos of molecular) irregular motions. Things of different temperature, if left to themselves, tend to become of the same temperature. If you have two things at the same temperature, like water on an ordinary stove without a fire under it, the water is not going to freeze and the stove get hot. But if you have a hot stove with ice, it goes the other way. So the one-way-ness is always to the loss of the availability of energy.

That is all I want to say on the subject, but I want to make a few remarks about some characteristics. Here we have an example in which an obvious effect, the irreversibility, is not, an obvious consequence of the laws, but is in fact rather far from the basic laws. It takes a lot of analysis to understand the reason for it. The effect is of first importance in the economy of the world, in the real behaviour of the world in all obvious things. My memory, my characteristics, the difference between past and future, are completely involved in this, and yet the understanding of it is not prima facie available by knowing about the laws. It takes a lot of analysis.

It is often the case that the laws of physics do not have an obvious_ direct relevance to experience, but that they are abstract from experience to varying degrees. In this particular case, the fact that the laws are reversible although the phenomena are not is an example.

There are often great distances between the detailed laws and the main aspects of real phenomena. For example, if you watch a glacier from a distance, and see the big rocks falling into the sea, and the way the ice moves, and so forth, it is not really essential to remember that it is made out of little hexagonal ice crystals. Yet if understood well enough the motion of the glacier is in fact a consequence of the character of the hexagonal ice crystals. But it takes quite a while to understand all the behaviour of the glacier (in fact nobody knows enough about ice yet, no matter how much they've studied the crystal). However the hope is that if we do understand the ice crystal we shall ultimately understand the glacier.

In fact, although we have been talking in these lectures about the fundaments of the physical laws, I must say immediately that one does not, by knowing all the fundamental laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much. It takes a while, and even then it is only partial. Nature, as a matter of fact, seems to be so designed that the most important things in the real world appear to be a kind of complicated accidental result of a lot of laws.

To give an example, nuclei, which involve several nuclear particles, protons and neutrons, are very complicated. They have what we call energy levels, they can sit in states or conditions of different energy values, and various nuclei have various energy levels. And it's a complicated mathematical problem, which we can only partly solve, to find the position of the energy levels. The exact position of the levels is obviously a consequence of an enormous complexity and therefore there is no particular mystery about the fact that nitrogen, with 15 particles inside, happens to have a level at 2.4 million volts, and another level at 7.1. and so on. But the remarkable thing about nature is that the whole universe in its character depends upon precisely the position of one particular level in one particular nucleus. In the carbon12 nucleus, it so happens, there is a level at 7.82 million volts. And that makes all the difference in the world.

The situation is the following. If we start with hydrogen, and it appears that at the beginning the world was practically all hydrogen, then as the hydrogen comes together under gravity and gets hotter, nuclear reactions can take place, and it can form helium, and then the helium can combine only partially with the hydrogen and produce a few more elements, a little heavier. But these heavier elements disintegrate right away back into helium. Therefore for a while there was a great mystery about where all the other elements in the world came from, because starting with hydrogen the cooking processes inside the stars would not make much more than helium and less than half a dozen other elements. Faced with this problem, Professors Hoyle and Salpeter [Fred Hoyle, British astronomer, Cambridge. Edwin Salpeter, American physicist, Cornell University] said that there is one way out. If three helium atoms could come together to form carbon, we can easily calculate how often that should happen in a star. And it turns out that it should never happen, except for one possible accident - if there happened to be an energy level at 7.82 million volts in carbon, then the three helium atoms would come together and before they came apart, would stay together a little longer on the average than they would do if there were no level at 7.82. And staying there a little longer, there would be enough time for something else to happen, and to make other elements. If there was a level at 7.82 million volts in carbon, then we could understand where all the other elements in the periodic table came from. And so, by a backhanded, upside-down argument, it was predicted that there is in carbon a level at 7.82 million volts; and experiments in the laboratory showed that indeed there is. Therefore the existence in the world of all these other elements is very closely related to the fact that there is this particular level in carbon. But the position of this particular level in carbon seems to us, knowing the physical laws, to be a very complicated accident of 12 complicated particles interacting. This example is an excellent illustration of the fact that an understanding of the physical laws does not necessarily give you an understanding of things of significance in the world in any direct way. The details of real experience are often very far from the fundamental laws.

We have a way of discussing the world, when we talk of it at various hierarchies, or levels. Now I do not mean to be very precise, dividing the world into definite levels, but I will indicate, by describing a set of ideas, what I mean by hierarchies of ideas. For example, at one end we have the fundamental laws of physics. Then we invent other terms for concepts which are approximate, which have, we believe, their ultimate explanation in terms of the fundamental laws. For instance, 'heat'. Heat is supposed to be jiggling, and the word for a hot thing is just the word for a mass of atoms which are jiggling. But for a while, if we are talking about heat, we sometimes forget about the atoms jiggling - just as when we talk about the glacier we do not always think of the hexagonal ice and the snowflakes which originally fell. Another example of the same thing is a salt crystal. Looked at fundamentally it is a lot of protons, neutrons, and electrons; but we have this concept 'salt crystal', which carries a whole pattern already of fundamental interactions. An idea like pressure is the same.

Now if we go higher up from this, in another level we have properties of substances - like 'refractive index', how light is bent when it goes through something; or 'surface tension', the fact that water tends to pull itself together, both of which are described by numbers. I remind you that we have to go through several laws down to find out that it is the pull of the atoms, and so on. But we still say 'surface tension', and do not always worry, when discussing surface tension, about the inner workings.

On, up in the hierarchy. With the water we have waves and we have a thing like a storm, the word 'storm' which represents an enormous mass of phenomena, or a 'sun spot' or 'star', which is an accumulation of things. And it is nu worth while always to think of it way back. In fact we cannot, because the higher up we go the more steps we have in between, each one of which is a little weak. We have not thought them all through yet.

As we go up in this hierarchy of complexity, we get tc things like muscle twitch, or nerve impulse, which is an enormously complicated thing in the physical world, involving an organization of matter in a very elaborate complexity. Then come things like 'frog'. And then we go on, and we come to words and concepts like 'man', and 'history', or 'political expediency', and so forth, a series of concepts which we use to understand things at an ever higher level.

And going on, we come to things like evil, and beauty, and hope.

Which end is nearer to God? (If I may use a religious metaphor.) Beauty and hope, or the fundamental laws? I think that the right way, of course, is to say that what we have to look at is the whole structural interconnection of the thing; and that all the sciences, and not just the sciences but all the efforts of intellectual kinds, are an endeavour to see the connections of the hierarchies, to connect beauty to history, to connect history to man's psychology, man's psychology to the working of the brain, the brain to the neural impulse, the neural impulse to the chemistry, and so forth, up and down, both ways. And today we cannot, and it is no use making believe that we can, draw carefully a line all the way from one end of this thing to the other, because we have only just begun to see that there is this relative hierarchy.

And I do not think either end is nearer to God. To stand at either end, and to walk off that end of the pier only, hoping that out in that direction is the complete understanding, is a mistake. And to stand with evil and beauty and hope, or to stand with the fundamental laws, hoping that way to get a deep understanding of the whole world, with that aspect alone, is a mistake. It is not sensible for the ones who specialize at one end, and the ones who specialize at the other end, to have such disregard for each other. (They don't actually, but people say they do.) The great mass of workers in between, connecting one step to another, are improving all the time our understanding of the world, both from working at the ends and working in the middle, and in that way we are gradually understanding this tremendous world of interconnecting hierarchies.

>>

Direction of resistance: The spectrum he mentions he presents as a vague, approximate, necessarily inaccurate initial appraisal of a field he insists we are new to, overall, and which has much distance to go.

Removal of resistance: What I am just as interested in is the 'holes', the 'gaps', the rough edges around our knowledge of those areas of physics Feynman specialised in.

Unification: Feynman told us that in filling those gaps, presuming it to be possible, which he admitted was by no means a correct presumption, but hopefully, we would complete our understanding, hopefully, of anything which still remains far beyond the scope of what today are, without a doubt, still 'crude' attempts at the field we deify with names like 'science' and with good marketing of the word, along with soap.

You may have to read that Feynman quote a few or more times to digest everything vital in it, I know I will do so, having already been through it a few times or more.

References: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Character-Physical-Penguin-Press-Science/dp/0140175059

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 47: << Those whose lives are illuminated by it are not compulsive consumers. They are not petty, envious of neighbors, neurotically fearful of perceived enemies. They support the development of human potential, not retributive systems of justice and endless war. >>

Thrust: The greatest let down is for Boris, internally.

Direction of resistance: Speaking about people like Chomsky (and indeed Corbyn), M.G. Piety tells us:

<<

Why is it hard for us to admit that some people are superior to other people? Is it because we're afraid to awaken the sleeping monster of exploitation that so often lives parasitically on this truth? That's part of it, I believe. Religion can prevent such exploitation, however, even while acknowledging inherent differences among human beings, on the grounds that we are all God's creatures and hence have, despite our differences, equal claim to dignity as such

Even secular humanism can protect people from the exploitation that can come with the recognition that some people are superior to other people on the grounds that no rational, or even merely sentient, creature should ever be treated merely as a means to the ends of others.

The real source, I believe, of our failure to openly acknowledge that all human beings are not, in fact, equal comes not from fear of the evil consequences of such an acknowledgement, but from fear of the good ones. Kierkegaard talks about that, about the fear of what Plato called "the Good." We all have it to some extent or other.

There is a relentlessly leveling dynamic in contemporary Western culture, a desire to tear down, to discredit anyone who dares to rise above the fray. Danes call this Janteloven, or the law of Jante, which can be summed up as: No one should have the temerity to think he is any better than anyone else.

This leveling tendency masquerades as a progressive force, yet it is anything but. The spectacle of greatness is sublime. It elevates us above our petty egoisms, confronts us with the fact that there is something larger and more important than our paltry, individual selves. And this, my friends, is a dangerous, dangerous truth that what I will unfashionably call "the forces of darkness" would rather keep hidden from us.

To glimpse this truth is life changing. Those whose lives are illuminated by it are not compulsive consumers. They are not petty, envious of neighbors, neurotically fearful of perceived enemies. They support the development of human potential, not retributive systems of justice and endless war.

Egalitarianism can be a force for positive social change, but all too often it is a lie designed to keep us down. We need heroes. Martin Luther King may have had his faults, but he was still better than the rest of us, and so, I submit, is Noam Chomsky. There are lots of these superior people. They have always been with us and, thankfully, they always will be. Our lives, and society as a whole, would be made better if we were allowed to openly acknowledge them as such, to celebrate them, to let out a roar at the spectacle of them - from deep within our souls.

>>

Removal of resistance: This is all very relevant to the fact that: <<<

I'm an "ex-public-schoolboy" and I have considered one day being an MP or PM, and if I were Boris today, personally I'd feel humiliated. Consider what a real victory can look like: << For the first time in 37 years, we have a Triple-Crown winner. American Pharaoh didn't win by a nose. He won by five and a half lengths! It was thrilling to watch him pull away from a group comprised of the fastest horses on the planet, to see him establish a lead that it was increasingly clear would be impossible for any of the other horses to overcome. It was an elevating spectacle. Joe Draper, wrote in The New York Times that "[t]he fans in a capacity crowd strained on their tiptoes and let our a roar from deep in their souls. It was going to end, finally - this 37-year search for a great racehorse." >>

Winning an amazing battle is an amazing feeling.

Boris spent his life dreaming of being PM.

To be PM you'd have to fight a brave fight, against all odds, and come out on top.

Boris hasn't even been elected PM, and the circs around his becoming 'leader' of a broken government whose majority has been lost - are not the stuff of legends. Read the article by Counterpunch's M.G. Piety below. Boris will never know what it feels like to win an amazing victory. Corbyn, meanwhile, has defeated many Tory PMs already. The party clings on to power pathetically, using blackmail and bribes. The Prime Ministers keep falling, one after the other. Corbyn is invincible. Let the lemmings continue toward the cliff. Go on Boris, lemming along you lemming man.

>>>

Unification: As M.G. piety points out about the truly great ones, like Corbyn, who can do things Johnson literally can only dream of (you'll never become a PM in a spectactular way with people on the edges of their seat, you had your chance and you were Gordon Brittas the Second, Boris my son)..

<< Those whose lives are illuminated by it are not compulsive consumers. They are not petty, envious of neighbors, neurotically fearful of perceived enemies. They support the development of human potential, not retributive systems of justice and endless war. >>

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/09/on-greatness/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 46: I'm an "ex-public-schoolboy" and I have considered one day being an MP or PM, and if I were Boris today, personally I'd feel humiliated. Consider what a real victory can look like: << For the first time in 37 years, we have a Triple-Crown winner. American Pharaoh didn't win by a nose. He won by five and a half lengths! It was thrilling to watch him pull away from a group comprised of the fastest horses on the planet, to see him establish a lead that it was increasingly clear would be impossible for any of the other horses to overcome. It was an elevating spectacle. Joe Draper, wrote in The New York Times that "[t]he fans in a capacity crowd strained on their tiptoes and let our a roar from deep in their souls. It was going to end, finally - this 37-year search for a great racehorse." >>

Thrust: Winning an amazing battle is an amazing feeling.

Direction of resistance: Boris spent his life dreaming of being PM.

Removal of resistance: To be PM you'd have to fight a brave fight, against all odds, and come out on top.

Unification: Boris hasn't even been elected PM, and the circs around his becoming 'leader' of a broken government whose majority has been lost - are not the stuff of legends. Read the article by Counterpunch's M.G. Piety below. Boris will never know what it feels like to win an amazing victory. Corbyn, meanwhile, has defeated many Tory PMs already. The party clings on to power pathetically, using blackmail and bribes. The Prime Ministers keep falling, one after the other. Corbyn is invincible. Let the lemmings continue toward the cliff. Go on Boris, lemming along you lemming man.

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/09/on-greatness/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 45: Jeremy Corbyn and Number Ten Downing Street.

Thrust: <<

Today was the first time I faced Boris Johnson in Parliament. He said he "struggled" to discover a question in what I'd said. In fact, I asked him 10 things and he failed to answer a single one:

1. Will he match Labour's commitment of £500 billion investment to rebalance this country through regional development banks and a National Transformation Fund?

2. Given he has appointed the first Home Secretary for a generation to support the death penalty, will he assure us that his Government has no plans to bring back capital punishment?

3. Before appointing the new Education Secretary was the Prime Minister given sight of the Huwaei leak investigation by the Cabinet Secretary?

4. He was in the Cabinet that accepted the Northern Ireland backstop and he voted for it in March. Could he set out what he finds so objectionable now and explain his flip-flopping?

5. There is something eerily familiar about a Prime Minister marching off to Europe with demands to scrap the backstop. How does he think he will succeed where his predecessor failed?

6. If the Prime Minister continues to pursue a reckless No Deal, does he accept that he would be directly flouting the expressed will of this Parliament?

7. Companies from Toyota to Asda have been clear about the dangers of No Deal. Is the Prime Minister still guided by his "F**k business" policy?

8. The office of Prime Minister requires integrity and honesty, so will he correct his claim that kipper exports from the Isle of Man to the UK are subject to EU regulations?

9. To tackle the climate emergency: will he ban fracking; back real British ingenuity like the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon; increase investment into carbon capture and storage; back our solar industry and onshore wind, so devastated in the last nine years; and set out a credible plan to reach net zero carbon emissions?

10. Will he ask the new Foreign Secretary to prioritise the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe? And is he committed to working with European partners to restore the Iran nuclear deal and de-escalate tensions in the Gulf?

>>

Direction of resistance: That was Corbyn, just now.

Removal of resistance: Obviously a gutless snake oil salesman like Boris will go all out to never answer those questions.

Unification: And hopes to rely on a stupid and lazy public. Don't give Boris what he wants. Be intelligent and don't waste your life.

References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 44: Corbyn's new approach to racism - but will it work to resolve problem of white racial preference? I don't think so.

Thrust: The brave Jeremy Corbyn has introduced, within Labour, not the nation, just Labour, an initiative to 'educate' people about racism - starting with anti-semitism (anti-semitism first, other forms of racism later, obviously - in this society can it really be any other way? Who could pretend that Britain would ever seek to prioritise ending the mistreatment and abuse by society of muslims at home and abroad or black Britons? These are not the number one issue for the bulk of white Britain - they don't want to think about that just yet. Maybe in some other lifetime).

Direction of resistance: The problem is that racism experienced by jews and racism experienced by muslims is very different and has to be solved in different ways.

Removal of resistance: A minority of British people say terrible things about jews and mistreat them, and this is the 'anti-semitism problem' in Britain.

Unification: Whilst jews in Britain have to fear very real racism at a social level, including physical attacks and smears - asians, muslims and black people in Britain have a far more difficult-to-solve problem - if you have a muslim or other non white name, non judeo-christian in fact, your cv will not be read anywhere near as often as if your name is judeo-christian. Job prospects are very different, and for non-judeo-christian intellectuals, academia is a major zone of racism, where your intellect is not respected and where even if you are a first rate mind, you are labelled second rate by many who judge you only by your 'identity'.

So whilst muslim, asian, black lives are being destroyed through a total lack of real meritocracy in the field of employment, jews face, on the whole, nothing quite so destructive to their lives. Employers don't discriminate against applicants with jewish names but they do discriminate against applicants with non white names, particularly against muslim named applicants.

Solving the problem of anti-semitism can easily be done with education, it's not a huge problem next to what muslims, asians, black people in Britain suffer. Our problem, what we non-white people suffer - that can only be solved by governments fining and policing companies until they become afraid to discriminate against muslims. If jews were suffering employment racism, this would apply to helping protect them too, but we have to admit, no matter how sensitive we are to the fight against anti-semitism, that jews do not face employment discrimination in Britain.

One of my friends, a total zionist, who stopped being my friend, his choice not mine, because I deplore Israel's apartheid and he celebrates it, he was one of the thickies in my Italian set at school. In fact in all subjects without exception I was far better than him and performed far better, always.

Today, he is, like all jews who were at school with me, in a good job with lots of money. I cannot, if I seek earnings via employment, get anything but grunt work, low level sales jobs which us non-white people are allowed by this racist society.

So don't pretend to me that my jewish friends at school suffer anything of the sort I do.

Jonathan was a fool, without a doubt. The jewish name "Shocko" was something he liked to amuse himself with and he liked to call himself "Shocko" - and one day our Italian teacher asked "does anyone know what sciocco means?" - it's pronounced the same as 'shocko'. Jonathan piped up grinning, very pleased with himself, jumping up and down in his seat like a child (this is an a-level student, behaving like a nursery student), shouting "it's me! It's me! I am sciocco! I am sciocco!".

Of course sciocco is the Italian word for stupid.

Today he commands great wealth. At school he would not in a million years dream of pretending he was capable of outperforming me at anything but football and pulling jewish girls!

This is what we non white Britons face - a situation where people like me don't get good jobs due to discrimination, and people like Jonathan get to tell you that THEY are being unfairly discriminated against for being jewish.

Corbyn's failure to suggest anything, yet, which will fix the real problem - would be one more reason why I will continue to never join any political party, Labour or otherwise! Thanks for reading Jeremy. I'm sure when you think hard you'll find a way to move forwards to fight real discrimination and racism in Britain, not the pretence of anti-semitism which surrounds how my friend sciocco there justifies the genocide in Israel he backs and justifies the way our society mistreats muslims - after all, since most muslims are pretty annoyed at Israel and at jews like Jonathan, it's pretty easy to mislabel them anti-semitic. Or to condemn them for emotional responses to being completely wronged without any form of justice being offered by society, including by Corbyn as yet, to protect us non white Britons, muslim Britons and others who have to suffer lower incomes not only than our peers from school but indeed from Americans and Europeans who are 'white enough' to be allowed good jobs in our country even though we ourselves are too non-white for that to be our right. Mr Corbyn do not backtrack from a new kind of politics to the old kind of disingenuous appeasement of various bullies.

References: http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 43: Jesus and the fall of Rome.

Thrust: Stan Goff writes << America is now Rome. You are Rome's army of occupation. To the Roman soldier, when Jesus passed down the dusty byways of his occupied land, he appeared no more or less than a random Iraqi or Afghan appears to you. What do you look like to them? Jesus himself looked at the Jewish resistance to Roman occupation, then looked at the corpses rotting on crosses along the roads as Roman examples to the Palestinian Jew,; and he chose a new way. His way was neither passivity, nor counter-violence, but non-violent resistance, just like Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, who both cited Jesus' ministry in their own prophetic missions. Jesus looked at the violence-counterviolence cycle, and determined that each person in that system was redeemable as an individual - each a child of God, each beloved of God. Jewish, Roman, Samaritan, male, female.. no matter. He also looked at how the system itself - operating with a self-reinforcing dynamic that transcends the individual - led people into the cycles of accusation and violence; and he proposed to undermine that system with this radical doctrine of spiritual equality, a redemption open to all through grace, and a redemption never imposed at the point of a sword.. or under threat of a bomb. In the original story, written in Greek, Jesus says, 'I am not of this world.' At least that's how many interpretations go. But the original Greek word kosmos means world, flesh, or system, depending on context. 'I am not of this system.' Not simply the system of Roman occupation, but the system of violence-counterviolence.. all systems of domination, because domination breeds the cycle of violence-counterviolence. >>.

Direction of resistance: Goff tells us << Even on the cross, in his final breaths as the Romans' victim, he cries out to God on behalf of those who kill him: 'When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus there with the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. Then Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.'' (Luke 23:33-34) What do you think that means? Certainly the Roman soldiers (soldiers like you) knew they were participating in a crucifixion. The Roman troops had done this many times.

What they did not understand was how their system led them to do this. In Matthew 27:54, it was a Centurion who heard these words - 'forgive them' - and experienced an earthquake, saying, 'Truly, this is the Son of God.' (Do you see how the symbolic truth here is more powerful than the literal seismology?) Forgiveness unmasks Satan, who is not the boogyman of popular culture, but the spirit in the culture - some would call it a zeitgeist - that acts as God's jealous pretender, that promotes Self as God, that plays the accuser to stir up the mob (weapons of mass destruction?), that sets up idols.. so that we will 'know not what we do,' so we will not know who and whose we are. You can hear the voice of Satan in every instance of boasting, humiliation of another, profaning of what we know to be sacred (like God's Creation), every thought and word of aggression or revenge, every put-down of other people (all beloved of God). Where you are, you can see how the state of war and occupation - putting you at odds with an occupied population that does not want to be occupied - amplifies and focuses the malevolent spirit. Now ask yourself why? Why do troops run down civilians with vehicles to avoid slowing down? Why do troops throw bottles and cans at pedestrians to entertain themselves? Why did the massacres like Haditha occur? Why did the utter destruction of Fallujah happen? Why are wedding parties bombed by US aircraft? Why did a whole squad participate in the premeditated half-hour-long rape and murder of a screaming 14-year-old girl? Why is it that approaching an invader's roadblock can carry death sentence for a whole family? Why can children can be woken from their beds by soldiers kicking down the house doors? Why are thousands are held imprisoned without casue? Why are Iraqi and Afghan elders obliged to obey 20-year-old invaders who can't even speak their language? Why do your peers (perhaps even you) refer to all Iraqis or Afghans with epithets? Why do your peers laugh when they retell stories of their own cruelties and their humiliations of the people whose nations they have invaded? Why are you there? What is the spirit in our culture that spins out clever excuses for these evils? It is that same spirit that you renounced at your baptism, which I call on you to remember now. Remember your baptism, where you renounced Satan. >>

Removal of resistance: Noam Chomsky has pointed out << One of the more or less hidden stories of the past generation is the story of liberation theology. Just this last november there was a commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. Great celebration, you know - the liberation of eastern europe, it was non violent you know a lot of odes to love and non violence and so on, all more or less accurate.

There was another event at the very same time - one week after the fall of the Berlin wall. An elite Salvadoran battalion which had just come from extra training, armed and trained by the United States, had just come from extra training at the Fort Bragg JFK special warfare school in North Carolina. They broke into the university and murdered six leading Latin American intellectuals, Jesuit priests - blew their heads off.

It was intended to be a final blow to liberation theology. They didn't quite kill it off but it was a serious blow. That brought to an end a decade in Central America of horrifying terrorist atrocities. For which we are responsible. In El Salvador alone maybe 70,000 people were killed mostly by the U.S. backed armed forces, including this elite battalion which was the U.S. favourite you know .. our pride and joy, they killed thousands of people.

That's bad enough, but it's more than that. Liberation theology grew out of an attempt by Pope John the 23rd to revive the gospels. There's a history of Christianity - the first three centuries of Christianity, it was a radical pacifist religion, which is why it was persecuted. It was the religion of the poor and the suffering. Jesus was a symbol of the poor and suffering, that's what the cross was. In the 4th Century it was taken over by the Roman Empire - Emperor Constantine. He turned the Church into the Church of the persecutors. The persecutors, the rich, the powerful. The cross went from being the symbol of the suffering of the poor to the shield of the forces of the Roman Empire. And for the rest of its history that's what the Church has pretty much been. It's been the Church of the rich, the persecutors, the privileged, the powerful.

Well John 23rd tried to reverse that. Tried to revive the Church of the gospels. This is in 1962. Vatican 2. The U.S. responded immediately. With extreme violence. This was a heresy. The Church was taking up the message of the gospels - it was called the preferential option for the poor. Can't allow that, you know. So a major campaign began. The first major step was the Kennedy-initiated military coup in Brasil - took place right after the assassination, which installed the first of the kind of neo-nazi style national security terror and torture states of the region. This plague spread throughout the continent, including Pinochet .. Chile .. the Argentine killers and torturers and worst of all Reagan's favourites, Uruguay .. all through the continent, reached Central America in the 1980s. Then came that decade of horror and atrocities. And it finally ended with the murder of the Jesuit intellectuals by the U.S. trained elite battalion. That's a pretty significant event in history: reversing an effort to restore Christianity. Did anybody commemorate that in November 2009? No. That's are our crimes. Therefore they didn't occur. Nobody knows about them.

Liberation theology was a religious movement. Was based on the gospels. If that's not religious I don't know what is. It was of course what we would call a radical movement. Because the gospels are radical - it was the preferential option for the poor, we're supposed to be in favour of the preferential option for the rich. So sure it was 'radical', you know 'marxist', one or another epithet.

But it was in fact the message of the gospels. And it awakened many currents elsewhere, including here. Also the evangelical movements here are not universal by any means. There's an element within the evangelical movements which is very much influenced by liberation theology and these are part of the core of the solidarity movements that developed in the 1980s .. it spread throughout the world, it's part of the core of the international solidarity movements. The catholic bishops here were influenced by it. In fact the national bishops' council took positions so radical the press couldn't even report it .. keep away from clichés, this world's much more complicated. >>

Unification: John B Good, a friend of mine, wrote (may he rest in peace).. "Dear Reader,

Quite recently I viewed a video-cassette of an interview with Gore Vidal and three distinguished Christian advocate interlocutors who took Mr Vidal pointedly to task for his non-Christian views of our society. I'm troubled. At first I wondered why Mr Vidal didn't call to the defense of his other-than-Christian religio-philosophical position on the words of Jesus, the brilliant Jew born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth as recorded in Matthew. Then I harked back to something Mr Vidal said of one of his interlocutors during the interview, "It's difficult to say anything harsh to such a charming man," which made all clear. Mr Vidal was being soft-hearted so he wouldn't embarrass the three distinguished interlocutors before such a large television audience.

Jesus' own words about members of organised Judaeo and Roman religion-businesses of his time were rough-tongued indeed. Because of Mr Vidal's considerate soft-heartedness I couldn't rely on him to bring up hard-nosed quotes from the man Jesus himself, so I reviewed Jesus' words as they are recorded in Matthew in the New English Bible "New Testament" translated under the imprint of the Oxford and Cambridge press. I cite some of Jesus' observations about religion below for your benefit.

In the introduction to the New English New Testament this passage: "In doing ur work," say the translators from Cambridge and Oxford, "we have striven to.. render the (original) Greek.. into the English of the present day, .. into the natural vocabulary, constructions, rhythms of contemporary speech." .. "..always the overriding aims were accuracy and clarity." So..

In the New Testament Jesus said: "Not everyone who calls me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but only those who DO the will of my Heavenly father. When that day comes many will say to me 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out devils in your name, and in your name perform many miracles? Then I will tell them to their face, 'I never knew you: out of my sight, you and your wicked ways.'.. What then of the man who hears my words and ACTS on them? He is like a man who had the sense to build his house on a rock.."

To be a true disciple of Jesus you DO what he says to do and Don't do what he says NOT to do.

Jesus said to his followers, "Again, when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites ('hypocrite', greek word for actorl one who pretends to be what he is NOT"; a liar); they love to say their prayers standing in synagogue and at street corners, for everyone to see them. I tell you this: they have had their reward already.. But when YOU (any true disciple of Jesus) pray, go into a room by yourself, shut the door, and pray to your Father who is there in the SECRET place; and your Father who sees what is SECRET will reward you.".. In other words, NEVER pray where anybody can see/hear you doing it, as, for instance, in a Christian church or in the White House garden or in Hyde Park, because if you DO pray in such a public place people can see you and hear you doit and YOU ARE THEREFORE NO REAL FOLLOWER OF THE REAL JESUS AT ALL. All three of the distinguished conventionally Christian interviewees claimed their stout adherence to the teachings of "Jesus Christ". I ask. "Do they pray in a church or any other public place?" If they do, says Jesus, .. "out of my sight! I never knew you."

Jesus says "You cannot serve god and money." Sneaky Christian propagandists have rewritten Jesus' direct, simple words like this: "You cannot serve God and Mammon." To the simple unlettered Palestinian fishermen and shepherds to whom Jesus spoke, who the hell is "Mammon"? Jesus was devoted to the simple word for the sake of clarity. Jesus said "If you mean Yes, say Yes; if you mean No, say No; everything else comes from the Devil". What comes from the Devil is misleading and confuses the communications between people so they can't behave beneficially and rationally.

When Jesus needed money he went out and got a job as a carpenter. He never took a cent for "teaching" or "preaching" his word. But the first thing you see when you walk into the vestibule of a Christian church is a begging bowl, the kind Jesus overturned in a rage, spilling all the money onto the floor. In passing it's worth noting that unlike Jesus two of the distinguished visotors on the Vidal program were/are PAID "Doctors" teaching "religion".

And when Jesus meets the pope (any pope) at the door to the principal Christian religion-business emporium, the Vatican, and the pope asks, "Lord, Lord, how do I get into heaven?" Jesus replies, "SELL ALL THAT THOU HAST AND SHARE WITH THE POOR." Sell all those stocks and bonds? All that gold plate? All those "silk and satin" vestments? All that valuable real estate (on which they pay no taxes, while their congregations sweat it out with Internal Revenue?) all those limousines? You must be kiddin. That's no way to run a profitable Christian business.. Incidentally Jesus' "sell all that thou hast and share" stricture is PURE business democracy, PURE ground level political democracy. Think about it. (And one of the distinguished scholars on the program said, "Christ" -- whoever that may be -- "didn't institute any moral or political system!" Really!".

Jesus said, "Be careful not to make a show of your religion." "Christ" is a religious title and to "wear" it IS to "Make a show of your religion", a flat-out contradiction of Jesus' own words on the subject of religious titles. To assume that Jesus, who said don't make a show of your religion, would turn tail on himself and accept such a title is a direct insult to his integrity as a person. And ALL of the three "Christian thinkers" insulted Jesus in this fashion during the interview. In historical fact, Jesus was an anti"Christ"!

About the crucifixion: all three "Christian thinkers" said they believe Jesus died on the cross. DID he? Speaking of the history which two of the interviewees said that Gore ignored, it was Roman practise to hang "malefactors" on crosses alive for as long as they lived as a warning that THIS is what happens to you if you violate Roman law and custom. The average life on the cross was, historically speaking, 12 to 24 hours. But Jesus was taken down from the cross after ONLY 3 HOURS. Why?

According to the publication Biblical Archeology, Jesus' cousin, Joseph of Arimathea, was a friend and business acquaintance of Pontius Pilate. Consider the probable bearing this has on Jesus' short 'life' on the cross. Consider also, in those days, the persons usually concerned with "laying out" corpses for burial were the mother and/or wife of the deceased. When Jesus' supposedly dead body (after only 3 hours?) was 'laid out', Joseph of Arimathea supervised his being deposited in the tomb, and the two women who supposedly laid him out there were his mother, Mary, and his wife Mary Magdalen -- the latter the woman "Christian historians" spend hours denigrating, calling her a whore in order to "erase" her from the reality of history.

Now, assuming the probabilities of history, if Mary and his wife Magdalen, knew Jesus was not dead when they pretended to lay him out in the tomb, then the whole fictional episode of the stone being rolled away from the tomb by "magical" means, his "rising from the dead", and his subsequent appearances to his "disciples" makes entirely acceptable realistic common sense and the whole superstitious fiction about "resurrection" the three distinguised Christian thinkers indulge vanishes in smoke.

During the interview considerable argument was made over the "fundamentalist" fantasist ravings of American religious nuts like Pat Robertson, Christian Scientists, et al without recognizing that an equally fundamentalist "Christian" emotional fantasist -- one of the distinguished Doctors -- was sitting right there at the table. This latter "Christian" said Gore didn't "take seriously the lessons of history", but the "history" he referred to, the Bible, is a mishmash of fantasy and fairy stories (Jesus walking on water, raising the dead, turning water into wine, magicking a storm into silence and calm, and other cheap tricks for mesmerising the credulous) with a few real nuggets of identifiable fact buried in the mishmash like raisins in a rice pudding, and is not real history at all.

In the presence of "true believers in the Christian fantasy", like the three featured on the program, I find myself in an uneasy "wary" state, sort of apprehensive, much as you find yourself in the presence of other humanimals with their sense of reality unrooted or uprooted. You never know which way these emotionals are going to jump. Rather than face Vidal's real historical facts, for example, the emotionally rigid pedantic one of the interviewees went off into a totally irrelevant pseudo-literary "criticism" of Vidal's rewrite of the crucifixion -- which latter, in passing, I found surprisingly below the standard of most of Gore's splendid writings I have read. The other two Christians kept evasively changing the subject rather than dealing head on with the statements immediately posed by Mr Vidal and/or Jesus.

I also found the whole 'forgiveness' business from one of the interviewees eerie. Historical Jesus has been dead for 2,000 years or more. Who but someone with a deeply buried psychiatrically distorted sense of guilt would need forgiveness from a dead man?

In addition, Jesus himself said, 'Anybody who nourishes anger should be brought into court' - criminal court, of course, since bringing such a one into marriage relations court or business relations court would be beside the point and the brilliant Jew wasn't so dumb as to use the wrong term in such a case. Nor was he hipped on the soft-headed 'forgiveness' syndrome advanced by the three 'Christian thinkers'. If you nourish anger, thereby spreading anger and violence throughout society, Jesus' recommendation is to put you in prison under lock and key.

Jesus said, 'Be careful not to make a show of your religion before men'. So how do you NOT make a show of your religion before men? Well, you don't wear a yarmulke like the orthodox jew or the pope to SHOW that you're religious. You don't turn your collar around backwards to SHOW that you're religious. You don't wear funeral black to show you're religious. You don't take on religious titles - reverend, christ, pope, doctor, cardinal, bishop, saint - the Christian landscape is riddled with them - to SHOW you're religious. You don't go around telling everyone 'Hey look at me, I'm a Catholic! I'm a Baptist! I'm Church of England! I'm Episcopalian! I'm a Christian Scientist!' to SHOW you're religious - when it's customary in your society for men to wear trousers you don't wear the kind of skirts popes and priests wear in public to SHOW they're religious.

Jesus said, speaking of the religious 'doctors of the law and pharisees' .. 'they say one thing and do another .. whatever they do is done for show. They go out with broad phylacteries and wear deep fringes on their robes; they like to have places of honour at feasts and the chief seats in synagogues, to be greeted respectfully in the streets.' Just as 'Christian' priests and practitioners march up and down in fancy red, white and black skirts waving religious banners and crosses, swinging incense pots all 'for show', occupying the chief seats in church, expecting to be addressed reverently in the streets as Father This and Father That. As Jesus said, you have ONE father and he is in heaven. By Jesus' rubric, 'Christian' priests et al expect to be addressed as God?

And Jesus hardly ever refers to temple or church officials except in terms of opprobrium - blind guides, hypocrites. ' .. you have overlooked the weightier demands of the Law, justice, mercy and good faith'. And one of the distinguished trio said Jesus did not mean to set up a just society! 'Alas for you lawyers and Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like tombs covered with whitewash; they look well from the outside, but inside they are full of dead men's bones.. so it is with you: outside you look like honest men, but inside you are brimful of hypocrisy and crime'.

'You snakes, you vipers' brood.. I send you therefor prophets, sages and teachers; some of them you will kill and crucify, others you will flog in your synagogues and hound from city to city'. This is the forgiving figure of Christianity who talks this way about priests and popes?

Nor did the Sadducees escape his notice - just as he would 'notice' the Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians and other divisive sects of 'Christianity'. Said Jesus.. 'you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.' At the time when, hopefully, Jesus' 'teaching' comes into fruition, words spoken to heaven must be spoken in SECRET not by some show-off 'religious' with a phoney title.

Speaking of temples (churches) Jesus said, 'You see all these buildings? I tell you this: not one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down.' When Jesus' REAL religiopublic political 'program' comes to fruition, ALL temples and churches will be rubble. Does this sound like a man who wants to promote Christian-business buildings - churches, temples, shrines?

One of the three distinguished religious Doctors brought up the subject of 'abortion' - ugh! From the above, you can see that Jesus spent the last three years of his life almost desperately trying to abort the Christianity-baby before it could draw breath. He was a total failure in this noble effort, but he courageously tried.

I realise that if one published any of these realities about Jesus' opinions of Christianity, the Christians would burn down your television station and murder you in the streets, so quite bluntly I expect nothing further from this letter. Except I hope it has been of clarifying benefit to you.

We come now to the interesting question of the deleterious or damaging effect of papal/hierarchical 'Christian' policy on the ecological and environmental 'health' and survival of the people of America and Great Britain, the 'health' and survival of the people in predominantly Catholic countries, such as Brazil, and of the 'health' and survival of the entire hum animal species as in Somalia. I'm sure the posing of this question seems 'far out' at first blush, but I assure you the question is in no sense idle. Bear with me.

As a sort of preamble to my comment on the stated subject, I call to your attention the attached [[sadly I don't have it here, I'll see if I can find it]] excerpt from the long term, on-going study in depth of the problem of overpopulation by Zero Population, an organisation based in Washington, D.C. (see ZPG Reporter, Vol. 23, No. 1) plus the article titled 'Two by Two, we'll fill the planet' from the pen of UCLA Professor Benjamin Zuckerman plus the enclosed [again, I'll look] piece titled 'On pollution'.

In order to insure the extension of the reasonable life-span of each of us and of the species to which we belong, it is mandatory for us to respect the simple, easily understood 'rules and regulations' 'Mother Nature' (generic term) lays down for our behaviour. Thou shalt not contaminate the air you breathe;' 'Thou shalt not contaminate the water you drink and with which you bathe and wash your clothes;' 'Thou shalt not with an over-production of humanimal babies contaminate the environmental-ecological ozone envelope which Mother Nature has thrown around our planet to protect our humanimal species from the freezing impersonally hostile vacuum outside the friendly ozone layer.'

One of the most dangerously suicidal 'guiding principles' handed down to 'Christians' by Papa from the pulpit under the Dome of the Rock reads, 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it'. This doctrine, founded by ignorant men in defiance of historical fact, to which one of the three interviewees said he is dedicated, is a direct threat to the survival of the humanimal species, including the 'CHristian' minority thereof, since if the humanimal keeps 'multiplying' and 'replenishing' and 'subduing' unabated into our future without intelligently applied strict self disciplinary 'law' in sexual matters the humanimal species - including the American and British nations - can and will multiply, replenish and subdue themselves into a nationwide/worldwide 'Somalia' and out of existence. If this sounds like Armageddon, so be it. The stupidly, self-destructive termination of our nations and of the humanimal species in general is already 'historically' in train. ('Stupid' in this context = any behaviour which is patently self-destructive of the humanimal person or her/his environment.)

The introduction of the word 'law' into this disquisition is undoubtedly chilling. The words 'freedom' and 'privatisation' are thrown around in our media and in our society for propaganda purposes and with a certain wild abandon rooted in nothing but thoughtless emotion and nameless fear. It is flattering, exciting, comforting to apply 'freedom' and 'privatisation' to oneself and/or one's society or one's business, but the application is plainly misleading upon serious reflection.

There are a dozen more instances in the New Testament where Jesus railed at organised religions and all who subscribe to them, but to continue would be simply beating a dead horse so I'll quit.

Yours in Jesus, (the REAL one)."

References: http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/09/16/america-is-now-rome/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 42: On intellectual freedom: something to challenge what most of us have been led to believe about 'language' and 'communication', and indeed the degree to which we have been led to disregard thought, erroneously, and a little bit on how little we actually know about the universe, eg the fact that the law of inertia is "of no known origin" (as Feynman put it) - nobody knows the reason why things coast forever. More on the Feynman another time, first, digest the Chomsky.

Thrust: (Much of this taken from my numberwang document, in the references below).

Here we have Chomsky shocking you with things you were blissfully unaware of, on the key topic of language, thought and communication:

<< A few things have remained pretty constant. One is that at the core of language there must be some generative procedure: recursive, compositional procedure >> Noam Chomsky tells us about the scientific endeavour over the last sixty years aiming to understand the nature of human language.

<< The second is that the field ought to be framed within a biological context. So we're interested in what's come to be called i-Language, internal individual language, viewed intentionally, we care about the actual system of rules, not just some class of objects you might enumerate. .. In the background is a concern to try to show how this biological system could have originated. What's misleadingly called 'evolution of language'. Of course it's misleading because languages don't evolve, but the language capacity, U.G. (universal grammar), does evolve, or must have evolved .. you can derive some surprising conclusions: one of them is that the output of the generative system yields the proper forms for semantic interpretation in quite complex structures .. so that means that what's generated is essentially a language of thought, maybe, I suspect, the only language of thought. The second conclusion is that externalisation .. is just an ancillary process, it's not part of the core of language. .. (these externalisations are) reflexes of the sensory motor system and the nature of the externalisation depends on which sensory motor system you're using .. the sensory motor system is not specifically adapted to language, it was apparently around hundreds of thousands of years before language suddenly emerged and there are many ways to map one to the other and it's a hard process and in fact what we find is that the complexity of language which you have to learn when you learn a language is almost entirely externalisation .. >>

<< A third conclusion is that most of the doctrines about the nature of language and related fields .. most of them are just flat wrong. There's a doctrine which is held virtually at the level of dogma. The way it's put is the function of language is communication. It's a kind of a curious notion because biological systems don't have functions. .. the dogma is that language, uniquely among biological systems, has a function and the function is communication, but if these first two conclusions are correct that has to be false because communication is based on externalisation and if externalisation is an ancillary property of language then communication is even more so. >>

As you now appreciate, the very basis of what our 'establishments' call knowledge, call reason, call logic, is shaky. It's worth mentioning a few other upsetting truths here also.

Direction of resistance: I think the following extracts from written material on Chomsky's site will give you yet more awareness of how much our ideas fall short of what the average human imagines our ideas to be.

<< One of the most profound insights into language and mind, I think, was Descartes's recognition of what we may call "the creative aspect of language use": the ordinary use of language is typically innovative without bounds, appropriate to circumstances but not caused by them - a crucial distinction - and can engender thoughts in others that they recognize they could have expressed themselves. Given the intimate relation of language and thought, these are properties of human thought as well. This insight is the primary basis for Descartes's scientific theory of mind and body. There is no sound reason to question its validity, as far as I am aware. Its implications, if valid, are far-reaching, among them what it suggests about the limits of human understanding, as becomes more clear when we consider the place of these reflections in the development of modern science from the earliest days. >>

<< The background is the so-called "mechanical philosophy" - mechanical science in modern terminology. This doctrine, originating with Galileo and his contemporaries, held that the world is a machine, operating by mechanical principles, much like the remarkable devices that were being constructed by skilled artisans of the day and that stimulated the scientific imagination much as computers do today; devices with gears, levers, and other mechanical components, interacting through direct contact with no mysterious forces relating them. The doctrine held that the entire world is similar: it could in principle be constructed by a skilled artisan, and was in fact created by a super-skilled artisan. The doctrine was intended to replace the resort to "occult properties" on the part of the neoscholastics: their appeal to mysterious sympathies and antipathies, to forms flitting through the air as the means of perception, the idea that rocks fall and steam rises because they are moving to their natural place, and similar notions that were mocked by the new science. >>

<< It is commonly believed that Newton showed that the world is a machine, following mechanical principles, and that we can therefore dismiss "the ghost in the machine," the mind, with appropriate ridicule. The facts are the opposite: Newton exorcised the machine, leaving the ghost intact. The mind-body problem in its scientific form did indeed vanish as unformulable, because one of its terms, body, does not exist in any intelligible form. Newton knew this very well, and so did his great contemporaries. >>

<< John Locke wrote that we remain in "incurable ignorance of what we desire to know" about matter and its effects, and no "science of bodies [that provides true explanations is] within our reach." Nevertheless, he continued, he was "convinced by the judicious Mr. Newton's incomparable book, that it is too bold a presumption to limit God's power, in this point, by my narrow conceptions." Though gravitation of matter to matter is "inconceivable to me," nevertheless, as Newton demonstrated, we must recognize that it is within God's power "to put into bodies, powers and ways of operations, above what can be derived from our idea of body, or can be explained by what we know of matter." And thanks to Newton's work, we know that God "has done so." The properties of the material world are "inconceivable to us," but real nevertheless. Newton understood the quandary. For the rest of his life, he sought some way to overcome the absurdity, suggesting various possibilities, but not committing himself to any of them because he could not show how they might work and, as he always insisted, he would not "feign hypotheses" beyond what can be experimentally established. >>

<< As the import of Newton's discoveries was gradually assimilated in the sciences, the 'absurdity' recognized by Newton and his great contemporaries became scientific common sense. The properties of the natural world are inconceivable to us, but that does not matter. The goals of scientific inquiry were implicitly restricted: from the kind of conceivability that was a criterion for true understanding in early modern science from Galileo through Newton and beyond, to something much more limited: intelligibility of theories about the world. This seems to me a step of considerable significance in the history of human thought and inquiry, more so than is generally recognized, though it has been understood by historians of science. >>

<< Honesty should lead us to concede, I think, that we understand little more today about these matters than the Spanish physician-philosopher Juan Huarte did 500 years ago when he distinguished the kind of intelligence humans shared with animals from the higher grade that humans alone possess and is illustrated in the creative use of language, and proceeding beyond that, from the still higher grade illustrated in true artistic and scientific creativity. Nor do we even know whether these are questions that lie within the scope of human understanding, or whether they fall among what Hume took to be Nature's ultimate secrets, consigned to "that obscurity in which they ever did and ever will remain." >>

I appreciate it's complex stuff, and there's a lot of context you need to spend more time reading about to entirely understand what even that much tells us about the state of 'science' in the west today, but once you enter the domain of quantum physics, it all falls apart completely - the universe, Richard Feynman tells us, at its core, essentially, is, in a word, "NUTTY". Yes, the universe is nutty. And he doesn't mean the kind squirrels enjoy. He means it's nuts. It's insane. "I don't understand it either," he informs his dumb but credulous audience, which laughs with joy at this stark stark truth.

Removal of resistance: And whilst I'm sure you need a rest from the head-fuck, I have to ensure I mention something about what Chomsky has told us about 'empiricism', which is very very important as far as I can see. He has told us: << Hume, for example, really did his best to show that his elementary principles concerning the acquisition of human knowledge were sufficient to cover an interesting class of cases and challenged his opponents to produce a legitimate "idea" that could not be derived from sense impression by his principles. There is a certain kind of ambiguity in his procedure here, since in part he seems to be engaged in a kind of scientific inquiry, trying to show that certain principles he proposed were in fact adequate to cover the crucial cases, while at other times he relies on these principles to demonstrate that some notion is "illegitimate," since it cannot be derived by them - an argument that rests on our accepting his not very plausible principles concerning the nature of the mind. Hume regarded the principle of inductive reasoning as a kind of "animal instinct," which would appear to be an empirical assumption. In modern versions, his assumptions have often been converted into dogma presupposed without serious effort to show them to be valid, or to reply to classical criticisms that were raised against these principles.

There is no reason to believe today that Hume's principles or anything resembling them are adequate to account for our "ideas" or our knowledge and beliefs, nor to think that they have any particular significance. There is no place for any a priori doctrine concerning the complexity of the brain or its uniformity as far as the higher mental functions are concerned. We must proceed to the investigation of the diverse cognitive structures developed normally by human beings in the course of their maturation and their relation to the physical and social environment, seeking to determine, as best we can, the principles which govern these cognitive structures. Once a certain understanding of the nature of these systems has been obtained, then we can reasonably study the basis on which they are acquired. In my opinion, the little that we know about these questions suggests that the mind, like the body, is in effect a system of organs - we could call them "mental organs" by analogy - that is to say, highly specific systems organized according to a genetic program that determines their function, their structure, the process of their development, in quite a detailed manner; the particular realization of these fundamental principles naturally depends on their interaction with the environment, as in the case of the visual system... If that is correct, the mind is a complex system of interacting faculties, which do not develop by means of uniform principles of "general intelligence"; it is constituted of "mental organs" just as specialized and differentiated as those of the body. >>

Unification: Most people are far more concerned about freedom of speech than about freedom of thought, and yet thought is much much much more important than speech and limitation of thought, unintentional and intentional both, as well as control of it and censorship of it and policing of it, these topics, starting with basic ways in which thought is limited by anyone or anything outside of you individually, should be of maximum interest to you and concern to you, whoever you are. And if you suspect that you won't digest or remember all the key points in this document unless you read it a few times, I have to admit I think you're probably onto something there.

References: http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 41: British police make statement declaring Britain a totalitarian state on matters of press freedom - former Tory Chancellor contradicts them.

Thrust: On the topic of Darroch, whom Craig Murray reminds us is a fully fledged war monger NATO git and pity for him is somewhat absurd, the police issued a statement ordering the press to follow totalitarian law set out arbitrarily by one random police officer rather than honouring Magna Carta and the freedoms afforded to us in our democracy. No need for a d-notice, the police officer feels, just basically do what the police officer (or perhaps any police officer ever) tells you, with no reference to law or judges or juries, or press freedom.

Direction of resistance: To be precise the officer said: << I would advise all owners, editors and publishers of social and mainstream media not to publish leaked government documents that may already be in their possession, or which may be offered to them, and to turn them over to the police or give them back to their rightful owner, Her Majesty's Government. >>

Removal of resistance: The Guardian tells us: << Osborne described the statement as "ill-advised .. If I were the Metropolitan police commissioner, and I wanted to maintain my credibility and the credibility of my force, I would quickly distance myself from this very stupid and ill-advised statement from a junior officer who doesn't appear to understand much about press freedom." >>

Unification: They inform us << Tim Shipman, political editor of the Sunday Times, criticised the "sinister, absurd, anti-democratic statement this evening threatening journalists with arrest for printing government leaks" >> and then tell us how Shipman then followed this with some racist remarks about Russia, essentially, ruining an otherwise good observation.

In short, British society is totally ignorant, police running around behaving like they own the country and we're all basically prisoners and have to do as they say. The police officer in question apparently doesn't realise that police officers are OUR SERVANTS and work for us, the public, and cannot arbitrarily make rules for us to obey. We, the people, make the rules, via our elected representatives. Leaks and whistleblowers are the cornerstone of democracy and without them our laws are meaningless - without the right to challenge and evolve, our laws are meaningless.

Meanwhile Galloway has pointed out (see youtube link below) that the entire political class is toasting the leaking and publishing which the police criticised, yet condemns Assange for having done exactly the same thing. Galloway's video certainly humiliates those islamophobes and other racists who stand by the genocide and war crimes of the USA under all its presidents in my lifetime.

References: https://www.theguardian.com/[..]-met-of-flouting-press-freedom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PQW4HETKtk
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/19/spying-on-julian-assange/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 40: Jeremy Corbyn vs the new Tory 'leader'.

Thrust: <<

I am proud to lead the Labour Party - the greatest political party and social movement in this country.

We all recognise that the issue of Brexit has been divisive in our communities and sometimes in our party too.

As democrats, Labour accepted the result of the 2016 referendum. In our 2017 manifesto, Labour also committed to oppose a No Deal Brexit and the Tories' Brexit plans - which threatened jobs, living standards, and the open multicultural society that we as internationalists value so much.

I want to pay tribute to Keir Starmer and the shadow Brexit team for holding the Government to account during this process. That helped secure a meaningful vote on their deal - which we then defeated three times - including inflicting the largest ever defeat on any Government. And following their refusal to publish their legal advice, this Government became the first to be held in contempt of Parliament.

Labour set out a compromise plan to try to bring the country together based around a customs union, a strong single market relationship and protection of environmental regulations and rights at work. We continue to believe this is a sensible alternative that could bring the country together.

But the Prime Minister refused to compromise and was unable to deliver, so we ended cross-party talks.

Now both Tory leadership candidates are threatening a No Deal Brexit - or at best a race to the bottom and a sweetheart deal with Donald Trump: that runs down industry, opens up our NHS and other public services to yet more privatisation, and shreds environmental protections, rights at work and consumer standards.

I have spent the past few weeks consulting with the shadow cabinet, MPs, affiliated unions and the NEC. I have also had feedback from members via the National Policy Forum consultation on Brexit.

Whoever becomes the new Prime Minister should have the confidence to put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote.

In those circumstances, I want to make it clear that Labour would campaign for Remain against either No Deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs.

Labour has a crucial, historic duty to safeguard jobs, rights and living standards. But no Brexit outcome alone can do that.

We need a general election. After nine years of austerity, too many people in this country cannot find decent secure well-paid work, and have to rely on public services that have been severely cut back.

Our country is ravaged by inequality and rising poverty, huge regional imbalances of investment, and the government is failing to tackle the climate emergency facing us all.

That is why we need a Labour government to end austerity and rebuild our country for the many, not the few.

>>

Direction of resistance: That's from Jeremy Corbyn's facebook page.

Removal of resistance: I have no idea how many readers out there will be exposed to much or any of those words via the mainstream media.

Unification: Corbyn has said what he has said. What happens to Britain now is in your hands, readers, voters and apathetic masses.

References: https://www.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/posts/10157471175078872
https://labourlist.org/2019/07/how-were-doing-corbynomics-in-jeremy-corbyns-own-backyard/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 39: Obedience, education and capitalism.

Thrust: Coming soon, to this space. Well, coming, at any rate, although the fact that I haven't done it yet (see the shadow log at the bottom of the page - a proper computer not a moron-phone is the best way to read my site, you slackers. I'm with David Lynch on this. PUT DOWN YOUR MORON-PHONE AND USE A REAL COMPUTER, fool, before the corporations finish locking up all your descendants!) is an example of how to stand up to the dictates of tyrants (even oneself) and how to always be ready to be disobedient - after all, I've read this grid point numerous times between when it was most recently edited and just now and gladly proceeded without a further change. It's key Chomsky to transcribe, though, so I'll get to it sooner or later. It must be done.

Direction of resistance: Mainly just a transcription of what Chomsky has to say about obedience and education and the relationship of both to commercial society and/or indeed "capitalism".

Removal of resistance: The transcription about education etc makes it easy to understand, with emotions and knee-jerk responses stripped away, what causes people to be like Owen Jones or Robert Webb or causes men like Donald Trump and women like Hillary Clinton to be 'elected' 'president' and women like Theresa May and men like Boris Johnson to be 'elected' 'Prime Minister'. The cause is the same, the root is the same and you can see from the Chomsky transcription coming to this spot soon very clearly why it is that these fairly stupid characters misguide a relatively stupid society ever onwards towards a now demonstrably near global meltdown - driven, ever more aggressively, by men like Trump and Johnson, indeed.

It also is the same thing which causes the easily led populations to chase after red herrings, divide themselves and intensify their self-destruction and entirely avoid in any way curbing the power of monster capitalism, if we may call it that (for what else is it?). It's why hyperconsumers are hyperconsumers. It is all easily explained in this analysis of Chomsky to come shortly (or watch the video below, right now).

Unification: It will take me a little time to transcribe the Chomsky as I haven't found any transcription online. It's slow work, is transcribing Chomsky. At least if you want to do it properly.

References:

"Oh they'll never get the bandit express"

Point 38: (Update: I heard in the media that Owen Jones has been physically attacked by far right white supremacists and I hope he is well and know that there is no doubt his resolve to learn how to stand up to and successfully defeat Britain's white supremacists will only grow stronger after what he has suffered. I would be a hypocrite or salesman if I changed my advice to Owen for any unsound reason so it still stands, but I do stand with Owen Jones whether or not I find reason to call him an idiot in certain circumstances. May those who attacked him face proper democratic and scientific outcomes.) Previously: Owen Jones' capacity for learning seems weaker than I had imagined (and I hadn't thought much of him, so that's pretty awful).

Thrust: The recent events concerning Chris Williamson, who 'claimed' to some extent that the 'anti-semitism' smears thrown at the Labour party are disingenuous and need to be faced responsibly and called out for what they are, has been followed by Owen Jones toeing the (Blair-and-Thatcher)-party line and 'telling off' Williamson etc.

Chomsky points out << "The charges against Chris Williamson are a case in point. There is nothing even remotely anti-semitic in his statement that Labour has 'given too much ground' and been 'too apologetic' in defending its record of addressing 'the scourge of anti-semitism' beyond that of any other party, as he himself had done, on public platforms and in the streets. >>

Direction of resistance: Jones has learned nothing at all from the ("numberwang") document in the references below even though it has been around for months already, the opening very clear and pertinent and capable of educating Jones - and whilst hundreds, maybe thousands of people have accessed it and read at least part of it, Jones, whether he has read any of it or not (I'd definitely bet not), has learned nothing from it.

Removal of resistance: Over a period of months, Jones, in an average/normal set of (however many) months, is presumably going around in circles patting himself on the back regularly for being so wonderful, never learning one single thing, just constantly improving his ability to put on a neoliberal play-act.

Unification: In fact, reader, in a period of a few months almost all of you should be aiming, almost all of the time, to progress, develop, learn, evolve. For people like Jones it seems that 'progress' really means nothing but 'take take take' (from the world). 'Giving' to the world is never seen as 'progress' to such materialistic base minds. Thus learning is something they never feel naturally inclined towards. Your presence, as a reader, at the end of this paragraph, particularly if you reached it by starting at the beginning and journeying along the words all the way, shows you are at least slightly different to those, like Jones, who seem designed to never learn. No need to post references to his attacks on Williamson. I'm sure the popular corporate media will spread the links far and wide and you'll easily find em if you look!

Jones 'attacks' Williamson, an anti-racist, because Jones wants to be seen (by neoliberals and corporatists) to be 'right', whereas Jones would, I suspect, never dare to call Yochanan Gordon racist. Who is Yochanan and why is Jones likely to be afraid that if he calls Yochanan racist he, Jones, will 'suffer', the way Williamson is suffering? This, from my numberwang article:

<<<

<< The Times of Israel is under fire on Friday after publishing a blog post titled 'When Genocide Is Permissible.' The post, written by Yochanon Gordon, was quickly removed from the Times' website, but cached and screen-captured versions of the piece quickly proliferated on social media. >>

The racist blogger wrote: << Hamas has stated forthrightly that it idealizes death as much as Israel celebrates life. What other way then is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than obliterate them completely? >> (I wonder what the average westerner would feel about that argument's being used in relation to the damage the USA, the UK and much of western Europe has done to the world, for centuries?!!)

Finally this Israeli then declares << If political leaders and military experts determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide is it then permissible to achieve those responsible goals? >> (I guess that's what the terrorists who bomb westerners feel they are doing when they commit Israeli-style genocide in Britain, France, the U.S. etc).

>>>

Will Owen Jones make any kind of loud noise about the genocidal racism of Gordon? Nope. I doubt he ever has or will. Yet if attacking Williamson, an anti-racist, will help Jones' career, there he is in the front line, throwing stones at a good man.

Go over the links relating to Chris Williamson in the references below, and digest the Chomsky quote, and you'll find Labour MPs and writers like Owen Jones who insult Holocaust victims by pretending that Chris Williamson is 'anti-semitic' in any way ought to be utterly ashamed of their rancid racist behaviour. That means YOU Yvette Cooper and Stella Creasy, you racist women. Resign right now, you disgusting racists. Your rancid racism is unacceptable. STELLA CREASY, YVETTE COOPER (and plenty of others, but you two really should just get on and resign, you obviously never intend to serve the public) IT IS YOUR TURN TO RESIGN FROM PARLIAMENT - YOU DO NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC. RESIGN NOW. READ THIS: The Blair-led Islamophobes use the pretence of 'anti-semitism', smearing all British muslims (the majority of whom are obviously incensed by Israeli genocide and apartheid), by association, with "anti-semitism" (other than uncle Tommohammeds whom they use as tokens to help them pretend they and their supporters are "not racist") and pandering to the Islamophobes Boris and the Tories and Farage have all pandered to, to win votes from white racist voters. Is Labour ready to pay the same price those guys are paying? This is the most strong and stable time in Labour's history, it seems. Does Corbyn want to risk letting Hodge, who voted to bomb Iraq under Blair, and those like her and Blair take away all that the Labour party has achieved.

And then resign. Because you are unfit for the office you have been given by the people's consent only.

References: Read this, Jones: http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/chomsky-speaks-out-against-the-attacks-on-chris-williamson

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 37: Chomsky on "the future of capitalism".

Thrust: <<<

Q: Question about the future of capitalism.

Chomsky: The general future of capitalism?



Q: Yeah.

Chomsky: first of all we should bear in mind that capitalism is a bit of a myth. We don't really have capitalist societies. We have state capitalist societies and the state has always played an essential central role in development and extension of the capitalist system, so that goes back to England in the 17th century and all the way through the history of development.

But let's just take the recent period, so take today's high-tech economy. Take your iPhone. If you take your iPhone and you take the technology - take it apart and it turns out that almost everything comes from the state sector. The GPS was developed by the Navy, the electronics was developed in military labs. You know: everything. The computer that's in front of you. The computers began to be developed in the 1950s, actually in a large part in the lab where I happened to be working. It wasn't until 1977 that Apple was able to produce a computer that could be marketed for profit - that's after about 30 years of research and development in the state sector.

Now suppose we had capitalist societies, one of the principles of capitalism is supposed to be that if you invest in something, especially if you invest to make a risky costly investment over say 30 years, and there's some profit that comes out, it's supposed to go back to you.

But our system doesn't work like that: it goes to Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos. The public pays the costs through various devices, the university labs and so on and then after many years something is handed over to the private corporations and they make the profit. Same with the internet. The beginnings of the internet were in the late 1950s actually in same lab where I was working at MIT that began thinking about the internet and it developed over decades within the government system, meaning taxpayer support. Finally around 1995 the public made a gift simply a gift to private corporations to say ok you guys can have the internet that we developed. Now we have the half a dozen huge mega corporations which run the Internet. It's a public gift, you know.

And in fact across the board that's the way it is: it's the same if you go back to the 19th century when what was called the American system of production developed and kind of amazed the world. You know: mass production, quality control, interchangeable parts. Most of it was developed in government armouries. That's where you can do experimentation you can you can make investments for the long term. Private corporations don't do that, they want to make profit tomorrow not invest for what might happen in 30 years, and that's in fact the entire history of development of what we call capitalism and its current function.

If you look at the present: take the people who are saying we have to have a small government and devote ourselves to the market, just look at how they live. There are huge public subsidies, government subsidies, to every major sector of the economy: agribusiness, energy, finance - they're all heavily publicly subsidised. That's okay. That's a "proper function" of the government just not pensions and security and health and "irrelevant" things like that.

So that's what's called capitalism but it's a very specifically shaped and designed form of capitalism. So can that survive? Well it certainly shouldn't survive and I think that can be changed. In fact the public wants it to be changed.

So again if you take a look, the United States is a very heavily polled society mainly because business wants to know what people think and it's important so we know a lot about people's attitudes. One thing we know is that across the spectrum people want much higher taxes on the rich but the taxes keep going down. In fact those results usually aren't even reported. That of even people who are considered very right-wing, tea party let's say - if you take a look at their actual attitudes they're more or less social democratic.

People say yeah we want a very small government but we want more expenditures in health and education and support for people who can't feed their children and so on but just a small government but all the things that a big government does - in fact even attitudes on things like foreign foreign aid are very interesting like in the polls about foreign aid everyone says it's way too high, we're giving everything away to the undeserving foreigners. But when you ask them what foreign aid should be it's just about about ten times as high as it actually is you know because - these are the results of extensive propaganda systems which indoctrinate people into having certain conceptions. You know: everybody's stealing from us, the poor are taking away, the government's putting the poor in front of us, immigrants are flooding the country. Take, say, immigration: huge concern about immigration in the United States you know Mexican rapists and criminals. Almost half the immigration is from Asia: educated trained people who are being brought in to help develop the high-tech economy. It's about 40% of the immigrants. It's not what people hear, you know. What they hear is something that doesn't exist. Mexican criminals.

But it's it's pretty much the same in Europe so for example in fact it is very striking, I mentioned the other day the latest elections in Europe were in Sweden a couple of weeks ago which again the right-wing did get a much higher percentage in everyone wanted which is a frightening development but there was a careful study of the rise of the right in Sweden and what it showed was very interesting and generalises. Turns out that the rise of the right in Sweden was before the wave of immigrants: it was a reaction of people who were basically cast aside by the abandonment of the social democratic policies as the government including the Social Democratic so-called left began to move towards the so-called austerity programs. People know the mass of the population was left out.

Some people do fine you know they get rich - the elites, as they're called. So what most of the people see is: those guys up there are doing fine and I'm left out so I object and I'm gonna respond by voting for the Nationalist xenophobic party. That was before the wave of immigrants once the immigrants come in they serve as a convenient scapegoat and so it's their fault it's not the fault of the corporations up there, we don't see them.

Finland, the same study showed, has the same rise in the right-wing parties but they have almost no immigration. If you take a look at the United States it's quite interesting - the 2016 election - there have been extensive studies of why people voted for Trump and almost all the studies say it's racism and sexism which is not false but the question is why did these attitudes emerge and if you look back they emerge from people who were left out who have been stagnating for forty years even worse: wages declining, benefits declining, organisation declining, those are communities that are ripe for a demagogue who can blame everything on a scapegoat.

The racism is there undoubtedly, misogyny is there, xenophobia is there and it comes out of the bottle when people are angry and resentful and don't know where to turn to for explanation for their plight. I think the source of a lot of this is simply the neoliberal policies of the last generation which were designed. They're not a law of nature, you know, they're designed to have certain consequences which they have and one of them is leaving the mass of the population as what's sometimes called a precariat: people living precarious existences, no security, pensions aren't coming, no organisation, [..] who are going to look for somebody responsible and the easiest place to look is people who are even more vulnerable than you are and so it shows up in these dangerous antisocial attitudes.

The decline of democracy is a consequence and in fact a desired consequence of the policies that were instituted: they overcome what was called "the crisis of democracy", "too much democracy". So now yes we've succeeded in reducing the crisis of democracy with the consequences that follow from that.



Q: How about the resistance? You said this system will not survive like this. Can't.

Chomsky: Yes, impossible for a reason we haven't discussed. There are two huge crises growing one of them we know about the nuclear threat. If you look at the history of the nuclear age it's an absolute miracle that we have survived. If there was time we could go through it but case after case dozens of times sometimes by accident mostly by accident, sometimes by reckless acts of leaders we came literally within minutes of terminal destruction. Literally. Some of the cases are shocking when you look at them and miracles don't continue, so sooner or later we'll manage and destroy ourselves.

The other is global warming which is very serious. I mean if the use of fossil fuels continues at anything remotely like the present level, by the end of this century let's say we might see sea level rising 6 to 10 metres. You can just imagine what that would mean. Plus what we already see severe weather: droughts, hurricanes, typhoons, all escalating and it already has big effects. Like the the Syrian war for example: at one of its roots is an unprecedented drought, nothing (like it) in hundreds of thousands of years of history. Huge drought surely the result of global warming which drove peasants off the land into the cities. No way for them to survive. It creates a kind of a kindling which any spark will set off, it's part of the background for the conflicts that arose.

The same happened in Darfur: the huge drought drove nomads into the agricultural areas and there's also ethnic conflict there, and that immediately led to conflict and confrontation, ended up with big massacres. These things are not are not just the future, we're living with at beginnings of them take a look at Bangladesh which is mostly a coastal plain, the sea level starts rising. What's going to happen to hundreds of millions of people?

If the glaciers keep melting in the Himalayas the already meagre water supply in South Asia is going to be severely threatened. Right now there are several hundred million people in India who do not have potable water. We're taught in Pakistan it's going to be even worse.

I mean we're talking about the fate of hundreds of millions of people in the near future.

The rich may think they can escape by going to a mountain somewhere but that's not going to happen. And the policies that are being pursued are to escalate the problem - it's not just Trump, take a look at the big banks. Take a look at the JPMorgan Chase huge banks they know exactly what the consequences are and they're increasing their investments in fossil fuels. That's the nature of capitalism. As I said its we have a mixed form of capitalism but there is a market system underlying it somewhere and an imperative of the market system is that you try to make maximal profit tomorrow and you disregard what are called externalities. The things that are not charted. And if you don't do that you're out of the game. It's part of the structure of the system. So Jamie Dimon who's a smart guy, head of JP Morgan Chase, understands perfectly well the consequences but nevertheless is compelled by the logic of the institutions to maximise the threat to his own grandchildren. He may not like it, maybe on the side he gives money to the Sierra Club, environmental groups, but functioning within the system they're destroying the possibility for organised life.

That is nothing that you can put band-aids on. This is much deeper. Then of course the Trump administration that's just the worst by far. We ought to have big headlines and the newspapers every day saying these guys are trying to destroy the possibility of organised human life and if you think about it honestly there's been nothing in all of human history to compare with this not a Atilla the Hun not Genghis Khan not Hitler.

Horrible as they were they never tried to destroy organised human life. This is something new. There's no word to describe it: evil doesn't capture it. Insanity doesn't capture it because it's not insane it's planned, and conscious and part of the very logic of the system in which they work.

Now of course with Trump and his associates they're trying to extend it make it worse. That's not part of the logic of the system - the system could function with palliative efforts as Obama in fact was doing and most of the world is doing. Not enough but at least something, but it's a very deep problem. It's like class hatred in Brazil. This is deep, you can't put a bandaid on it. It's fundamental things that have to be dealt with.



Q: How about resistance, the movements against capitalism, against those things?



Chomsky: that's the encouraging part of the story: all over the world there is a resistance. So the most popular political figure in the United States by a considerable margin is Bernie Sanders which is kind of unthinkable in the framework of American political history. It's never happened in American political history that somebody like Sanders could become even noticed let alone become the most popular political figure in the country. Now just think of what happened. You have to recognise that American elections are literally bought: you can you can predict the outcome of elections with remarkable precision simply by looking at campaign funding, Executive and Congress.

Goes back well over a hundred years, now here's somebody who entered the campaign virtually unknown. No media support. Barely mentioned if the media mentioned him they just made fun of him you know. No support. Zero from any of the funders. No corporate support. No support from private wealth. He even used what in the United States is a kind of four-letter word. The United States is I suppose the only country in the world outside of maybe some dictatorship where you can't say the word socialism, let alone communism: it's just unspeakable. You know it's literally a four-letter word: he said he was a socialist.

Socialist really means New Deal Democrats, doesn't mean anything very profound but with all of that he came very close to winning the nomination for the Democrats.



Q: you are for Hillary at that time?



Chomsky: No. After the nomination yes. But that's not for Hillary that's against Trump. That's something quite different she was awful. But if Sanders had been able to win the nomination frankly I don't know what would have happened because the Republican propaganda machine which had not been directed against Sanders and which is huge, corporate backed, fantastic. It would be directed against Sanders and what you'd start hearing is things about this atheist Jew communist wants to destroy everything a ton of stuff like that. He probably probably couldn't have withstood it - but so it's kind of unpredictable but that's what certainly would have happened. How people would react to that you really don't know.

You can see it in England right now, the attack on Corbyn. I mean there's an enormous fear including the Labour party you know the old Labour Party, the Guardian: you know the idea that you might have a political party that actually represents the general public and its interests and suffering people abroad and is led by a decent human being. That's totally intolerable so you have this enormous attack of the kind you can't defend yourself against like anti-semitism you say somebody's a Holocaust denier and anti-semite - there's no defence basically. And it's just across the board: a huge attack on Corbyn and the Labour Party and that's the kind of thing you would have seen if Sanders (had won) - you know. They'd pick a little differently but anti-israel, you know all this huge propaganda which is so familiar you can just make it up - so there's a lot to overcome but what the Sanders campaign showed and what the Corbyn success shows is that you can do quite a lot.

Sanders and Yanis Varoufakis just came out with a joint declaration, that's very important I think. Varoufakis is a very smart interesting guy - he is the centre of this new political organisation diem25, which is in fact running candidates, transnational candidates for the European Parliament and ultimately in the Greek elections and later other ones - which is a kind of a counterpart to Corbyn and Sanders and the Varoufakis Sanders declaration a couple of days ago is you know it's not radical it's calling for sensible multipolar and Liberal Democratic structures. It wants in Europe to preserve what's good about the European Union and to overcome the serious flaws, the same in the Western Hemisphere and things like the Obrador election in Mexico, another example.

So I think if you look around the world and the [. just plain.] level of activism mainly among young people which is quite surprising, striking. I think it's much higher almost than it's ever been, except for a few few brief moments - 1968 there's a brief spike but this is lasting, so I think the basis is sort of there, if it can be brought together and organised.

>>>

Direction of resistance: I took a particularly poor transcription of that and cleaned it up. Hopefully cleaned now.

Removal of resistance: I suggest you read it a few times over since the material it contains is all pretty seriously fundamental to the survival of you and anyone you "love".

Unification: I will take key extracts from it and summarise much of its content to aid and abet education of people, asap, in what Chomsky is saying in the above interview. Watch the whole extract on youtube via the link in the references below, if you prefer.

References: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkcDT4l7e4o
http://show.tvhobo.com/?1.x.3

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 36: The Blair-led Islamophobes use the pretence of 'anti-semitism', smearing all British muslims (the majority of whom are obviously incensed by Israeli genocide and apartheid), by association, with "anti-semitism" (other than uncle Tommohammeds whom they use as tokens to help them pretend they and their supporters are "not racist") and pandering to the Islamophobes Boris and the Tories and Farage have all pandered to, to win votes from white racist voters. Is Labour ready to pay the same price those guys are paying? This is the most strong and stable time in Labour's history, it seems. Does Corbyn want to risk letting Hodge, who voted to bomb Iraq under Blair, and those like her and Blair take away all that the Labour party has achieved?

Thrust: Jeremy Corbyn, and others whom it may concern, I have been reading grid point 21: << Many left wing jews are not jews, opponent of Palestinian rights Momentum's Lansman feels. Only jews who agree with him are real jews, he clearly thinks, in that deranged way religious fundamentalists think >> and I have just seen something - a HUGE danger to YOU - which you cannot see as you are inside the box and I can as I am an outsider - I may vote for Corbyn's Labour but I am 'not Labour' - I am 'anarchist' and 100% unpartisan, will probably never join any party, not even Labour, probably.

Direction of resistance: So this is it - the Tories display their Islamophobia in order to prove themselves to the voters they want.

Removal of resistance: LABOUR's false 'anti-semitism' scandal is actually definitely driven by a need by that part of Labour's desire to appease the same voters. Their version of abusing muslims is deeming all muslims anti-semites, by assocation, other than a few Uncle Tomohammeds like Chukkka the British mini-Obama (without the pzazz).

The reason they cluelessly do this without realising they are going to suffer the same problems the Tories have for being so Islamophobic is that they use Saudi Arabia as their 'muslim friend' to demonstrate (and kid themselves) that they are 'allies' of muslims - whilst unconsciously demonising and hating just about all British muslims, most of whom find Saudi Arabia's imperialism as vile as they find Israel's, just as the most intelligent and ethical British jews find Israel's imperialism as vile as Saudi Arabia's. The only muslims Blair's mob really deals with on 'equal terms', as with the Tories (the same muslims) are the ones who are xenophobic, imperialist and hated by most other muslims!

This may be 'amusing to watch' - as people like Blair and Hodge destroy their own careers, but think about what it means for Labour to be a party which many still want to appeal to the Islamphobes whom Johnson and Hunt have fully appealed to (Hunt's support of Trump's remarks were, perhaps, hoping to please many of those white men I meet who tell me, in any political discussion, that Britain is being taken over by muslims and there's sharia law all over the country).

In the longrun this could have as devastating consequences for Labour as it clearly will have for the Tories, assuming it hasn't already - I mean we don't know how much the general election will savage the racist Tory party.

Unification: So to repeat, and clarify, and sum up: the racist members of Labour want to appeal to the SAME vote that the Islamophobic Tories do - the antisemitism fiasco is even more disingenuous than I realised. They are doing it precisely because it 'proves' to lots of white racists that they too hate muslims, but they do so in a way which is 'unovert' and thus many oblivious white middle class people and white working class people who are unsuspecting can go along with it, supporting Blair-Labour's rampant Islamophobia. The Harvey Weinstein jewish hollywood grooming gang thought experiment demonstrates clearly who the rampant Islamophobes in Labour are. Anyway readers, maybe this map of what is in front of me and what you are stuck inside can help you a little. The answer is there - they are electioneering and seeking the Islamophobic vote when they call you 'anti-semitic'.

The trouble is, what will THAT cost Labour in the longrun? Look what Islamophobia really costs the Tories. Look at the real costs. Corbyn or no Corbyn, Labour is at risk of paying that price too, within surely not much more time than the Tories have taken to implode under the pressure to bow to racists whilst attempting to be respected in a diverse global economy at a time when global technology and global integration is at its peak with respect to all of human history so far.

If Britain's governments and institutions, left, right and centre, are to be sincerely respected by the world community, society has to evolve and it has to become the case that having a Parliament overflowing with Islamophobes in government and opposition is no longer something which could happen in this country. Any pretence by the world of respect for Britain is just that. Until the day our MPs are people who respect all humans across the globe and all humans inside Britain, regardless of 'tinge'. Only racists, or those entirely guided by racists, call Corbyn racist. That is the overarching fact. Beyond all reasonable doubt.

References: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-islamophobia-[..]-a8971731.html
http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48778129 (Stella Creasy makes it very clear that she supports the Islamophobes and will carry on doing so until she is deselected or beaten at the ballot. Londoners should show her the door at the election.)(I had hoped that the lessons Corbyn has taught Britain would teach Creasy to stop pandering to Islamophobes and stop being as racist as she pretends Williamson is. A vain hope. Any belief I had that I should not call for the resignation of Creasy is 100% eliminated. Resign, you racist Creasy. You are exactly what you pretend Williamson is.)

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 35: Nick Clegg condemns Facebook's and Twitter's determination of what constitutes 'hate speech' as unfit for purpose and calls upon democracy to intervene.

Thrust: In an article in the Telegraph Nick Clegg has admitted that Twitter and Facebook mislead people with their categorisations of 'hate speech'.

Direction of resistance: I was posting this a lot on twitter, in response to idiots, in different forms, not always exactly the same words: << The sincerity of those who claim to mourn the holocaust of jews a century ago is not real if such people are silent about the genocides committed by the USA, Europe and Israel THIS century, THIS decade, THIS year, THIS week, THIS morning, THIS minute. >>

And in one conversation which then unfolded with a racist who hates muslims and non white people and supports Israel's genocide and the USA's - I called him rude names, like dipshit.

He 'reported' my account to twitter and for 24 hours the two-hourly tweet exposure dropped from 2000 to a mere 100.

Removal of resistance: Some people, you see, can only 'win' an argument by making sure nobody hears what their opponent is saying.

Unification: << The former deputy Prime Minister, who now heads Facebook's global affairs team, claimed that there was a "pressing need" to introduce new "rules of the road" to determine appropriate use of user data, as well as what counts as hate speech. >>

Meanwhile, readers, do not expect Facebook or Twitter to act in democratic and honest ways, they will continue to breach the spirit of the law with reference to your rights as a consumer.

Take a look at the extracts (in "fritter.pdf") in the references to read about 30 examples of what Twitter claims is 'hate speech' by me, for which they 'temporarily' disabled some of my account features (in response I have deleted my account, a recently opened one, and will not ever use Twitter again - I used it for less than 2 weeks, during which time I was abused and my abusers protected by twitter). The guy "Richard" who had me "policed" by twitter was, only yesterday, gloating at having been blocked by Matt Lucas. That's the kind of guy he is. The things Twitter has called hate speech include expressions of defiance against a bully, perfectly reasonable ones, as you will see - have a read of the extract in the references below. With reference to 'fritter.pdf' (Richard M, 'days are gone' - the guy proud about being blocked by Matt Lucas) if you're wondering what I was talking about I brought up the fact that I write powerful trading algorithms and that the racist guy would never be able to beat me in a fair fight on a trading floor even if he could repeatedly have me silenced by Twitter in his virtual life computer game style usage of Twitter (I use trading platforms with the same skill he uses Twitter).

The truth is that until democracies take the action against Twitter's and Facebook's flaws and failures those sites are not really the same for you if you are non-white or a white anti-racist compared with what it is for white racists. It is actually a 'safe space' for white racists. This is why if you are not white or are white and anti-racist I strongly suggest you permanently boycott both sites, or boycott them to whatever extent is possible without reducing contact with those you actually want to keep in contact with that way. Try to stick to real world contact with all people, I suggest.

References: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/06/24/facebook-cant-left-alone-deal-fake-news-hate-speech-nick-clegg/
http://grid.tvhobo.com/fritter.pdf (that's the pdf showing twitter breaking the law, pretending I have said 'hateful' things when I unhatefully rebutted someone spreading hate speech against left wing jews, muslims and anyone who criticises Israeli war crimes).
http://dembones.tvhobo.com is a page on which I charted facebook's failures, and sent that material to Clegg - his statement reported in the Telegraph came only weeks after that, as you can see, so that shows some degree of decency on his part, but not a lot. Then again, who can actually go through every case like mine and look at the white racist abuse against me and others truthfully and deal with it - there are millions of white racists doing this every hour of the day. They cannot manage it. The truth is that they will not fix it - this fatal flaw will sooner or later lead to the full demise of facebook and twitter as web sites and companies. Today, for example, Twitter permanently lost a user who reaches 100s of 1000s of readers!! ie me.
Again with reference to "fritter.pdf", If you're wondering what he had asked which led me to say that thing about Hitler and Mainwaring, he asked why Palestinians carry out 'violent' resistance against their nazi occupier, the way the English did when Rome invaded and when Hitler was about to invade. He didn't refer to them as Palestinians or talk of resistance - he asked why 'Hamas wants to kill Israelis'. Anyway, this is my opportunity to escape the cycle of social media usage!
I wonder if you, reader, will ever escape from that cycle. Currently I cannot use facebook either, still, so the habit of non-social-media-usage is regaining ground. I used twitter as a kind of facebook substitute for a few days, but it's time to go cold turkey!
More of twitter's total banana-mind nature: https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/20/ralf-little-suspended-twitter-pretending-tory-party-press-office-11187105/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 34: The web of deceit that is 'the west' now faces "false false flags".

Thrust: Counterpunch tells us: << Even if its ostensible European and Asian friends capitulate to them - as they are doing, despite their professions of solidarity - Iran is not going to discuss or negotiate or live under crippling sanctions imposed by the US. It is going to act against them. It's done seeking relief from its completely untrustworthy besieger through infinitely regressive talks. It's determined not to talk about the siege, but to break it. >>

Direction of resistance: They warn: << Iran is now going to act in ways that require Europe and Japan either to put up right quick about their promises to defy US sanctions and abide by their commitments in the JCPOA, or to shut up, watch Iran fight back, and pay the consequences. It is telling the US and the Trump administration that it better back off on the sanctions, or face Iran's version of "maximum pressure." >>

Removal of resistance: I don't think any commentators are really ready for what will happen if Iran does, in the end, decide to 'fight to the death' against the white supremacist imperial forces which plague so much of the world.

Unification: So I won't try to predict it myself. Other than to say we should blatantly do what we can to prevent that - ie we should force the USA to 'make peace' with Iran, and force Israel to do the same, obviously (can't do one without the other).

How to 'force' Israel to do anything? Well, we'll have to find a way, won't we? Or maybe we'll all die. The ingredients in the saucepan are deadly, and the heat is on.

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/24/eve-of-destruction-iran-strikes-back/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 33: A speculation about Mark Field.

Thrust: In the room, he was there, and only those in it who weren't in his way were in it - this is my theory. For some reason it was some (perhaps one of many, regular) good moment for him, some new small 'victory' within the private sphere of his work and play.

Direction of resistance: And then some 'stupid woman' came and was ruining it and he had to remove her.

Removal of resistance: Normally, within that sphere, since totalitarianism is essentially the law INSIDE any corporation or similar private grouping of people, his way of removing obstacles was, through words and financial actions (hirings and firings, snubbings and social beatings - among himself and all present there - all subject to the same jungle law, totalitarian law inside the world of private concentrated power) exactly what we saw turned into physical action.

Unification: In other words, for the simple, he overlooked the fact that the activist was not one of his 'tribe' and treated her by internal tribal rules instead of those genuinely acceptable to extra-tribal 'law' (the spirit of our laws and the unspoken morality of people everywhere, albeit outside of corporations and totalitarian frameworks like them).

Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe, as the Blues Traveler music group sings, I'm right. We all know that inside the average 'big company' the display of brutal forceful control we saw in Mark Field is part of the environment every day - not of being physically removed (although 'security' CAN do that to you any time, of course, ANY OF YOU who may work in such places) but financially and hierarchically controlled. There's always someone above you, and what they say is law. Field reminded us of that. Those still trapped in the corporate world, my sincere condolences to you. I hope you are well. Drop in when you get out - whenever you're finally free. Assuming you have no time before then ever - which is a fair assumption. One only needs to be a mathematician to be very clear on that.

I gather Mark Field has claimed that he was scared of terrorists. That's right Mark, instead of admitting "I overreacted and committed an unnecessary violent physical act on a harmless individual" stick to the whole "what happened here today is the fault of Muslims, and Jeremy Corbyn" line. Who would disbelieve you?

Reader, in the link below from "Conservative Friends of Israel" you can see Mark Field telling Hamas to "renounce violence". Mark, I feel YOU need to renounce violence. Violent men like Mark are the vanguard of those who 'defend' Israel and its immoral and illegal violence, reader. Take a good look at Conservative Friend of Israel Mark Field. He embodies the values of the Israeli state today, of Trump, of Netanyahu - his violence against that Greenpeace activist, which he then blamed on muslims, the way the Israeli state blames its violence on muslims. You are an utter numpty, Mark. Renounce your violence.

References: https://cfoi.co.uk/fco-minister-mark-field-hamas-must-renounce-violence-and-recognise-israel/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 32: Sunday sermon: sobering thoughts from the adults across the pond.

Thrust: Kenn Orphan writes: << Thousands of socialists and leftists were marched into stadiums in Chile in the 1970s and gunned down, tortured, or disappeared in a country with a much smaller military than the US. Between 1965 and 1966, at least a million communists, or those believed to be communists, were hunted down and brutally murdered in Indonesia by rightwing death squads and the police. And millions of Jews, Roma, communists, homosexuals and the disabled were persecuted, rounded up and sent to concentration camps in the 1930s and 40s in Germany and Nazi occupied countries, where most perished at a time when many ordinary people thought "the logistics" of doing something like that were too "enormous" to be fathomed, much less carried out. And each atrocity was preceded by the rise of a pernicious fascism and the language of dehumanization by leaders. >>

Direction of resistance: The neoliberals may remain in denial but you reader ought to heed Orphan's warning: << One thing history has proven is that mass atrocity can be committed with few people, with great efficiency at a moment's notice, little technology, and with shocking approval or the complacence of the majority of ordinary people. But it must first be normalized. To be sure, if a people can tolerate dehumanizing language of entire groups by its leader, and the utterly sadistic policy of ripping children from the arms of their parents and putting them in cages, or pregnant women being shackled to beds, or the torture of non-violent LGBTQ and mentally ill migrants via solitary confinement for days, or militias working in tandem with government agencies to round up unarmed migrants, or a government prosecuting those who provide water and shelter to other human beings in desperate need, it is certainly capable of tolerating, or even applauding, even worse monstrous depravity. And without a doubt, we are only one absurd tweet away from that potential nightmare. >>

Removal of resistance: And let us not forget, and repeat as often as necessary, what neoliberalism really is, what it is precisely that we are attacking. Chomsky tells us:

<<

Let me begin by saying something about liberalism, which is a very complicated concept, I think. It's correct, surely, that liberalism grew up in the intellectual environment of empiricism and the rejection of authority, and trust in the evidence of the senses, and so on. However, liberalism has undergone a very complex evolution as a social philosophy over the years. If we go back to the classics, or at least, what I regard as the classics, say, for example, Humboldt's limits of state action which inspired Mill and is a true libertarian, liberal classic, if you like. The world that Humboldt was considering--which was partially an imaginary world--but the world for which he was developing this political philosophy, was a post-feudal but pre-capitalist world.

That it was a world in which there was no great divergence among individuals in the kind of power that they had, and what they command, let's say. But there was a tremendous disparity between individuals, on one hand, and the state on the other. Consequently, it was the task of a liberalism that was concerned with human rights, and the equality of individuals, and so on. It was the task of that liberalism to dissolve the enormous power of state, which was such an authoritarian threat to individual liberties. And from that, you develop a classical liberal theory in, say, Humboldt's or Mill's sense. Well, of course, that is pre-capitalist. He couldn't conceive of an era in which a corporation would be regarded as an individual, or in which enormous disparities in control over resources and production would distinguish between individuals in a massive fashion. Now, in that kind of society, to take the Humboldtian view is a very superficial liberalism. Because while opposition to state power in an era of such divergence conforms to Humboldt's conclusions, it doesn't do so for his reasons. That is, his reasons lead to very different conclusions in that case.

Namely, I think, his reasons lead to the conclusion that we must dissolve the authoritarian control over production of resources, which leads to such divergence as among individuals. In fact, I think, one might draw a direct line between classical liberalism and a kind of libertarian socialism, which I think, can be regarded as a kind of adapting of the basic reasoning of classical liberalism to a very different social era. Now if we come to the modern period, here liberalism has taken on a very strange sense, if you think of its history. Now liberalism is essentially the theory of state capitalism. Of state intervention in a capitalist economy.

Well, that has very little relation to classical liberalism. In fact, classical liberalism is what's now called conservatism, I suppose. But this new view, I think, really is, in my view at least, a highly authoritarian position. That is, it's one which accepts a number of centers of authority and control--the state on one hand, agglomerations of private power on the other hand, all interacting with individuals as malleable cogs in this highly constrained machine, which may be called democratic, but given the actual distribution of powers, very far from being meaningfully democratic and cannot be so. So my own feeling has always been that to achieve the classical liberal ideals--for the reasons that led to them being put forth--in a society so different, we must be led in a very different direction. It's superficial and erroneous to accept the conclusions which were reached for different society and not to consider the reasoning that led to those conclusions. The reasoning, I think, is very substantial.

>>

Lazy attempts to sidestep having to read and face up to that, oh 'protectors' of corporate power, like that MP (once I can dig up what it was you said and identify which MP you are I'll edit this post to include your name, and any other examples of people who say what you recently said), will not pass muster. I will put these questions on the lips of 10 million young adults as soon as I can. It's happening day by day, and you cannot stop that, least of all by burying your head in the sand and reverting to your shallow pantomime.

Unification: I address my comments above all to the so-called 'genuine left wing' in Britain, ie the (in many ways) admirable movements which together make up one significant part of Jeremy Corbyn's voters and supporters, if we may call them that for now, but they have been doing what they do and Corbyn came out of all that, he didn't create it, the way those who see him as Satan often seem to imagine.

It's up to this 'genuine left' to learn and teach and act upon the truth forensically, precisely, in a determined way, and not be distracted and side-tracked. Understanding what neoliberalism really is and explaining it well is one of the primary tasks of all 'left wing' or 'libertarian' persons who participate in our political systems, even 'just' with a vote.

What neoliberalism is, in a nutshell, that is the key to making most ignorant people understand who their enemy really is! Learn to understand that core truth and relay it easily as and when you 'need to'.

Pay especial attention to the fact that: "The psychology of leaders is a topic of little interest. The institutional factors that constrain their actions and beliefs are what merit attention."

And the American left may do well to note this (the genuine American left, as they see themselves, distinct from the right wing and corporate power fully - ie without compromise) that Chomsky is an anarchist, not a socialist, and thus does not see socialism as a kind of ideal form per se, thus it is itself a corruption, thus working with it is already 'a lesser evil' - thus when he chooses to support Sanders, AOC and even, at times, only to oppose Trump, Hillary Satan Clinton herself, he is only moving along a scale of lesser evils which has always been there. She's less less evil than a genuine left wing government, but even that is only a lesser evil on the way to the anarchist utopian civil society at the end of the road of all this hungaama and mussibat.

Note also that even the 'genuine left' in Britain, unlike the genuine American left, is often ignorant of the history of 'the right turn' in the USA, the scandalously demonic behaviour of men like Nixon, the purges in society, above all the media, of 'evil people'.

A great deal has to be learned about that and some of the key material you will find in the 'numberwang' document in the references below. Perhaps starting there may be a good idea. Although you may want to read the counterpunch article first - it's a hell of a lot shorter than the numberwang doc.

Perhaps out of intellectual honesty I should not hold back something I'd otherwise "keep in the closet" but belongs in a sermon, this one, at this time:

(something I wrote today but wasn't intending to publish)

<< Angela Eagle equates not teaching 5 year olds about homosexuality with forcing adult gay people to 'go back in the closet'.

I fully believe that in sex ed lessons, British (and all) students should learn about homosexuality.

But teaching 5 year olds about homosexuality doesn't seem like a good idea.

To suggest that criticising the teaching of 5 year olds about homosexuality is 'homophobic' is fairly stupid.

Even stupider is to pretend that criticism of those who teach 5 year olds about homosexuality amounts to telling gay people to 'get back in the closet'. Angela Eagle's intellect is not good enough for the job we have given her. She should not be an MP. She is far too stupid. Can anyone here pretend that 'failing' to teach 5 year olds about homosexuality is a way to force gay people 'back into the closet'? Anyway, I'll bring this up another day, not today, because the responses to the situation are clearly overly emotive and not made using the faculties of the mind which should be used.

There is nothing wrong with being gay, nothing at all. And whether or not 5 year olds should be taught about sexuality, about homosexuality, is an interesting question. Taking one side or other doesn't make you a bad person. It's clearly not a straightforward debate at all: young people do see many romance-related things, although never sexual ones. Teaching 5 year olds about homosexual romance is what is being debated. There is no doubt that many of us can understand why some parents may be concerned about teaching 5 year olds anything at all to do with sex.

Frankly the 'debate' should be secondary to real debates about what sexuality really is, what marriage really is, and so on - I believe the latter debate if argued correctly would preclude the need for this less important debate, because once people's attitudes and beliefs matched with reality, I think that anything being taught would be taught in an intelligent way. Right now, on the other hand, we can be sure that those who teach, those who lobby, all these gobshites are somewhat divorced from a genuinely scientific view of our world, our selves, our lives. That's why this topic isn't worth debating on tvhobo right now and remains 'in the closet'! People like Angela Eagle force me to keep it here, in the closet. They are not capable of listening to objective debate on this topic. >>

I'm probably right, though, to suppose it's not really worth going into at this time in such an unenlightened society, submerged in hyperconsumerism and mindless chattering as it is. Since Eagle's remarks may well be part of more efforts to brand all muslims evil, though, I cannot keep that particular observation "in the closet", sorry Angela.

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/21/normalizing-atrocity/
numberwang doc
The education system in Chomsky's words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgXZuGIMuwQ

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 31: If the USA armed the far right in Europe to slay many Europeans, and Americans militarily 'intervened' in Europe, supporting those 'troops' - would you blame the millions of British and European deaths on British and European people or on Americans?

Thrust: Yet if we change British and European to Iraqi or Afghan, then suddenly half the racists out there, at least, pretend that somehow the Iraqis killed themselves, and that American and European and British militarism in the region is "not responsible" for the fact that As many as 7 million innocent, mostly 'muslim' people may have been killed in your name. That's something like 23,000 buildings like the Grenfell Tower all being incinerated in that fashion - that's how many people 'we' have killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, 23,000 lots of the Grenfell Tower. Died in the same way - innocent and in the way of corporations' dollars. All this death has to be stopped and everything leading up to it. 'Our' war machine is beyond the pale.

Many of those deaths were due to sanctions, do note as well. Are sanctions by Clinton, which killed these people, something 'the iraqis did'? Really? Is that going to be the case you make? Are you sure? What happens if the world puts sanctions on the USA, Britain and Europe one day? What if it's soon? Or indeed what if the American far right continues to arm right wing European and British militias to the point of internal military conflict? Will you blame yourselves when the Americans arm white racists to start a civil war in this part of the world? A continent overflowing with them?

Direction of resistance: When you prove to a western racist that they are being racist, 999/1000 times they will walk away and refuse to dignify the conversation any more, they will go into total denial and pretend it never happened, perhaps use you as an example of someone evil and 'not western'.

Removal of resistance: These are questions anyone responsible must ask.

Unification: If that's you, ask. Ask yourself, first. And then ask 'truth' - ie research and read everything which is actually necessary - which may help you change what may otherwise happen (if people like you fail to act appropriately and in a timely manner). At the moment some of you are on the brink of setting off the killing of many many more people, perhaps in Iran next. Perhaps all over the Middle East, perhaps all over the world, as a result of your catastrophically stupid and violent activities. Meanwhile you are loudly busy pointing at people like Corbyn and calling him names, and people like me. Whilst we are insisting on change, on education, on cessation of this global gang warfare driven by gluttony and money-worship, and you continue to rack up murder victims of your huge crime spree.

References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/21/normalizing-atrocity/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/30/have-millions-of-deaths-from-americas-war-on-terror-been-concealed/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/19/empire-over-life/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfXmpJRZPYI

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 30: Don't be distracted by grotesque pantomime, surgically resolve the systemic flaw.

Thrust: Chomsky explains: << Despite the frank acknowledgment of the need to deceive the public, it would be an error to suppose that practitioners of the art are typically engaged in conscious deceit; few reach the level of sophistication of the Grand Inquisitor or maintain such insights for long. On the contrary, as the intellectuals pursue their grim and demanding vocation, they readily adopt beliefs that serve institutional needs; those who do not will have to seek employment elsewhere. The chairman of the board may sincerely believe that his every waking moment is dedicated to serving human needs. Were he to act on these delusions instead of pursuing profit and market share, he would no longer be chairman of the board. It is probable that the most inhuman monsters, even the Himmlers and the Mengeles, convince themselves that they are engaged in noble and courageous acts. The psychology of leaders is a topic of little interest. The institutional factors that constrain their actions and beliefs are what merit attention. >>

Direction of resistance: Whether 'left' or 'right' or 'center' or 'people who don't compartmentalise fanatically', everyone's talking about people like Johnson and Trump from the point of view of their friend or relative or opponent - making it personal.

Removal of resistance: This is what corporate power needs you to do. Some MP was attacking people who try to hold corporations to account, the other day. This Chomsky quote is vital to repeat to her until she grows up. Childish idiots like you, dear MP, should resign. You have NO RIGHT to be an MP. Your intellect is absolutely insufficient and your integrity is therefore faulty - or, if you know exactly what you're doing, your integrity is absolutely disgustingly absent. Here's the Chomsky, you silly fake-public-servant:

<<

Let me begin by saying something about liberalism, which is a very complicated concept, I think. It's correct, surely, that liberalism grew up in the intellectual environment of empiricism and the rejection of authority, and trust in the evidence of the senses, and so on. However, liberalism has undergone a very complex evolution as a social philosophy over the years. If we go back to the classics, or at least, what I regard as the classics, say, for example, Humboldt's limits of state action which inspired Mill and is a true libertarian, liberal classic, if you like. The world that Humboldt was considering--which was partially an imaginary world--but the world for which he was developing this political philosophy, was a post-feudal but pre-capitalist world.

That it was a world in which there was no great divergence among individuals in the kind of power that they had, and what they command, let's say. But there was a tremendous disparity between individuals, on one hand, and the state on the other. Consequently, it was the task of a liberalism that was concerned with human rights, and the equality of individuals, and so on. It was the task of that liberalism to dissolve the enormous power of state, which was such an authoritarian threat to individual liberties. And from that, you develop a classical liberal theory in, say, Humboldt's or Mill's sense. Well, of course, that is pre-capitalist. He couldn't conceive of an era in which a corporation would be regarded as an individual, or in which enormous disparities in control over resources and production would distinguish between individuals in a massive fashion. Now, in that kind of society, to take the Humboldtian view is a very superficial liberalism. Because while opposition to state power in an era of such divergence conforms to Humboldt's conclusions, it doesn't do so for his reasons. That is, his reasons lead to very different conclusions in that case.

Namely, I think, his reasons lead to the conclusion that we must dissolve the authoritarian control over production of resources, which leads to such divergence as among individuals. In fact, I think, one might draw a direct line between classical liberalism and a kind of libertarian socialism, which I think, can be regarded as a kind of adapting of the basic reasoning of classical liberalism to a very different social era. Now if we come to the modern period, here liberalism has taken on a very strange sense, if you think of its history. Now liberalism is essentially the theory of state capitalism. Of state intervention in a capitalist economy.

Well, that has very little relation to classical liberalism. In fact, classical liberalism is what's now called conservatism, I suppose. But this new view, I think, really is, in my view at least, a highly authoritarian position. That is, it's one which accepts a number of centers of authority and control--the state on one hand, agglomerations of private power on the other hand, all interacting with individuals as malleable cogs in this highly constrained machine, which may be called democratic, but given the actual distribution of powers, very far from being meaningfully democratic and cannot be so. So my own feeling has always been that to achieve the classical liberal ideals--for the reasons that led to them being put forth--in a society so different, we must be led in a very different direction. It's superficial and erroneous to accept the conclusions which were reached for different society and not to consider the reasoning that led to those conclusions. The reasoning, I think, is very substantial.

>>

Lazy attempts to sidestep having to read and face up to that, oh 'protectors' of corporate power, like that MP (once I can dig up what it was you said and identify which MP you are I'll edit this post to include your name, and any other examples of people who say what you recently said), will not pass muster. I will put these questions on the lips of 10 million young adults as soon as I can. It's happening day by day, and you cannot stop that, least of all by burying your head in the sand and reverting to your shallow pantomime.

Unification: Every reader here should take a look in the mirror, you've been doing it for years - being distracted by personality contests and your own lazy inability to follow through anything other than the easiest and lowest common denominator.

Most companies you work for or buy from are full advocators of this policy of narcissism, decadence, laziness, self-promotion and a complete inability to really do anything properly which should be done properly. I don't doubt you package donuts well, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Why is it any different now? When you scream at Boris for being racist (which I suppose he blatantly seems to be and has made statements which are clearly islamophobic and drive up the racism in our country).

The real question has to be not just why the Tory party didn't deal with this racism when asked and never will, ever - but why the entire system governing us is similarly flawed and similarly not going to change, not on its present path (although the election of Corbyn may change that).

Strategically, I mean. Nothing you seem to do seems to help you, even if it starts well. Talking about Boris's racism or whatever, doesn't help - because it's people, not systems, you focus on.

Even when it's good - ie Corbyn - you still, many of you, aren't learning to BE Corbyn - you want only one Corbyn, to run the country, and everyone else can privately behave like Alistair Campbell. What you need to do is ALL be Corbyn. He is Spartacus. Be Spartacus.

When Corbyn arrived on the scene millions started precisely and forensically learning how to debate and cutting their teeth on the key issues they have to defend themselves with reference to - health and medicine, education and jobs, global bank robbery being called 'war' or 'peace keeping' {even more absurdly}.

But then the Corporate Puppet Master in Chief threw something at you which knocked you right out. He/she/it called it 'brexit' and 'a referendum'. And since then you stopped trying to learn any more than you'd already learned about debating and reason, which still wasn't much, and returned to your cult of personality western-word-warfare - your numberwang lives. Living like the people in Numberwang all your lives and any time anyone actually evolved and intelligent tries to interrupt your answer is always: "sorry, that's NOT numberwang".

Which leads to a very interesting comparison - we can, sane people here, see how the use of the word 'anti-semitism' is now disingenuous more often than not and spoken by racists at anti-racists more often than by anti-racists at racists!

But look at 'Remain' and 'Leave' - the same sane people all know, whatever they 'voted for', that the degree to which those two words are used disingenuously is also probably above 50%, ie another case where it's just a way of saying 'numberwang' - the choice is arbitrary and the choice-maker's taste, unconnected to reason.

If you turn the word your 'campaign' pivots on to numberwang, what will happen to 'your cause'? But the truth is most such 'causes' are just personal greed intertwined with peer group decision making led by corporate interests and millions of sales and marketing staff everywhere! And all the staff who keep their brave sales and marketing soldiers on the front line against human survival.

Racism, by the way, will die only through education (so the numberwang approach just makes racism worse). You are looking right now at the only type of solution which defeats racism. Education. Understanding. Science.

References: that chomsky quote via google books
are YOU numberwang?

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 29: "The psychology of leaders is a topic of little interest. The institutional factors that constrain their actions and beliefs are what merit attention." (Chomsky).

Thrust: Institutional factors constraining the actions and beliefs of our leaders. Take a look at them.

Direction of resistance: Institutional factors constraining the actions and beliefs of our 'academics' and 'intellectuals'. Take a look at them.

Removal of resistance: Institutional factors constraining the actions and beliefs of our 'media' and 'legal workforce'. Take a look at them.

Unification: Institutional factors constraining the actions and beliefs of everyone in society, from top to bottom. Take a look at them.

References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 28: We're going to move the mountain.

Thrust: <<

There's more to this feeling than a differing mind to anatomy

On my own who's going to hold me?

A burning heart lifts me up to my life

I can't run from the truth and I won't try

'Cause it wouldn't matter who you were in this world

There's nothing on earth that we can't change

But on the inside I could never be the same

Come into the garden

Baby

Oh

You've got to come on in

Come into the secret garden

We're changing the way we're made

And in our own eyes

We're going to move the mountain

So how do you see me now? Can you see me?

Don't butter me up and tell me lies

I've seen the black and white coloured in your eyes

But trapped in a cage is not the place

You can leave me or cover it up to ease your mind

In this confusion I can always see the light

into the garden

Come into the garden

Baby

Oh

Come on in

Come into the secret garden

We're changing the way we're made

And in our own eyes

We're going to move the mountain

>>

Songwriters: Carol Ann Decker / Ronald Phillip Rogers

Direction of resistance: Isn't it tragic that a society which can produce something as beautiful as that can also yield minds and personalities as hideous as those of Katie Hopkins or Tommy Robinson, Tony Blair or Philip Green?

Removal of resistance: Well look on the bright side.

Unification: Consider the meaning of that song. Get hold of it and have a listen - the video is particularly good, I think.

References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 27: << It's time for this world of office-worker-proclaimed "professionals" to lose a good dose of their terminal arrogance. >> Just a few facts for you to dig into before the media roundups and other activity really kicks off on this site.

Thrust: <<<

Let us not forget, when considering the genocidal racism of right wing Israelis, that Salon reported in 2014: << The Times of Israel is under fire on Friday after publishing a blog post titled 'When Genocide Is Permissible.' The post, written by Yochanon Gordon, was quickly removed from the Times' website, but cached and screen-captured versions of the piece quickly proliferated on social media. >>

The racist blogger wrote: << Hamas has stated forthrightly that it idealizes death as much as Israel celebrates life. What other way then is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than obliterate them completely? >> (I wonder what the average westerner would feel about that argument's being used in relation to the damage the USA, the UK and much of western Europe has done to the world, for centuries?!!)

Finally this Israeli then declares << If political leaders and military experts determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide is it then permissible to achieve those responsible goals? >> (I guess that's what the terrorists who bomb westerners feel they are doing when they commit Israeli-style genocide in Britain, France, the U.S. etc). >>>

Direction of resistance: << CHOMSKY: Well this raises quite a welter of questions. Let me begin by saying something about liberalism, which is a very complicated concept, I think. It's correct, surely, that liberalism grew up in the intellectual environment of empiricism and the rejection of authority, and trust in the evidence of the senses, and so on. However, liberalism has undergone a very complex evolution as a social philosophy over the years. If we go back to the classics, or at least, what I regard as the classics, say, for example, Humboldt's limits of state action which inspired Mill and is a true libertarian, liberal classic, if you'd like. The world that Humboldt was considering--which was partially an imaginary world--but the world for which he was developing this political philosophy, was a post-feudal but pre-capitalist world.

That it was a world in which there was no great divergence among individuals in the kind of power that they had, and what they command, let's say. But there was a tremendous disparity between individuals, on one hand, and the state on the other. Consequently, it was the task of a liberalism that was concerned with human rights, and the equality of individuals, and so on. It was the task of that liberalism to dissolve the enormous power of state, which was such an authoritarian threat to individual liberties. And from that, you develop a classical liberal theory in, say, Humboldt's or Mill's sense. Well, of course, that is pre-capitalist. He couldn't conceive of an era in which a corporation would be regarded as an individual,

Or in which enormous disparities in control over resources and production would distinguish between individuals in a massive fashion. Now, in that kind of society, to take the Humboldtian view is a very superficial liberalism. Because while opposition to state power in an era of such divergence conforms to Humboldt's conclusions, it doesn't do so for his reasons. That is, his reasons lead to very different conclusions in that case.

Namely, I think, his reasons lead to the conclusion that we must dissolve the authoritarian control over production of resources, which leads to such divergence as among individuals. In fact, I think, one might draw a direct line between classical liberalism and a kind of libertarian socialism, which I think, can be regarded as a kind of adapting of the basic reasoning of classical liberalism to a very different social era. Now if we come to the modern period, here liberalism has taken on a very strange sense, if you think of its history. Now liberalism is essentially the theory of state capitalism. Of state intervention in a capitalist economy.

Well, that has very little relation to classical liberalism. In fact, classical liberalism is what's now called conservatism, I suppose. But this new view, I think, really is, in my view at least, a highly authoritarian position. That is, it's one which accepts a number of centers of authority and control--the state on one hand, agglomerations of private power on the other hand, all interacting with individuals as malleable cogs in this highly constrained machine, which may be called democratic, but given the actual distribution of powers, very far from being meaningfully democratic and cannot be so. So my own feeling has always been that to achieve the classical liberal ideals--for the reasons that led to them being put forth--in a society so different, we must be led in a very different direction. It's superficial and erroneous to accept the conclusions which were reached for different society and not to consider the reasoning that led to those conclusions. The reasoning, I think, is very substantial. I'm a classical liberal in this sense. But I think it leads me to be a kind of anarchist, an anarchist socialist. >>

Removal of resistance: Chomsky states in the preface to Necessary Illusions the opinion that << citizens of the democratic societies should undertake a course of intellectual self-defense to protect themselves from manipulation and control, and to lay the basis for more meaningful democracy. >>

Unification: <<<

there are some events you need to understand, from our recent past, which have shaped all this. In Necessary Illusions, Chomsky informs us about a great deal. So here come some more lengthy quotations - to those who do not believe that effort and literacy are important when trying to understand the politics of our world, I am sorry to disappoint you, there simply is no other way.

Chomsky begins by saying << These lectures suggest certain conclusions about the functioning of the most advanced democratic systems of the modern era, and particularly, about the ways in which thought and understanding are shaped in the interests of domestic privilege. >> He adds: << But, to my knowledge, there is no serious effort to respond to these and other similar critiques. Rather, they are simply dismissed, in conformity to the predictions of the propaganda model. >> Indeed that is true. I've seen Nick Cohen accuse Chomsky of things which if Cohen had read Chomsky's works Cohen would find the opposite is true - eg claiming Chomsky doesn't tell us about the bad things the Soviet Union did. In fact you can look it up for yourself - what will become clear to you is that men like Cohen attack Chomsky without reading Chomsky. Chomsky on the other hand (and hopefully you and I will be like him, not like Cohen) takes the other approach - knowing what you're talking about before you start talking.

According to Chomsky, then: << the tension [caused by decision making power's being in the hands of the few but impacting on a large scale throughout the social order] could be resolved, and sometimes is, by forcefully eliminating public interference with state and private power. In the advanced industrial societies the problem is typically approached by a variety of measures to deprive democratic political structures of substantive content, while leaving them formally intact. A large part of this task is assumed by ideological institutions that channel thought and attitudes within acceptable bounds, deflecting any potential challenge to established privilege and authority before it can take form and gather strength. The enterprise has many facets and agents. >>

Chomsky suggests: << One way to resolve the tension would be to extend the democratic system to investment, the organization of work, and so on. That would constitute a major social revolution, which, in my view at least, would consummate the political revolutions of an earlier era and realize some of the libertarian principles on which they were partly based >> .

So what exactly has caused us to go so far astray, since the 60s, since indeed the time of Chomsky's Massey Lectures in the late 80s. Well it goes back to before those lectures, of course, and in them Chomsky advises us: << I will be primarily concerned with one aspect: thought control, as conducted through the agency of the national media and related elements of the elite intellectual culture >> . No, not B-movies, perfectly rational and sane assessment of how our society works: << In accordance with the prevailing conceptions in the U.S., there is no infringement on democracy if a few corporations control the information system: in fact, that is the essence of democracy. In the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, the leading figure of the public relations industry, Edward Bernays, explains that "the very essence of the democratic process" is "the freedom to persuade and suggest," what he calls "the engineering of consent." "A leader," he continues, "frequently cannot wait for the people to arrive at even general understanding ... Democratic leaders must play their part in ... engineering ... consent to socially constructive goals and values," applying "scientific principles and tried practices to the task of getting people to support ideas and programs"; and although it remains unsaid, it is evident enough that those who control resources will be in a position to judge what is "socially constructive," to engineer consent through the media, and to implement policy through the mechanisms of the state. If the freedom to persuade happens to be concentrated in a few hands, we must recognize that such is the nature of a free society. The public relations industry expends vast resources "educating the American people about the economic facts of life" to ensure a favorable climate for business. Its task is to control "the public mind," which is "the only serious danger confronting the company," an AT&T executive observed eighty years ago. >>



No, nobody is pretending Laura Kuenssberg is an evil but intellectual giant of a woman, scheming to rule the world.

Chomsky explains: << Despite the frank acknowledgment of the need to deceive the public, it would be an error to suppose that practitioners of the art are typically engaged in conscious deceit; few reach the level of sophistication of the Grand Inquisitor or maintain such insights for long. On the contrary, as the intellectuals pursue their grim and demanding vocation, they readily adopt beliefs that serve institutional needs; those who do not will have to seek employment elsewhere. The chairman of the board may sincerely believe that his every waking moment is dedicated to serving human needs. Were he to act on these delusions instead of pursuing profit and market share, he would no longer be chairman of the board. It is probable that the most inhuman monsters, even the Himmlers and the Mengeles, convince themselves that they are engaged in noble and courageous acts. The psychology of leaders is a topic of little interest. The institutional factors that constrain their actions and beliefs are what merit attention. >>

It goes back to the time of Nixon and Watergate (British 'leftists' pay attention - too few of them have a clue about these matters): << The standard image of media performance, as expressed by Judge Gurfein in a decision rejecting government efforts to bar publication of the Pentagon Papers, is that we have "a cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press," and that these tribunes of the people "must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know." Commenting on this decision, Anthony Lewis of the New York Times observes that the media were not always as independent, vigilant, and defiant of authority as they are today, but in the Vietnam and Watergate eras they learned to exercise "the power to root about in our national life, exposing what they deem right for exposure," without regard to external pressures or the demands of state or private power. >>



Where is the evidence of this? Neoliberals may want to ask, accusing you of 'conspiracy theory' if you attempt to persuade them of the truth. Tell them: << A 1975 study on "governability of democracies" by the Trilateral Commission concluded that the media have become a "notable new source of national power," one aspect of an "excess of democracy" that contributes to "the reduction of governmental authority" at home and a consequent "decline in the influence of democracy abroad." This general "crisis of democracy," the commission held, resulted from the efforts of previously marginalized sectors of the population to organize and press their demands, thereby creating an overload that prevents the democratic process from functioning properly. >>

Chomsky tells us that << The charge that the Democrats represent the special interests has little merit. Rather, they represent other elements of the "national interest," and participated with few qualms in the right turn of the post-Vietnam era among elite groups, including the dismantling of limited state programs designed to protect the poor and deprived; the transfer of resources to the wealthy; the conversion of the state, even more than before, to a welfare state for the privileged; and the expansion of state power and the protected state sector of the economy through the military system - domestically, a device for compelling the public to subsidize high-technology industry and provide a state-guaranteed market for its waste production >> . This applies to pre-Corbyn (and non-Corbyn) Labour. Evidently.

Chomsky indicates support for Ginsberg's belief that << western governments have used market mechanisms to regulate popular perspectives and sentiments. The "marketplace of ideas," built during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, effectively disseminates the beliefs and ideas of the upper classes while subverting the ideological and cultural independence of the lower classes. Through the construction of this marketplace, western governments forged firm and enduring links between socioeconomic position and ideological power, permitting upper classes to use each to buttress the other ... In the United States, in particular, the ability of the upper and upper-middle classes to dominate the marketplace of ideas has generally allowed these strata to shape the entire society's perception of political reality and the range of realistic political and social possibilities. While westerners usually equate the marketplace with freedom of opinion, the hidden hand of the market can be almost as potent an instrument of control as the iron fist of the state. >>

One piece of evidence Chomsky presents is this: << The influence of advertisers is sometimes far more direct. "Projects unsuitable for corporate sponsorship tend to die on the vine," the London Economist observes, noting that "stations have learned to be sympathetic to the most delicate sympathies of corporations." The journal cites the case of public TV station WNET, which "lost its corporate underwriting from Gulf+Western as a result of a documentary called 'Hunger for Profit', about multinationals buying up huge tracts of land in the third world." These actions "had not been those of a friend," Gulf's chief executive wrote to the station, adding that the documentary was "virulently anti-business, if not anti-American." "Most people believe that WNET would not make the same mistake today," the Economist concludes. Nor would others. The warning need only be implicit. >>

Chomsky's investigation concludes that << Case by case, we find that conformity is the easy way, and the path to privilege and prestige; dissidence carries personal costs that may be severe, even in a society that lacks such means of control as death squads, psychiatric prisons, or extermination camps. The very structure of the media is designed to induce conformity to established doctrine. In a three-minute stretch between commercials, or in seven hundred words, it is impossible to present unfamiliar thoughts or surprising conclusions with the argument and evidence required to afford them some credibility. Regurgitation of welcome pieties faces no such problem. >>

Where the title of Necessary Illusions comes from is significant and is evident from this extract from chapter one: << Harold Lasswell explained in the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences that we should not succumb to "democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests." They are not; the best judges are the elites, who must, therefore, be ensured the means to impose their will, for the common good. When social arrangements deny them the requisite force to compel obedience, it is necessary to turn to "a whole new technique of control, largely through propaganda" because of the "ignorance and superstition [of] ... the masses." In the same years, Reinhold Niebuhr argued that "rationality belongs to the cool observers," while "the proletarian" follows not reason but faith, based upon a crucial element of "necessary illusion." Without such illusion, the ordinary person will descend to "inertia." Then in his Marxist phase, Niebuhr urged that those he addressed - presumably, the cool observers - recognize "the stupidity of the average man" and provide the "emotionally potent oversimplifications" required to keep the proletarian on course to create a new society; the basic conceptions underwent little change as Niebuhr became "the official establishment theologian" (Richard Rovere), offering counsel to those who "face the responsibilities of power." >>

Chomsky explains << in practice, the state media are generally kept in line by the forces that have the power to dominate the state, and by an apparatus of cultural managers who cannot stray far from the bounds these forces set >> .

Many people see the Guardian as the left wing and people like Counterpunch as some sort of radical extreme segment of the political spectrum.

Chomsky points out << One consequence of the distribution of resources and decision- making power in the society at large is that the political class and the cultural managers typically associate themselves with the sectors that dominate the private economy; they are either drawn directly from those sectors or expect to join them. >>

Chomsky then quotes radical democrats of the seventeenth-century English revolution who held that << it will never be a good world while knights and gentlemen make us laws, that are chosen for fear and do but oppress us, and do not know the people's sores. It will never be well with us till we have Parliaments of countrymen like ourselves, that know our wants. >>

Chomsky enlightens us about the demise of the left wing and workers' rights in the 'UK' in the 1960s:

<< As for the media, in England a lively labor-oriented press reaching a broad public existed into the 1960s, when it was finally eliminated through the workings of the market. At the time of its demise in 1964, the Daily Herald had over five times as many readers as The Times and "almost double the readership of The Times, the Financial Times and the Guardian combined," James Curran observes, citing survey research showing that its readers "were also exceptionally devoted to their paper." But this journal, partially owned by the unions and reaching a largely working-class audience, "appealed to the wrong people," Curran continues. The same was true of other elements of the social democratic press that died at the same time, in large part because they were "deprived of the same level of subsidy" through advertising and private capital as sustained "the quality press," which "not only reflects the values and interests of its middle-class readers" but also "gives them force, dainty and coherence" and "plays an important ideological role in amplifying and renewing the dominant political consensus." >>

In Necessary Illusions Chomsky also speaks of << the disintegration of "the cultural base that has sustained active participation within the Labour movement," which "has ceased to exist as a mass movement in most parts of the country." The effects are readily apparent. With the elimination of the "selection and treatment of news" and "relatively detailed political commentary and analysis [that] helped daily to sustain a social democratic sub-culture within the working class," there is no longer an articulate alternative to the picture of "a world where the subordination of working people [is] accepted as natural and inevitable," and no continuing expression of the view that working people are "morally entitled to a greater share of the wealth they created and a greater say in its allocation." The same tendencies are evident elsewhere in the industrial capitalist societies. >>

And what underpins all of this deception? Well, foreign policy. More about all this later when we get round to NATO, but a primer, from Chomsky, first, on what exactly NATO really is.

Chomsky says: << the global planning undertaken by U.S. elites during and after World War II assumed that principles of liberal internationalism would generally serve to satisfy what had been described as the "requirement of the United States in a world in which it proposes to hold unquestioned power."6 The global policy goes under the name "containment." The manufacture of consent at home is its domestic counterpart. The two policies are, in fact, closely intertwined, since the domestic population must be mobilized to pay the costs of "containment," which may be severe - both material and moral costs.

The rhetoric of containment is designed to give a defensive cast to the project of global management, and it thus serves as part of the domestic system of thought control. It is remarkable that the terminology is so easily adopted, given the questions that it begs. Looking more closely, we find that the concept conceals a good deal. The underlying assumption is that there is a stable international order that the United States must defend. The general contours of this international order were developed by U.S. planners during and after World War II. Recognizing the extraordinary scale of U.S. power, they proposed to construct a global system that the United States would dominate and within which U.S. business interests would thrive. As much of the world as possible would constitute a Grand Area, as it was called, which would be subordinated to the needs of the U.S. economy. Within the Grand Area, other capitalist societies would be encouraged to develop, but without protective devices that would interfere with U.S. prerogatives. In particular, only the United States would be permitted to dominate regional systems. The United States moved to take effective control of world energy production and to organize a world system in which its various components would fulfill their functions as industrial centers, as markets and sources of raw materials, or as dependent states pursuing their "regional interests" within the "overall framework of order" managed by the United States (as Henry Kissinger was later to explain). >>

The term "Grand area" is clearly just a translation into 'American' ideology of the notion "lebensraum".

The 'US' is often seen as a mighty and brilliant military superpower which has evolved beyond other cultures in terms of skill and even courage. There is no shortage of people who will cheer this view of the 'US' - everywhere from crappy gungho-films enjoyed by idiots to the 'cultured' broadsheets of the 'privileged'.



As Chomsky explains, << another task was to overcome the dread "Vietnam syndrome," which impeded the resort to forceful means to control the dependencies; as explained by Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz, the task was to overcome "the sickly inhibitions against the use of military force" that developed in revulsion against the Indochina wars, a problem that was resolved, he hoped, in the glorious conquest of Grenada, when 6,000 elite troops succeeded in overcoming the resistance of several dozen Cubans and some Grenadan militiamen, winning 8,000 medals of honor for their prowess. >>

To add to all of this, we are dealing with a society which every day becomes louder in its proclamations amongst its "individuals" that it is "heroic", "brave", "advanced", and even (yes, this will make you laugh) "honourable".

Chomsky wrote << It is beyond imagining in responsible circles that we might have some culpability for mass slaughter and destruction, or owe some debt to the millions of maimed and orphaned, or to the peasants who still die from exploding ordnance left from the U.S. assault, while the Pentagon, when asked whether there is any way to remove the hundreds of thousands of anti-personnel bomblets that kill children today in such areas as the Plain of Jars in Laos, comments helpfully that "people should not live in those areas. They know the problem." The United States has refused even to give its mine maps of Indochina to civilian mine-deactivation teams. Ex-marines who visited Vietnam in 1989 to help remove mines they had laid report that many remain in areas were people try to farm and plant trees, and were informed that many people are still being injured and killed as of January 1989. None of this merits comment or concern.

The situation is of course quite different when we turn to Afghanistan - where, incidentally, the Soviet-installed regime has released its mine maps. In this case, headlines read: "Soviets Leave Deadly Legacy for Afghans," "Mines Put Afghans in Peril on Return," "U.S. Rebukes Soviets on Afghan Mine Clearing," "U.S. to Help Train Refugees To Destroy Afghan Mines," "Mines Left by Departing Soviets Are Maiming Afghans," and so on. The difference is that these are Soviet mines, so it is only natural for the United States to call for "an international effort to provide the refugees with training and equipment to destroy or dismantle" them and to denounce the Russians for their lack of cooperation in this worthy endeavor. "The Soviets will not acknowledge the problem they have created or help solve it," Assistant Secretary of State Richard Williamson observed sadly; "We are disappointed." The press responds with the usual selective humanitarian zeal. >>

Attackers of Chomsky often imagine that in doing so they are standing up for 'decent' regimes who don't kill journalists.

Outlining the U.S. position on Central America, Chomsky tells us that << There had been an independent press in El Salvador: two small newspapers, La Crónica del Pueblo and El Independiente. Both were destroyed in 1989-81 by the security forces. After a series of bombings, an editor of La Crónica and a photographer were taken from a San Salvador coffee shop and hacked to pieces with machetes; the offices were raided, bombed, and burned down by death squads, and the publisher fled to the United States. The publisher of El Independiente, Jorge Pinto, fled to Mexico when his paper's premises were attacked and equipment smashed by troops. Concern over these matters was so high in the United States that there was not one word in the New York Times news columns and not one editorial comment on the destruction of the journals, and no word in the years since, though Pinto was permitted a statement on the opinion page, in which he condemned the "Duarte junta" for having "succeeded in extinguishing the expression of any dissident opinion" and expressed his belief that the so-called death squads are "nothing more nor less than the military itself" - a conclusion endorsed by the Church and international human rights monitors.

In the year before the final destruction of El Independiente, the offices were bombed twice, an office boy was killed when the plant was machine-gunned, Pinto's car was sprayed with machine-gun fire, there were two other attempts on his life, and army troops in tanks and armored trucks arrived at his offices to search for him two days before the paper was finally destroyed. These events received no mention. Shortly before it was finally destroyed, there had been four bombings of La Crónica in six months; one of these, the last, received forty words in the New York Times.

It is not that the U.S. media are unconcerned with freedom of the press in Central America. Contrasting sharply with the silence over the two Salvadoran newspapers is the case of the opposition journal La Prensa in Nicaragua. Media critic Francisco Goldman counted 263 references to its tribulations in the New York Times in four years. The distinguishing criterion is not obscure: the Salvadoran newspapers were independent voices stilled by the murderous violence of U.S. clients; La Prensa is an agency of the U.S. campaign to overthrow the government of Nicaragua, therefore a "worthy victim," whose harassment calls forth anguish and outrage. We return to further evidence that this is indeed the operative criterion. >>

>>>

References: http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 26: Another Branson scheme goes tits up.

Thrust: 21st Century Wire reports << It was all the rage back in February - Sir Richard Branson, the maverick billionaire entrepreneur of Virgin fame, proudly announced he was organizing a new "Live Aid" benefit concert in the Colombian city Cúcuta, all to help the 'poor people' of Venezuela who we're told were being starved to death by the evil Maduro regime. The event was held on February 22, and attracted some 200,000 punters, with the goal of raising $100 million to buy food and medicine for Venezuelans teetering on the brink of a mass famine. 'Feed the world' rang once more. But the media fairy tale would be short-lived.

Four months later, the story has ended in tears, with associates of Washington's own hand-picked "interim president" of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó, implicated in the embezzlement of funds raised by Branson's high-profile 'charity event.' According to reports, the Guaidó camp apparently siphoned off the cash which was meant for humanitarian aid, and instead spend it on lavish hotels, posh nightclubs and designer retail shopping sprees.

Guaidó has been forced to sack some of his appointees who were allegedly running the cash embezzlement scheme. >>

Direction of resistance: They also inform us: << Guaidó's staff botched the distribution of aid sent by the US, with an estimated 60 percent rotting in the warehouses and having to be thrown away. The full extent of the scandal is yet to be revealed >>.

Removal of resistance: Meanwhile Mark Steel recommends, on Twitter, that we contribute to the Venezuelan economy by drinking more Venezuelan rum. Given the state of British politics, I feel that a lot of MPs and civil servants could kill two birds with one stone, help Venezuela (with this excellent rum-drinking scheme) and lessen their own misery just a little.

Unification: Almost a year ago today, RT reported: << Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Care group has successfully sued the NHS, after losing out on an £82m contract to provide children's healthcare services in Surrey - pocketing £2m of public money in the process. >>

Virgin, RT reports, says they did not pocket the money, and insists: << We took this action because we were concerned that there may have been serious flaws in the procurement process. >>

The question is this: is inviting vulture/'venture' capitalists to make a profit out of our health a serious flaw in the procurement process or not? Just wondering. You know? Throwing it out there. Whaddaya think Richie? Is it or is it not a flawed healthcare procurement process which factors profits for companies into how we deliver medicine? Any statement for the public on that? Anything? I'm curious. I don't think you can possibly rebut me. I'd love to see you try, though.

References: https://21stcenturywire.com/[..]-aid-benefit-cash-embezzled-by-guaido-camp-for-luxury-sprees/
https://www.rt.com/news/462175-guaido-aides-embezzled-aid/
https://www.rt.com/uk/430468-branson-virgin-sues-nhs/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 25: Corbyn as messiah! His reputation died so that the ruling class can sin more!

Thrust: I think some racist commentator in the public eye recently called Corbyn a 'false messiah' - taking things to a biblical plane, as those defending Israel's genocides are prone to do, as a side-effect of their evangelical zeal.

Direction of resistance: In truth Corbyn has been labelled evil so that - we can call all these other people good, even when they grab and body slam protestors against walls.

Removal of resistance: Donald Trump locks children in cages, and the tories and lib dems and Farage-parties (there's so many of them - is Jayda Fransen one of your parties Nige?) just carry on regardless, Hunt and Johnson actively supporting Trump, Farage practically bearing Trump's children and having domestic arguments with him - and the only virulent opposition to him in Britain is Corbyn, whose 'evil' nature is blamed for his 'snub' of Trump.

So bodyslamming people who are hassling you to not hurt the environment, locking kids in cages, what else have we 'let people off' whilst focusing on how 'evil' Corbyn is?

Remember 'even' the Lib Dems will easily get into bed with, at the very least, Jeremy Hunt, who backs Trump's wild stupid statements up for he, Hunt, is far more interested in what Trump can do FOR him than what you, voter and reader, can do TO him!!

Unification: Readers, I invite you to have a field day. If you think of anything to add, share it on facebook or twitter and sooner or later I'll find it and add it here. I'll add to the list myself before long but the first two are a good start: bodyslamming activists against walls and locking children in cages - and calling muslim women letterboxes and bank robbers - (that's three) are all now totally acceptable thanks to Corbyn's sacrifice of his reputation.

So even if the anti-corbyn evangelists are a tiny bit too mad, and (as we see in the fast and loose behaviour of Mark Field) somewhat dangerous, it's not entirely false to assert that in one way at least Corbyn is 'like Jesus'.

References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 24: The disillusionment of Abby Tomlinson? Let's hope so. Every good writer is one more to fight the idiots with.

Thrust: In my point << When 'metoo' means "I also refuse to do anything about this nasty man who is manhandling, possibly assaulting a woman at this dinner engagement in front of us all" >> I have looked at how Abby Tomlinson was appalled when she saw a room full of men and women who did fuck all to stand up for a woman being abused by a man (although if it had been a man being abused by another man or by a woman that'd be the same to me, protests are not sex, the gender can be either way, frankly, and we all know it - a woman would have had the protestor dragged away by uniformed men, not really that different to Mark Field's behaviour).

Direction of resistance: The fact is that Tomlinson has clearly been raised the neoliberal way, believing that women and the 'right' men (eg not antiwar ones) are enlightened and must lead everyone else, the way Bernays and Niebuhr have preached. (Look em up, Abby, you need to do a lot of homework).

Removal of resistance: In the end she saw what men like Corbyn already know - that most of those women, no doubt 'feminist' in 'public' were, in private, actually just paid up members of total immorality! Yes, the morality Tomlinson imagined all the women in the room to have and some of the men at least, turns out to not exist.

Unification: Sorry Abby. It'll be hard for you to cope with what the world really is, and the absurd hypocrisy of what M.G. Piety calls << kneejerk 'feminists' >>, in all probability (that's my speciality, probability) you will go into denial and continue to hold neoliberal beliefs. Alas. Nor will my encouraging you to read TVhobo help, even though it could, but people like you (members of the fake elite) just can't handle reading this. My many many readers never include people like you! More women read it than men, though. Tells us something about your take on 'feminism', though doesn't it?

Just remember the word 'feminist' is widely used. I remember deleting a facebook friend in America who refused to take my advice about not posting/sharing 'feminist memes' from Jayda Fransen, involving videos of black male shop lifters being beaten up by white female shop assistants. Not really sure that's what you, Abby, want 'feminism' to be associated with - Jayda Fransen? Really? The more you bury your head in the sand over criticisms like the one I've made about you today, the more people out there call Jayda Fransen a feminist!!! Do your homework, journalist. You're paid to write what you do - and yet you fail. Take a lesson from one who does this for free, and for years has done, just giving my abilities to society, not collecting some cheque from a corporation which helps create propaganda to drive genocide the way you do in the end (not your fault - EVERY SINGLE 'mainstream' journalist, sadly for them, can be 100% accurately described that way and no court in the land is likely to ever contradict that patent truth, the evidence is so overwhelming).

Again, Abby - JAYDA FRANSEN IS NOT A FEMINIST - it's time people like you try and educate more women to appreciate that, and men, no doubt, although male readers are much more likely to listen to me or M.G. Piety than to you, I suspect.

There's only one thing you or I can do to make it so that the WOMEN and the MEN in the room would actually do what they all knew they should do, you need to address subservience to our current corporate-consumer customs, the totalitarianism which controls the way people behave towards their bosses and their 'underlings' and their 'co workers' and all beyond that, their friends, their family.

Gender is not something to worry about - ALL the people in the room failed, not just the men.

If you want to fix the problem you have to take away their/your 'god' - the reason they all sat like lemmings and did nothing.

I know if I had been there I'd have taken the fucker down, punched his lights out, and the last time I hit anyone was about 1992. I could never be employed so as to have been in that room. If anyone had ever let me into a room like that, there'd be ten others in the room in front of me, decking him, in fact.

Once he became violent, he needed to be controlled physically. The room failed to do that. ANY woman could have merely spoken. Anyone in that room could have driven a counter-response quickly.

Instead, one story I hear, is that they applauded. They applauded. Did any women applaud? I'll look into it and see if there is any detail of that nature. The fact is that it seems probable that if there was applause it wasn't 'just' from men.

If you want to really do something and not just play 'let's pretend' and talk a lot of emotive crap, Abby, what you need to face up to is what caused the problem in that room.

ALL of the people in it failed. Some of them were clearly women. You should be addressing them all, otherwise nothing at all will change.

References: Start investigating Bernays and Niebuhr here, anyone honest but uninformed: http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-48147994
https://twitter.com/SocialistVoice/status/1133770741147754497

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 23: When 'metoo' means "I also refuse to do anything about this nasty man who is manhandling, possibly assaulting a woman at this dinner engagement in front of us all".

Thrust: The Indy writes: <<As we saw last night, in the video of Mark Field manhandling a protester, it happens at black tie dinners, perpetrated by an MP, with more than 100 people watching.

How many of the people in that room have put themselves in such a situation before, have thought about what they would do if they saw such an act of unprovoked violence happening in front of them? I bet not one of them would have reasoned that it would have been OK to just watch, and yet that is what so many of them did.

When the MeToo movement took place and allegations of violence towards women were revealed about powerful men, from comedians to directors to politicians, so many people around these men must have asked themselves: how could I not see? How could I not see when it was right in front of me? >>

Direction of resistance: << What he did was so unspeakable because he did it so casually, in front of a room full of people, a room full of eyes and cameras. It was as though he thought it was completely normal and justified behaviour towards a woman peacefully protesting, walking past him and barely looking him in the eye. >>

Removal of resistance: I have asked myself why the women and men watching this happen did nothing.

Unification: Abby Tomlinson almost gets that but misses a key point, perhaps blinded by sexism (where one gender is, to you, more important and more universally innocent than the other). How come no women in the room did anything, said anything there on that video, when this happened? When will the 'metoo' movement realise that the abuse of women in our society is not conducted by one gender but by both. If Tomlinson wants to admit that the people at the table are shameful, she must also admit (for it is visible) that some of them are not men. Why did the women say and do nothing when it happened? I did see a rather disconcerted look on the face of the man next to the Tory MP. So maybe there was some reaction. But who intervened? Did any women intervene? No. They were saying 'me too' to the cause of being a paid up member of 'polite'* society.

*What a use of a word, eh?!

Anyway, Abby, have you an answer? I agree with the thrust of your point but wonder why you aren't annoyed at the women in that room for their apparent lack of 'feminism'. And this time it really is feminism they lacked. You lack it too, but not 'feminism' in single quotes, where it is a word which does NOT mean a balanced and honest view of gender problems in society but what M.G. Piety calls << kneejerk 'feminism' >>.

If, Abby, you are honest and want to help fix the problems, I suggest you read the numberwang doc in the references below, particularly my attacks on racists who call themselves feminists. Let's hope you're not one of them, or you'll never read it!

References: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mark-field-[..]-metoo-[..].html
http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html
https://twitter.com/SocialistVoice/status/1133770741147754497

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 22: To all the pseudo-intelligent 'well read' people who still find themselves going along with the blatantly false smears and attacks of every form on Corbyn I put one simple question to you?

Thrust: Aren't you a bit ashamed that you allow marketing and advertising - and peer pressure - to force you to 'accept' things which you know if you really thought about it you would absolutely agree are patently untrue? There is no shortage of clear evidence of that fact and you brush it under the carpet, and you know that more than anyone else does.

Direction of resistance: It's you whom Einstein would be most ashamed of.

Removal of resistance: It's you who waste humanity's progress the most.

Unification: The idiots have no way to do anything but what the marketing tells them. That you have let laziness and fear drive you to behave like (and become a paid up section of) the idiots is the same as saying "this part of the human race gives up on evolution and will lay down and die, in amongst the chaos of what a stupidly-run society brings upon us".

Consider what happens to them if you let homicidal maniacs continue to run all of our countries ONE DAY LONGER THAN 'necessary'. We need a general election to be announced right now.

References: Time, ladies and gentlemen, time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=earfw9iV39A

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 21: Many left wing jews are not jews, opponent of Palestinian rights Momentum's Lansman feels. Only jews who agree with him are real jews, he clearly thinks, in that deranged way religious fundamentalists think.

Thrust: The Canary informs us:

<<<

Momentum founder Jon Lansman is facing criticism after he claimed a group of left-wing Jews are 'not part of' the Jewish community.

Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) is made up of Jewish Labour members, and the organisation is active in around "half of all local constituency [Labour] parties".

Still, in an email to JVL, Lansman claimed that the organisation is not "part of the Jewish community", saying:

<< neither the vast majority of individual members of JVL nor the organisation itself can really be said to be part of the Jewish community >>

>>>

Direction of resistance: The Canary's conclusion: << Who is really in denial?

Neither JVL nor its supporters are denying that some antisemitism exists in Labour. The people in denial seem to be those like Lansman who refuse to properly acknowledge the weaponisation of antisemitism allegations against Corbyn's leadership. In fact, this apparent cowardice from some on the Labour left has allowed the political attacks to gain their current traction. So we should commend JVL for standing against dangerous smears that are obscuring the fight against real antisemitism and damaging the only real alternative to Conservative austerity. Suggesting JVL members are the 'wrong sort of Jews' for taking a stand, meanwhile, is frankly a disgrace. >>

Removal of resistance: To Lansman I have one or two things to say right here, and to all others out there who make up outrageous claims about 'anti-semitism' in order to OBSTRUCT the defence of other people (whether Palestinians, Iraqis, Libyans, Yemenis, Iranians, or anyone else) from genocide and imperialist or mercantile-feudal military attacks and occupations.

It is no secret that most of those who opposed Apartheid in South Africa, perhaps all, see Israel as a worse "apartheid state". To obstruct justice for Palestinians is, as Zijek and Sanders have both made clear, in public, to continue the work of those who committed the holocaust of jews last century, and to say that you do it in the name of those jews is a desecration of their memory.

Unification: So, Lansman. Let me tell you.

I'm sick of anti-semites and racists like you who obstruct Corbyn shamelessly. Particularly when not only does he have so much jewish support but most non white people in England see him as the only anti-racist leader in Parliament (although Lucas is the same as him).

The sincerity of those who claim to lament the holocaust of jews last century is a joke if such people oppose Corbyn and in any way support or are silent about the genocides committed by the USA, Europe and Israel THIS century, THIS decade, THIS year, THIS week, THIS morning, THIS minute.

I never realised it before and most of my friends from school don't realise it but they really do NOT sincerely lament the holocaust of jews.

ANYONE sincere in that lament would oppose today's genocide as firmly as they condemn Hitler's.

But the sincerity was never going to be there, not in a society which portrays Britain's centuries of genocide and destruction of people's lives as a "civilising" force.

Shame on you.

As many as 7 million innocent, mostly 'muslim' people may have been killed in your name. That's something like 23,000 buildings like the Grenfell Tower all being incinerated in that fashion - that's how many people 'we' have killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, 23,000 lots of the Grenfell Tower. Died in the same way - innocent and in the way of corporations' dollars. All this death has to be stopped and everything leading up to it. 'Our' war machine is beyond the pale.

Jack Balkwill writes << Australian scientist Gideon Polya did a study of the effect of war on the Afghanistan population and concluded that as a result of the invasion and occupation up to 2009,'This carnage involving 4.5 million post-invasion violent and non-violent excess Afghan deaths constitutes an Afghan Holocaust and an Afghan Genocide as defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention.

So if this estimate is correct, there are 4.5 million dead in Afghanistan as a result of the invasion and occupation. Combined with the 2.5 million who died from war and sanctions in Iraq, we arrive at the rough figure of 7 million dead.

But if 7 million people died, why is it that few seem aware of these numbers? After all, anyone you ask on the street can tell you 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust. Why aren't 7 million Muslims important enough to notice? >>

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.

Be ashamed of anyone who disregards those 7 million dead.

As ashamed as I and many are of anyone who does that OR disregards the 6 million jews who died in a similar genocide which clearly too few people truly learned from. 7 million people may have been slaughtered in Afghanistan and Iraq. Are 6 million Jews MORE important than 7 million Iraqis and Afghans (or the same? Just as important?)

As for Labour party racism - isn't it time we address JEWISH RACISTS in the Labour party?

Imagine if Sarah Champion had said about Jewish Men what she said about Pakistani Men? She WOULD be called racist - indeed 'anti-semitic'.

So there's no doubt SHE IS A RACIST.

Her attitude to Pakistani men is such that if she had the same attitude as that towards Jewish men, she would never again work in Whitehall.

She could say it after the Weinstein incident, for example - and it'd be a similar statement to that she has made about Pakistani men.

Eg if after Weinstein was exposed as a sex abuser she had implied that it was a Jewish problem and that there were Jewish grooming gangs in Hollywood. And there's Jess Phillips, who makes wild claims about Pakistanis or Bangladeshis importing wives for disabled children. Would she make generlisations about jews based on a few cases like Weinstein's which were jews in Hollywood and a Christian? Perhaps. If what she had said had been said about jews rather than about people whom white racists consider it perfectly 'unracist' to be racist towards, eg muslims it would be correctly labelled racist/'anti-semitic'. She's unfit to be an MP. The world is bigger than the 3 non-white people (or whatever it is) you know, Jess. It is unacceptable that this needs to be explained to you, you are unfit to be an MP, please resign and, as Marina Hyde puts it, go and save hedgehogs. I'm sure you can do less harm that way.

And this:

<<

NEW YORK (JTA) - The Anti-Defamation League found that 1,879 anti-Semitic acts were committed in the United States in 2018.

Right-wing individuals were responsible for 1,328 of those incidents - nearly 71 percent. Left-wing individuals were responsible for none of 2018's attacks, and Islamist individuals were responsible for four, according to the organization's data.

"Neither side of the political spectrum is exempt from intolerance. The idea that this is a problem with only one side is wrong," ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency during a conference call. However, he added that "white supremacy is a global terror threat."

Examining the ADL's data going back to 2002, JTA found that 2,633 - approximately 34 percent - of the 7,686 reported anti-Semitic and extremist incidents have been attributed to perpetrators with right-wing ideology, compared to 137 attributed to Islamists or those with a left-wing ideology.

>>

Clearly the pretence that corbyn, the left and muslims are generally 'anti-semitic' helps the right wing, the real source of almost all anti-semitism, and obviously other racism (as if racism should be divided up, it's ALL racism - or xenophobia, for the nit pickers), stay in denial.

References: https://www.thecanary.co/uk/[..]-left-wing-jews-are-not-part-of-the-jewish-community/
https://forward.com/fast-forward/423538/right-wing-responsible-for-71-of-anti-semitic-extremist-incidents-adl/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/30/have-millions-of-deaths-from-americas-war-on-terror-been-concealed/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/19/empire-over-life/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 20: Next, we'll need to address white collar criminals who attempt to pretend Corbyn and the movements supporting him victimise bankers and capitalists. For this Max Keiser's journalism can be very useful, not just that of left wing intellectual leaders like Alex Cockburn.

Thrust: First of all, let's look at a classic example of how broken, irresponsible, criminal and criminally negligent the overseeing of our 'financial system' has become.

<<<

Stacy Herbert on outrageous stock valuations. Meet the 25 million dollar grilled cheese truck.

Stacy Herbert and Max Keiser report that << The grilled cheese truck company has four grilled cheese vehicles and they have commenced trading on the over-the-counter market under the term GRLD [..] the company has a market value of 108 million. [..] (The company) has about one million dollars of assets and almost three million dollars in liabilities. In the third quarter of 2014 it had sales of almost a million dollars on which it had a net loss of almost 900,000 dollars. >>

Max Keiser observes << Markets go through cycles and sometimes trade at excessive highs and they get wiped out. >>

>>>

Direction of resistance: These white collar criminals and their representatives who try and pretend Corbyn's backers do not include a considerable portion of the real elites of this land, across every field, should pay attention to this particular nugget (much more to come, to deal with these particular criminals, right here, with clear arguments) concerning the misallocation of capital. Bear in mind that Keiser is a Wall Street expert. I know how much you'd like to just smear him and ignore him, but the facts are against you:

<<

Dumb money misallocates capital.

Stacy Herbert argues that misallocation of capital in the healthcare system is the result of the idiocy which underlies how it is controlled, who controls it and why they do that.

Max Keiser feels that misallocation of capital is short-changing infrastructure of important institutions (healthcare, for example) and of the economy in general.

We need a healthcare system which is thought out intelligently, Keiser insists.

Governments are pressured by "interest groups" to just do what corporations require. There is no bona fide healthcare system in the US. Cameron is paving the way for the UK to follow suit completely.

>>

Removal of resistance: Now take a look at this - extremely rich and powerful individuals and families sucking welfare out of society whilst failing to share due profits with workers, leaving staff paid so little the state has to provide welfare to them to help them survive on such low income:

<<<

Subsidy of $900,000 per store, per year.

Dady Chery and Gilbert Mercier write << Given that WalMart currently employs 1.2 percent of the US workforce in the private sector, one could say that a significant part of SNAP serves to subsidize Walmart. That is not all. Many WalMart employees also rely on Medicaid and other government programs for anything approaching a decent living standard. Indeed, taxpayers are estimated to subsidize WalMart to the tune of $900,000 per store, per year. By contrast to the dire poverty of those who generate WalMart's wealth, if we put aside Forbes' official list of the super rich and do some of our own math, it immediately becomes evident that 'Number One' (Bill Gates) and 'Number Two' (Warren Buffet) are rather puny compared to Walmart's owners. >>

>>>

I would call it 'fake capitalism' - where people enrich themselves essentially by breaking the rules, by passing the cost on (eg to workers, to consumers, to the environment and thus state and taxpayer).

Unification: Let's finish with a couple of items from the past which, together with what I've said so far, is a kind of starter which these stooges for or actual white collar criminals should try to digest before the main course kicks off, perhaps this weekend or next week:

<<

All you 'proud capitalists' who praise our current failed-capitalist status quo, let's focus on how stupid you are being.

Corporations must deduct from their income the cost of -

repairing environmental damage they do, including to human bodies of workforce (thus proper income is also vital - outsourcing to factory slaves is an act of capitalist-failure)

anything else which is caused by their actions when producing what they sell us.

Instead, things like environmental damage and even low pay are left to society to make up for, we have to pay their bills.

For example frackers in the USA go to a place and frack it until it can be fracked no more and leave. The local government ends up having to pay the cost of dealing with most of the environmental damage done by the frackers. Fracking is alleged to be 'profitable' to some extent, some of the time, because considerable cost is just not covered.

If processed food makers cause cancer in society, the cost of those cancers must also be deducted from their income.

It is the case in every situation of a similar nature: those who do stuff to make money must pay for ALL the costs of the stuff they do including those which are knock-on costs.

So when you pretend that you support profit making you're lying to yourselves. What you're saying really is that if an armed robbery planner only spends about 100 pounds on the petrol and a few 100 on the weapons, that's good business, intelligent work and a clear profit - rather than a criminal way to just take money without earning it which technically anyone could do in a lawless society - and the corporate world's lack of regulation, particularly the financial sector, is certainly at a level of lawlessness which is comparable to armed robbery or the British empire or something like those things. Hitler's invasions. That sort of thing.

>>

and this is pretty key:

<<<

A response to people who rarely use their minds, are lazy, ignorant and visibly so, and yet who often accuse 'the left' of 'being bad with money' or figures or some vague accusation of that kind which leads to asserting that the economy is 'not safe' in the hands of people who are not right wing moronic corporate whores with no minds. Let's consider this theory of theirs for a moment.

After all, people often 'ask Corbyn' where he will 'get the money' to save the NHS and public services from being financially predated upon by American corporations and people who include Richard Branson.

Unashamed to use public money on a grand scale to bribe the racist, homophobic, sexist, creationist, insane DUP, even Theresa May has spoken of 'money trees' in her bid to infantilise a very serious topic.

So let's take a little look into a good example of what's really going on and what these cult-of-personality game show hosts like May, Cameron, Davidson, Clinton, Blair and that sort of fool/tool are really failing to do - where we really are losing money, to pure idiocy and weakness and all the things they'd like to pretend that men like Corbyn are, when the opposite is true.

Pete Dolack writes: << Technology companies squeeze somewhat less out of their employees. Apple ranks as the technology company with the most revenue per employee, at about $1.9 million. Google ranks second at $1.2 million. But how much profit does a company need to make? Apple's products are produced through sweatshop labor outside the U.S., mostly in China, through an army of subcontractors that dwarf the size of Apple's direct employees.

U.S. President Barack Obama once asked Apple's chief executive officer, Steve Jobs, what it would take to bring those jobs back to the U.S., and Jobs replied, "They aren't coming back." Apple claims it can't afford to pay higher wages. Yet Apple is sitting on an immense pile of money - $206 billion according to its own quarterly financial report.

Research by the Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change in Manchester, in 2012, found that the cost of manufacturing a 4G iPhone in China is $178 while the phone sells for $640 - a profit margin of 72 percent. The Centre calculated that if it were made in the U.S. by employees making $21 an hour, the production cost would be $337, a still robust profit margin of 46 percent. >>

So let's consider that - not only are these various transnationals whom men like Blair bow down to and obey like Daleks or something - not only are they taking huge additional profits by diverting employment and earnings away from the countries they come from and are nurtured by, not only do they drive slave labour and awful conditions, but they also find ways to avoid their fair share of tax - so that indirectly they are stealing from the public purse - large sums which are their profits, much of it simply taken from the public purse and from society - which subsidises and nurtures them - and then their attitude to the workforce is as shown with the example of Apple and the iPhone.

So consider all that next time you start bleating, on behalf of corporate dalek-like idiots, about where Corbyn will 'get the money' to stop corporations basically destroying and raping the world and future which belongs to your children.

Alex Cockburn wrote: << So there's nothing irrevocable about the job loss. US workers, taught the necessary skills, can put things together properly. But if the jobs keep going away, why would any American lay out the money to learn those skills? Obama's recent State of the Union speech was a step in the right direction: calling on business leaders to "ask what you can do to bring the jobs back." Specifically, he proposed ending tax breaks for US corporations operating overseas, rewarding US-based production and turning the unemployment sinkhole into a re-employment system. "These jobs could and would come back to America," says Prestowitz, "if Washington were to begin to respond tit for tat to the mercantilist game.. It wouldn't be difficult to make a lot more of the iPhone in America and to make it competitively if either Apple or the US government really wanted that to happen." >>

>>>

So, all you criminals or stooges covering for them, who accuse Corbyn as you do (and I'll dig out some of your marvellous quotes asap), you are projecting. You justify theft and tyranny by pretending that the masses are guilty - indeed the main crimes you seem to assign to them are thought crimes, since you no longer can pretend, in such a transparent world, that they are the criminal filth you like to see us all as.

I shall provide you with a very full picture of the way in which our so-called 'capitalist' system today is seriously messed up and the fact that the problem lies in mismanagement, misallocation, ultimately with incompetence and immoral practises right at the top.

Max Keiser and Alex Cockburn have provided, along with other fine journalists, plenty of information we can all use to see what's going on. Your deceitful way of denying the truth, obstructing any attempt to look at or for it, and basic lack of any real understanding of the financial and capitalist system you 'defend' - or rather the cancer killing that system which you really defend, rather than any 'system' itself, which is in fact being defended by all of those, from Cockburn to Keiser, who seek the truth about what's going on, what has gone wrong and what needs to be done.

I am particularly pleased to note, at this stage in this document, that there's no way in hell I could post an object like this with ONE click, in ONE blob, on some half-arsed bullshit website like Facebook or Twitter. Mediocrity is typical of corporate entities, and Facebook and Twitter are VERY mediocre, as far as human history, even in the present, goes. I gather there are many particularly amazing online phenomena in places like South Korea and Japan, contrasting with the hillbilly cultures of America and much of Europe-Britain.

I think that attempts to pretend Corbyn is interested in people rather than dodgy practises are themselves attempts to defend dodgy practises and to continue to obstruct PEOPLE, all people, from the rightful egalitarian society they want and deserve to be build if they have the tenacity to do so.

Later I'm going to have a look at Alex Cockburn on the topic of the concept of "the poor". Right now, however, I'll leave you to read all of the above.