Saturday, 31 October 2015

Why We Intervene Abroad

The word “we” is often used when the state and its sycophantic followers use it for intervening abroad. “We intervened” with “our” armed forces, almost as though it had reached widespread approval.  Since the second world war there have been plenty of interventions, in the 1940's the United States “intervened” in China, Italy, Greece, the Philippines, Korea, Albania, and much of Eastern Europe.  In the 1950's they “intervened” in Germany, Iran, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Syria and other areas of the Middle East, Indonesia, British Guiana, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Haiti.  In the 1960s: Guatemala (again), France/Algeria, Ecuador, the Congo, Brazil, Perú, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Indonesia (again), Ghana, Uruguay, Chile, Greece, Bolivia, Vietnam (again), Cambodia (again), Laos (again), Haiti (again).  The 1970's: Costa Rica, Zaire, Angola, Australia, Iraq, Jamaica, Seychelles, Grenada, Afghanistan, Cuba (again), Haiti (again), Vietnam (again), Cambodia, Laos. The 1980's: Grenada (again), Libya, Nicaragua, Panama, Bulgaria, Albania (again), Afghanistan (again), El Salvador, Guatemala (again), Cuba (again), Haiti (again).  The 1990's: Iraq (again), Somalia, Haiti (again), Cuba (again), Yugoslavia, Sudan, Indonesia (again).

Yet the above named countries are just a fraction of the ones Washington and others have “intervened” in.  Why do they do it?  That is the title of the essay so it really ought to be answered.  In 1915 Britain became aware her Empire was pining away, and so did others.  The U.S would have to wait another thirty-years until they could totally dominate the world and set a new global framework others around the world were forced to adopt.  It was that or Washington would “intervene” whenever it suited their specific needs to do so.  During world war two groups in the U.S state department and Council of European Relations established the “Grand Area”, this “Grand Area” included the Far East, Western Europe, the former British Empire,  and the third world, if it could be achieved, the rest of the planet.  The third world was to fulfill its function, and Europe was to play its part in “exploiting Africa”, to borrow George Kennan’s phrase, the American postwar planner.  The task of the U.S was to secure the Grand Area and make sure it fitted with their hegemonic plans, any disobedience and they would be smashed quite brutally until they obeyed their imperial masters. 

Countries that choose an independent path thus deciding not to allow U.S corporations to hijack their economies, plunge their populations into total misery and destitution, forcing neoliberal designs on them, destroying socialist organisations, trade unions, democracy, progressive political parties and countries’ social and political structures, paid for their temerity.  With Afghanistan and Iraq, they were just complete corporate takeovers, in Cuba,  Haiti, Nicaragua, Grenada, the U.S and its allies sought to control them and stop independent development and nationalism.  When Cuba looked like a tough nut to crack under Castro, despite its size and close distance to the U.S, the Kennedy liberals resorted to chemical warfare and a sustained terror campaign launched by Robert Kennedy.  Haiti is a similar story but without chemical agents, the major difference is Haiti, unlike Cuba was destroyed; Cuba defied the United States but both countries suffered immensely because they opposed corporate fascism.  Time and time again Washington succeeded in controlling the countries’ economies, with predicted untold horrors. The Reaganites overthrew Maurice Bishop of Grenada in 1983 and in the same decade were indicted by the World Court of Justice concerning their actions towards Nicaragua.  The court accused the United States of “violating the customary international law prohibition on the use of force when it assisted the contras by “organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces and armed bands… for incursion into the territory of another state” and participated “in acts of civil strife…in another State”  when these acts involved the threat or use of force.”  I am quoting Public international Law (an introduction to public international law  for students).

“The use of force”, in layman’s terms, essentially translates into international terrorism, it is furtive but the reasons for such actions have already been discussed.  Criticisms of these “interventions” has to work within a very narrow framework.  For example, when the media criticised the Americans over their “intervention” in Vietnam, it was always from the perspective of the “we made a mistake” syndrome, it seldom reached beyond that.  This nonsense is still prevalent today.  This, of course, was and is complete rubbish.  It was not “a mistake”, as their faithful enthusiasts proclaim, but a brutal, barbaric and criminal subjugation of a gentle land, but criticism beyond the “mistake” was not acceptable, the history on this is obscure for the majority, but the truth beyond the mass murder in this country is both shocking and gruesome.

Before the U.S had the god-given right to “intervene” in any country they saw fit, it was Britain that sought to dominate the world with its imperialism, colonialism and aggression across the seas.  And now, these people who tolerate and even accept such behaviour ought to hang their heads in shame. This poses imminent and important questions about the state.  What is its purpose and what is its role?

States are not moral agents, they do not create their domestic and foreign policies on morals or ethics, in fact, the very opposite is the case. States collude in “interventions” abroad because they act as deranged psychopaths. They subject nations to mass murder, they destroy villages, use lethal agents such as chemical weapons and biological warfare, women are subject to the most grotesque sexual violence, infrastructures are deliberately dismantled, people’s spirits are stolen, as well as their souls and communities, all this because of “national security interests”. These demented lunatics in power do not even think about doing such things.  They have no guilt, no conscience, no empathy, and no sympathy, they are sordid sociopaths.  It must be stated then that the state, every state is venomous, poisonous, a criminal institution that ought to be abolished outright.

“Intervening” in the affairs of others is a disgraceful thing to do.  Nobody should be subject to such horrors, but indeed they are.  Yet the state seeks to justify these things, it has always justified them and it will always justify them.  But what is all this “we”?  “Our armed forces”, “our national security concerns”, “our democratic process”, “our way of life”.  It is not ours, it is theirs, and they know it. There are always comical excuses for “intervening” in other countries.  In Iraq, it was weapons of mass destruction and regime change, in Afghanistan it was the link between Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, with Kosovo it was “humanitarian intervention”, Panama was the “drugs war”, Grenada was “a threat to our national security”, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos was to stop the “domino effect”, the same thing true of China and Korea.  Whatever “intervention” is made, the state will always seek to justify their deprived actions.

Of course when the state pretends to be democratic, it has no choice but to invent and fabricate the reasons for “intervening” in other countries.  It is clear they have to convince their populations to buy into the big lie, this is largely done by government propaganda, but as nobody really trusts these politicians or believe a word they utter, the media act as agents to push through sadistic acts of aggression by convincing the population that it is the right thing to do.  Yet all the intelligence gathering for such “interventions” is never presented to the public, and for good reason.  These are crimes that have been committed throughout history, and people rarely face charges for this patent barbarism.  

In more democratic countries, where some sort of democracy functions, prominent politicians of the ruling party must support this abominable criminality to further their own careers.  For no Prime Minister, President, Chancellor or whoever in charge will not keep this person in front line politics who air such criticisms, plus, in general terms, politicians have no real values or principles, the only principles they believe in, if you can call them that, is for selfish, personal gain.  Dissidents in government are rooted out straight away and thrown into the garbage bin of history.  It is akin to a Stalinist purge but without the bloodshed.

Why, and indeed how can politicians live with themselves when they take part in human destruction on a mass scale? It appears they are beyond human, they are beyond anything benign and decent.  The state, it is fair to say, is the greatest institution of organised violence known to civilisation we have.  It is systematic, cruel and utterly outrageous.  Then years later when they write their memoirs and biographies, justifying the state terror they played a key role in but of course they do not call it state terror, they call it “humanitarian intervention”, and by avoiding another bloodbath, they tell us, we helped these poor people.  This is the big lie. As time passes, more and more people are becoming aware of this.  

What is the point of the World Court of Justice, the High Court, the Supreme court, the European Court of Human Rights, the Royal Courts of Justice and so forth when all they do is convict petty criminals?  Courts around the world convict victims of poverty.  These people mug, rob, thieve, sometimes even murder; and they are “punished” and are classed as criminals for life, but the real criminals, the state and corporate criminals are seldom prosecuted in these courts or indeed anywhere.  They are never brought to these courts let alone convicted of anything.  For there is in every country in the world a two-tier justice system that exist: to punish the poor and undeserving, but on the other hand, the people who run the country, corporations, purveyors of private power, investors and so on tend not to be subject to the law, they are above the law, this is well known, despite this the status quo stays in place.  Notice how the imperial powers constantly “intervene” overseas.  Throughout history and certainly since 1945 no imperial power has ever intervened abroad for benevolent purposes.  It would be a task to find one single example where this has happened.  This is the morality of the state, or rather the immorality of the state.  I have been very generous in describing states’ aggression as “interventions”, they do far more than just intervene.  They subjugate, they invade, occupy, bombard, destroy and so forth.

It is also the case where the imperial powers believe they have the god-given right to “intervene” abroad, and that no other country has this same right.  Yet they do this, and they do it with total impunity.  “we must intervene”, they claim, “we must”, this is the nonsense they come up with, and they sell it like a salesman sells toothpaste.  They also do it successfully with devastating consequences.  To conclude then the elite terrorist states “intervene” for their own self-interest.  They do it largely for the purpose of domination, to control entire economies, internal policies of others, and to control them indefinitely, and if the do not submit, the “intervention” becomes more brutal and barbaric until they submit to the imperial state.  The imperial state is in the hands of a few number of wealthy individuals and organisations and these demand “interventions” take place for business interests.  For example it was Wall street that decided the U.S should subjugate Indochina, and when they demanded they end the “war”, they did.  The state is, in the words of William Godwin, “the brute engine”.
21st December, 2012

Thursday, 29 October 2015

A letter to the economist

A Letter to the Economist

Sir- I refer to the article published in the economist featured in the November 12th issue, “The happening place”.  In the piece you say “Indonesia’s special forces, accused of past human-rights abuses in East Timor”.  Indeed.  If you will will allow me to reveal the facts that are available in the public domain and have been for many years, that would be appreciated.  I will refrain from being subjective about the matter. For the evidence about past human-rights abuses in East Timor by its oppressors, Indonesia, is so overwhelming that such views are unwarranted and unnecessary.  The 1975 invasion of East Timor, now Timor Leste, as I am sure you are well aware, was itself an act of aggression.  I will refrain from discussing the reasons for the invasion, the international response, and all the other implications, instead, I will stick to the audacious statement in the article, stated above.

Four years after the invasion an article appeared in the New York Times which was later leaked to the Boston Globe, the article was written by a Portuguese priest, there he explains Indonesia’s human-rights abuses’ against the East Timorese.

“A full-scale bombardment of the whole island began. From that point there emerged death, illness, despair.  The second phase of the bombing was late 1977 to early 1979, with modern aircraft.  This was the firebombing phase of the bombing.  Even up to this time, people could still live. The genocide and starvation was a result of the full-scale incendiary bombing...we saw the end coming. People could not plant. I personally witnessed-while running to protected areas, from tribe to tribe-the great massacre from bombardment and people dying from starvation.  In 1979 people began surrendering because there was no other option.  When people began dying, then others started to give up.”

He went on to claim that from 1975 to 1979 200,00 East Timorese had been massacred.  I am well aware this is a single man’s account and responsible publications like the Economist would be quite right to question the facts.  But a more horrifying claim was not made by a Portuguese priest with sympathies for the people of East Timor but the united States’ UN ambassador to Indonesia, according to him, 60,000 had been killed in just two months.  If correct, quite outrageous that such a person of his stature and influence would make such a claim, or take a highly respected journalist, Denis Reich, writing in Paris Match, believes 75,000 East Timorese were killed in 18 months.

I now refer back to the article in the Economist, that there were ‘accusations’ of ‘human-rights abuses’ in East Timor.  The allegations above are indeed ‘accusations’, where is the evidence, sir, you may ask.  I can fully grasp the argument that anybody, whether is be a priest, or a UN ambassador, can make such accusations without substantiating any evidence. So what of human rights groups, church reports, parliamentary investigations and so on?  If such groups produced reports on East Timorese massacre and crimes against humanity they would be available to the press to publish such findings.  It would be hard to imagine the Economist not knowing about these reports.  It so happens that reports were published and made available to the press.  Amnesty International, the Roman Catholic Church, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Australian parliament all produced reports, not ‘mere allegations’.  They all say around 200,000 East Timorese were massacred by the East Timorese military.  The French demographer, Gabriel Defort believes the figure to be far higher, he believes 300,000 were killed.  The shocking thing is the population of East Timor was around 600,000 during this time. It follows then if these reports are true, and it must be added were carried out by some of the most respected organisations in the world, one third of the population were murdered.  Comparatively, worse than the Nazis.  if a publication made the claim that there were accusations of past human-rights abuses in Nazi Germany, the response of the readership would be predictable, and so would the publication’s reputation.  

Sir-in the 1990's, the late 1990's the East Timorese voted overwhelmingly for a price, well that is according to church groups and responsible journalism.  Church groups agree that 3 to 5,000 people were killed and with a two-week period, more than 10,000 may have been massacred.  The Nobel Laureate, Bishop Felip Belo had his house burned down.  Benedict Anderson goes further, “In East timor they became an exemplar of every kind of atrocity.”  It would interest you, sir, if indeed you do not already know, what the Indonesian military’s response was to this.  Did they deny it, tell the world it was all lies? Well, no.  In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.  Colonel Suartman, warned: “if pro-independents win...all will be destroyed”.  The official army document said “massacres should be carried out from village to village”.  This then, is not mere ‘accusations’, more threats and indeed, according to the church groups quoted above, such massacres were carried out.  

Sir-I would like to draw your attention to three outstanding individuals who have documented, and indeed lived through such horrors-at least they make ‘accusations’ of such things.  To conclude the letter, I think this is important for the following reason: the gruelling statistics I have discussed in relation to abuses in East Timor do not talk about specific abuses that were taking place.  For example, I have not quoted passages from Amnesty International reports or indeed any others.  This, I hope, will draw your attention to the substantial terror that these men claimed plagued these people’s lives, they no doubt reach genocidal levels.  

Kay Ray Xanana Gusamo, Commander of the National Liberation front, after his incarceration in 1992, gave the following account

The killing was indiscriminate.  they murdered hundreds of people on the first day, including the Australian journalist, Roger East.  Like him, many were brought to the harbour, where they were shot one by one, as the Nazis did.  Anyone, women, children, the elderly, anyone who ventured outside their homes were shot down.  They smashed up churches, leaving them full of wine and faeces had been murdered and their women raped.  In Uatu-Lan, for instance, all those who could read and write were massacred, and in some villages only women remained.  In the early years the Indonesian army would tie people up and leave them outdoors, naked and exposed to the harsh heat and cold of the night, little by little, they cut pieces from their skin, their arms and their legs.  They cut of their penises or their ears, which the victims were then forced to eat.  Each village had a detention centre which held the able-bodied men and women.  At night the bodies were disposed of.

If this account of abuse was just mere ‘accusations’, Mr Gusamo does clearly have an overactive imagination.  Take another man, Jose Ramos Horta, the joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.  In 1995 he gave an account of a personal tragedy:

Maria Hortensia was my daughter.  She was twenty-one years old.  She was too close to the Indonesian bombs and the shrapnel caught her and she died.  That same year, 1978, I lost two sons, Nuno and Guiherme, also killed by the Indonesians.  Now if you say the Indonesians are bastards, you may wonder; but what bastards they were, and they are.  Let me give you another example. I used to go to hospital in Dili, and I know what happened there when the babies were born, many had diarrhea and vomiting and the Indonesian authorities made sure they went on suffering and were not cured, because they wanted them to die.  They wanted all of us to die, to vanish.

Ramos-Horta did not win the Nobel Peace Prize for making accusations against Indonesian human-rights abuses against the East Timorese.  As mentioned above, Bishop Belo was a recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace.  He gives the world a stark account of what his people endured, at least to the people that bothered to listen, again it is personal.

Some of the killings happened near my house-when I visited the hospital at 11am-on the day of the first massacre, November 12th, there were hundreds of wounded.  When I came back the next day, there were only ninety.  Witnesses told me the killing of the wounded began at eight O'clock that night, and that most deaths occurred between two and three in the morning of the 13th when the lights suddenly went out in the city.  I don’t know what happened to those people-maybe they were put in the sea...I have a list of 271 names, but I was told by the East Timorese intelligence people working with Indonesia that there were more than 400 killed.  And now we have the problem of justice because the families are still waiting for the bodies of their children.  And we don’t know where they are buried.

Again, it is unlikely Bishop Belo was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for making up ‘accusations’.  Sir-I am sure you will agree with me the information provided in this letter is overwhelming, I could continue but eventually it would start to become tedious, because I think my point has been stressed.

I end the letter by asking the Economist a question because I think it is right for you to clarify your position over the matter:

Is it the view of the Economist that you have no knowledge of Indonesian murders, massacres, rapes, disappearances, of the East Timorese? Or is there some other reason for talking only of ‘accusations human-rights abuses in East Timor’?
John Mulligan

This was a letter I wrote to the Economist at the end of November, 2011.  I am most grateful to John Pilger for, who, in his eloquent book, Hidden Agendas, gives excellent material on the three courageous men quoted in the letter, of which I have taken excerpts from the book; the rest of the information I wrote in the letter were less arduous than that.  It is important to stress the following point: that to gather the sort of information I gathered, is not difficult at all, but it is true people are not aware of the facts, and that is because publications like the Economist decide to hide them.  I must comment that the Economist never replied to my letter.  Anybody concerned with human-rights abuses and the suffering of an entire people will be concerned about what happened in East Timor, and of the west's complicity in the genocide.
January, 2012

Tuesday, 27 October 2015

Britain: a Decadent Swamp

1. Culture
Britain is unique in many ways. It could never produce a Frenchman like Proust, a Russian like Gogol, an American like Melville, an Irishman like Joyce, a German like Goethe. Its culture is too backward to produce anything of the sort, and it always has been. If it does produce anyone of merit, and there have been periods when it has, these individuals are condemned in their own country because they are to candid with the truth. English writers have written some works of culture but never have we seen anything like it since the Romantic poets and never has the English novel contained anything remotely resembling their European counterparts, or any of their counterparts. Not only do these English writers appear to lack the ability to write about anything cultural, they also do not desire it. But people will surely say what nonsense. Out of all the novelists that have come from England at least one must have had some cultural merit, think the general populace. No. That is incorrect.

Allow me to back this assertion up. Charles Dickens is arguably England’s greatest novelist. There is not one trace of enlightening culture in his works. Look at his characters. There are fine creations of course but where is the high culture? Every novel plays the same music. We have heroes, villains and victims. That is all. They are culturally defunct. We can turn to writers like Thomas Hardy, Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters, George Eliot, Daniel Defoe, Samuel Richardson and so on. They are no different to Dickens: they lack cultural enlightenment and development. The entire history of the English novel lacks this and it has not even been suggested why.

What Hitler did in twelve-years, the British Empire could do in twelve minutes. The Führer oversaw some pretty heinous things and that has not been overlooked. Everybody is aware of it. Now under the British Empire, Hitler’s crimes are trivial in comparison. For example tens of millions of Indians were deliberately starved to death over a period of decades. But this is applauded. England has always been a country moulded on business, profit and making vast amounts of money at everybody else's expense. It places no emphasis on the individual and therefore has no interest in cultural enlightenment. No English writer has ever produced a masterpiece in fiction with the exception of Shakespeare. George Orwell went to Paris but still thought like an Englishman. In his essays he shies away from writing about cultural writers such as Camus, Gide, Dante, Chekhov, Mann and so on. 

Cultural advancement is frowned upon in Britain. If you do not care to watch awful moving images on the television and at the cinema that just propel your dull brain into a deep, dark chasm, read sub-literature, listen to the horrors of popular music, you are too ‘highbrow’ and ‘pompous’. In 1926 Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Marxist intellectual came up with the two-word term, ‘cultural hegemony’. He used it to describe how one social class dominated society to which it was part of. This is perhaps more relevant today than it ever was. All our interests, views, beliefs, morals are dominated by elite groups. Any deviation from the standard view you are classed as some kind of subversive deviant. Marcus’ one dimensional man says as much. We have all become one dimensional and all our opinions have been chosen for us. 

So if you read Donatien de Sade or Nabokov’s Lolita you must be a sort of pervert. Progressive culture is dangerous to mandarins. Learning to play the cello or violin is fine but people must not read about these delights. It is even more pertinent in film. Cultural films are dangerous because that could upset the hegemony it has over the movie industry. Therefore we must become automated robots and have our brains spin-dried until we are no longer capable of thinking anymore.

We are living as barbarians would live. By watching Hollywood propaganda we are watching barbarians kill one another. We hear an abundance of noise in these blockbusters and we go to watch them. It is nothing more than social engineering. Tell such people to watch one of the greatest achievements in cinema: Satyajit Ray’s the Apu Trilogy. After twenty-minutes or so they will say ‘where is the action?’ and if there is none soon, they will leave or fall asleep. People, on the desperate island are programmed to de-cultivate their mind. It would be plausible to think only a sort of barbarian would participate in this sort of culture, and yet it is embedded in all our lives.

If you read a book on the train, at the bus-stop, walking down the street, in a cafe or wherever, nobody asks what you are reading because they have no interest in other people’s cultural affairs. What is perverse is when critics of all types attempt to intellectualise, culturalise and politicise subculture into something important, necessary and relevant, and this somehow gives the work they are reviewing some stature and relevance. They peddle a great deal of nonsense and nobody seems to notice.

A war is being fought against the the few. Those that enjoy the cultural echelons are having a fierce war fought against them. What are they to do? They are not able to read the daily news, endure the television system, go to the cinema or even walk down the street because subculture surrounds them everywhere. The cinema, wherever it is in the country, will advertise the most awful rubbish. It makes little difference what art is you are going to watch because you will always be tormented by the mass media. There is simply no escape. 

There is more. Go on the internet and see what happens. What happens when somebody goes on pornographic websites? The answer is simple. There are advertisements for other pornographic websites and not advertising much else. That is not true of the internet generally. Mainstream websites do not advertise these pornographic websites. But they advertise everything else. We may be looking at an academic essay and advertisements for sporting events may come up or perhaps the latest Hollywood, market-driven movies come on our screens. This is inescapable and we all are supposed to applaud it. The person of any high level is therefore unable to go to the cinema, access the internet, walk down the street, enter shops, travel on public transport. They must remain at home all day to escape this madness. But when you tell people this they themselves think you are mad.

2. Freedom

England differs to other countries where freedom is concerned. For in the sorrowful island the natives do not care so much for freedom; it is not even that they do not care, they really do not think about it, or even know what it is. Few people in the country will be able to recognise the relevance of the aspects of freedom in Albert Camus’ the Outsider for example. For true freedom or real freedom takes place in the mind, and without this you can never be free. ‘I am free’, says the fool on the street, ‘because I vote’. Yes, we may reply, but all the decision-making, executive policies are made, and not only do people have no say, but also have no clue what these policies are. 

The ‘free press’ in England is lauded. This is the same press that is dominated by wealthy business elites: they are owned by maniacs, oligarchs, fraudsters, pornographers and so on. Further to add, where newspapers are involved; there is no Marxist press in the mainstream media, neither is their what is regarded as a left wing press, a libertarian or anarchist, Trotskyist, internationalist, socialist, Utopian and so on. That is some freedom. Therefore it goes without saying almost everybody subscribe to these same infantile opinions about government and the sociopaths that run the country.

The country is so far removed from freedom that it is tragic. People do not wish to think about serious matters or issues or to become involved in political activism for example. Instead their interests lie mainly in being an addict of the T.V system, playing video games and watching awful rubbish on the internet, but, they claim, it is my freedom to do such a thing. The main problem is they have no or little notion what freedom is in the first place. To be free your mind has to remain independent from the public relations industry which is just specialised propaganda. Those who read the capitalist press, watch spectator sports and television, listen to commercial radio channels and even go to work, are not free, and this is around 80 percent of the population. 

All opinion that is permitted to be expressed in the country are largely the same, and they are regurgitated over and over again. Soon enough these views become everybody elses. You are free but not really free to express your own opinion. If any radical view is offered translated in none-newspeak terminology as a more truthful analysis on the state of affairs at home and abroad, such things are silenced. There is a refusal to report it in the media and even if it is you are labelled all sorts of terrible things like an ‘enemy’ and a ‘national security threat’ and so on. There is no freedom in the mainstream press to offer polarising views. 

To be free, firstly you need to be aware of the structural mechanisms that are harmful in a free market ‘liberal democracy’. Because, putting that aside, everybody is in bondage to the government anyway. Say for example you have a certain view on something and it is generally not accepted by many people it is going to be suppressed because there is no freedom to express it. In the 1950s being homosexual was considered reprehensible by the majority. People today like to take part in activities which are illegal, which means the government do not like it so they impose laws against the things they dislike. Sex is interesting because you are only permitted to watch particular sex acts between consenting adults, and of course they outlaw things such as beastiality and child pornography. People who have these ‘dark desires’ would never express them because it is unacceptable to do so. 

‘Revolt against the laws’, says the anarchist, Peter Kropotkin. Well, we must obey the law and that is that. If we break the law we often go to prison. This is utterly perverse. In backward Islamic states women are treated as slaves and that is deemed acceptable by their societal norms. By even questioning the state’s role you are regarded as a radical, disobedient wretch. Samira Makhmalbaf, the Iranian film director said women are more free in the Middle East than women in the west. If that is an argument it is not even worth debating. Anybody's mind which is plagued by fairy tale fantasies of god, the Devil and whatever else, cannot be free in any conceivable way.

When media groups and the political class utter absurdities like ‘we have a free press’, what they mean is that it is only free as long as you stick to the rules of the narrow framework of opinion. That is the freedom that exists in Britain. People like Zadie Smith want to sit back and allow the government to violate all her rights and everybody elses. People in Britain think they are free when in reality they are having a savage war fought against them. They are totally oppressed but do not even know it. They are content to lead their vacuous lives forever and a day. 

Another area of freedom is the food industry. People, especially working people in Britain, are literally eating themselves to death. They go out drinking alcohol and copious amounts of it like zombies thus behaving disorderly like drunkards, then they eat kebabs, burgers, pizzas and so on until they get cancer and die. These sorts of people eat without realising or caring what food they are eating. Now, somebody who goes to fast food cancer factories and so this can hardly be a free choice, are slowly killing themselves. Their only notion of freedom is that they are able to go for a walk and stroll to the local tavern.

There may be factions of freedom that exist but there can be no freedom without freedom without opportunity. Those languishing in poverty do not have the freedom to send their children to a good school, they are reduced to second-rate health care, nor can they pay for their child’s university fees, go on holiday or even eat nutritional food. One day a pair of ordinary Englishmen maybe having a conversation about the possibility of going to prison. One says to the other: ‘I enjoy my freedom too much to go to jail’. This is the talk of churlish nonsense of course, and people who speak in this fashion could never be free. Their brains have always been imprisoned. They are imprisoned to a wife they dislike, an awful job that pays almost nothing, to a community they loath, this sort of life is so bad it’s terrifying.

3. Morality

Where do people get their morals from in England? They get it from the government, the media and television. If the government says you must have seventeen DBC (Disclosure and Barring Service) checks to work in a warehouse, people would accept and tolerate it. It is morally repugnant for a girl who is two-hours away from her sixteenth birthday to have sex with somebody over the age of sixteen, but when these two hours have surpassed that is alright because the government says so. The morality of people in general comes from the government which is a very odd thing indeed. The morality from the government is questionable, many would even argue they do not even have any. Such people echo such empty sentiments like: ‘it is illegal, so it must be wrong.’

Many years ago people on approaching a homosexual may have punched them in the face, now they shake their hands: their morality is chosen for them. All these people then go in these department stores, knowing full well the products they are purchasing were made in some distant country in disgraceful working conditions. They pay no real attention to this because they have no morality and the best example of this is association football. People who pay to enter football stadiums are funding the slave trade and are active participants in making people’s lives a misery. They play an active role and are partly culpable. They are repulsed when children are sexually assaulted on the internet, but they are more than willing to buy products when a child may have been sadistically abused during the process. They pretend they have morality. People claim to be feminists but watch American misogynistic pornography.

Vladimir Nabokov is immoral because he wrote a novel about a man who has a sexual relationship with a child; Emma Goldman was immoral, as was Bertrand Russell and others because they were opposed to the great war; Friedrich Nietzsche was immoral because he wrote things most people disagree with. Yet the English, in this respect, still think like children. People commit are sorts of immoral and unsavory acts on the island, just like they do everywhere else. The terrorist blows people up who have done no wrong to anyone; when the government does the same thing, it is collateral damage, and we never learn the truth of the matter. This same government are quite content to plunge the planet into madness by not accepting personal responsibilities in regard to climate change and global warming; there is no empathy for the vast suffering seen on all continents of the globe.

People in England have no moral fibre and no moral fabric. This is disturbing. LIke freedom, they do not think about it. They want to live in a world where they are devoid of any responsibility. People claim they are moral because they have not picked up a criminal record or are not known to the police, because, they argue, if something is against the law then that must be wrong. This is an intolerable position to take. Their own morality is redundant so they have to rely on the state for enlightenment. The state, these people need telling, are not moral agents, no, they are agents of terror. For it is all trade and free market credentials that are of a primary concern to the government, and these things are very anti-human. But people still lament these dogmatic fantasies. 

If you get your morality from the government then something is very wrong indeed. It roughly translates as having little or no morality whatsoever. This asks inevitable questions such as what is the role of the individual in British society. They, like all adults, have a responsibility. But they work on moral principles. Because this happens government are able to subjugate people’s rights and liberties. As long as people have the right to stagger home from the beer house like a deranged war veteran, or free to watch mindless drivel on the television until they fall asleep then they are perfectly content with that. As long as you tolerate amoral and immoral laws and customs, you yourself, in effect are creating these laws by allowing them to perpetuate. But as long as it does no harm to them it does not matter so much. The fact of the matter is it is harming them; it is harming all of us.

One great absurdity is the claim that people get their virtue and morality from religion, god and the church. This is just nonsense. How can it be the case then that people claim to have this morality when it is written down in a book! They are beyond thinking. For if they were capable of thinking for themselves they would belong to no god, no religion and no church. The Muslim comes out to protest against against Israel launching terrorist attacks against Gaza and the West Bank; Christians against their perceived enemies and so on. It appears that they do not have the capacity to think for themselves. This is highly dangerous. The god-loving dominions have their brains battered by biblical moralistic fantasies. 

The most stupefying aspect of this is these British religious apologists, the T.V watching fanatics believe they have impeccable morality when they have none of it. They have their little petitions and protests of course and put a few pounds in a charity box once in awhile. But this is what is expected of them. People only conform to ‘acceptable’ practices and so they are able to lead a carefree life. This is the most important aspect of their ‘morality’. Speaking out against moral issues is fine as long as it is safe to do such a thing. As for these religious apologists, they often are not quite in touch with reality.

If one supports free market economies, it makes you devoid of morality of any sort. It was Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s who said: ‘there is no alternative to the free market’. The British, that is the vast majority of them do not even know what the free market is. More to the point they have no interest in such things. There is a clear depoliticisation of people but there is no longer even a need for that. It has always been that way. Only in Britain could you have a major broadcasting corporation, one of the biggest in the world, to be responsible for deplorable acts of sexual violence against children, and at the same time this organisation continues to function, its very existence has never been called into doubt. In all probability the organisation has probably been working as a paedophile ring but everybody continues to pay their licence fee as if nothing had even happened at all. Then the ‘storm’ goes away. A whole history has been covered up in the country in reference to child abuse. But it is all wiped from the history books as if it never happened; none of it ever happened. Nobody went out on the streets to protest about this, neither do they protest against the states constant and perpetual war against the poor, none of this takes place because morality in the country is very few and far between. For those that do have it, it is a shame to have to be alone in the cold

4. Intellectuals

Britain is a secret and silent state. People of all kinds call particular politicians intellectuals. ‘Experts’ appearing on television have no expertise about anything. These ‘experts’, we are told, are right wing journalists who are experts only in fabricating their own nonsense; the political class are only experts in the boorish history of their own parties. The real intellectuals, the scholars, are hardly playing the role intellectuals ought to play. They may offer vacuous objectives to the National Health Service, on what rate income tax should be, minor changes to education and that is what we call an intellectual in modern-day Britain. 

The church condemns government policy more than intellectuals do. Worthwhile intellectuals, and there are some, are inevitably silenced. One of the most outstanding intellectuals in the twentieth century is Bertrand Russell. Since his death in 1970 there has been a rapid decline in people like him. Russell was willing to go to prison for his unflinching views, and he did. The role of the intellectual is supposed to offer inciteful information to the public. After all, intellectuals are experts in their specialised field, the general population do not possess this insight and knowledge. So the academic ought to share this information, offer their analysis on how the world is composed and so on. The public would have a better picture of the world, but this does not happen, because these scholars constantly give people a false impression of the world.

In any case any sort of intellectual in the country is frowned upon. It is not popular to become an intellectual. It does not fit in with modern cultural trends. It is no longer possible in Britain to have a serious intellectual conversation in public anymore without being ridiculed. It has become a nation of infantilism. People do not wish to see or hear intellectuals speak; they do not like it. They would prefer that to happen in other countries like France, Russia and Italy. People belonging to this island are special and so they would prefer to hear views from a government spokesperson than a trained expert. 

The entire political class do not have a brain between them, and they are incapable of writing a book that is worthy to be read. People’s intellectual delights involve playing video games that are designed for children, they watch American propaganda movies, again it would appear these movies are aimed at children. They do not have serious conversations, and despise people that do. They must not speak of global political events, of ideologies, new ideas, of radical philosophy, even of the stupidity of their own lives.

Instead they are content to behave like children. The only news they watch is propaganda and brainwashing freedoms but do not know it is such. Then for the rest of their lives act like automated robots. They are devoid of any intellect, and if they are it is drained out of them. This is how it works: when they are children they have as much potential as the next person, but this soon disappears due to cultural degradation. They socialise with their friends as teenagers in school and do not discuss the relevance of the Spanish civil war or whether surrealism was a worthwhile movement. Instead they discuss which pop stars are impressing them the most and how they want to get married to idiots. They then work in some sweatshop supermarket, in an office or otherwise, and people that work in these places are removed from anything remotely intellectual. Then they get married to some boorish panjandrum, and talk about things in the news. This is their contribution towards society. 

We do not have a Chekhov to write about these people. If we had nobody would read him! People in England do not like reading anything intellectual. Very few English novels are centred around intellectual characters. There is nobody in Dickens, Lawrence, Trollope, Thackeray, Eliot, or indeed, any of them. On the rare occasion that English writers do write about this people do not bother reading them, and if they do they just fail to understand them. Radical playwrights such as Bond, Barker and the early Brenton, are not really read in their own countries, and few know they even exist. They are known abroad, but quite shamefully, not at home. Few people in Shakespeare’s own country avoid analysing his more intellectual characters such as Hamlet, Brutus, Iago and Macbeth. They are all murderers that is true; they are also thinkers. 

Even England’s celebrity professors are politically backwards. Stephen Hawking, perhaps is the most prominent physicist since Einstein. He appears to be apolitical and makes infantile television appearances, records his voice on terrible pop songs and has acquaintances with Hollywood types. Little difference separates him from the biologist, Richard Dawkins. On political and intellectual matters it is all beyond comprehension. Even literary and philosophy professors like Mary Beard and A.C grayling, act as servants of state power. Beard claims to know little about economics, and like Beard, Grayling has appeared on BBC flagship programmes talking nonsense. For an academic he conceals a great deal. People such as these talk a great deal of pretense about their views on various things. Simon Schama, the historian, has also joined the chorus of nonsense, again, he claims to know little about economics, which in truth is not really difficult to comprehend. 

Look at all the intellectuals all over the world. They hold power to account as they should. Not only do they risk being imprisoned but also torture and worse. Political figures have also acted as intellectuals in many parts of the world. In the 20th century we have had Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam; Aung San of Burma; Ramos Horta of East Timor; Mao of China; the revolutionaries from Latin America; ideological thinkers in the Middle East. It puts Britain to great shame. People laugh at the country and for good reason. When you see people reading a book in public you can be sure it will be nothing serious, so never enter a conversation with these people because they will talk a whole lot of nothing, it would indeed be a rare thing if an intellectual conversation pursued. That would be a rare enlightenment.

5. Government

Britain has a special sort of democracy. Having a one-party state, with perhaps two or three factions is part of it. There is more than one political party, that is true. But that does not mean a thing. The only parties that are capable of being elected, broadly have the same policies. Even when they are elected, policies are always conducted behind closed doors, because it is a secret state and most of these policies and laws are not even reported to the public, and so they are about as free as Saudi women. 

There is no active democratic participation either. When a bill is passed people complain to each other about it, and that is all, soon enough they forget this law has existed and fix their gaze on the television screen and the computer monitor. There is not even democracy by the people in the country. The irony here is that these same people believe themselves to be the freest in the world. They do not bother to protest about the rampant class warfare the government is involved in, international arms deals with terror states, the total annihilation of public services, of private concentrated power, of endemic corruption. It is quite literally a brainwashed society.

The history of Britain has almost been wiped from the history books entirely. The natives have little idea of this secret history. Just from 1850 onwards it is very ugly to say the least. In 1857 was the Indian Mutiny Rebellion which, according to some, as a result, some millions of Indians died. The massacres and ethnic cleansing in Ireland is also forgotten. Take the Irish Potato Famine. When the Irish were literally starving to death, the British still demanded repayments from them as usual. According to American academic Rebecca Elkins, by her calculations, up to 300,000 Kenyans were slaughtered by British colonial rule in the 1950s, and in Yemen saw massacres on a similar scale in the following decade. The massacres in Palestine were persistent , with British help, they were forcibly removed from their land, in what Ilan Pappe calls ethnic cleansing. The support for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism goes back even further, reports social historian Mark Curtis. These are perhaps less than 00.1 percent of the evils of the British Empire. Yet today it still remains a dirty secret. 

We are told certain political parties are on the ‘hard’ or ‘radical left’, the ‘ left’, the ‘right’, ‘centre right’, the ‘middle ground’, the ‘centre right’, ‘far right’, and so on. Of course all these terms are meaningless. They do not mean anything. What is meant by ‘right’ is the following: autocratic, totalitarian, fascistic, nationalistic, oppressors of every sort, that seek to plunder the poor and empower the rich, generate a sort of economic warfare, dismantling public institutions that benefit the rich, wage a propaganda war against minorities, against religious groups, the jobless, paupers and prisoners, women, children, against the oppressed and dispossessed. It is simply foolish to speak of the left because such a thing does not exist. 

When a political party proposes a mild liberal policy, the floodgates open. Then they are referred to as the ‘hard left’, ‘anarchists’, ‘Marxists’, ‘Leninists’. That party then becomes almost obsolete. Criticism is often forbidden. There is to be none directed at two elite terror states: Israel and the United States of America. Terror states that have trade links and arms deals with Britain are also beyond criticism. Only various views and opinions are permitted to be documented. If people deviate from this framework they are classed as highly dangerous people that need taming. It is a prison without bars.

What people fail to realise is that under a totalitarian free market system individuals are robbed of their rights, freedom and views. The human being, because of the avaricious system is not able to progress and advance as they normally would. People have become expendable, because they have little significance unless they can supply something significant to the government like capital investment, paying high taxes, employing large groups of people, thus paying more taxes. That is what is all comes down to: profit. Nothing else matters. People are completely unphased by this. We must work, work, work! The work place does nothing but dehumanises the individual, but that is alright because free market fanaticism is the order of the day. Our lives have become an existential, nihilistic nightmare. 

Britain is the most corrupt country in the world. This may appear like a nonsensical thing to say but the corruption is legal. There is lobbying, robbery from the imperial family, and members of parliament in turn. There are all sorts of corrupt deals that ought to be illegal such as special tax avoidance schemes. There is nothing more corrupt that the House of lords. What do they do? Peerages are given to members of the biggest political parties, that is so bills will be passed in parliament. This is seldom discussed because Britain is a brainwashed society and people are not capable of thinking outside the propaganda framework. 

In real totalitarian states, a military tyranny where people are sent to the gas chamber and where physical torture is conducted in prisons, death squads in the streets, the bombing of entire houses, villages, towns, even cities is a system that is unable to sustain itself. These regimes fall after a certain amount of time has elapsed, another system is introduced. Now, this ‘liberal democracy’ is sustainable because there are no torture camps, persistent bombings-as that is reserved for unpeople abroad-there is no gassing of minority groups or anything of the kind, if this was the case these ‘liberal democracies’ would be vanquished overnight. This state capitalist system then we are all subjected to is sustainable because the abuse and terror is clandestine, and often seen as lawful. Instead of the SS storming your house and butchering you, there is economic warfare. You are still forced out of your home on the streets through ‘economic reforms’, all in the name of ‘liberal democracy’ of course. This is why it is the worst political system imaginable. There is nothing worse.

6. Language

French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, German, Dutch, are all languages spoken in Europe and beyond. Many people coming from these countries can speak a number of languages, but the same can not be said of the British. There is something very unique about the country and it is all rather perverse. In sooth Britain does not really belong to Europe; it never has. Britain does not care for other countries. It certainly does not wish to learn about other cultures, and learn other languages.

The British dislike all Europeans. They berate the Scandinavians for being too liberal, lampoon the French for being too arrogant, the Germans for being too serious, the Belgians for being too boring, the Dutch for being too free, the Italians for being too cultural and the Eastern Europeans for being too hard working. Like America and Australia they are insular. It has become a nation of absolute savages. It prides itself on the ignorance of refusing to learn foreign languages. They can barely speak their own.

The country is totally Americanised. People up and down the country even speak with American accents. They waste their unproductive lives by watching the American television system and Hollywood propaganda movies. They go to American, fast food, cancer factories and eat until they have a stroke, heart attack or cancer itself. They also favour the American brand of ‘justice’. They, for example, favour the death penalty. The country ought to be kicked out of Europe and join the American Empire. 

The British are one of the few nations in the world where people do no bother to learn a foreign language. They believe it, but never say it, that the whole world should speak English. They believe also, when they go abroad, everybody in that country should speak English because they think they ought not to speak in a foreign tongue. If they are unable to speak English, then the ‘foreigner’ in their country says: ‘I can not believe they can not even speak english, I mean what sort of country is this?’ They have the inability to look at themselves, and their own lives. It is the situation with people everywhere up and down the country.

It is the case with people in Europe generally, excluding Britain, that they have a lot of meaning and purpose to their lives. They create opportunities for themselves by learning not just another language, but one after another, and another one and so on. This is the European way: progressive advancement. They must, all this while be laughing at these Brits. What is it? Is there something in the British Psyche? In the English psyche perhaps. Maybe it is a mystery, but the nation has reduced itself to infantilism. Anything that involves effort is not worth doing. Thinking has coherently become a struggle. This is odd for a secular country; it has turned into a zombie nation. It is a nation of zombies. In some towns, in most towns in actual fact people walk as if they were dying from a terminal illness. There is nothing worthwhile for them to speak about. These towns are not much better than prisons, because like a prison, the natives of these towns are imprisoned, and hate their very existence and the place they inhabit, they are full of envy and wrath.

Why would the British even consider learning a foreign language when their state of affairs are that terrible? It makes little sense for them to do so. They are ensnared in a sort of concentration camp which they can not escape; they are unable to escape. How will they? They have nothing to offer. They struggle to even get work, and even if they do it is something quite terrible which they can not stand. They have no talents, not that they know of anyway, possess little or no education, no knowledge of any significance. They are lifeless, lethargic and are waiting to die. All these towns are filled with the working classes and the working classes in Britain are a pitiful bunch. They struggle to speak their own language, let alone speak another from scratch. 

This is why Britain is unique. The country, along with the United States, are the biggest brainwashed nations in the world. This should not even be a controversial statement to make. If the British would only attempt to be bilingual opportunities would open up for them. To speak two languages, to be fluent in two languages is a tremendous skill to have. But it does not matter a jot because the working classes will never think that way, and they seldom think about leaving about their hometown, let alone actually leaving the country. They do not know what is happening in Europe because they do not want to know what is happening in Europe. All they are concerned about is preserving an independent Britain, and removing them from all treaties they are signed up to. Their brains are completely dishevelled.

When we see the French and Italians enter British soil and see them speak fourteen different languages; all the heads of the British ought to hang in shame. We see them, how they dress, how they behave, how they conduct themselves and we say to ourselves without knowing that person without knowing where they are from, ‘they will not be from this country’. They are right every time. They know how to behave and speak impeccable English. But why do such people come to the country? Are they mad? The English, particularly, rage on about the French all day and all night. They say they are arrogant and hate the English. The French ought to be weary of the English. They have the right to take that attitude. The French are well within their rights to act in this fashion.

Britain is at least thirty years behind western Europe. Large parts of the country look like the old ruins of Eastern Europe. People are satisfied with living in these squalid conditions but this is a normality for them, for the state often treats its citizens like old enemies. In many cases we must treat many of the misguided British as children, because they do lack progression and even civility at times. It is quite incredulous considering what the British have given the world. In science it has the greatest of them all: Isaac Newton, the greatest of all physicists and the very best evolutionary biologist, Charles Darwin, the greatest writer that ever lived belongs there: william Shakespeare. Great actors of international repute also are native and inhabited this place: Ellen Terry, David Garrick and Edmund Kean. There is nothing of the sort anymore. Now the vacuum has been filled by wealthy business elites. The British, really ought to be more distinguished, cultural, sophisticated, ambitious, intellectual, political, moral, but the opposite is the case. There is something far worse ingrained in these people and it will not get any better; it will get worse.

7. the Media

The media in Britain is highly concentrated. There is the agenda-setting media of course which wield significant influence. Apart from this they are also engineering history. They are the writers of history as they see it. The tabloid press are popular and will be for a very long time to come. These papers are filled with junk on virtually every page, ranging from spectator sports such as football and tennis to movie reviews, and what such-a-person had for lunch or whatever, and how gracious the imperial family are. But more importantly, arguably, are the political content these papers cover.

There are three main areas in which media elites work under. The first of these is the marginalisation of dissidents. In the corporate press there are a range of views, so it appears, but when you study and analyse it, it is a very concentrated, one-dimensional idea or ideology. This seems, from the from the outset to be false because of course the media offer a wide range of opinion, people would and do argue. Take, for example, the issue of prisons.

When we speak about people entering custody the talk is whether prisoners should get short or longer sentences, should these same people be treated harshly in prison, while others say they should be treated with a certain degree of humanity. Nobody argues that prisons should close, and that they are barbarian institutions that only induce more crime. They seldom, if ever, empathise with the prisoner and lambast their awful plight when they are released from their oppression and how the probation system operate is never called into question, and how the prisoner is almost eliminated from the job market, instead they just go on tirades documenting the thing they have alleged to have done to get themselves in prison in the first place. This never happens. The concentrated media is not interested in this sort of thing, regrettably.

The political and economical systems are another area in which media elites work under. Newspapers call for a more Keynesian type of economics and they give various reason why this should happen. Very malevolent and unpleasant journalists offer an alternative. They cite people like Frederick A. Hayek and his disciple, Milton Friedman who supported totalitarian, economic systems. This is the sort of free market Hayekian fundamentalism Friedman oversaw in fascist Chile and Jeffrey Sachs in various places. What is not supported or even mentioned is an alternative to the free market system altogether. They talk about the ‘market’ but give no definition of what the free market is. Clearly, they do not want their readers getting out of hand.

Politically they do not offer much of an alternative either. They offer two views, which only echo what each other say: to privatise or nationalise. Do we support the ruling party or the opposition? There is no analysis of any kind in reference to the democratic system and its functional institutions. No other system is ever recommended, the current, lamentable system, is never called into question and everybody has to work around it. They do not oppose The Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, and that this ‘democracy’ is phoney. They dare not offer an insight into other ideological systems. There is no talk of anarcho-syndicalism, collectives, workers councils, Marxism, not even the Latin American model is mentioned. So they are guaranteeing everybody thinks as an automated machine.

Foreign policy is largely the same. There is an argument for war and the other is let’s not go to war and wage war another way, usually through sanctions which is war by another name. Even when war is opposed on all fronts, the aftermath is ‘we made a mistake’, not offering an analysis of outright criminality and barbarity, as Vietnam and Iraq highlight. Israel is an interesting case to discuss, one of the postwar horror shows on the ‘right’ argue that Israel has a right to defend itself, when they go out of their way to bomb sleeping children. The ‘left’ argue that Israel must be held accountable for ‘war crimes’ and that they must talk ‘peace’. What view is never offered is the rejectionist statement: that the U.S and Israel are not interested in giving an inch to the Palestinians, and when progress is made, Israel starts bombing whom it likes, with U.S and U.K support.

Finally we have the murky world of banks and bankers. Media groups prattle on about them but never reveal the truth. They do not say, for example, that the big banks in the country are operating under fraudulent operations and are committing crimes so serious that sometimes the truth, in small doses is revealed. We never read the truth, and therefore never discover what the banks daily activities are. Edward Herman and Naomi Klein are outspoken critics of these adventures but seldom reach the mainstream press. Dissidents are marginalised and ignored by this same press. An opinion that does not fit in the the structural framework is just rejected.

The second function of the media is depoliticisation and advertising selling power. You depoliticise people by reducing their capacity to think. This is easily achieved. They bombard their readership with nonsense of various sorts. All aspects of popular culture and spectator sports are strewn everywhere in these papers, and they use ‘selling power’, for purpose of profit and businesses, thus emptying the heads of anything meaningful. Business elites, which advertise in these papers want ‘selling-power’, in other words presenting uncomplicated stories, to enable the business to sell their product better. They do not want obtuse news items, because big business and scandalous profits are the order of the day, but of course this is never discussed in these newspapers, and why should it be?

The third function is brainwashing. They normalise a number of things which of course are not normal at all. Each paper sticks to their own views and regurgitate it over and over again. They use words like ‘friendly fire’, ‘democracy’, ‘intervention’. This goes throughout the entire mainstream press. All the newspapers congregate together and decide to leave irrelevant information out. Britain's secret relationship with Islamic terrorists, for example: it is a puppet of terrorism, which the media decide to support: Indonesia under Suharto and Mussolini for example. So evidently people reading these publications will not only be unaware of these clandestine activities but also they will be subjected to an abundance of trash, and they will think this is relevant to their own lives, even important and they will speak of it as if it was in their mind to do so.

8. Women

For a ‘liberal democracy’, the way Britain treats women is truly abominable. It is not just the state and paternal institutions that act in this scandalous way; it is prevalent amongst men up and down this country. If a woman is successful then the following rules apply: she must not be judged on skill, talent or whatever else, but must be judged on her looks, she sleeps around with men, whether she is overweight, underweight, is she attractive. If she is then men of different varieties speak about how they would like to rape her and make her pay. We should rape her, they say, that will show her where women really belong. How dare a woman be successful. Who let her out of the house?

Germaine Greer, the feminist, has commented on men’s attitude towards women. She says it is because they can not bear the rights women have gained and so on. A woman has to be sexualised, and if she is not deemed attractive enough to be sexualised, then this must be commented on. She may be ‘too ugly’ or ‘too fat’ or whatever. Women are sexualised everywhere in Britain. They appear in infantile pop videos on television, in advertisements, they are even sexualised in fashion outlets. For the idea is that women are really subhuman. They are not the same as men. So therefore there must be this focus on the aesthetics of a woman. They, of course, can not have any views, thoughts, feelings, emotions or anything of the sort. There is none of this. The important thing is how they use their breasts, do they have a good body? Are they good in the bedroom? What colour underwear do they wear? It is not sexism; it is misogyny. 

The pay ratio between men and women is an absolute disgrace. It is clear women are paid less than their male counterparts not because of their ability, it is because of their gender. When a woman goes to prison she must get a longer sentence because they ‘should know better’ and have that ‘maternal instinct’. The one area of work where women get paid more than men is in the adult entertainment industry. In many of these movies the women in them must be dominated and abused by the male, and are often labelled very degrading names like ‘slut’, ‘whore’. ‘bitches’, ‘slags’. A lot of men like to see women humiliated in these movies and like ‘rough sex’, even to the degree where these women are crying. For they are only excited by the sadistic abuse women experience in these movies, anything else is of no significance. Noam Chomsky has commented that anybody that watches pornography has a problem.

If a man is not doing his job properly there are always excuses and sometimes reasons why this happens. But when a woman is unable to do her job properly then the rules change somewhat. It is because ‘it is that time of year of year’, or that ‘she is on her period’, maybe she has ‘not been getting it’. Imagine what would happen if this was the attitude with black, middle-eastern Asian men. It would be quite unthinkable if the media and other groups said that black men ‘are too black for the job’, or that an oriental man is ‘too chinky’. It is a form of racism, albeit nothing to do with race, but gender. Take what has already been discussed, religion. ‘Because he is Jewish he must be hiding millions under his bed’, or that he is a Muslim so he must be hiding explosives under his bed’. These statements may even be used by members of the public but we know it is not used by media groups. It would be deemed unacceptable and it is unacceptable. The misogynist attitude toward women is equally so.

People dare talk about the church being progressive when its attitude towards women is that of the dark ages. How many women do we see as authoritative figures in synagogues, Mosques and Christian churches throughout the country? When spectator sports come around we must say there are many disgraceful comments made about women. In tennis the tabloid press like to focus their attention on women’s bodies while they play a game of tennis. This is like an endless war against women. At award ceremonies it is all about how a woman looks, what she is wearing and so on. No comment can be made about any aspect of a woman without the perpetual insolence about the fact that she is a woman.

The country is awash with undesirables marauding around the streets. Some of these unceremonious individuals have girlfriends of course, but they do not refer to these women as their girlfriends but as ‘my bitch’, or even ‘it’. Their male friends usually laugh at these remarks. A good ‘bitch’ of course is one that the boyfriends mates can have sex with, and if she refuses she must be severely punished. The most heinous abuse against women is the act of ex trafficking. These poor girls are raped multiple times a day, beaten, tortured, and many are even murdered. This never gets the attention it ought to. It, no doubt, is slavery and sexual slavery is worse than any other form of slavery. But this appears to be an acceptable form of slavery. If it happened to men like it happens to women then perhaps more would be done to tackle the problem. 

Some people speak about revolutions all the time but few speak of a woman's revolution. I am not talking about a social revolution here. Why must women tolerate this misogyny? If you persecute somebody because of their religion or race that is hate crime, well it ought to apply to abominable misogynists. These infantile ‘comedians’ make jokes about domestic violence and people laugh at them. A group of footballers gang-raped a thirteen-year-old child and the mass media referred to it as an ‘orgy’. That is where humanity has gone in the country, and few things in print are more despicable than that.

 9. Children
Children are not safe in Britain. The social services, the police, councillors up and down this country are responsible for some of the most appalling abuse against children, but this is a sort of hidden history. No, it is not even that. In many instances the information is just filtered through the mainstream press, people whinge about it for a few days then inevitably forget about it. This is how it generally works: that a child that has been abused reports it to the police and the police believe the child in question, but do nothing about it, and the social services, in many instances have gone a step further. They blame the victim, saying they deserve it and so on. The local councils often hide or just get rid of evidence when it suits them to do so. this is what you call safeguarding children in Britain.

But these cover-ups do not happen all the time, they only happen in certain instances. If the person on the street or a relative abuses their children, then of course that person is arrested, charged, convicted and sent to prison. But that is not the issue here. I am talking about the abuse taking place in these children and care homes. The state is very much in favour of punishing individuals, but when it comes to more sadistic practices by public institutions, as well as private ones, a cover-up then is permissible.

It does not say a great deal about the country when the most famous broadcasting corporation have been acting as a virtual paedophile ring, and the people watching the programmes they broadcast, have been unknowingly funding the habitual abuse of children, and after the event, or rather, when they get found out as they did, there is a cover-up of a kind (there always is), and everybody kept silent to a certain degree. People who saw the sexual abuse of children, said nothing, did nothing, and thought nothing and they quite happily got along with their own boorish lives. We have reached an age of immorality.

The social services are worse than an infanticidal psychopath, a rampant child molester, and abuser of the worst kind. This is simply because these social services, so it is claimed by a great many people, exist in order to protect children. What garbage! The reason why they are worse than other abusers is because they pretend to protect children when they do directly the opposite. They act as sociopathic monsters who have a habit in putting children in situations where they encounter some of the most sadistic abuse, and they utter infantile platitudes saying ‘we got it wrong’ and ‘we must learn from our mistakes’. For the man that sodomises and disembowels a child, perhaps he should learn from his mistakes, he may do the same thing again so we shall have a cover-up..I mean an investigation. Of course this is an analogy of how the way things operate with the social services. it is beyond sub humanity.

The church fairs no better. In fact they go one step further. They do not just cover the abuse up. They are the ones who do the abusing. No matter. We will just move these abusers to another parish. That will show them. There is nothing quite like draconian punishment of this stature. The church, lest we forget, are also responsible for the awful abuse of unborn children. This may sound like an incorrect and scandalous things to say. It is not. These Ministers of menace preach abortion is immoral, so they would prefer to bring a child up in a household full of violence, abuse and so on. They claim to have all this morality but in reality they do not have a grain of it. They are a bunch of egregious, hypocritical mythographers.

How many churches are currently running paedophile rings? how many media groups? Individual members of the social services? Schools? If they were running any that would be a great surprise. These things, of course, will never be truthfully revealed. But there are other organisations that may be involved in these activities-like police forces up and down Britain, as well as children's charities and care homes. Heaven knows what sorts of things the likes of the NSPCC, the children’s charity, are upto, but is too distressing to contemplate. The British armed forces go round, from time to time, raping children in foreign lands that nobody else knows about.

Britain is not only second rate, it is putrid, diseased and awash with injustice, immorality, amorality and abuse and corruption of the highest kind. It is a country that belongs in a Kafka story.

August 18th-30th, 2014