Tuesday, 14 July 2015

Demonisation

It is, of course, that "the left" accuses "the right" of demonising the poor, immigrants, blacks, Asians and the infirm (or whatever the socially acceptable term for these people is, this week).

This is an actual conversation on twitter:

Literally a post made by the social media campaign for a political party representing an entire state. Gross. LINK
-- Tom Nix

@TheTomNix @SpaghettiJesus and?
-- Me

OK, so here we go. I read that link and all I got was "if you hand out stuff, the recipients become dependent on the handouts". I don't think there's any particular controversy in that argument. But if you're looking to be offended, the obvious thing to do is to drag something irrelevant into the point.
@obotheclown @TheTomNix they compared poor people to animals
-- @SpaghettiJesus

@SpaghettiJesus @TheTomNix we’re all animals, last time I looked
-- Me

@obotheclown @TheTomNix yeah but people running for political office tend not to want to insult their voting base on principle.
-- @SpaghettiJesus

I'm afraid that if you go around looking for things to be offended by, it's very difficult not to offend you. I'm frankly astounded by the lengths to which someone will go to be offended. And anyone looking for votes is trying very hard not to offend potential voters.

But watch this...

@obotheclown @TheTomNix of course they're inbred and basically brain dead so object permanence is hard for them.
-- @SpaghettiJesus
Having just accused someone of making a sweeping generalisation that could be considered offensive, the obvious thing to do is to make a sweeping generalisation that could be considered offensive. I mean, right now I'm pretty poor and I didn't take offence at the handouts thing. But if I was an Oklahoman, I'd probably be mildly annoyed at being described as inbred and brain dead because of an accident of birth. You can't really choose where your born, any more than you can choose your skin colour. So where is "the left's" moral high ground now?

Of course, that's just one conversation, but it's one I see quite often:

Left: Tories hate the poor / blacks / immigrants / women

Right: No they don't

Left: Of course they do, look at the Infographic from Labour Eoin / video of Iain Duncan Smith which I'll pretend is him cheering murdering the poor / innocuous comment from David Cameron that I'm going to twist and take out of context.

Etc.

I think that "the left" hate "the right" far more virulently than "the right" hates anyone. "The right" just has a different set of things that they believe is important to make the poor better off than "the left". That doesn't mean they want them dead or ground under heel, it just means that their compassion and reasoning has led them to a different conclusion. This doesn't mean their motives or objectives are evil.

If "the left" genuinely wants to engage and change the way "the right" thinks or behaves, then not blaming them for every evil in the world and ascribing the worst of human nature to their every word, thought and deed is possibly a good place to start.

I'm not holding my breath.

Saturday, 4 July 2015

A Greek Tragedy

So, Alex has put up a spirited defence of his nation:

"They have decided to strangle us, whether we say yes or no", said a Greek woman to me yesterday.

"The only choice we have is to make it quick or slow. I will vote "oxi" (no). We are economically dead anyway. I might as well have my conscience clear and my pride intact." 

I can't really argue with the opening lines of his article, but it really is all bloody downhill from there:

At times of financial strain, a country's currency issuer, its central bank, should act as lender of last resort and prime technocratic negotiator. In Greece's case, the European Central Bank, sits on the same side as the creditors; acts as their enforcer.

Well, yes, this is one of the obvious consequences of being a small player in a monetary union. It's one of the many reasons sane people don't want to be part of the Euro.

EU Institutions are now openly admitting that their aim is regime change. A coup d'état in anything by name, using banks instead of tanks and a corrupt media as the occupiers' broadcaster. The rest of Europe stands back and watches. Those leaders who promised the Syriza government support before the election, have ducked for cover. I understand it. They sympathise, but they don't want to be next. They are honourable cowards. They look at the punishment beating being meted out and their instinct is to protect their own. 

I'm sorry, is this a surprise? The EU is all about homogenising Europe to a point where it becomes a trivial exercise to implement a superstate. I don't want to sound like a deranged 'KIPper here, but this is just an inevitable consequence of any bureaucratic organisation, whether it's the Fed, the EU, the civil service, a bank ... bureaucracies always want to grow their fiefdom, their reach and their power. So why wouldn't the EU want a more compliant and obedient partner running Greece? It's not exactly a shock to anyone except the Greeks, apparently. It must be wonderful to have retained childlike naïveté, despite being one of the oldest civilisations in the Western world.

Corruption and tax evasion had been rife for decades. Accounts were falsified in order to facilitate entry into the Euro. Unforgivable economic crimes were committed. These weren't committed by most ordinary people of course - the very people now asked to take on the burden of the follies of our rich oligarchs. Corrupt politicians who passed the country back and forth like a joint were quick to secure their money in Swiss bank accounts. But we must share in a collective responsibility for them. We all knew what was going on and we either became part of it or didn't rebel soon enough or loudly enough.

And having said that, are you now exculpated? You seem to be saying that because you've had a really tough five years, that's undone all the decades of corruption? I don't think so, sunshine.

Those factors are what put us on the front line when the global financial crisis began to unfold within the Eurozone. All those systemic flaws are what made Greece the weak link when the earthquake hit. But we didn't cause the earthquake. We just lived in creaking houses that went down easily. 

Well, yes. And this is what thousands of people (including deranged 'KIPpers) warned would happen. But the world's oldest democracy, and presumably the wisest, still voted in favour of doing so. Possibly because of the decades of normalised, socially acceptable corruption. Who knows?

Greece should have been allowed to default in 2010. Default is a normal part of debt, not some monstrously catastrophic event. Germany has defaulted on its debts four times in the last century. Italy six. Default is reflected in interest differentials. An element of interest on a loan is of course "rent" for using someone else's money, but the reason Germany's government 10y bonds trade at below 1% and Venezuela's at over 24% is not whim. It reflects risk. Removing that risk is the real moral hazard.

But Alex, you can't default if you're part of the Eurozone. And fuck me, no person can reasonably say that this was not immediately apparent when the idea of the Eurozone was floated. Also, is once every 25 years really "normal"?

"Stop whining and pay what you owe." "Nobody forced you to take the loans in the first place." "Why should taxpayers elsewhere pay for your extravagance?" There was some truth to all of those things back in 2010. There is no truth to them now. We were forced to take the loans. That is precisely what happened. We were told "do this for all of us", to avoid contagion. Less than 10% of the "Greek" bailout has gone to Greece. The rest has gone to strengthen irresponsible financial institutions, mainly French and German, which were heavily exposed. 

Call a waaaambulance, please. When a libertarian points out that the main beneficiaries of government intervention and regulation are the incumbent corporate interests, Alex is the first to scoff. Social democrats are very keen on the state running as much as possible, and looking at a very social democratic EU, I can't see why Alex is objecting to social democrats behaving like social democrats always behave, rather than how he thinks they do or should do.

I'm not surprised that 90% of the bailout went to irresponsible banks. This is what the state does, support powerful vested interests at the expense of the taxpayer. How many more times do you need to be slapped in the face with it before you realise that it's the problem, not the fucking solution?

There was no provision within the Eurozone for what happens if market shock creates sudden and dramatic divergence between countries' economic cycles. (Emphasis is mine.) We were no longer individually in charge of basic economic levers like quantitative easing or devaluing our currency - a standard response in those circumstances. Our fates were entangled. We could either devalue the whole of the currency which would help countries severely affected by the crisis or not devalue which would help countries like Germany which were in a more robust position. We were told: "do this and we will look after you". Whatever it takes, said Mario Draghi, to convince Greece to take yet another loan.

Duh. Just remind me who voted Greece into the Eurozone? Did no Greek notice this up front or think it worth mentioning? And did you really think the Germans were going to devalue the Euro for GREECE? For fuck's sake, man!

There are many, many things wrong with the EU: lack of accountability, financial and electoral; overreach; enforced homogeneity and more, but ultimately it suffers most from the disease of control: there is a lot of power for powerful countries to use on less powerful countries. Greece may be the canary in the coalmine for people who want to see where it's going, but I suspect most Federasts are secretly on board with the idea of a European superstate taking it's "rightful" place on the world stage.

This is, however, ultimately a case where both sides need to lose: the Greeks cannot undo decades of dodgy business / tax / ethical culture in a couple of years of austerity and they definitely own the pain of their decision to join the Eurozone with all the consequences, but equally the EU's desire for regime change to suit their corporatist aims is hugely repugnant.

I just wonder whether pro-EU people will defend the EU's behaviour or whether they will admit the mask has slipped a little too much now?

Friday, 26 June 2015

The BAME of our lives

I see that dreadful race hustler (when it's expedient) Yvette Cooper is playing "Diversity" again:

Prior to the last election there was also criticism from within the party that there was a “shameful” lack of BAME candidates in key seats. Labour currently has 23 minority ethnic MPs.

Really? Why does this matter?

With over a million ethnic minority voters choosing the Tories at the last election Labour cannot be complacent. If Labour is not representative of our voters how can we hope to keep their support?

I'm sorry, what? Are you now saying that minorities are so fucking stupid, they'll vote for the racial mix of a party, rather than their policies? If that's how it works, how do you explain George Galloway's previous electoral success?


A million ethnic minority voters voted Tory because a) Ed Miliband was a complete retard and b) Labour's policies were shit. They didn't vote Tory because the Tory party is more representative of their community.

What she's basically saying is "vote for us, and we'll make sure 'your kind of people' get their snouts into the trough, whether they're useless or not".

Well done, Yvette, you patronising, pork-barrel, Westminster-bubble fucktard.

Saturday, 20 June 2015

#EndAusterityNow

I see there's some ghastly gathering of unwashed fucknuggets making Westminster smell even worse than usual today. Owen Jones, Russell Brand, Charlotte Church and various other shroud waving shitgoblins and taking time out from their celebrity lifestyles to boost their street cred with the lower ranks.

Apparently, because the actual overall majority of voters didn't vote for the Tories, so the Tories don't have a mandate for their agenda.

76% didn't vote for this Govt - Osborne has no mandate for austerity.  He wants to shrink state not cut deficit #EndAusterityNow #JuneDemo - Caroline Mucus

That's lovely, Cazza, but as was immediately pointed out to her, 71% of the people in Brighton Pavilion didn't vote for her, so is she going to resign out of principle?

Furthermore, as I recall (and I may be wrong, but it's definitely that order of magnitude) something like 61% didn't vote for Blair in his "landslide" and I don't remember this concern for the unrepresented from unwashed lefties back then.

There have been dozens of variations of democracy implemented all over the world, and none of them ever meets with universal approval. But the British state has gradually been centralising control powers over decades, meaning that the blatant disparity between what people want and what they get is becoming more and more overt.

The same thing happened with the Scottish Independence referendum - despite a very clear win, there was a sufficiently large minority who lost out that feel that they haven't been heard.

Yet when I point out that this is always the case in a democracy, that there is always a large chunk of the populace who get fucked over, whatever the result, I always get told that I should join the system and change it from within. I'm told that my sniping from the sidelines does nothing useful.

So today my message to the earnest, the thuggish and the hypocritical who want someone else to pay for everything is this: go become a politician, go change the system from the inside. Your protest marches are no more effective than my blog posts.

Or alternatively, consider the possibility that I may be right: democracy is merely a fig leaf that allows evil Tories to fuck over the poor or kind-hearted Labour to fuck over the poor in a different way.

Saturday, 23 May 2015

Ireland takes it up the shitter

It's not final yet, but it looks like the bogtrotters have decided to let pooves, dykes and other assorted perverts and deviants get married.

This is great news, it's entirely unclear to me why only breeders should be allowed the misery and stress of married life. And it's also good that it looks like it will be a clear, unambiguous and wide-spread decision.

However, I do have a couple of reservations:

  • what happens if there is a different definition of marriage for straights and queers, like there is in the UK? As far as I'm concerned, if there's not actual equality, then this isn't really any different from civil partnerships.
  • why are there different definitions of marriage for different groups of people? Well, you might argue that the definition of sex between straights, gays and dykes is potentially all different, so what constitutes adultery is different. But then I might, as a straight, commit an act that is not adultery in a gay marriage but is adultery in a straight marriage. How is that equality?
  • why is the state even involved in defining and restricting what is essentially a private contract between two people? The state doesn't get involved in my business transactions (other than to extort protection money off me!), why the hell should it have anything to do with my love life? People used to let the church run the whole farce, that was no better, but the state's involvement is terrible, as it gives political parties the ability to indulge in social engineering to suit their own agenda
Anyway, here's to the impending misery of bulldykes and shirt lifters in the Emerald Isle.

Cheers!

Friday, 19 September 2014

Isn't democracy wonderful?

So, there we have it, a clear result in favour of being fucked over by Oxbridge PPEs who live 500 miles away. Bargain.

As I said, Salmond didn't want to win, he wanted to panic Westminster into giving him more powers with less accountability. Even though he didn't win, he got what he actually wanted. A very canny and astute politician, to be fair, but does making Salmond happy improve Scotland's situation?

I don't know if I'm just being unduly cynical here, but were the No guys really so unsure of their case that they really believed that handing over free bags of sweeties to Salmond would do the trick? Fuck that. If there was ever proof that the current parliament was populated by vacuous makeweight retards*, this was surely it? You had no plan, nothing more powerful than to bring out a discredited, cowardly ex-Prime Mentalist to make offers that NO FUCKING CUNT HAD VOTED ON?

That's a ringing endorsement of democracy right there.

A further ringing endorsement is that despite it being massively engaged, with a broader plebiscite than usual and huge turnout, the result ultimately disenfranchises nearly half of the Scottish population.

Let's be generous for a moment: let's imagine that all the people voting yes had done detailed research, had genuine aspirations to independence and had a clear, optimistic vision of their future - those people will now never have the chance to exercise that vision. 45% (and possibly more) of the Scottish people will now have to live out their lives with their greatest aspiration as a people, crushed.

Now let's be realistic: one-third of the Yes voters would have voted whatever the SNP suggested, much like one-third of the UK's population would vote for Labour, even if their MP was a massive turd wearing a red rosette. Or John Prescott. One-third of them would have voted as a protest against the Tories, because Thatcher. And the rest would have genuinely aspired to independent Scotland. What would have happened if they'd won?

Which of those scenarios makes a better case for democracy? The case that a large portion (in the UK overall it's generally TWO-THIRDS of us) now live in a situation they didn't want; or the case that unreasoned, unthinking stupidity can make a decision that everyone else has to live with?

*Apologies to retards everywhere.

Wednesday, 17 September 2014

Hoots, mon! #indyref

OK, let me get my cards on the table: I want a fully independent Scotland. I don't have any emotional attachment to a Union that was created to benefit one group of poshos and bail out another. Smaller territories, genuine community concerns, etc., lead to more relevant politics.

There's plenty of reason why an independent Scotland really appeals to me, not the least of which is that the endless Scottish whingeing about Westminster can finally fuck the fuck off. Labour destroyed for the foreseeable future? Well, suck my cock. David Cameron in a lose-lose situation? Cry me a river.

But the truth of it is that the Scots are going to bottle it. It's going to be a narrow No vote. Narrow enough that Alex Salmond is going to claim vindication and carry on banging on to acquire more powers for Alex Salmond.

Useless, desperate Westminster politicians will throw money and power without consequences at Holyrood in a desperate attempt to hang on to their own power.

The hated and despised English will continue to fork out for every fucking thing.

Alex Salmond isn't really interested in independence for Scotland, the hope thereof is his gimmick, his schtick for more power without any responsibility. If the Scots do vote Yes, what's going to be his unique selling point? People may start to look at his policies and start to question them.

He's not prepared fully for the consequences of independence, that's because he doesn't really want it. He's in a powerful position, pandering to the nationalist elements of the Scots, with massive power over what happens but equally no responsibilities and a handy scapegoat if shit goes wrong.

Which politician would want that happy gravy train to reach a destination?

Proof that democracy is a terrible thing shows in the fact that 97% of Scottish people think that the outcome this referendum is going to make their lives better. It's as stupid as people believing that UKIP will be any different to the existing political structure if they get any power.

The worst possible outcome (and therefore the most likely one) is that the No vote squeaks in. The Yes camp will be outraged, calling it a fix. Westminster will be fully cowed, aware that unless they accede to Salmond they will be only one referendum away from losing the thing that will cost them their own power. Everybody else's money will be thrown at the Scots to keep them quiet and Salmond will negotiate himself even more powers with even less accountability.

Ordinary Scots will be no better off than they are now, but the political elite in Holyrood will be much better off and may trumpet their "achievements" to appease the nationalist vote, to keep them on side.

Ultimately, the only true independence is the one where we walk away from the states that control and shepherd us. That will never happen because people are afraid of the responsibility that comes with that.

A small taste of that fear is what will keep Scotland in check. All the No campaign has offered is fear, uncertainty and doubt. It's much more powerful than hope and opportunity.

Friday, 6 December 2013

Thoughts on #Mandela (for @kevin_maguire and others)

So, he's gone. Predictably, the sanctimonious bullshit has been dialled up to 11.

One of the most depressing things about it has been the preponderance of left-wing political animals (if not MPs) like Alastair Campbell and Charlie Whelan banging on about meeting him.

Look at mmmeeeeeeEEEEEEE!! Look at me! I met him! I touched him! Behold, he cured my leprosy!

From utter cunts who would mock the shit out of someone saying the Pope had done that.

Equally annoying has been the whitewashing of his history. He was given a fair trial and a fair sentence, even Amnesty fucking International said so. He WAS a terrorist.

He was also a politician upon release, who had some good ideas and equally, some fucking insane ones. Ironically, he replaced a notionally democratic but really one party state with another notionally democratic but really one party state, although to be fair, this was hardly his fault.

He did keep a lid on the widely-expected violent backlash, but today there are more murders of white farmers in SA than there ever were in Zimbabwe.

He did, for a very brief time, largely unite the nation (apart from lunatic neo-nazis and equally lunatic black consciousness marxists, but nothing's going to make those fuckers talk to anyone else!) Ultimately that was down to the cult around his person - he did not make this a lasting legacy.

He did drag South Africa out of the Stone Age in terms of some social liberties, but ultimately the economic policies he introduced replaced the handful of white oligarchs with a handful of black ones while leaving the overwhelming majority of South Africans even worse off than they'd been under the Apartheid regime.

He fucked up royally on crime and let's face it, the corruption of other politicians did not start after he left power.

So his legacy can basically summed as a mixed bag - hardly the amazing result he seems to be associated with.

But really, the worst whole thing about the grief whoring is that people who hold him up as some sort of role-model-y godlike figure display none of the values that they claim to admire in Mandela: that people can change and that you should forgive.

As an example of this: a load of bollocks has been spouted about Dishface wanting to hang Mandela in the 80's. Even if he did (and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case), the whole fucking point about lionising Mandela is that he is the model of change for the good, of humility and of reconciliation and forgiveness. We venerate Mandela, an ex-terrorist, because when he got to power he didn't use that power to victimise the people who branded him a terrorist. He changed. He forgave.

Unlike the tolerant, always-correct left. Using the death of a man they claim to admire to score some cheap, political points. Nice one, Kev!

I wish that people who are venerating Mandela would display some of the fucking qualities they claim to admire in him.

Thursday, 8 August 2013

Hypocritical Lefty Luvvie Twitter Talibanistas

I shan't go on about Caitlin Moron, who apparently can make all the violent threats, homophobic and ableist jokes or other trolling comments because "context", apparently.

Today I saw someone tweet about Graham Lineham blocking them while he (Graham Lineham) was dishing out abuse. I read the tweets in question and there was no fucking "context" there at all. Lineham was just calling people cunts. Tonight I saw him concur with Frankie "I can dish it out but I'm a big frit girl's blouse when I get it" Boyle saying that if his block button killed people, it would be a nicer place.

(Just revel in the fact there for a moment that the man who made his career out of being offensive wants to kill people who he finds offensive. Jaw-dropping, isn't it?)

I'm sure I could go on (and on and ON) finding other examples of hypocritical lefty luvvie twitter talibanistas if I wanted to, but you get the point.

I'm not really sure how different this is from me calling for the heads of hypocritical lefty luvvie twitter talibanistas (HLLTT's) on pikes, but apparently, when I dish abuse out, it's vile, when HLLTT's do it, it's funny and, y'know, "context".

From my perspective, I don't have a problem with Lineham or Moran or anyone else being abusive in the name of being funny. What I do find unbearable is them smugly pontificating about "abuse" and "politeness" while they do exactly the same things they're describing as being unacceptable and even worse, their armies of cock-sucking windowlickers actually having the temerity to justify it.

Either it's acceptable or it's not, if Moron or Lineham or Boyle can do it, why can't I?

Tuesday, 6 August 2013

Don't feed the trolls

I know a bit about trolling, I used to be one. I also spent a lot of time on the receiving end of possibly the best troll the internet has ever seen (anyone heard from pneawf lately?)

I was but an amateur, more of a wind-up artist than anything else, and I still am, online and in real life. My favourite TV show is The Mentalist, especially the early ones, because the character is a massive cunt and a wind-up merchant.

But I did learn from some awe-inspiring trolls, which is why I can spot one so easily.

And it annoys the fuck out of me that mongoloid fucktards with IQs of 7 and one track minds spouting mindless abuse get called trolls. They aren't. They are stupid, pointless bullies who don't put the slightest effort into winding people up, they just make shouty threats of violence when they see someone that they think can easily be bullied.

They are no different to Liverpudlians who perceive a slight on Liverpool; like wibbling leftards; like Terminators: they cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be bargained with and they will absolutely not stop until they've hounded you off the internet and shut down your voice.

But what they are not, are trolls.

Trolls will put a bit of effort in, will wind you up in several different ways, often without saying an unkind or improper word and leave you raging while chuckling to themselves.

Trolls do not shout mindless abuse.

However, the psychology of dealing with abuse and dealing with trolls is very much the same, and unfortunately it is not in the nature of those being trolled or abused to respond correctly. But it is simple to deal with a troll and probably equally simple to deal with an abuser:

Do not rise to the bait. If you suspect you're being trolled, or you have a shouty abuser on the line: DO NOT RESPOND.
If you don't respond to a troll, it frustrates the fuck out of them and they move on looking for a new target. If someone shouts abuse at you and you don't respond, they will get bored and look for someone who does.

Speaking as someone who has been on the end, ironically, of both the Scouse hate mob AND Old Holborn's pack of windowlickers, I'm quite certain that someone who actually wants you dead, assaulted or raped is not going to warn you - they're just going to do it. All they're trying to do is make you feel scared.

It's simple, it works and it pisses them they hell off. What's not to like?