Government declares Wikipedia a Terrorist Organisation

Government declares Wikipedia a Terrorist Organisation brainwashing the public.

The most remarkable thing about that attention grabbing headline is that most people will have one of two first reactions;  Either they will think "About time." or they will be shocked and horrified.  But note: they will be shocked and horrified precisely because it is believable.  I would go one stage further and I will make yet another Toxic Drums prediction:  The government WILL state that Wikipedia is a terrorist organisation.

It is predictable because every dictatorship in modern times has accused its opposition of being Terrorists.  In every case the opposition that they are objecting to is the 'truth' and better than that - the collective truth.  In other words when the population are so fed up with the charade, the fake simulacra, the matrix presented by the dictatorial control freaks in order to maintain their perverse domination that they rise up in agreement that the façade is a fake reality, an untruth and a lie then the last resort before physical violence is to declare the dissenters as brainwashed terrorists.

What finally brought me here to this blog today was watching a government charade of a debate in the House of Commons.  I read about it (and watched it) on the Voodoo Shack Lady's blog on a page entitled "Outrageous DWP refusals".  Voodoo Shack Lady made a delightful, expressive and compelling case against the government and their disgusting attitude towards the welfare 'reforms'.  She claimed that her "flabber was utterly gasted" at the performance of Esther McVey (re-spelt McVile), the Minister for Disabled People, speaking on behalf of the absent Mark Hoban, Minister of State for Work and Pensions.  McVey was attempting answer a question put by the Right (in this case surprisingly true) Honourable Michael Meacher MP.  Although I am often shocked by politicians Esther McVey disturbed my inner soul with her incredulous bull-shit vomiting.  Jesus himself referred to Sugar Coated Faecal Matter and two thousand years later we still have it spewing forth its sulphurous puke in the higher echelons of power.  This was one of the more disgusting perversions of linguistic pollution I have heard in a long time.  Admittedly she is destined for greater power because she is clearly made of the same material as the most heinous Iain Duncan Smith.  Hoping to evoke the winning accolade of Godwin's Law I will say that the more I listen to, or read, the words of these 'rulers' of ours the more I cannot tell them apart from the worst excesses of the Third Reich.

I don't advise you to watch this debate because it is too horrible but here it is for verification of what I claim.

Only this morning I was woken listening to the radio (Radio 4) and it was reported that William Hague had said that the only plausible explanation of the chemical weapons attack in Syria was that it was perpetrated by the Assad regime.  Well that was what I heard.  But when I check an article by the BBC (that might be the British Bullshit Corporation - not, as I heard some BBC executive once state that it was the British Broadcasting COMPANY - God they make you sick - they don't even know the name of their own organisation) (and - just to make matters worse - I went to the BBC web site and searched for their name.  They seem to be so arrogant that they don't need to explain what BBC stands for.  Not surprising, then, that the people that run it don't even know what it is called.  But guess what?  I looked on Wikipedia and under BBC and the first thing it says... "The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is a ..."  But then that must be a piece of brainwashing propaganda.) entitled "William Hague believes Assad behind chemical attack" I noted that what he actually said was "I know that some people in the world would like to say that this is some kind of conspiracy brought about by the opposition in Syria" and he went on to say "I think the chances of that are vanishingly small and so we do believe that this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime." which IS slightly different.  I have also heard reports that the UN team have their suspicions that this attack was perpetrated by the rebels but they are only suspicions.  So it seems that it is the BBC reporters who are massaging the message for public consumption and either altering it to suit their own agenda or possibly simply re-presenting it in their own words and not caring to notice the embedded bias.

This kind of biased reporting is called prejudice or, worse, propaganda.  But whatever the case the Americans and the British have no business spending billions of dollars or pounds killing innocent people in the name of 'peace' given their track record in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.  I read a paper produced by the American administration many years ago outlining the future objectives of controlling energy production in the Middle East.  Their objectives required control of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Then some years later the World Trade Center towers came down and fortunately it was caused by some horrible people in Afghanistan and supported by some other horrid people in Iraq.  The horrible people in Afghanistan were a highly sophisticated group of modern Terrorists called Al Qaida who were hiding in caves in the mountains.  The very same mountains from which the very same 'horrible' people pestered the Russian army when it tried to invade Afghanistan.  The very same 'horrible' people - namely Osama bin Laden and his private army - who were funded by America to fight the Russians.  Then recently I was investigating maps of the region and noticed the connections between Europe/Russia/China and Egypt/Saudi Arabia/Israel/Syria/Turkey/Azerbaijan/Georgia and on the other side of Iran Kazakhstan/Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan/Afghanistan/Pakistan/India/Bangladesh/Myanmar and I also found information on gas and oil pipelines networking the region and like a simple game of Risk I began to see the bigger picture.  It was always Europe's objective to control this area to dominate the power supplies to Europe from the Middle East in competition against Russia and China.  So, from that perspective the Europeans require Syria as part of their control of the region.  In fact, next to Iraq, it might be the most important piece in the jig-saw.  With that in mind one has to wonder if the Europeans/Americans didn't supply Sarin gas to the rebels.  Given that the UN headquarters are IN New York (a city in America) would the Syrian authorities who are fighting 'horrible' people (previously funded by the USA) let the UN in to 'confirm' that the Sarin gas attack was caused by Assad and his cronies to justify a full scale invasion by America and Europe.

Now I have forgotten - Who were the Terrorists?

It's a bloody mess.

Andrew Marr and the Daily Mail

Andrew Marr

So I read an article in the Daily Mail entitled "Who runs Britain? An Army of unregarded, unpaid carers. Now it's time we cared for them says Andrew Marr and his wife who nursed him after stroke"

How does the Daily Mail manage it?

I quite like Andrew Marr and the fact that he has had a stroke is unfortunate.  I sympathise with him - not that I've had one but I could.  I am also pleased for him that he has a loving wife who has apparently supported him in his recovery.  So how does the Daily Mail manage to report on these facts and still rile its readers?

My own feeling is because the Daily Mail is full of such judgemental right wing journalists that they wouldn't see a sanctimonious seal if it jumped up and slapped them in the face.  Their article is so condescending and hypocritical that (when I last looked) it had accumulated 99 comments most of which were angry and critical of the assumed 'caring' attitude the article wished to convey.  The gist of it was that 'we' the carers already know this issue and have been abused by the government and the culture forever and a day.

I decided (against my better judgement) to leave a comment.  That was a mistake.  First I had to get through their signing in rubbish.  Why is it these people can't make their web site work properly.  In short it fails and I eventually managed to get my avatar registered but it didn't tell me it had to be a bitmap.  I must have spent an hour messing about with their amateur website.  And I posted a comment which it told me was too long.  It told me I was allowed 1000 characters.  But only seemed to accept about 993.  I eventually got the comment posted but it never appeared.  Sometime later it still hadn't appeared and so I submitted it again with the text altered and went through this process a third time.  Still no comment appeared.

So was there something wrong with the following observation on the subject of 'carers' and the UK?

So where's my comment ...

Although this sounds like a good idea and I agree with the sentiment the problem stems from the abusive culture as overtly evidenced by the behaviour of the criminal bankers and dishonourable politicians.

Making laws to give people rights to reduce working hours might look good for the few middle class examples but it will not work for the majority.  We are not short of funds in this country but we are short of personal responsibility by those in power.

The problem of a lack of caring (evidenced by the economic value given to it as expressed in this article) is concentrating at the top of the power pyramid.  Finding ways to adapt to their abuse is the hall mark of a co-dependent abusive relationship.

Most people are aware that the politicians are compulsive liars and we MUST stop this cowardly diplomatic acceptance of their criminal behaviour.  Allowing bankers carte blanche to rob us blind for fear they will leave the country is criminal in the extreme.

or this one?

Is this comment system working? ... Although this sounds like a good idea the problem stems from the abusive culture as seen in the behaviour of the criminal bankers and politicians.  Making laws to give people rights to reduce working hours might look good for the middle class but it will not work for the majority.  We are not short of funds in this country but we are short of personal responsibility by those in power.  The problem of a uncaring (financially or otherwise) is concentrating at the top of the power pyramid.  Finding ways to adapt to their cruelty is the hall mark of a co-dependent abusive relationship.  Most people are aware that the politicians are compulsive liars and we MUST stop this cowardly diplomatic acceptance of their criminal behaviour.  Allowing bankers carte blanche to rob us blind for fear they will leave the country is criminal in the extreme.

Well at least with my own blog I can ensure my comments get published - until Google decide to comply with government regulations and shut it down because it is esoteric or terrorist or some other such fabricated nonsense.

Are the UK government "TERRORISTS"?

Image courtesy of Kurt Haskell and his Victim Impact Statement

Well the answer has to be a resounding "YES".  The world is clearly going mad.  Well the world of government is clearly going mad.  Terrorism is fairly well known to have undergone a metamorphosis over the last few decades.  Some long time ago 'terrorism' was a tactic used by fringe groups to bring their particular beef to public attention and to get some leverage with the powers that be.  'Terrorism' as a term is, arguably, one side of the coin with 'freedom fighter' on the other side.  Just because a kidnapper terrorises the victim and their loved ones to elicit funds does not quite categorise them as terrorists.  But to terrorise a population for your own objective is fairly described as 'terrorism' nowadays.  So what of kidnapping and threatening a loved one of someone who threatens to reveal your own malicious and aberrant behaviour.  According to Glenn Greenwald, a journalist, even the Mafia drew the line at threatening loved ones to terrorise individual enemies.  But that is exactly what the UK government has been indulging in.  They kidnapped - sorry that would be 'detained' - a certain Brazilian by the name of David Miranda.  They detained this individual "under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000."  So one would suppose they had reason to believe that this person had some connection with terrorism.  No - that appears to have had nothing to do with it.  They - the UK government - are simply 'terrified' by what David's partner is up to.  David's partner is Glen Greenwald.  Yes the same Glen Greenwald mentioned previously in this text - the journalist.  Glen Greenwald has been working extensively on the subject of the NSA and its British counterpart the GCHQ.  This is presumably prompted by the recent revelations by Edward Snowden of their illegitimate activities.

Let's not beat around the bush here - The UK and the US governments are being entirely irrational in objecting to people who blow the whistle on their disgusting and - by their own definitions - unacceptable behaviour.  It is almost unbelievable that when they act illegally they can utilise the tax payers money to illegitimately pursue, hound and terrorise people who expose them.  They can be indignant that someone has told someone else that they are lying.  Would someone please make explicit what exactly is wrong with that.  Why do I ask?  Because IF anyone tried to 'explain' what was apparently so obviously wrong with that they would find themselves disappearing up their own backside in their attempt to justify some action by explaining that the action was not justifiable.

It appears that terrorism is only terrorism when 'they' don't agree with you.  So in the case of Egypt 50% of the population are clearly terrorist which seems to justify shooting them in the streets.  In the UK it is perfectly fine to kidnap someone in order to frighten their journalistic partner who is obviously a terrorist because they are exposing your lies.  And it is perfectly fine for the American government to give a terrorist a bomb and put him on a plane to create a false flag terrorist act to justify giving themselves more powers to defend the population ... FROM WHAT?

'Nuf said - goodnight cruel world.

Lizards and Aliens or was that Pharaohs and Fawkes

Image courtesy of Jeremy Dahl

We have all these stories about Ancient Egypt and the Pharaohs and the slaves.  We have stories about the Second World War and the Nazi concentration camps.  We have stories about the slave trade, the annihilation of the indigenous population of the American continent.  But, of course, it is not possible - IT IS NOT POSSIBLE - that our hierarchical power structures might indulge in malicious machinations to achieve power and control over a population of deprived and wretched surfs.  "Why would they?" I hear the apparently sane people cry out.  How ridiculous it would be to even suggest such a thing.  What good would it do them?

Exactly - what good would it do them?  Well what good did it do the Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs?  Quite a lot as far as I can see.

So would the British Government construct a terrorist attack in London in order to gain compliance from the population for its own desires and intentions?  The answer could not possibly be "No".  Their intentions were to invade Iraq and they used excessive and violent force and terrorism to do it.  But for some perverse reason that is seen as legitimate.  Why?  Because the Iraqis were nasty, evil, Islamic, dirty, poor, ruthless idiots - so they deserved it?  OH!  Shock horror!  Doesn't that sound reasonable?  Well perhaps it was because the evil dictator was harbouring weapons of mass destruction to use against the poor people of Britain.  That sounds like a better justification to go bomb the hell out of an innocent population.  But what if the British people were not really convinced and there was a rising tide of dissent against the coalition of good against the axis of evil.  Well I would suggest we gave them a taste of what terrorism is really like.  "How about that plan they tested last year of bombs on the underground?  Now that's a jolly good idea because the bulk of the work has already been done and we can put it in place quite quickly."

So let us suppose the London underground bombings were a plot by the British Government.  How on earth would they get away with such a big lie.  Someone would notice what was going on.  Someone would expose the deception.  Surely!  One has to ask the question as to how they get so many people willing to slaughter innocent people abroad.  How does one get some soldier to keep battle plans secret?  Convince them that what they are doing is either in their own interest or in the interest of something they believe in.  So provided you can convince them that you are protecting innocent children and all things good like freedom and liberty then of course they are not going to blag to the enemy or even to their own citizens since it might cause a leak which will get to the enemy.  So you do it the same way you convince your population - by affecting their perception.  If there is a serious risk that someone will spill the beans you can always kill them.

Of course all this speculation is just that - speculation.  The London Transport bombings, now sickeningly called 7/7 continuing the trend from their previous hit single 9/11, were a terrorist action against the UK.  It was carried out by a bunch of miserable Muslims with evil in their hearts to ... to ... to what?  And WHO organised this complex 'terrorist' attack?  And why?

Well it seems that [Anthony] John Hill has had a bit of a tortuous journey trying to raise questions about this event colloquially (or is that globally) known as 7/7.  His torture included 151 days imprisonment without trial.  But, fortunately for him (and us), a jury found in his favour after seeing the film.  So what did happen on 7/7?

Here is John's original film - it is a very well balanced thought provoking eye opener.

7/7 Ripple Effect

And, if you are interested, here is version 2...

7/7 Ripple Effect 2

Sex for children - yummy!

Well isn't that the sort of headline that the gutter press would use to attract a lower class of humanoid to part with money for their torrent of illiterate verbiage.

It is meant to be controversial to attract people's attention.  Though in the case of this blog I wonder whose attention wants attracting.  But it refers to women selling their bodies to feed their children.  So what you have is mothers selling 'sex', the proceeds of which are 'for' food for their 'children'.  And a word used to express delight at food, particularly for children, is 'yummy'.

But is it a fair use of language?  In this context yes because I am using it to illustrate the misuse of language.  And there is every reason to use complex layered literary devices in art of all sorts including theatre, literature and my blog.  But there is a consequence to the use of language.  It can transform the way we think.  Linguistic experts will, I'm sure, agree that different languages embody, encourage and enable different attitudes, perceptions and even paradigms.

The UK is, it seems, currently in the grip of some kind of madness.  I think it is similar to a madness that appears to be affecting (or infecting) many parts of the world.  It is not unrelated to language.  It is the contradictory nature of our societies.  If we didn't have language to help form our shared conceptual model of the world we probably wouldn't have this problem.

The problem is with the paradoxical values.  There is, for example, 'democracy'.  Most people have an idea that democracy is a sort of voting system whereby people collectively have a say in how the society is run.  But the evidence is quite clear that democracy in practice is more a case of acquiescence to the dictatorial bully with the most votes.  People rarely have a say in how things are run.  Bankers are meant to be above reproach and extremely trustworthy.  You would need to trust an institution in order to hand over your life savings to them for safe keeping.  But we now discover that they are profound deceivers and thieves.  In Britain we are supposedly a Christian society.  Christianity (like most religions) prizes good things like peace and kindness above anything else.  But ironically we use force and incarceration to maintain peace and kindness.  Authoritarians demand respect without applying the same responsibility to themselves.

So in an article on Hull's bit of the most horrible 'thisis' network (owned by Local World Ltd) called thisis Hull and East Riding entitled Mums 'selling sex to feed their children as benefit cuts hit Hull's poorest' they all sound very sympathetic to the plight of women economically pushed into prostitution by this governments 'welfare reforms'.  But the very concerned sounding PC Lorraine Summerfield can say:

"There have been a lot more who have come to it recently later in life because they are so desperate for cash. They don't want to commit crime so they are selling themselves because it is an easy way to make money and feed their family."

How did that happen?  How far down the road of doublespeak have we come?  How much of this linguistic metamorphosis are we going to entertain.  How can a police woman who thinks she is being sympathetic refer to the desperate attempt by a mother to feed her children by degrading herself as an "easy way" to make money?  Would it be fair to suggest that being a copper is a tough job?  Would it be a fair bet that Lorraine Summerfield doesn't regard her job as a breeze, as a kind of reprieve from having to actually 'work for a living'?  Would I be right to suppose that PC Lorraine Summerfield doesn't wish she could perform oral sex on strangers in back roads for a fiver?  I think Lorraine would prefer the tough job of being a police woman than to sell her body on the back streets of Hull.  The irony of all this is that she appears (and probably is) sympathetic to the plight of these women.  So how do the words "easy way" flow from her mouth?

This is a cultural problem.  We are embedded in a culture which is oppositional, competitive, blame orientated and prejudicial.  We have an authoritarian hierarchy which relies on threat and compliance.  It pretends to be rational but when push comes to shove it is not.  When the authorities 'discover' (read: 'can no longer conceal') Jimmy Savile is an abusive paedophile they take the moral stance that it is wrong and that people should speak out about abuse.  But when Ben Fellows says he was sexually groped by Ken Clarke the authorities go out of their way to silence him to the point of arresting him for perverting the course of justice.  Ben is a Jew by the way - oh sorry - correction - he's gay - no - er ... he's schizophrenic or was that a benefit scrounger?  Do you know I just can't remember what it is that's wrong with him.  Oh he's black - that was it - I knew there was something.

Here is a video outlining just some of Ben's ordeal.

The police eh?  I have known some police people in my time and some of them really do think they are decent law abiding citizens doing a good job.  They probably are just that.  But when you join the SS being good and doing what you are told is not so very GOOD!  You do have to question what you are being asked to do - that is YOUR responsibility.  Otherwise you are no better than Jimmy Savile.  Arguably you are worse because you enable and support people like him.

Cultural abuse - or just a bad apple?

Image from Philip Zimbardo's talk on Good and Evil

Whew!  I didn't sleep last night at all.  Eventually I went to sleep at 4:30 this afternoon for 5 hours.  I feel a little better.  I still don't know what I use this blog for.  Sometimes I think it is a diary of what it is like being me and so it should include everything from what I eat and how I feel to the analysis of the socio-political landscape and the semiotics of cinema.  But then sometimes I wonder who is reading it and should I focus on the 'reader' rather than the 'writer'.  Having said that I might try to split what I write into two categories.  But that is for another day.

I encountered an article on the Independent web site entitled "Job agent boasted on Twitter about halting 'suckers' benefits".  Essentially there is an objection to a recruitment agent boasting about their pleasure and power in getting people's benefits stopped.  On the surface it seems a horrible thing.  So I feel there would generally be a consensus that this is a little unacceptable.  Of course one can imagine some people gloating along with her but broadly speaking it is not nice.  She is condemned for this cruel attitude and her actions.

So I thought about it as is my want.  I'll start by clarifying that I think it is dreadful.  But there is an interesting contradiction for me.  In my experience of being abused by the Children Services one of my angry responses (in my brain) was that 'these people' (the abusive social services personnel) had their comfortable little lives with their homes and their pensions and their little cars and their jobs and their incomes.  They had 'normal' lives and had little candles on birthday cakes for their children.  But they could be so ruthlessly cruel and abusive to us.  I was so angry I wanted them to lose all that.  They had no right to all that comfort if all they were going to do do was abuse people without.

I still feel that angry with these people and I think there is a lot to be sorted out.  But if, just if, I had the power would I actually take all that away from them?  Well if I did (and I might) my motive would be to let them know what they are doing to other people.  What they are doing to me and my daughter.  I am so angry with them I would take their house away and their job and their money and possessions.  Then see how they would cope.

Ok - luckily (for them) I don't have that power.  But what is the difference between that and what this girl at the recruitment agency was doing?  It makes me wonder if she is so angry at other people that finding a way to 'pay them back' makes her feel good.  Without going into a long explanation I do happen to believe this is partly what it is about.  I do feel that children who experience injustice with no recourse to putting it right grow up resentful and 'pay people back'.  It is what I see all the time.

Supposing I am right it would emphasize two things:  One being that abusing children (and I mean all abuse from the rare and severe to the more 'normal' everyday abuse that we see in schools and even in the supermarkets) has serious negative consequences; and the other being that if we are living in an abusive culture it is very hard to see what abuse is since the cultural paradigms are abusive.

This girl is only doing what I want to do.  Obviously I can see some differences like she IS doing it and I DON'T do it.  She is doing it to WEAKER people and I want to do it to STRONGER people.  I want to hit out UP the hierarchy and she is lashing out DOWN the hierarchy.  But for all the differences the thing that interests me most is that I can relate on some level to her 'feelings'.  I think this is something our culture has got to address.  If people feel cheated, deprived and manipulated then they will have (almost by definition) a desire to restore the balance.

There are two ways the response (to restore the balance) can manifest itself.  Firstly the child may get angry or upset and complain bitterly or try to 'take back' what they feel is theirs.  These responses are generally criticised and so the abusive control continues.  I.e. they are prevented from expressing their feelings and views by a threat of condemnation, ostracism or some other negative control mechanism.  The net result is probably more resentment leading to what is mistakenly interpreted as teenage angst.

The other way is to 'compete' with the abuse to redress the balance.  One can almost picture the sweet little Pollyanna character springing horns and a tail as her mind starts working out how to get revenge whilst maintaining her sweet persona.  This, it strikes me, is the beginnings of how abuse becomes a 'cultural' thing.  Pollyanna (mine, not the original) decides to be sweet and delightful to ingratiate herself with Granny thereby getting the opportunity to get Granny to give her favour.  Pollyanna learns 'how it is done'.

My perception of what I call authoritarian control freaks entirely fits that model.  They are getting what they want (redressing the balance) whilst keeping their 'motives' subconscious.  If their motives became conscious they would be perceived as 'taking' and would be rejected for it.  So they would be left having to deal with their feelings.  Hence the teenage angst, the tortured artist in a garret or even the bitter and twisted old man in an attic.  But whilst they maintain the illusion that they are kind and considerate they will continue to get success for their (misplaced) desires.

It also reminds me of the issue of it being the 'getting caught' that is wrong not the crime.  Apparently the ancient Romans were very clear about this.  Young boys were taught that doing bad stuff is perfectly fine if you get away with it but if you are 'caught' that IS the crime.  I often encounter this philosophical issue in younger people as if they have 'just discovered' it.  I have been there too.

The connection to this incident in the paper is that by virtue of us all sitting around being judgemental about this girl's behaviour it becomes easy to point out how dreadful it is that someone in a position of influence over other people's welfare should use that position to do what we can collectively agree is unkind.  By comparison we assume it is the exception and thereby continue to massage our illusion that the authority is benign.  Her 'crime' was to make the abuse 'evident' and the culture requires it to be hidden, or subconscious, for it to work.  That way we can carry on subconsciously supporting a system that benefits 'us'.

It is frightening when you realise how much the 'facts' fit this theory.  The people who complain most vociferously about the cruelty of the benefit system are the people claiming benefits.  The danger is that we are using this girl as a scapegoat.  It is convenient to 'blame' the person who is 'caught'.  As Philip Zimbardo astutely observes (in the TED talk below) it is not a bad apple in the barrel but rather a bad barrel.

Thank you and goodnight!

Smoke and mirrors

Stem Cell Burger

I am overloading on information, overdosing on facts, swamped in consumer driven garbage, overwhelmed by bigotry, bewildered by deception and dismayed by humanity.

So I woke up this morning...

I was doing emails and stuff and I clicked on a link.  It's like that first drink in the morning - it seems so innocent.  Just to calm the nerves.  Just whilst I wake up.  Just so as I can cope.  I'll not click so much today - I'll get on with filling those forms out or getting that return in or fixing that door or vacuuming that floor - I'll get on... later.  Just for now, even before I get that coffee I need I'll just look at this.

What I was looking at was the stem cell burger.  I had heard about it on the radio as I woke up and noticed a clickable link.  It took me to the Huffington Post and I clicked to watch the video because it is so much easier than reading the words.  An advert started... It said 27 seconds to go... I watched in disbelief.  Am I really watching this stuff?  Am I going to watch 30 seconds of plastic toy queeny saying things like "Is my crown straight?" and "Right - I'm off to the happyland toy shop to buy a present - toodle-pip."?

Well I did and for my sins here is your dose of unbelievable human creativity... It's so lovely.

So happyland do a "Royal baby set".  It is cute, colourful, plastic with round corners for safety AND it's educational.  Wow!  As a bitter and twisted Attic Man I see the bizarre conditioning going on.  As the unresolved memories of my younger days ooze through the cracks in my crusted cerebellum I think I once liked things like this.  I recall all sorts of simple fun things like The Clangers, The Magic Roundabout and Bill and Ben.  I used to make films which were meant to be abstract and beautiful and I loved Nick Park's work even before he became famous.  So I have a clash in my head.  Partly the innocent fun and partly the obscene conditioning by mega-moguls.

William, Kate & Baby George

I had a young daughter once - WHOA! Stop that thought at once.  Put that cerebral manifestation of Jimmy Savile or Lord McAlpine out of your mind straight away.  And suddenly I am having a cascade of overlaid P-branes bifurcating and oscillating, interfering and cascading across the landscape of my simulatrix.

Now I have over one hundred priority issues to deal with.  1. I did not say "Lord McAlpine is a paedophile."  I have to make that disclaimer because Judge Tug-it-off (there's another bifurcation - I am taking the Mickey - BIFURCATION ALERT - WARNING "Code 42591: Anti-Semitic potential via Irish prejudice 47% probability of Catholic/Protestant polarisation.  Also Code9742184: Possible "Race Hate Crime" ref: Public Order Act 1986, Chapter 64, Part III sub-ref "citizenship" - RED ALERT - TOO MANY BIFURCATIONS...)

You just can't be right really.

For the Record: The fact that Lord McAlpine is a paedophile was asserted by Judge Tugendhat (hence the piss take Tug-it-off) on 24 May 2013 when he stated that the tweet meant "in its natural and ordinary defamatory meaning, that the Claimant [Lord McAlpine] was a paedophile who was guilty of sexually abusing boys living in care."  So in what way is this a 'fact'?  It is a 'hypothetical' fact.  It is a hypothetical fact that the judge asserted was implied to be a 'real' fact by Bercow's tweet.  So it seems that the fact remains that there is a fact in the universe of all possible things which is that Lord McAlpine is a paedophile and it has been asserted by a judge to be a hypothetical fact.  AM I MAKING MYSELF CLEAR HERE?

If all this bull-shit (and that is exactly what it is - well according to the common metaphorical usage in the UK in the early part of the 21st century) meant anything I would already own a house and have enough money to stay warm and eat for the rest of my life.  BUT I HAVEN'T!  And I haven't because of this kind of utter bull-shit.

I am going to calm down for a moment.  Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Right.  Way back in August 2010 an unfortunate sequence of events started to unfold.  In short my daughter was admitted to hospital, badly treated, threatened, and then, as a pre-emptive defence, a nurse reported me to the Children Services strongly suggesting I was an incestuous paedophile.  The bureaucratic bull-shit is too extensive and convoluted to explain here but you can read all about it at the Children Services Abuse section on Toxic Drums.  One laughable 'complaint' was that my daughter was "into witchcraft" (referred to in one of my early communications to them).  I didn't even pursue them FOR the abuse.  I didn't attack the nurse or the hospital for their abusive behaviour but when a disgusting excuse for an 'Initial Assessment' was produced by the Children Services and I could feel the prejudicial nature of this organisation and the government suffocating us in a wilful orgy of nihilistic abuse I complained.  It escalated.  Two years later they effectively won.  I did produce my response to their 'Stage 2 Investigation' but not only had they totally worn me out and made me seriously ill but it had become clear that they would never respond rationally or fairly (or indeed abide by the law) and they were feeding off the complaint.  They all had jobs and pensions and houses and stuff and they were keeping their stuff by prolonging the complaint thereby keeping themselves in an occupation.  They are vampires.  They are the living dead.  They are so injured as human souls that they are simply twitching cadavers pushing pens and clicking mouse buttons.  Without people complaining they wouldn't have a job.  So for all of my efforts over two years I discovered that the marsh mallow wall of the establishment is impenetrable and when I encounter Judge Tug-it-off making such ludicrous comments as he does I find it inhumane and disgusting.  Why?  Because if you have money your feelings matter and if you are a little bit upset you can sue people for hundreds of thousands of pounds BECAUSE you are upset and not because they actually did anything wrong.  But if you don't have money you are there for their entertainment and abuse.  They might not like to think of themselves like that but I am afraid they are like it.  They are hypocritical holy shits and it is their God that defines them as nothing better than death and uncleanness.  Do you get the picture - I am disgusted.  So fuck you tug-it-off and your abuse and your slimy sycophantic ways and all your arrogant hypocritical, judgemental, cruel, cronies.  My God you got an education, you have a brain, and that is the best you can think to do with it.  Where was all that highfalutin intellectual mastication when my daughter needed it. NOWHERE because you wouldn't get fat on it.  There might be value in intellectual thought but the intellectual abuse you practice is verging on satanic.

WHAT ME ANGRY?

And as I was saying I had a young daughter once and she loved little princesses and toys like the above.  Admittedly she wanted to play 'Knock down the towers' with the the Jenga bricks after 11 September 2001 so I knew she wasn't too indoctrinated or inculcated by our cultural stereotypes.  But I did find the advert disrupted my attempt to stabilise today and really I just wanted to know a little more about this bovine stem cell precursor to Soylent Green.

Soylent Green

Unfortunately I have one or two real things to do so bye 4 now!

Oh God - Please help me!

Here's the story.  I got pointed to a video.  It was forwarded with the comment "This Kid Just Died. What He Left Behind Is Wondtacular."  It was about a guy called Zach Sobiech who had cancer and died aged 18.  He also became a bit of an internet celebrity for a moment.  He seems a nice bloke and the video is worth watching.  For me, with sentimental ADHD, it is a bit long at 22 minutes but I made it to the end which is some recommendation.

So there you have it.  Now I have my own particular take on things and I am not as isolated in my opinions, feelings and thoughts as some of my adversaries, critics or downright enemies would suggest.  In fact I am not so off the wall or rare as some of my admirers, friends or casual acquaintances might suggest either.  This is, of course, only my opinion but it seems to me quite often people go "Oh - I see what you mean."  The thing is I guess I am out of synch in a peculiar way.  My first reaction is often someone else's third.  I get it the other way round too but I try to avoid those bits.  But I got the feeling from the above video that too many people would have too many sentimental crappy thoughts about this 'oh so fucking wonderful super hero dying kid.'

I am going to have to be brief and blunt here lest I try to explain in so much detail that I do end up writing a tome.  You might think that last remark about the dying kid was unkind but I say it is seriously 'kind'.  It is respectful and honest.  Think God!  Not the God from your little Christian Sunday school who was all mushy and sweet who the bestial vicar in disguise invoked to slimily caress your little nervous ego.  Not the God that floats two inches above the ground with a sanctimonious look on his face that could only be drug induced.  Not the God that "all good children" love and woe betide you if you dared to question, let alone criticise.  Not that wonderful peace loving God that you were obliged to love and respect on the outside because you were in fear of your life and identity on the inside.  Not that illusory manifestation of some fictional warped fantasy.  No - not that one - the real one.

Think of the God that Jesus is purported to be.  The passionate empathetic human.  The lover of life and vitality.  The supporter of free thinking and expression.  The man who appreciated the real human generosity and sacrifice of the real people.  The one who loved the poor and despised the rich sycophants and authoritarian hypocrites.  It was Jesus who reminded the Sadducees "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." [Mathew 22:32 (King James Bible)] This is not harsh it is just in your face real.  He also said "Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead." [Mathew 8:22 (King James Bible)] emphasising that life is about being alive.  It is not about being dead.  And that is what Zach managed to do - he lived whilst he was alive.  My remark that could be interpreted as 'unkind' in some way towards Zach is precisely not unkind to him but respecting his real life memory and not some sentimentalised sugar coated idealised misrepresentation of his life by people who spend more time worrying about the dead than the living.  So Zach was a nice guy and I am pleased he got the opportunity to live well.

And I went looking around and I found lots of candy crusted remarks - to be fair lots of people were just happy for him and enjoyed the real story and the music.  But I found one comment that rather emphasised one of my major concerns with 'Christians'.  The comment was on Christianity Today and was sort of answering Paul's comment:

Paul
Beautiful song. As one who struggled for a long time with depression it is a good reminder that we are all still God's children. And nothing can take that away from me or any of His.
 

Remmy
Paul; what a wonderful, loving human being you must be! To make such a comment at a time like this! Reminds me of my sister, as we were driving to say goodbye to my other sister, dying of cancer; and I quote, "What do you think of YOUR GOD now?" I love my living sister, but she is a bitter, unhappy, shadow of a True Human Being! The sister who died? Oh, she was a True Human Being, who had an everlasting connection to the Creator, through His Son, who accepted death as a reality of life, but felt at peace. I tell you the truth: Christ Lives and He stands with open arms to you; "anyone who comes to me, I will in no wise cast out." Peace!
 

What?  Did I just read that?  Yes I did!  And I encounter this kind of double standards - or are they Inside-Outness - all too often from church going self aggrandising Christians. "I love my living sister, but..."  BUT!  and then he goes on to totally slag her off "she is a bitter, unhappy, shadow of a True Human Being!"  Well shit man! - with a judgemental brother like you is it any surprise she's not doing well and doesn't float on a self sustaining good self image with natural confidence?  And my point is that too many people are so sentimentalising 'love' that they don't notice the real world.  I am sure it is their own bad self image and they were beat on as a kid and they treasure their teddy bear in their own little world trying to hold on to the remaining vestiges of the memory of what once was or should have been but it doesn't change the fact that they are not loving the real reality but rather an imagined reality or fantasy.  It is no good 'loving' someone after they are dead especially if you treated them like shit when they were alive.  But it is hard to treat people genuinely as sublime treasures when they are in your face and in your way.  I do get it - but I don't kid myself about it.  Love is about the 'here and now' and is not to be relegated to a fictional attic to be hidden away and fondled and cherished as a secret possession - that is just fetishistic and a little worrying.

That is what Jesus was talking about when he said "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."  The really difficult bit is to make it real.  So then I ended up watching another video.  (This internet life is so busy.)  It was much shorter, more easily absorbed and quite entertaining but... it makes an extremely pertinent point.  This is "What Would You Do? Bike Theft (White Guy, Black Guy, Pretty Girl)"

So what has struck me most about this blog subject is that Zach was a really nice guy with a lot of inner strength and confidence.  He was surrounded by lovely people in his parents and family who believed in him and gave him positive regard and support.  He had a safe economic situation with adequate shelter, warmth, food and security.  With all of this he flourished and was able to not only cope with the devastating condition of his cancer but to rise to the challenge too.  This is a testament to him I agree, but it is also a testament to his parents, his family, his community and the circumstances of his life.  The lesson to be drawn from this is that we all benefit most when we genuinely look after each other.

And a final cautionary note:  The UK is sinking into the most dreadful abyss of inequality, poverty, abuse and deprivation.  NO GOOD WILL COME OF THIS WAY OF LIFE.  On the subject of Jesus: he might not have raised a sword or a gun against Iain Duncan Smith, David Cameron, Nick Clegg or any of those fascist bigots (and I would love to) but he would have, and did, raise his voice against them.  You may not WANT a fight but you sure have got to raise your voice against these tyrants and abusers or there will be no environment which will sustain love or peace.

There that's my sermon over for the day.

G'night all.

Earl of Cardigan needs my help.

I am a little disturbed by the story I read in the Daily Mail regarding the Earl of Cardigan who is so hard up that he and his pregnant wife are living on just £71 a week.  Goodness knows what they will do when the baby arrives.  What is particularly disturbing to me about this story is that I recognise the Earl.  My mate David!  Well not like that.  I don't recognise him because I know him or have ever met him but I recognise the person he appears to be.

Savernake Lodge

The article: The aristocracy's first benefits baby: Hard-up Earl of Cardigan announces he's having a baby that he'll bring up on £71 a week... in a house with no heat appeared in the Daily Mail today (4 August 2013) and I don't know what drew me into reading the story but I read it with intrigue from beginning to end.  Currently I hate the government and all rich people because they are smug self-satisfied ignorant self-serving bastards.  (I wonder how many people do that - have a range of perspectives and emotional takes on situations.  There must be a lot because I do it and I am human and most people are human (or at least start that way) and the evidence supports the notion.  Artists, playwrights, comedians and I guess trolls, too, all do it.  There are many people I know who do it as well.  The reason I have gone off on this tack is because so often people pretend they don't.  In the moment of a conversation or communication people will often act surprised, and even offended, if you express an 'artistic' view of the world, as if they had never considered such a position.  But that aside and back to David -) I can't help wondering what life is like for him and if I shouldn't rush down to the Savernake Lodge, where he currently lives, and invite myself in for coffee.  He is 60 years old and his wife, Joanne, is 48.  This is a bit late to be having a new person to look after but they both look fairly healthy in the photos.  In fact he looks like I could imagine I could have looked if I had not fallen on hard times.  But then did my 'hard times' start when I was born?  But then - did his?

I have been to champagne parties at the Savoy and rubbed shoulders with rich celebrities, eaten out at the Enoteca Pinchiorri (one of the most expensive restaurant in Italy) in Firenze (or Florence to you plebs), slept in disused railway stations, worked on a salt caked rust bucket of an old British coaster, lounged on the beach at Club 55 (Bridget Bardo's favourite hangout) after an exotic seafood lunch watching the millionaires come and go from their exorbitantly priced gin palace yachts, (maybe I should write a book)... I've walked through the incredible Samariá Gorge, visited Christ on the Corcovado mountain and been arrested for crimes I've never committed.  Life can have a way of being quite variable.  So I sympathise, in a way, with the poor Earl.

Battle of the Beanfield 1985

So I delved deeper into his story and found he was the 'class traitor' I admired for standing up to the authorities in what is now known as the Battle of the Beanfield in 1985.  Basically the police violently attacked a camp of new age travellers.  It was disgusting and another human travesty but you can read all about the details yourself if you are interested.  The significant point is that David had followed the convoy and witnessed the appalling brutality of the police.  It could have been primarily his testimony which prevented the authorities from getting away with this crime scot free.  Of course the perpetrators will not have been made to put right the harm they did nor will they have been proportionately dealt with but at least history records this as a crime by the police against innocent people.  David was shocked to witness a heavily pregnant woman being "clubbed with a truncheon." and testified to that effect.  He has also said since then that "Seeing police beat a pregnant woman does poison your view." and he has been somewhat less in favour of 'authority' ever since.

The funny thing about this David (David Michael James Brudenell-Bruce if you want his full name) is he seems naive.  But it doesn't seem quite straight forward.  It appears that he split up with his wife and was seriously distressed by that.  He went to America and met his current wife in a 'trauma resolution clinic'.  He had left his estate in the hands of a couple of people as trustees but on returning home found they had been selling stuff off and refused to return control to him.  There was a lovely incident reported in the Mail Online under the title "The Earl of Cardigan and an unseemly exchange of insults over his ancestral heirlooms at country home" which outlines a violent disagreement between David and one of the trustees, a certain John Moore.  I can't help but feel, with everything I have read, that John Moore is a devious, right wing, money grabbing, upstanding pillock of society.  I can't help feeling that David is straddled between two boats that are slowly drifting apart.  On the one hand he is human - he was upset by his wife leaving and attended a trauma clinic seeking resolution, he was upset, even indignant, at the police brutality and stood up for the victims, he appears delighted at the idea of having a baby - but on the other hand he has inherited the position of the aristocracy.  I mean, by that, not only the material inheritance but the psychological inheritance as well.  For some reason neither of his children will speak to him, he is clearly in a complete mess when it comes to dealing with his affairs (material and legal ones), and in spite of his personal experience of the hierarchy, the law and the authorities, he still wishes to send his new child to Eaton!

I don't think he understand that he has one foot in each of two incompatible camps.  I think his slight confusion as to why his friend of 20 years, John Moore, should turn against him is his naivety about what authority, hierarchy, and the law are all about.  In an article in the Independent he says Moore's motive in turning against him is hard to fathom and he imagines it could be down to delusions of grandeur.  He says "He has a brand new Land Rover and wears a green suit, wellies and a Barbour – everything a country squire must have."  I think David still believes what they 'say' they are all about.  I was brought up believing they were what they pretend to be but have found it to be otherwise.  Of course they are benign, IF and only if, you are subservient and agree with them.  But they are necessarily on top.  Necessarily because they want to believe themselves to be right and want to perceive themselves as protectors of justice.  It is complex and convoluted but that is why the Spanish Inquisition could happen and a Pope, who supposedly 'believes' in a God of the poor, can live as one of the richest men on the planet.  These people make excuses (St Augustine and his justification for war!) for their evil deeds in the name of protecting ideals.  But the irony is that they therefore do not believe in, or live by, the ideals that they imagine they are supporting.  And, of course, there are many hypocrites who simply feign belief in truth and justice so long as they get richer by doing so.  David seems conflicted in this respect and if that is the case I entirely sympathise with him and really wish he would make his bloody mind up before he dies.

So if you are out there David and reading this just give me a ring and I will pop over for coffee and we can have a long philosophical chat about this.

The way I see it is I don't have a house to live in and I have to survive on less than £50 a week and have virtually nothing behind that.  David is in similar straights but has a multi-million pound estate behind his plight.  Maybe we could work something out.  Go on David - give me a ring.

SUGAR COATED FAECAL MATTER

One day I heard my daughter use the phrase "sugar coated faecal matter."  She uttered these words in an appropriate context and I loved it.  I loved it because it so aptly described the people she was referring to and in general it so perfectly suits a lot of people.  I used the phrase myself on a number of occasions and decided to investigate its general usage.  It turns out that according to Google (which is becoming less and less reliable) there is only one occurrence on the internet (other than my few spatterings).

SUGAR COATED FAECAL MATTER was first used by Lydia-kitten in a Harry Potter fanfic called Wand Cores.

"I find myself being less and less motivated to attend places in which I will not be alone or with people of my own choice, even if it concerns my personal health and wellbeing. No need is stronger than the one to flee this mass of giggles and lipids and non-functioning braincells, soaked in sweat and make-up and noisome aromas, wrapped up tightly in a revolting sense of fashion. "Sugar-coated faecal matter", to quote an aquaintance of mine, Abraxas Malfoy. I find it a great description, very fitting to most of the human race nowadays."

This lady is clearly something special.  Extraordinary in fact.  I haven't read much of her work but what little I have is a grade above something up there.  I so love the phrase "sugar coated faecal matter" that I have used it on a number of occasions in my rantings.  It is delightful, light hearted, deep and meaningful, frightening (to the right people) and insightful.  I do not simply say this lightly.  I found a significant precursor of her perception.  One which according to our cultural context is entirely above reproach and in fact gives a profoundly spiritual legitimacy to her phrase.  It is no less an individual than God himself.  Well, Jesus, but who's counting.  Well, actually a guy called Matthew who said Jesus said it, but who am I to argue with the might of the Christian orthodoxy.

The Biblical Canonical Orthodox reference is ...

The Bible - King James Version - Matthew - Chapter 23 - Verse 27

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness."

So there you have it.  From the horse's mouth!

Wand Cores - Harry Potter fanfic - Lydia-kitten - Chapter 1 -  Paragraph 28

"Sugar-coated faecal matter."

I suppose if one considers Lydia-kitten more the 'hand of God Harry er Voldemort (whatever) then the quote should be attributed to Abraxas Malfoy who I suppose, as the paternal grandfather to the lovable Draco Malfoy, might be considered a kind of prophet or something.

But I give Lydia-kitten full credit for bringing such a beautiful poetic phrase into the English language.

Maybe we could create an organisation to recognise the achievements of some people who eminently fit the description.  We could create the Order of Sugar Coated Faecal Matter.  People could have titles bestowed upon them such as "Member of the Order of Sugar Coated Faecal Matter" and they could then put the letters MOSCFM after their name on official papers and the like.  There could be Odorous Members (OMOSCFM) who show evidence of significantly disgusting innards, Saccharine Members (SMOSCFM) who have developed an amazingly sickly coating (possibly Dolores Umbridge might warrant this grade)  and maybe Associate Members (AMOSCFM) who are sycophantic but hardly worth a title.  Maybe there could be the grand title of Cadaverous Member (CMOSCFM) only granted to folk who have nothing left that could possibly be described as living.

Yes I think that's a good idea.

Order of Sugar Coated Faecal Matter Members List

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.  Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"

Dolores Umbridge SMOSCFM
Iain Duncan Smith CMOSCFM
Nick Clegg AMOSCFM
David Cameron OMOSCFM

Please send your nominations in via the comments on this blog with a brief description of why they should be so highly honoured and I will start a permanent register and a dedicated page on the internet.