the morality of Aung San Suu Kyi

"There was no ethnic cleansing", Aung San Suu Kyi said to a BBC journalist when asked about the Rohingya, a Muslim minority group in Rakhine, Western Burma. There was and is no ethnic cleansing that is despite publications like the Economist claiming otherwise. "Penny Green", they write, "of the ISCI(International State Crime Initiative) argues that the ethnic cleansing of 2012 was a stage in what she describes as the 'process of genocide'". The publication, along with Green do not even debate ethnic cleansing among the Rohingya, they even propose genocide is being committed or at least will be. Human Rights Watch, in a 2013 report, wrote that 'the criminal acts committed against the Rohingya and Kaman Muslim communities in Arkan state beginning in June 2012 amount to crimes against humanity carried out as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing'. 24 years ago the daughter of the much revered nationalist Aung San, was awarded the Nobel Peace prize. The committee said of Suu Kyi the following: was 'an important figure in the struggle against oppression'. Now the 'lady' is happy to visit the likes of Chinese demagogues , along with British and American brutes including Hilary Clinton and William Hague. When the world lauded her for the suffering she endured and pacifism and forgiveness she advocated, her party members in the National League For Democracy were being brutalised, tortured, raped, murdered and so on, their leader was under house arrest and was free to leave at any time if she agreed to leave the country. Her colleagues did not have such privileges, neither did they have their own piano present. The Rohingya, meanwhile, continue to suffer, such stuff as babies being thrown into fires, women gang-raped and so on. But of course no matter, because according to the great moralist no such abuses are taking place.

16th June, 2015

the Battle over Ideologies

According to the BBC and others, Ed Miliband, the leader of the Labour Party is leftwing, David Cameron, the Conservative prime minister is not rightwing but a 'liberal', Natalie Bennett, the current and new(ish) leader of the Green Party is on the 'radical left' option and so it goes.  The question, a fundamental one in my view, is why do they use these terms when it is clearly evident these fixed ideologies are simply a fabrication. It appears, on the face of it at least to be trifling and pointless.  It is neither and the fabrications are a concerted effort in the indoctrinal system in which we are all ensnared.

If somebody who's party declares war on public sector workers: forcing them to work longer hours, get paid less and receive a lower pension; target the workless and vulnerable: introducing sub-fascist policies such as dismantling the welfare state (at least as we know it), privatising anything they can get their hands on, using racist language in dealing with immigrants, crushing women's rights, i.e through the job market, handing out zero hour contracts, as well as creating job opportunites, at least of which at least 20% are temporary and/or part-time; this is a fundamental attack on women.  The country still has the highest prison population in Europe, one of the highest rates of reoffending, and the tax payer is footing the bill.  For every prisoner it costs around £40,000.  The 'Liberals' are opposed to the European Court of Human Rights, which is a fundamental attack on human rights in general, they want less immigration, they would like the jobless to work for their benefits, they have cut so harshly, even the IMF have critcised them, they are prosecuting people for looking at pornography on the internet and labelling them 'sex offenders', they have changed nothing in terms of the banks and their iniquitous behaviour, leaving London as the centre of international fraud.  All this from a liberal government.

Now, this is a Liberal government so we are told by political commentators.  That is significant, because if they are 'liberals', how on earth would a conservative act?  And also is the case, and this is a far more important point, if Cameron and his recidivist colleagues are liberals, then real liberals surely must be left wing dissidents like the Green Party, but of course that is patent nonsense.  Natalie Bennett and company are not leftwing radicals but mere liberals, and Ed Miliband is certainly not leftwing, neither is he a liberal.  No, he is none of these, he is a Conservative.  Using such language prevents genuine liberals and leftwing leaders, because they would just be labelled crazed Marxist-terrorist Anarchists who want to cut your children's throats.  But of course these political commentators are from a 'free press', under brainwashing freedoms perhaps.  

10th April, 2015