.jpg)
I'm seriously starting to wonder. With the Parliamentary summer recess here, and Labour in an absolute shambles, it just seems a waste of effort now.
And this is coming from someone who spent a lot of time, online and off, attacking Labour from about 2003 onwards. Maybe if they experience a resurgence, it might be worth it...but right now, attention should be paid to the front-runners in this two horse race.
Which, incidentally, is something that really annoys me about the cowardly press in this country. Beyond the usual suspects moaning about "PC Brigades" and "ZaNu-Labour" the spineless bastards in the press waited until Blair was gone to start sticking the dagger in. What a bunch of wet, useless bastards, whose alleigance to opinion polls would put even a spin doctor to shame. "We can't attack teh Blair, he is sooper popular!" And now the country is sick of Brown, rightly or wrongly, they've suddenly found the backbone to kick a party while its down.
Wow. Impressive.
Naturally, of course, this has resulted in more positive attention being lavished on the Tory party. I have nothing in particular against the Tories, except for the fact that I believe their Thatcherite economic policies are unjust and that the social conservatives are a fucking embarassment to the party. Honestly, the more centrist Tories are much more to my liking than, say, the American Republican Party. But come on, seriously. The Daily Mail, just the other day allegedly held an editorial meeting where reporters were told to push the "broken Britain" meme. The same "broken Britain" which is a central plank of the Tory re-election policy.
Its going to be the same shameful shit all over again. The press will only offer token resistance to Cameron in the way they did to Blair. Not because they are necessarily ideologically rightwing, just as the press was not ideologically leftwing during the Blair years (moaning from certain people about "teh librul press!" aside). No, its because reporters are too close to their sources, and believe they have a greater duty to their "friends" within the political system than they do to the public and truth.
And that is where the system is fucked. A good journalist should be treating every statement from a public figure as he might a turd being dropped into his drink. Regardless of political convictions, a politician is the natural enemy of truth, and should be treated as such. There is a price on their head and everything they utter is suspect. Fawning idiots, be they Polly Toynbee or Daniel Finkelstein, are the reason why the press is treated with utter contempt by most intelligent people.
We don't need ideologically charged propagandists. We don't need contemptible, spineless cowards too afraid to upset some politicians writing for national papers. What we need, and sadly lack, are people who care about the truth more than point-scoring Westminster-bubble bullshit.
Unfortunately, very few of those seem to exist.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Jul 24, 2008
Civility and Decency
This is a spin-off from my post yesterday about Quentin Fucking Letts, but its something I've been considering for a while, and wanted to talk about more, as a general trend within current political discourse, especially among the “opinion-formers” in the media.
Its hardly a novel or surprising insight, I'll be the first to admit. I know that its a particular aggravation of the brilliant American blogger HTML Mencken, of Sadly, No! fame and the more I see it within our own papers and political discussions, the more it pisses me off.
Some people, it seems, are far more in favour of civility in a discussion than actual decency. As anyone who reads me fairly often knows, I am hardly the poster-child for civil discussion. I rant, I swear, I mock and I troll. “All your carefully picked arguments can be easily ignored” and all that. But I think, underneath it, I am a fairly decent person. Not in the 'decent left' sense, hell no, those people are the poster children for Civility over Decency (especially as Alan 'Not the Minister' Johnson's lack of concern for human rights shows), but in the basic sense that no matter how nasty or cutting or rude I am, I'm only violent in my presentation of language.
In short, I'm not the sort of person who calls for pre-emptive attacks on enemy countries. I do not condone torture. I despise 'extraordinary rendition', hate racial profiling, cannot stand people who barely disguise their bigotry and blood-lust under the guise of cheerleading the “war on terrorism” and the war in Iraq especially. I don't think we should be throwing out everyone whose skin colour is a little too dark, nor cutting benefits for those most at risk in society. I don't think we should deny gays, atheists, Muslims, transsexuals or anyone else rights that the majority enjoys.
That's decency. Having some motherfucking respect for the people around you, not demonizing people who have never hurt you, not acting like a jerk simply because “I've got mine, and fuck everyone else”. Or cowering in a corner going “oh no, scary people who are different to me are here, this is an outrage!”
Because, lets face it, when you dig behind what is, on the face of it, 'respectable' and civil writing of commenters like Richard Littlejohn, or Mad Mel, or Amanda Platell, or Alison Pearson. Its dressing up ugly and vile opinions in nice sounding tones. A perfect example is that insufferable cunt Peter Hitchens, who just recently denied that homophobia has any real meaning. Well I'm sure gay people all over the world who are being killed, denied rights, attacked and smeared for their sexual leanings will be SO glad to hear that.
But you see, he said it in a nice way, with clean respectable words and no swearing, so he's perfectly alright!
Whereas on the other hand, all those nasty people over at the Guardian who were saying rude things about Thatcher are evil and horrible leftists. Never mind that none of them are contributing to a set of beliefs designed to deny Thatcher any of her basic human rights. Never mind that Thatcher put in place policies that did ruin many peoples lives, to benefit a few. Oh no, the problem is all those terrible and potty-mouthed Guardian types, who refuse to shed a tear at the idea of Our Great Leader passing away.
Well fuck that, and fuck anyone who thinks in that way. Oh boo-fucking-hoo, the nasty little leftists won't be all nice and civil when discussing your sacred cows? Civility is “manners masquerading as morals”, to quote Sidney Blumenthal. Its about an unspoken social code that relates in absolutely no way to the actual ethical ideas. Its a way of controlling the forms of argument, of dismissing people without actually having to refute what they say.
Noting the letters that Lett's reprinted at the Mail, the common theme among them seems to be that Thatcher's leadership did not enrichen or improve their lives, so why the fuck should they have to kowtow to her and her legions of brainless followers and admirers among the press corps? Letts doesn't answer that, because he can't. The idea of treating such a woman as a great leader worthy of such honour is to very many people disgusting, and the level of invective it deserves from those quarters is well beyond that expressed in the Guardian. Presumably Letts would have us all drink tea with our little finger's sticking out while discussing the pro's and con's of torture and genocide as well.
And the worst part is when people on the Left capitulate to such people and cede the ground to them, hoping to engage them in debate. The fact is that you simply can’t fight some people and the ideas they espouse by being civil. You have to let people know that they’re vile, hateful scumbags with no sense of standards or simple human decency. You have to stand up to them and (rhetorically) kick them in the balls. Repeatedly, in some cases. This whole “oh I respectfully disagree with your views on kicking out all the 'Muslim terrorist scum infesting this country with foreign diseases'” bollocks has to stop.
And yes, I am an angry leftist. If you call yourselves a decent fucking human being and you look around at the state of current affairs: a supposedly left-wing government tearing down civil rights and engaging in pointless foreign wars while the gap between rich and poor rises, and a bunch of cretinous reporters in the tabloid media who are willing to give them hell over the only few things they have done right, then you'd be fucking angry too.
And if you don't like it, Letts, you can blow me.
Its hardly a novel or surprising insight, I'll be the first to admit. I know that its a particular aggravation of the brilliant American blogger HTML Mencken, of Sadly, No! fame and the more I see it within our own papers and political discussions, the more it pisses me off.
Some people, it seems, are far more in favour of civility in a discussion than actual decency. As anyone who reads me fairly often knows, I am hardly the poster-child for civil discussion. I rant, I swear, I mock and I troll. “All your carefully picked arguments can be easily ignored” and all that. But I think, underneath it, I am a fairly decent person. Not in the 'decent left' sense, hell no, those people are the poster children for Civility over Decency (especially as Alan 'Not the Minister' Johnson's lack of concern for human rights shows), but in the basic sense that no matter how nasty or cutting or rude I am, I'm only violent in my presentation of language.
In short, I'm not the sort of person who calls for pre-emptive attacks on enemy countries. I do not condone torture. I despise 'extraordinary rendition', hate racial profiling, cannot stand people who barely disguise their bigotry and blood-lust under the guise of cheerleading the “war on terrorism” and the war in Iraq especially. I don't think we should be throwing out everyone whose skin colour is a little too dark, nor cutting benefits for those most at risk in society. I don't think we should deny gays, atheists, Muslims, transsexuals or anyone else rights that the majority enjoys.
That's decency. Having some motherfucking respect for the people around you, not demonizing people who have never hurt you, not acting like a jerk simply because “I've got mine, and fuck everyone else”. Or cowering in a corner going “oh no, scary people who are different to me are here, this is an outrage!”
Because, lets face it, when you dig behind what is, on the face of it, 'respectable' and civil writing of commenters like Richard Littlejohn, or Mad Mel, or Amanda Platell, or Alison Pearson. Its dressing up ugly and vile opinions in nice sounding tones. A perfect example is that insufferable cunt Peter Hitchens, who just recently denied that homophobia has any real meaning. Well I'm sure gay people all over the world who are being killed, denied rights, attacked and smeared for their sexual leanings will be SO glad to hear that.
But you see, he said it in a nice way, with clean respectable words and no swearing, so he's perfectly alright!
Whereas on the other hand, all those nasty people over at the Guardian who were saying rude things about Thatcher are evil and horrible leftists. Never mind that none of them are contributing to a set of beliefs designed to deny Thatcher any of her basic human rights. Never mind that Thatcher put in place policies that did ruin many peoples lives, to benefit a few. Oh no, the problem is all those terrible and potty-mouthed Guardian types, who refuse to shed a tear at the idea of Our Great Leader passing away.
Well fuck that, and fuck anyone who thinks in that way. Oh boo-fucking-hoo, the nasty little leftists won't be all nice and civil when discussing your sacred cows? Civility is “manners masquerading as morals”, to quote Sidney Blumenthal. Its about an unspoken social code that relates in absolutely no way to the actual ethical ideas. Its a way of controlling the forms of argument, of dismissing people without actually having to refute what they say.
Noting the letters that Lett's reprinted at the Mail, the common theme among them seems to be that Thatcher's leadership did not enrichen or improve their lives, so why the fuck should they have to kowtow to her and her legions of brainless followers and admirers among the press corps? Letts doesn't answer that, because he can't. The idea of treating such a woman as a great leader worthy of such honour is to very many people disgusting, and the level of invective it deserves from those quarters is well beyond that expressed in the Guardian. Presumably Letts would have us all drink tea with our little finger's sticking out while discussing the pro's and con's of torture and genocide as well.
And the worst part is when people on the Left capitulate to such people and cede the ground to them, hoping to engage them in debate. The fact is that you simply can’t fight some people and the ideas they espouse by being civil. You have to let people know that they’re vile, hateful scumbags with no sense of standards or simple human decency. You have to stand up to them and (rhetorically) kick them in the balls. Repeatedly, in some cases. This whole “oh I respectfully disagree with your views on kicking out all the 'Muslim terrorist scum infesting this country with foreign diseases'” bollocks has to stop.
And yes, I am an angry leftist. If you call yourselves a decent fucking human being and you look around at the state of current affairs: a supposedly left-wing government tearing down civil rights and engaging in pointless foreign wars while the gap between rich and poor rises, and a bunch of cretinous reporters in the tabloid media who are willing to give them hell over the only few things they have done right, then you'd be fucking angry too.
And if you don't like it, Letts, you can blow me.
Jun 4, 2008
Hearts and Minds
Welcome to the modern day war zone. Right now, as I speak, a thousand battles are being waged for your submission and allegiance. Commanders and politicians have decided that the enemy is us and that we are to be bought to heel, as soon as possible.
No doubt some of you think I'm using hyperbole, or metaphor to illustrate an example of our socially fractured society and the commodification of identity. And while those certainly are problems, anyone thinking about those in relation to my rant today are wrong. Right now, you and I are quite literally at war with at least one government, namely that of the USA.
Oh to be sure there won't be running battles with light infantry. No air-strikes are going to be called in on your house, and I'm reasonably certain you wont get carted away to Guantanomo Bay, or any other black site that exists. But just because guns aren't being loaded and blood isn't been spilt doesn't mean this isn't a conflict.
You see, war isn't about the clash of armies on the battlefield anymore. Hell, its barely even about killing, except as an advertising hook or a final solution for people who refuse to stop being a pain in the ass. No, warfare has moved through the gentlemanly period of pitched battles and low casualties, blown apart by Napoleon and perfected in the slaughterhouse of WWI. Its not even the dirty political warfare that characterized the Cold War, marked by futile superpower conflict and strategies designed to bleed a superpower by third world proxies, and on the other end of the scale by terrorism.
No, warfare today is about fighting on the psychological and narrative level. Its about capturing the mind, and shackling it to the agenda of the day, regardless of what that agenda may be.
The thing is, you see, as warfare has become less and less about artful strategy and less bound by codes of conduct – be they religious, cultural or legal – the real issue has not been arms, logistics, intelligence and skill, but about the sheer will to fight. Whoever goes on fighting the longest, whoever is willing to do what it takes to persuade the other side to accept their interests, whoever is able to effectively frame the agenda in a certain manner, is the winner in the modern world. You can even suffer strategic setbacks if your message and will is powerful enough.
And of course, if you accept this as essentially true, broadly speaking, then logically you come to the problem being people who wont get the fuck on with the message. The enemy ceases to be those who threaten certain strategic alliances, deposits of raw materials and the lives of the citizenry. No, the enemy becomes anyone who undermines that message and so weakens that will to resolve the conflict – and that person can be anyone, even your own citizenry.
Back in the day, they used to call this PsyOps. It used to only be a wartime enterprise. Dropping leaflets over enemy cities and troop formations. Doing pirate broadcasts using exiles and friendlies from the nation you are at war with to convince them of widespread resentment towards the government. Smear and ridicule important political and military leaders in any way possible.
Like I said, it used to be only a wartime enterprise. But now, thanks to the Cold War terrorism, carried to its conclusion by the likes of Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, the difference between peace and war only exists in a legal sense. The potentially endless war on terror means actually endless psychological operations – carried out against not just the enemy, but the civilian population at home as well. The media has to hang the enemy with words and discourses and justifications before the military can do it in fact.
Nowadays, PsyOps is only one part of a much broader school, known as Information Operations. Do you operate a blog, report on the failing and lies and crimes of your country? Then you are are, according to this world-view, engaging in warfare against the state. But its not just about information per se. You have to think about this much more broadly. For example, protests. A protest is not just a protest. It never can be. Its an expression of low intensity conflict relying on moral discourses and popular expression of dissidence, aimed at bringing about a political-military confrontation.
And just where do you think something like Operation MindFuck fits into this system of ideas? Since many of us tend to think of O:MF as a way of mentally shaking people up, getting them to question their assumptions, physically deconstructing the popular discourses of the day, stripping away the bare truth hidden beneath self-serving platitudes...well, in that case, it is nothing more than a direct challenge to state power.
That may dishearten some of you. But the simple truth is, thinking for yourself, and then communicating those thoughts to others, will always be seen that way, so long as this world-view dominates. You may as well get used to it, because unless you decide to never share your views, or have a frontal lobotomy, you will almost certainly do something that could be considered an act of war. And if you get really good at it, you may even end up in a real domestic war – as the crazy elements of the thuggish far right, security services and corporate sponsored smear teams conspire to make your life hell through intimidation, surveillance and character assassination.
And to be honest, once you realize that you are in the war, a certain clarity accompanies that knowledge. You can now diagnose this uneasy feeling all of the above has been creating. You know what it is now, the nature of the Beast is discerned and laid bare. Once you know what the problem is, you can set about dealing with it. Few things are insurmountable, once you understand their purpose and context.
Unfortunately, you have little choice about this. The line has already been drawn in the sand, and you're on the wrong side. What happens next is a matter of policy, insanity, personal whim and plain old bad luck. Because you're not quite the perpetual pain in the ass that, say, Al-Qaeda is, you won't be facing the guns. You can be drowned out by voices of far-right harpies, military “experts” who 'just happen' to be taking pay cheques from the Pentagon and spineless journalists more content with attacking those who search for the truth than politicians who hide it.
There is a spectrum of responses, if you will. If you do this, the response will be that. And if you do something else, the response will differ in proportion. But like all Platonic constructs of reality, there are gaps in the conceptual definitions put forward. And it is in such gaps that the game must be played most effectively. Operation MindFuck works best in areas where they are no response. So go beyond blogging, or political protest, or pranks, or sabotage and mild acts of ontological guerilla warfare. Mix and match, be innovative, experiment and push the boundaries. And remember, even though this is a war, unconventional forces always have the advantage over hierarchies.
No doubt some of you think I'm using hyperbole, or metaphor to illustrate an example of our socially fractured society and the commodification of identity. And while those certainly are problems, anyone thinking about those in relation to my rant today are wrong. Right now, you and I are quite literally at war with at least one government, namely that of the USA.
Oh to be sure there won't be running battles with light infantry. No air-strikes are going to be called in on your house, and I'm reasonably certain you wont get carted away to Guantanomo Bay, or any other black site that exists. But just because guns aren't being loaded and blood isn't been spilt doesn't mean this isn't a conflict.
You see, war isn't about the clash of armies on the battlefield anymore. Hell, its barely even about killing, except as an advertising hook or a final solution for people who refuse to stop being a pain in the ass. No, warfare has moved through the gentlemanly period of pitched battles and low casualties, blown apart by Napoleon and perfected in the slaughterhouse of WWI. Its not even the dirty political warfare that characterized the Cold War, marked by futile superpower conflict and strategies designed to bleed a superpower by third world proxies, and on the other end of the scale by terrorism.
No, warfare today is about fighting on the psychological and narrative level. Its about capturing the mind, and shackling it to the agenda of the day, regardless of what that agenda may be.
The thing is, you see, as warfare has become less and less about artful strategy and less bound by codes of conduct – be they religious, cultural or legal – the real issue has not been arms, logistics, intelligence and skill, but about the sheer will to fight. Whoever goes on fighting the longest, whoever is willing to do what it takes to persuade the other side to accept their interests, whoever is able to effectively frame the agenda in a certain manner, is the winner in the modern world. You can even suffer strategic setbacks if your message and will is powerful enough.
And of course, if you accept this as essentially true, broadly speaking, then logically you come to the problem being people who wont get the fuck on with the message. The enemy ceases to be those who threaten certain strategic alliances, deposits of raw materials and the lives of the citizenry. No, the enemy becomes anyone who undermines that message and so weakens that will to resolve the conflict – and that person can be anyone, even your own citizenry.
Back in the day, they used to call this PsyOps. It used to only be a wartime enterprise. Dropping leaflets over enemy cities and troop formations. Doing pirate broadcasts using exiles and friendlies from the nation you are at war with to convince them of widespread resentment towards the government. Smear and ridicule important political and military leaders in any way possible.
Like I said, it used to be only a wartime enterprise. But now, thanks to the Cold War terrorism, carried to its conclusion by the likes of Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, the difference between peace and war only exists in a legal sense. The potentially endless war on terror means actually endless psychological operations – carried out against not just the enemy, but the civilian population at home as well. The media has to hang the enemy with words and discourses and justifications before the military can do it in fact.
Nowadays, PsyOps is only one part of a much broader school, known as Information Operations. Do you operate a blog, report on the failing and lies and crimes of your country? Then you are are, according to this world-view, engaging in warfare against the state. But its not just about information per se. You have to think about this much more broadly. For example, protests. A protest is not just a protest. It never can be. Its an expression of low intensity conflict relying on moral discourses and popular expression of dissidence, aimed at bringing about a political-military confrontation.
And just where do you think something like Operation MindFuck fits into this system of ideas? Since many of us tend to think of O:MF as a way of mentally shaking people up, getting them to question their assumptions, physically deconstructing the popular discourses of the day, stripping away the bare truth hidden beneath self-serving platitudes...well, in that case, it is nothing more than a direct challenge to state power.
That may dishearten some of you. But the simple truth is, thinking for yourself, and then communicating those thoughts to others, will always be seen that way, so long as this world-view dominates. You may as well get used to it, because unless you decide to never share your views, or have a frontal lobotomy, you will almost certainly do something that could be considered an act of war. And if you get really good at it, you may even end up in a real domestic war – as the crazy elements of the thuggish far right, security services and corporate sponsored smear teams conspire to make your life hell through intimidation, surveillance and character assassination.
And to be honest, once you realize that you are in the war, a certain clarity accompanies that knowledge. You can now diagnose this uneasy feeling all of the above has been creating. You know what it is now, the nature of the Beast is discerned and laid bare. Once you know what the problem is, you can set about dealing with it. Few things are insurmountable, once you understand their purpose and context.
Unfortunately, you have little choice about this. The line has already been drawn in the sand, and you're on the wrong side. What happens next is a matter of policy, insanity, personal whim and plain old bad luck. Because you're not quite the perpetual pain in the ass that, say, Al-Qaeda is, you won't be facing the guns. You can be drowned out by voices of far-right harpies, military “experts” who 'just happen' to be taking pay cheques from the Pentagon and spineless journalists more content with attacking those who search for the truth than politicians who hide it.
There is a spectrum of responses, if you will. If you do this, the response will be that. And if you do something else, the response will differ in proportion. But like all Platonic constructs of reality, there are gaps in the conceptual definitions put forward. And it is in such gaps that the game must be played most effectively. Operation MindFuck works best in areas where they are no response. So go beyond blogging, or political protest, or pranks, or sabotage and mild acts of ontological guerilla warfare. Mix and match, be innovative, experiment and push the boundaries. And remember, even though this is a war, unconventional forces always have the advantage over hierarchies.
May 26, 2008
Technorati is seriously borked.
Seriously, wtf? I ping my blog and it takes you hours (if not days) to update, you remove and add where other people have linked to me, seemingly at random and now you've gone and lost all my favourites list.
And that's just when you get get the blasted site to load at all.
Seriously, I wouldn't really be stating this if it was just a one off, because you've normally been good, but this has been going on for weeks now. Sort it out.
And that's just when you get get the blasted site to load at all.
Seriously, I wouldn't really be stating this if it was just a one off, because you've normally been good, but this has been going on for weeks now. Sort it out.
May 13, 2008
Another reason, as if one was needed, to hate Labour
Oh no, not those vicious foreign nationals.
Fuck you Labour, fuck you in the ass. If you didn't know, this is what Labour were trying to use in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election. Yeah, trying to appeal to the xenophobic blockhead vote.
As I'm sure some of you are aware, while I reside in the UK I am not a UK citizen. Yeah, I'm a dirty immigrant, draining your economy and stealing jobs (lolwut?), when I'm not planning to establish a Caliphate, driving drunk and eating swans. And I'm pretty sick and tired of being treated like some scum who should be grateful to this government which has decided, in its infinite wisdom, to let me reside here (especially since I was here just after the fall of the Thatcher government).
And I can safely say that the first person who attempts to enforce me having an ID card on my person will very quickly find out how painful a biometric ID card is, when shoved where the sun doesn't shine, with alarming swiftness.
This is the sort of xenophobic, Daily Mail-esque triangulation bullshit that makes me want to puke every time I see another Parliamentary initiative unveiled, and pretty much guarantees I will only vote Labour again in the most dire of circumstances. Assuming I even bother to hang around long enough to have the chance to vote again, which is looking increasingly unlikely. There seems to be a foul smell in the body politic, and I for one have no intention of seeing it play itself out.
May 3, 2008
Roll right!
So, it looks like the Götterdämmerung of Labour will soon be upon us.
With a startling victory in local council elections (where the Tories trounced Labour by 20% and broke their hold on several previous safe councils) and the election of Boris Johnson as the Mayor of London, I think it is safe to say that Labour's days are numbered, as I had suggested back in December. Hardly a feat of precognition, I know, but it still feels nice to be vindicated.
I know I have made it extensively clear that I am no fan of Labour, under Brown or Blair. But this is almost a phyrric victory for the UK electorate in many ways. Because, despite the Conservative rhetoric coming from the media, of a libertarian and (hilariously) even progressive bent, they are still the Neo-Thatcherite party who will gut public services and programs, and promote the wellbeing of the rich and business inclined over everyone else.
And that's the problem.
Many right-wing inclined publications have lately taken this pseudo-libertarian tack to complain about the very real authoritarian nature of New Labour. But lets be honest, they have to be insane to think the Tories will be any better. Oh, sure, maybe in the first year or two, while they are riding high on popular support in the press and electorate generally. But then they'll realize they have a mandate and it will all go downhill from there.
And I'd bet everything in my bank account (ie; my mountain of debt) that the Daily Mail/Express/Sun reading the public, the ones who leave comments on stories bewailing Labour's autocratic tendencies on nearly every story, will be the same ones cheering on illiberal policies passed by a Tory government - especially if they were aimed at immigrants, Muslims or criminals. Every intelligent person know's they don't give a shit about freedom - they care about their own hides and are more than willing to cheer on a police state so long as they think the government is on their side and will only use it against other people.
Tribal politics, in other words.
I have no doubt that David Cameron will be the next Prime Minister. And I have no doubt when that happens, certain yahoos and morons will treat this as their moment in the sun, and proceed to swing a wrecking ball through what remains of freedom in this country.
On the other hand, at least I wont have any minor twinges of guilt about doing everything in my power to fuck up such a government.
With a startling victory in local council elections (where the Tories trounced Labour by 20% and broke their hold on several previous safe councils) and the election of Boris Johnson as the Mayor of London, I think it is safe to say that Labour's days are numbered, as I had suggested back in December. Hardly a feat of precognition, I know, but it still feels nice to be vindicated.
I know I have made it extensively clear that I am no fan of Labour, under Brown or Blair. But this is almost a phyrric victory for the UK electorate in many ways. Because, despite the Conservative rhetoric coming from the media, of a libertarian and (hilariously) even progressive bent, they are still the Neo-Thatcherite party who will gut public services and programs, and promote the wellbeing of the rich and business inclined over everyone else.
And that's the problem.
Many right-wing inclined publications have lately taken this pseudo-libertarian tack to complain about the very real authoritarian nature of New Labour. But lets be honest, they have to be insane to think the Tories will be any better. Oh, sure, maybe in the first year or two, while they are riding high on popular support in the press and electorate generally. But then they'll realize they have a mandate and it will all go downhill from there.
And I'd bet everything in my bank account (ie; my mountain of debt) that the Daily Mail/Express/Sun reading the public, the ones who leave comments on stories bewailing Labour's autocratic tendencies on nearly every story, will be the same ones cheering on illiberal policies passed by a Tory government - especially if they were aimed at immigrants, Muslims or criminals. Every intelligent person know's they don't give a shit about freedom - they care about their own hides and are more than willing to cheer on a police state so long as they think the government is on their side and will only use it against other people.
Tribal politics, in other words.
I have no doubt that David Cameron will be the next Prime Minister. And I have no doubt when that happens, certain yahoos and morons will treat this as their moment in the sun, and proceed to swing a wrecking ball through what remains of freedom in this country.
On the other hand, at least I wont have any minor twinges of guilt about doing everything in my power to fuck up such a government.
May 1, 2008
ATTN British Media
Amazing as it may seem to you, there actually people who live outside London. *Gasp* shock horror, yes, I know. Many people are taken aback when they first learn this. And even more incredibly, they rarely give a shit about things that affect Londoners alone. Like, say, for example, the London Mayoral Election.
Therefore, when I pick up a supposedly national newspaper and have to wade through 20,000 pages of hissy fits between Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone supporters to find out anything else that may be interesting or important, I get a little...peeved. Especially when everyone is taking this OH SO SERIOUSLY yet we all know both of them are joke figures fighting over a meaningless title that do nothing except wind up the opposition's supporters.
SO CUT IT THE FUCK OUT, RETARDS!
Therefore, when I pick up a supposedly national newspaper and have to wade through 20,000 pages of hissy fits between Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone supporters to find out anything else that may be interesting or important, I get a little...peeved. Especially when everyone is taking this OH SO SERIOUSLY yet we all know both of them are joke figures fighting over a meaningless title that do nothing except wind up the opposition's supporters.
SO CUT IT THE FUCK OUT, RETARDS!
Mar 12, 2008
The last refuge of a scoundrel
Today, ladies and gentlemen, I want to talk a little about patriotism.
In this modern day and age, for some strange reason, patriotism has become a very important issue indeed. We are, after all, supposedly engaged in a war of values against a merciless and cunning, yet at the same time, dogmatic and stupid enemy, who will stop at nothing to impose their values on everyone else. Whether I'm referring to the modern day rulers of the countries we inhabit, or the Jihadists I leave as an exercise for the reader to answer.
In such a situation, a war of values is very important. Unless you wish to live in a democracy or something. In recent years, it has been interesting to note the threat used against dissenters is “either you share our values or else...”. Now, I was under the impression that within a democracy, the point is you can have whatever values you want, even if they run contrary to democracy itself, but apparently I was wrong. I still believe however, that a democracy asserted via threats and blackmail only ends up undermining itself and becoming, instead of a democracy, another form of autocratic rule, even if it keeps the functions of free elections and rule of law.
Now, keeping this in mind, it puts the New Labour project under Commissar-uh, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, of promoting a 'British identity' into a very suspect light. I would say in fact it was symptomatic of their desire for control over the population, and their awful belief that the purpose of the citizen is to serve the state, not the other way around. By taking it upon themselves to enforce a view of 'Britishness', top-down as it were, instead of letting such a feeling organically occur, from the bottom up and with the consent of the individuals involved, they are trying to recreate the identity of the nation.
This ridiculousness has become almost painful to watch within the last week in particular, with two particular suggestions from the Krem-uh, Downing Street. The first is that our soldiers and troops are being told to wear their uniforms in public, so we, the cowed and weak masses, can gratefully fawn over the torturers and killer-uh, Our Brave Lads, who went off to fight the Islamic Horde and in no way were complicit in any crimes that our press frequently accuse the USA of.
Secondly, we have the foolishness of the “oath of allegiance”. It has been suggested by the very politically connected and influential Lord Goldsmith that all school leavers have to swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen and monarchy. Ignoring for the moment that somehow aping the United States of America will make people here more British....really? I think this tells us everything we know about the party who “have no objections to people getting filthy rich”. Swearing allegiance to the Queen reinforces the fact there is a social hierarchy in this country and you, the serf, the subject, are at the bottom of it. Again, we are back at the idea of the subject serving the country, and that this state of affairs can only be maintained by blackmail and sabotage.
One of the greatest things about the UK that I, as a long term outsider, have noticed, is the way the British in general reject overt displays of nationalism and mock those who partake in them. Putting aside football matches, at least. Saluting the Union Jack, singing the praises of the stratified social system, serving the state religion...none of these things have anything to do with the current British character, and Eris forbid they ever do. What is British is irreverence to authority figures, eccentricity on a level only other nations could dream to reach, disgustingly unhealthy food and football riots.
Nonsense like making people swear allegiance to a sponging foreigner who practises waving her hand all day, and her idiotic brood, are laughable and will likely only promote more hostility to the monarchy (which I cannot really complain about), but there is also something rather sinister in this sudden prominence of debates on “Britishness” and emphasis on pathetic nationalism. It comes at a time where more and more those who do not “fit in” are being told to conform or leave, regardless of if they were born here or not, and often based on their skin colour and religion. It comes at a time where military-linked think tanks are bemoaning a lack of a firm national character to act as a mirror image to the Jihadists. It comes at a time where attacking “multiculturalism” and pluralism in general is very much in vogue.
I'm reminded that the system often creates its own enemies. The more tightly you define something, by definition the more exclusive it becomes. And when that tight definition of identity pushes out the Muslims, the Jews, the secularists, the republicans, the white working class...well, you're manufacturing the perfect recipe for civil unrest and disturbance. Normally, this wouldn't disturb me, because I like and thrive among that sort of confusion and chaos...but I have to wonder, whose purposes does such chaos serve? I am many things, but I refuse to be a useful tool for someone else's designs.
There seem to be two contradictory forces at work within British society right now, the dynamic of which is a cancer eating away at the heart of the country. The first is obvious, and that is unitary centralization. One State, under One Tightly Defined Concept (to be named later), Forever and Ever, Praise Tony. The other is more sinister, the exclusiveness, the drive to division and separation. Beware the Other. The Other takes many forms...he is the Muslim who seeks to establish a Caliphate on the burnt shores of this pleasant and green land...he is the Working Class Man who looks to his own self interest instead of seeing the self-evident wisdom of his masters in Whitehall...she is the antiwar protester supposedly spitting on the troops...they are the insane proponents of 'foreign' ideas like human rights and justice. There are plenty members of the Other's to completely Balkanize society, which is exactly what will happen if the state tries to hard to enforce its current course of centralization.
And I cant help but think this plays into the hands of the elite of society. “Leave the fanatical sub-human Muslims and puerile working classes and the antiwar idiots and everyone else to fight it out among themselves, while we can exist in our own little British versions of Green Zones.” I may be wrong, but its a hypothesis I am willing to put out there. It may not even be a conscious drive by our own political and economic movers and shakers, but a far deeper, symptomatic drive buried within our own brand of late-stage disaster 'capitalism'. I don't know, and I freely admit it.
All I know is this: imposition of order = escalation of disorder. The drive for purity, be it of thought, action, political system or identity always, sooner or later, involves the “elimination” of dirt. But what happens when the dirt organizes itself and attacks the cleaning implements?
In this modern day and age, for some strange reason, patriotism has become a very important issue indeed. We are, after all, supposedly engaged in a war of values against a merciless and cunning, yet at the same time, dogmatic and stupid enemy, who will stop at nothing to impose their values on everyone else. Whether I'm referring to the modern day rulers of the countries we inhabit, or the Jihadists I leave as an exercise for the reader to answer.
In such a situation, a war of values is very important. Unless you wish to live in a democracy or something. In recent years, it has been interesting to note the threat used against dissenters is “either you share our values or else...”. Now, I was under the impression that within a democracy, the point is you can have whatever values you want, even if they run contrary to democracy itself, but apparently I was wrong. I still believe however, that a democracy asserted via threats and blackmail only ends up undermining itself and becoming, instead of a democracy, another form of autocratic rule, even if it keeps the functions of free elections and rule of law.
Now, keeping this in mind, it puts the New Labour project under Commissar-uh, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, of promoting a 'British identity' into a very suspect light. I would say in fact it was symptomatic of their desire for control over the population, and their awful belief that the purpose of the citizen is to serve the state, not the other way around. By taking it upon themselves to enforce a view of 'Britishness', top-down as it were, instead of letting such a feeling organically occur, from the bottom up and with the consent of the individuals involved, they are trying to recreate the identity of the nation.
This ridiculousness has become almost painful to watch within the last week in particular, with two particular suggestions from the Krem-uh, Downing Street. The first is that our soldiers and troops are being told to wear their uniforms in public, so we, the cowed and weak masses, can gratefully fawn over the torturers and killer-uh, Our Brave Lads, who went off to fight the Islamic Horde and in no way were complicit in any crimes that our press frequently accuse the USA of.
Secondly, we have the foolishness of the “oath of allegiance”. It has been suggested by the very politically connected and influential Lord Goldsmith that all school leavers have to swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen and monarchy. Ignoring for the moment that somehow aping the United States of America will make people here more British....really? I think this tells us everything we know about the party who “have no objections to people getting filthy rich”. Swearing allegiance to the Queen reinforces the fact there is a social hierarchy in this country and you, the serf, the subject, are at the bottom of it. Again, we are back at the idea of the subject serving the country, and that this state of affairs can only be maintained by blackmail and sabotage.
One of the greatest things about the UK that I, as a long term outsider, have noticed, is the way the British in general reject overt displays of nationalism and mock those who partake in them. Putting aside football matches, at least. Saluting the Union Jack, singing the praises of the stratified social system, serving the state religion...none of these things have anything to do with the current British character, and Eris forbid they ever do. What is British is irreverence to authority figures, eccentricity on a level only other nations could dream to reach, disgustingly unhealthy food and football riots.
Nonsense like making people swear allegiance to a sponging foreigner who practises waving her hand all day, and her idiotic brood, are laughable and will likely only promote more hostility to the monarchy (which I cannot really complain about), but there is also something rather sinister in this sudden prominence of debates on “Britishness” and emphasis on pathetic nationalism. It comes at a time where more and more those who do not “fit in” are being told to conform or leave, regardless of if they were born here or not, and often based on their skin colour and religion. It comes at a time where military-linked think tanks are bemoaning a lack of a firm national character to act as a mirror image to the Jihadists. It comes at a time where attacking “multiculturalism” and pluralism in general is very much in vogue.
I'm reminded that the system often creates its own enemies. The more tightly you define something, by definition the more exclusive it becomes. And when that tight definition of identity pushes out the Muslims, the Jews, the secularists, the republicans, the white working class...well, you're manufacturing the perfect recipe for civil unrest and disturbance. Normally, this wouldn't disturb me, because I like and thrive among that sort of confusion and chaos...but I have to wonder, whose purposes does such chaos serve? I am many things, but I refuse to be a useful tool for someone else's designs.
There seem to be two contradictory forces at work within British society right now, the dynamic of which is a cancer eating away at the heart of the country. The first is obvious, and that is unitary centralization. One State, under One Tightly Defined Concept (to be named later), Forever and Ever, Praise Tony. The other is more sinister, the exclusiveness, the drive to division and separation. Beware the Other. The Other takes many forms...he is the Muslim who seeks to establish a Caliphate on the burnt shores of this pleasant and green land...he is the Working Class Man who looks to his own self interest instead of seeing the self-evident wisdom of his masters in Whitehall...she is the antiwar protester supposedly spitting on the troops...they are the insane proponents of 'foreign' ideas like human rights and justice. There are plenty members of the Other's to completely Balkanize society, which is exactly what will happen if the state tries to hard to enforce its current course of centralization.
And I cant help but think this plays into the hands of the elite of society. “Leave the fanatical sub-human Muslims and puerile working classes and the antiwar idiots and everyone else to fight it out among themselves, while we can exist in our own little British versions of Green Zones.” I may be wrong, but its a hypothesis I am willing to put out there. It may not even be a conscious drive by our own political and economic movers and shakers, but a far deeper, symptomatic drive buried within our own brand of late-stage disaster 'capitalism'. I don't know, and I freely admit it.
All I know is this: imposition of order = escalation of disorder. The drive for purity, be it of thought, action, political system or identity always, sooner or later, involves the “elimination” of dirt. But what happens when the dirt organizes itself and attacks the cleaning implements?
Feb 23, 2008
The common failing of all would-be political agitators
“Centurion, why do they titter so?”
“Just some...uh, Jewish joke, sir.”
- The Life of Brian
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
- Voltaire
I've noticed something of a trend when it comes to politics. And that is that people think they can use half-assed political slogans along with some pathetic emotional appeal to try and sway peoples opinions. For example, look at the common refrain from the morons at Democratic Underground: “Bush lied, people died.”
OK, it is pretty much true, as a trend. If we take the name Bush to cover his administration appointments, including those in the Office of Special Plans (who doctored evidence in the run up to the Iraq war), you have a case. But does just mindlessly shouting it across the political debating forums of the internet actually convince anyone to forego their support of the Administration? I'd be very surprised if it did. Rather, it makes the supporters of the pro-abortion War Party look almost as mindless as the supporters of the anti-abortion War Party, which puts off any freethinking individual and reduces both sides to shouting pre-made soundbites at each other. I mean, really. You could script robots to do this shit.
And its not just in America. Anywhere there is someone who is, on the face of it, is pretty much a complete and utter asshole, those who dislike them try to paint them as Satan incarnate. It doesn't matter if this is Hugo Chavez, Putin or Blair. Same reasoning applies, show them to be powerful, yet utterly evil.
Does anyone actually fall for that shit? Really?
Because to me, it looks like those on the other side are just affirming the power of the person they hate, from an opposite direction. Powerful people will always have vocal supporters, simply because being on side with those in power has many rewards. The moral character, or lack of it, is rarely questioned along the entire political spectrum, what with people being convinced their own political ideology is the only moral one.
Lets face it, if you really want to cut someone down to size, you have to make them a figure of fun.
Its the only antidote to emotionally fuelled political debate, which is 90% of all debate nowadays. Instead of affirming the object of your dislike is powerful, you portray him as a bumbling fool. You highlight the hilarious inconsistencies in their thinking, and you then convince people around you to laugh at them. Never directly engage in so-called debates on the pros and cons of any given policy, instead concentrate on using those policies as ammunition against that person.
I know what you're going to say. “But people have already tried this Cain, and it hasn't worked.” Well I disagree, they haven't tried hard enough. Look at those ridiculous Bushisms people, for example. The book turned from halfway amusing into textual analysis of policy in about 10 pages. There was no cutting edge to it, there was no satire. It was just the idiotic sayings of a man who commanded the world's most powerful military. The world has seen Caligula's before now. The only way they laughed at them is in a helpless “well, we're fucked now” way. There was no opposition, no defiance.
There is an old American proverb, “use your wit as a shield, and not as a dagger.” Its one I totally disagree with. Use your wit precisely as you would a dagger. Back in the bad old days of the Hashishin, an acolyte would be given only a dagger, to make a public execution of the cult's enemies. Almost always, they struck in the most public place possible, in the most public way possible. Friday, outside the mosque, with everyone watching.
That is exactly the attitude a competent political agitator should take. If you can't mock them to their face, perhaps you should take up a safer past time, like jogging? Cut them down to size. Make them a figure of ridicule. Try to move outside party based bullshit, make their supporters look like idiots by association.
A person who is widely considered a laughing stock is not going to command respect, regardless of how much power they have. And in an age where substance is nothing and image is everything, in such an age, humour is king.
“Just some...uh, Jewish joke, sir.”
- The Life of Brian
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
- Voltaire
I've noticed something of a trend when it comes to politics. And that is that people think they can use half-assed political slogans along with some pathetic emotional appeal to try and sway peoples opinions. For example, look at the common refrain from the morons at Democratic Underground: “Bush lied, people died.”
OK, it is pretty much true, as a trend. If we take the name Bush to cover his administration appointments, including those in the Office of Special Plans (who doctored evidence in the run up to the Iraq war), you have a case. But does just mindlessly shouting it across the political debating forums of the internet actually convince anyone to forego their support of the Administration? I'd be very surprised if it did. Rather, it makes the supporters of the pro-abortion War Party look almost as mindless as the supporters of the anti-abortion War Party, which puts off any freethinking individual and reduces both sides to shouting pre-made soundbites at each other. I mean, really. You could script robots to do this shit.
And its not just in America. Anywhere there is someone who is, on the face of it, is pretty much a complete and utter asshole, those who dislike them try to paint them as Satan incarnate. It doesn't matter if this is Hugo Chavez, Putin or Blair. Same reasoning applies, show them to be powerful, yet utterly evil.
Does anyone actually fall for that shit? Really?
Because to me, it looks like those on the other side are just affirming the power of the person they hate, from an opposite direction. Powerful people will always have vocal supporters, simply because being on side with those in power has many rewards. The moral character, or lack of it, is rarely questioned along the entire political spectrum, what with people being convinced their own political ideology is the only moral one.
Lets face it, if you really want to cut someone down to size, you have to make them a figure of fun.
Its the only antidote to emotionally fuelled political debate, which is 90% of all debate nowadays. Instead of affirming the object of your dislike is powerful, you portray him as a bumbling fool. You highlight the hilarious inconsistencies in their thinking, and you then convince people around you to laugh at them. Never directly engage in so-called debates on the pros and cons of any given policy, instead concentrate on using those policies as ammunition against that person.
I know what you're going to say. “But people have already tried this Cain, and it hasn't worked.” Well I disagree, they haven't tried hard enough. Look at those ridiculous Bushisms people, for example. The book turned from halfway amusing into textual analysis of policy in about 10 pages. There was no cutting edge to it, there was no satire. It was just the idiotic sayings of a man who commanded the world's most powerful military. The world has seen Caligula's before now. The only way they laughed at them is in a helpless “well, we're fucked now” way. There was no opposition, no defiance.
There is an old American proverb, “use your wit as a shield, and not as a dagger.” Its one I totally disagree with. Use your wit precisely as you would a dagger. Back in the bad old days of the Hashishin, an acolyte would be given only a dagger, to make a public execution of the cult's enemies. Almost always, they struck in the most public place possible, in the most public way possible. Friday, outside the mosque, with everyone watching.
That is exactly the attitude a competent political agitator should take. If you can't mock them to their face, perhaps you should take up a safer past time, like jogging? Cut them down to size. Make them a figure of ridicule. Try to move outside party based bullshit, make their supporters look like idiots by association.
A person who is widely considered a laughing stock is not going to command respect, regardless of how much power they have. And in an age where substance is nothing and image is everything, in such an age, humour is king.
Dec 22, 2007
Dec 15, 2007
The State isn't public enemy number one...but probably should be
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.
- H. L. Mencken
Urgh. Another day, another moronic attempt at self-justification by a New Labour cheerleader. The suspects are not new, and neither is the subject, but simply because of the concentration of hideous sentiment that are far too common among the political elite of the moment, it deserves attention.
As the cheerleader in chief, Polly Toynbee points out, Monday was International Human Rights Day, a day that has become increasingly important in a world where rendition, torture and suspension of haebus corpus under the guise of counter-terrorism legislation is a fact of life not only under faraway dictatorships, but supposedly free and democratic countries.
Yet, for the likes of Toynbee and the rest of the Bolsheviks masquerading as Fascists in Parliament, this is not a cause for concern, because the decade of rule under Labour has been the best for freedom. Apparently independently investigated police are much more important than the fact that the same police can arrest and fine you for insulting Our Glorious (ex) Leader, to make one of many comparisons.
Furthermore, she dismisses the brilliantly concise reply from Henry Porter as enabling the privileged classes to engage in fashionable persecution paranoia. While some of his claims may have been contentious, can anyone really consider laws that create arbitrary zones of trespass and the interception of all major communication systems without recourse to even a court as being those of a government concerned with liberty and freedom?
Apparently so. Because, you see, these are individual rights. Apparently, this isn't done for the individual good, oh no. This is done because the state has a duty to all, and your rights stop where...well, somewhere along the line to be defined at a later date. Arbitrarily, knowing this government, for whom “well-defined and limited” is a foreign, and possibly dirty term. Either way, because your individual right to not be spied on for no reason conflicts with my right to not be murdered in my bed by swarthy foreign extremists, your right is clearly the lesser.
Or something.
The real battles are not to be waged on these grounds. There are far more important and pressing issues. Such as neglect. Liberty is a lesser necessity, don't you know? If you didn't, you can look it up on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. See its, science, we cannot start whinging about silly little things like removing the right to be tried by your peers until everything else in society is perfect. So sit down and put your little banners away (because the police will only beat the shit out of you and throw you in jail if you dare to use them near Parliament anyway). I presume soon we will bring Solidarity and Vaclav Havel to task for their pathetic right wing agitation which bought down the Warsaw Pact before the Soviets could eliminate poverty.
Best of all, this silly insistence on individual claims is just another right-wing wolf dressed up in leftist clothing. Oh yes, you may be for the minimum wage, a mixed economy and the use of government spending to help cure social ills, but if you start getting funny ideas about you being a sovereign individual with inalienable rights, then you're a tool of a vast right wing conspiracy. And no, we wont refund your centre-left club membership card either, you traitorous little scumbag.
Its articles like these that make me question my stated political affiliation. If left-leaning, Millian liberalism is going to be associated with this sort of morally bankrupt political philosophy, then fuck it – I'm now a rather weak-willed anarchist (“gently push over the State!”). I have no problem with what I think, its just if I don't spend 20 minutes trying to explain the essential ideas from On Liberty to a curious bystander, I'll likely be considered a believer in the above garbage.
Even worse, its allowed the Tories, the bloody Tories, to claim some sort of moral high ground and present themselves as a party dedicated to freedom. Freedom? Hah! Liberty? Sure, if you're white, male and rich, perhaps. Maybe one day the Tories will finally realize their plans to combine free market economics with social conservatism are doomed to failure, because the two don't actually mix, but that day is still far off.
Now, I know some of you out there may still be wondering, OK then, well what's your case that the state should be public enemy number one? Well I am glad you asked, oh literary-device-which-allows-me-to-move-onto-a-new-point. My position is very simple, and grounded in what I like to think of as common sense. It goes a little something like this: every single state, regardless of the people who run it, are capable of great evil and the mere existence of such concentrated power in the hands of so few, with so many resources to hand, constitutes a direct and ongoing threat to my personal freedom.
Did you catch all that? Good. Its a very simple position, which basically reverses the logic of a police state, that the possibility of threat leads to its actuality, back onto itself. People might be naughty, therefore we need lots of laws to protect YOU before they commit a crime. The State might be naughty, therefore we need a lack of laws and well defined limits on their powers to protect ME before they commit a crime.
And of course, the scope for crimes by the State are potentially so much higher than even the most ambitious individual could hope to aspire to. Ordinary people have, at best, mass murder and grand theft. Nations can inflict genocide and steal entire regions of resources. Not only can they, its happened fairly often before. They can keep hundreds of thousands in fear with their thuggery, engage in any form of theft they like, restrict your ability to move freely forever, torture, brutalize and rape...with impunity. While with the advent of WMDs ambitious individuals may be able to scale similar heights in murder and intimidation, states will long retain the monopoly, will to use violence, and legitimacy that your average, casual murderer lacks.
That's not to say the state cannot be a force for good. I'm rather keen on poor people making enough to actually live on, affordable housing, protection from people who actually intend to harm my liberty or person (as opposed to those the state says want to) and other similar things. But I fail to see how these, in any way conflict with not throwing people in jail simply because they dare to not show proper deference to their leaders. That's because it doesn't. It is a false dichotomy, an intellectually shallow position that tries to force the social conscience of people into accepting intolerable violations of their liberty.
Once you have a state which has the power to do such things, you have a serious problem. Because unless its the prelude to installing an 'enlightened' dictatorship, there is no way you can know the nature of the government in 10, 20 or 50 years time. People always forget that one, that their own favourite lia-um, politicians, will not be in power forever. And when was the last time you remember state power being voluntarily rolled back, once those special powers had been acquired? Exactly, almost never.
You can't dictate the terms of the future political landscape. You see, this is the problem with the inherently short sighted supporters of New Labour. We may not be in a police state, not yet. Widespread abuse of these powers has not happened. But the fact remains that the tools are already in place and all that is lacking is the political will, not the ability itself. The state cannot be trusted, because the nature of democracy inherently brings uncertainty into the future trends of policy. You'd think people who actually grasped the concept of voting would understand that.
All of the above is precisely why the state should always be viewed as the foremost enemy of liberty and the enemy of the public at large. Someone who views the state as their enemy is not going to be tricked into foolish nationalistic squabbles, isn't going to buy lines about excessive protections “for your own good” and in short, is not going to open themselves and the larger community as a whole to the sort of deprivations of state power which make up almost all of history for the last 100 years.
The state may be a necessary evil (depending on who you talk to, it may not be), but its certainly an evil of some sort. Trusting in it is the action of a fool or a madman, and no excuse can be made for it.
- H. L. Mencken
Urgh. Another day, another moronic attempt at self-justification by a New Labour cheerleader. The suspects are not new, and neither is the subject, but simply because of the concentration of hideous sentiment that are far too common among the political elite of the moment, it deserves attention.
As the cheerleader in chief, Polly Toynbee points out, Monday was International Human Rights Day, a day that has become increasingly important in a world where rendition, torture and suspension of haebus corpus under the guise of counter-terrorism legislation is a fact of life not only under faraway dictatorships, but supposedly free and democratic countries.
Yet, for the likes of Toynbee and the rest of the Bolsheviks masquerading as Fascists in Parliament, this is not a cause for concern, because the decade of rule under Labour has been the best for freedom. Apparently independently investigated police are much more important than the fact that the same police can arrest and fine you for insulting Our Glorious (ex) Leader, to make one of many comparisons.
Furthermore, she dismisses the brilliantly concise reply from Henry Porter as enabling the privileged classes to engage in fashionable persecution paranoia. While some of his claims may have been contentious, can anyone really consider laws that create arbitrary zones of trespass and the interception of all major communication systems without recourse to even a court as being those of a government concerned with liberty and freedom?
Apparently so. Because, you see, these are individual rights. Apparently, this isn't done for the individual good, oh no. This is done because the state has a duty to all, and your rights stop where...well, somewhere along the line to be defined at a later date. Arbitrarily, knowing this government, for whom “well-defined and limited” is a foreign, and possibly dirty term. Either way, because your individual right to not be spied on for no reason conflicts with my right to not be murdered in my bed by swarthy foreign extremists, your right is clearly the lesser.
Or something.
The real battles are not to be waged on these grounds. There are far more important and pressing issues. Such as neglect. Liberty is a lesser necessity, don't you know? If you didn't, you can look it up on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. See its, science, we cannot start whinging about silly little things like removing the right to be tried by your peers until everything else in society is perfect. So sit down and put your little banners away (because the police will only beat the shit out of you and throw you in jail if you dare to use them near Parliament anyway). I presume soon we will bring Solidarity and Vaclav Havel to task for their pathetic right wing agitation which bought down the Warsaw Pact before the Soviets could eliminate poverty.
Best of all, this silly insistence on individual claims is just another right-wing wolf dressed up in leftist clothing. Oh yes, you may be for the minimum wage, a mixed economy and the use of government spending to help cure social ills, but if you start getting funny ideas about you being a sovereign individual with inalienable rights, then you're a tool of a vast right wing conspiracy. And no, we wont refund your centre-left club membership card either, you traitorous little scumbag.
Its articles like these that make me question my stated political affiliation. If left-leaning, Millian liberalism is going to be associated with this sort of morally bankrupt political philosophy, then fuck it – I'm now a rather weak-willed anarchist (“gently push over the State!”). I have no problem with what I think, its just if I don't spend 20 minutes trying to explain the essential ideas from On Liberty to a curious bystander, I'll likely be considered a believer in the above garbage.
Even worse, its allowed the Tories, the bloody Tories, to claim some sort of moral high ground and present themselves as a party dedicated to freedom. Freedom? Hah! Liberty? Sure, if you're white, male and rich, perhaps. Maybe one day the Tories will finally realize their plans to combine free market economics with social conservatism are doomed to failure, because the two don't actually mix, but that day is still far off.
Now, I know some of you out there may still be wondering, OK then, well what's your case that the state should be public enemy number one? Well I am glad you asked, oh literary-device-which-allows-me-to-move-onto-a-new-point. My position is very simple, and grounded in what I like to think of as common sense. It goes a little something like this: every single state, regardless of the people who run it, are capable of great evil and the mere existence of such concentrated power in the hands of so few, with so many resources to hand, constitutes a direct and ongoing threat to my personal freedom.
Did you catch all that? Good. Its a very simple position, which basically reverses the logic of a police state, that the possibility of threat leads to its actuality, back onto itself. People might be naughty, therefore we need lots of laws to protect YOU before they commit a crime. The State might be naughty, therefore we need a lack of laws and well defined limits on their powers to protect ME before they commit a crime.
And of course, the scope for crimes by the State are potentially so much higher than even the most ambitious individual could hope to aspire to. Ordinary people have, at best, mass murder and grand theft. Nations can inflict genocide and steal entire regions of resources. Not only can they, its happened fairly often before. They can keep hundreds of thousands in fear with their thuggery, engage in any form of theft they like, restrict your ability to move freely forever, torture, brutalize and rape...with impunity. While with the advent of WMDs ambitious individuals may be able to scale similar heights in murder and intimidation, states will long retain the monopoly, will to use violence, and legitimacy that your average, casual murderer lacks.
That's not to say the state cannot be a force for good. I'm rather keen on poor people making enough to actually live on, affordable housing, protection from people who actually intend to harm my liberty or person (as opposed to those the state says want to) and other similar things. But I fail to see how these, in any way conflict with not throwing people in jail simply because they dare to not show proper deference to their leaders. That's because it doesn't. It is a false dichotomy, an intellectually shallow position that tries to force the social conscience of people into accepting intolerable violations of their liberty.
Once you have a state which has the power to do such things, you have a serious problem. Because unless its the prelude to installing an 'enlightened' dictatorship, there is no way you can know the nature of the government in 10, 20 or 50 years time. People always forget that one, that their own favourite lia-um, politicians, will not be in power forever. And when was the last time you remember state power being voluntarily rolled back, once those special powers had been acquired? Exactly, almost never.
You can't dictate the terms of the future political landscape. You see, this is the problem with the inherently short sighted supporters of New Labour. We may not be in a police state, not yet. Widespread abuse of these powers has not happened. But the fact remains that the tools are already in place and all that is lacking is the political will, not the ability itself. The state cannot be trusted, because the nature of democracy inherently brings uncertainty into the future trends of policy. You'd think people who actually grasped the concept of voting would understand that.
All of the above is precisely why the state should always be viewed as the foremost enemy of liberty and the enemy of the public at large. Someone who views the state as their enemy is not going to be tricked into foolish nationalistic squabbles, isn't going to buy lines about excessive protections “for your own good” and in short, is not going to open themselves and the larger community as a whole to the sort of deprivations of state power which make up almost all of history for the last 100 years.
The state may be a necessary evil (depending on who you talk to, it may not be), but its certainly an evil of some sort. Trusting in it is the action of a fool or a madman, and no excuse can be made for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
