When The White Man Loses His Honey…

November 3, 2013 at 4:26 pm

…That’s when you know things have gone too far.

Richard Dawkins took to Twitter today, airing a complaint about his honey being confiscated from him by Airport security:


This instantly made me think of the old BBC show: ‘Grumpy Old Men’ where a cacophony of grumpy old men complain about the little things that make their lives an absolutely misery. Taken in isolation, having your honey taken away from you by a ‘jobsworth’ security guard at an airport is of course quite the irritation, particularly when one considers how many Nobel Prizes have been won by Security Guards. None. NONE!

Now I think Richard was trying (badly) to illuminate the point that airport security has gone too far, I mean how dangerous could a little pot of honey really be? How much honey would it take to hi-jack or blow up a plane after all? Of course, Richard’s arrogance knows no bounds, you see the rules are there for a reason and they are clear for all too see (even if you are a world-famous pompous prick). I wonder, if a man or woman of ‘Muslim appearance’ had his honey taken off him, would Richard be quite so irate? I doubt it.

His angry little tweet also gave me mental images of Osama bin Laden and his various deputies sat around a camp fire in the mountains of Tora Bora discussing their grand plan with a hint of Tony Montana:

 In this country, you gotta take the honey first. Then when you get the honey, you get the power. Then when you get the power, you get the women.”

But on a slightly more serious note, before Richard takes the time out to complain about his honey-related injustices, perhaps he should take some time out to think of the lives of Muslims and people who ‘look like’ Muslims. Maybe he should consider the fact that Muslims can barely go anywhere without attracting distrusting glances at best through to being attacked at worst. If we want to fly, we are subjected to harsher, more humiliating questioning and experiences than anybody else.  We are all tarred by the Osama brush. Society has a deep-rooted, thinly-veiled hatred of Muslims. Hatred stirred up by a wide variety of public figures and organisations ranging from this Conservative government and the press through to Tommy Robinson and Mr Dawkins himself.

So when Mr Dawkins is subjected to a four hour interrogation at an airport  just for the colour of his skin, or for his beliefs then perhaps I may consider taking his complaint seriously. When he is stopped at a British airport and asked whether he is travelling with the Asian woman in front of him, to which he says ‘Yes’ and is then told to ‘follow me’ on that basis for a ‘random’ baggage check, he can come back and complain to me. Perhaps when he feels nervous about travelling alone for fear of racist attacks on him, then he can come back to me.

Until then:

Dawkins. Together We Can Find the Cure.”

A Party Political Broadcast

September 30, 2013 at 6:42 pm

How many people turned out in protest against Tory Policy on the NHS in Manchester at the weekend? Well, if you live outside Manchester you’d probably find that the BBC weren’t exactly forthcoming with their coverage of the protest. The number was in the region of 50,000, and goes a little way towards explaining why the Tories have erected an 8 foot metal fence around the entire conference zone. One suspects the real reason is actually that they just wanted to be kept apart from the riff-raff. I mean, how is one supposed to sup one’s £250 a bottle champagne in peace if Bob the binman can wander on by just yards away without some kind of barrier to keep him out of ones line of sight?

So the BBC’s coverage of the event can be found if you navigate from the main ‘News’ page, to ‘England’ and then ‘Manchester’. Unless you live in Manchester, it wasn’t on their home page and couldn’t be found on the News home page on the day, or today. In fact, in the Manchester section today it’s the fourth story. At best this level of coverage of a major protest against an unpopular government who aren’t just making ‘difficult’ decisions, they’re making outright evil ones, is pitiful. At worst the BBC could easily be accused of joining the illustrious ranks of the foreign ‘State-run News Networks’ the Beeb so often takes delight in mocking.

The BBC has clearly decided to offer up its support to David Cameron for Election 2015 and it’s barely even hiding it. If it is attempting to conceal its treachery then it’s doing a pretty bad job of it. But let it not be said that the BBC is bad at hiding things, it hid the Jimmy Saviles and Stuart Halls of this world for 3 or 4 decades and to show us that this was no fluke and that it hasn’t lost it’s touch, it’s currently hiding the Conservative Dismantling of the NHS. If your news horizons don’t expand beyond the BBC or other Mainstream networks, you might say: ‘What dismantling of the NHS?’

In which case my response can only ever be: ‘Precisely’. Not only is the BBC actively hiding the destruction of the lifeblood of Britain, something that is so undeniably and unquestionably quintessentially British, free healthcare that is, it is actually aiding and abetting in the propaganda war the Conservatives have launched to ensure that when you do find out what’s been going on, instead of rising up in pure rage, you merely conclude: ‘Well, look at the recent failures. Probably better off in private hands.’

The BBC has been only too willing to eat up every single piece of negative news being fed to it by its Tory paymasters. Don’t get me wrong, there’s an awful lot wrong with the NHS. Too many managers, not enough beds, not enough nurses, not enough Doctors, debt-riddled hospitals, hidden scandals and so on and so on, but selling it off to profit-making organisations with shareholders leads only one way. It leads to the American system of healthcare. It leads to a two-tiered system, where those who can afford healthcare, get healthcare. Where those not in employment cannot get access to basic healthcare. It leads to a further expansion of the gap between rich and poor, and exacerbates the effect this has by commodifying a basic human right, the right to healthcare.

If the NHS truly is failing, it’s failing because every 5 years politicians make a raft of unsustainable, unattainable, inappropriate, self-serving promises to ‘change’ the NHS, to reform it, bring greater efficiency, reduce queues and costs all at the same time. Each party brings with it their own ideas, ideas that generally lack some kind of consultation process with the people that work on the front-line, day after day. These are the people who know what the real issues are, who know where the real savings can be made and where the service provided can be vastly improved.

And in all this, the BBC willingly assists the Nasty Party. Long ago the BBC reached the point of ‘Mouthpiece’ for this government. Long ago it stopped challenging its policies and long ago it lost the little credibility it once had. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised, after all this is the same organisation that has a long history of firing females as they pass the ‘acceptable’ age yet retain ever grumpier males long past their sell by date. This is the same organisation that in its desperation to remain as unbiased as possible, flows along with ‘public’ opinion, with government agenda. Instead of challenging public perceptions and opening itself up to calls of bias, it follows public perceptions instead and actually is biased. This is the same organisation that refused to air a charity appeal for the people of Gaza when Israel launched a vicious attack on it.

In conclusion, don’t trust the BBC. It doesn’t act in your interests. It acts in its own, which is to protect and to serve the government of today. This Dickensian Government that seeks to demonise the poor and further enrich the rich.

Tony Blair: White Saviour

September 25, 2013 at 6:30 pm

Remember that film – Being John Malkovich? I think there’s opportunity for a sequel of sorts there, we’ll call it ‘Being Tony Blair’. The storyline will centre around a young man desperate for answers to pivotal questions such as:

  • How does it feel to be right all the time, and to be surrounded by people who are so wrong all the time?
  • What does a peace envoy actually do?
  • How does Tony sleep at night?
  • What does Tony say in his confessions at church?
  • Did Tony know that there were no WMDs in Iraq?
  • Does Tony feel even a tiny single shred of regret at the deaths of a million Iraqis?

Actually, we probably know all the answers to those questions and the film only would serve as just another Tony Blair vanity exercise. He’d probably masturbate himself to sleep at the thought of his face appearing on billboards all over the world, he’d revel in the fact that an accomplished method actor would should choose to play him, and as such indulge him in his tales of politicking and war-criming etc.

So no, I won’t be pushing that project any further. But I will write about him. And as I do, I feel like the aura of slime that follows him everywhere has detected this and is now making it’s way towards me, ready to infiltrate my brain and remove those nasty images of Tony authorising the UK to bomb the f*ck out of Iraq  and replace them with images of him running gaily through a meadow with happy Iraqi children throwing flower petals through the air.

Well Tony, understated, quiet little Tony was in the Guardian today reminding us yet again of how he knows everything and we know nothing especially when it comes to the Middle East or, as Tony calls it, Israel. Today he was talking about Bashar al Assad, who the papers have been telling us for ages definitely used Chemical Weapons on civilians in August and is therefore a War Criminal. Understated, quiet little Tony was telling us that we should not let Assad off the hook if he doesn’t give all of his Chemical Weapons to the US (who have never, ever used Chemical Weapons).

What Tony also told us, and if you have some kind of beverage in your mouth please swallow fully before reading on, is that the UN Resolution is absolutely vital. If he breaches the UN Resolution, we have to ‘enforce the will of the International Community’. Yes you did read correct. Tony said that the UN Resolution was vital. Just like the one that the US and the UK obtained allowing them to go to war with Iraq. What number was it again?

Unsurprisingly Tony said that if he were Prime Minister today, he would have pushed very hard to be with America as an ally before going on to add ‘It’s the results that count. I’m not particularly concerned if we do it elegantly or inelegantly.’ I can only speculate as to what that actually means, but it certainly does not sound good. And I think that’s what angers me so much about Tony, it’s not just the illegal war that killed over a million Iraqis based on a Lie of Mass Destruction, or the repeated refusals to accept any blame, or the fact that the allies used Chemical weapons without punishment in Fallujah, or the fact that he has gone on to be a Peace Envoy in the Middle East. No, that all contributes massively, but what really angers me is the ‘White Saviour’ mentality he displays. He actually believes that the Western way is the best way and is seemingly prepared use any excuse to enforce that militarily or at least under-handedly.

This breed of ‘White Saviour’ to me doesn’t seem to be a million miles away from the desires of a fanatacist. He stubbornly believes that the Western way of life is perfect, that everything we do is right, that everyone different is wrong, that ‘we’ must do all we can to convince them of that and if we can’t? Bomb the fuck out of them. The only difference between Tony and the infamous fascists of the past is his public persona. In public Tony is unflappable, calm, cool, collected,scripted, speaks in a middle class English accent and rarely ever displays any negative forms of emotion whereas the fascist figures of the past are depicted as much more fiery, angry, heated, ranty, spontaneous, spoke with a foreign accent and were more likely to show their emotion.

This is how he manages to get away with it. I just hope the people of Britain aren’t taken in by his bullshit.

Banning the Burqa…

September 17, 2013 at 6:18 pm

I can’t for the life of me understand why a potential banning of Islamic face coverings is even being discussed within this country at the moment. Having read a bit of the press surrounding it, I still don’t fully understand the reasoning behind this sudden upsurge in public opinion backing it. A few questions immediately pop in to my head:

  1. Why do we want to ban it?
  2. What value does it serve to the British public?
  3. Have the needs of those who wear the veil been considered?
  4. What are the punishments for failing to adhere to the ban?
  6. Are you f**king stupid?
  7. Are you just a complete c*nt?
  8. Have you ever met a woman who wears the veil?

Why do we want to ban it? Fuck knows. It looks like a few upper-middle class white men think have formed an opinion (with very little basis of fact) that Muslim women are forced in to wearing it, therefore banning it will free them. It’s pretty clear that these upper-middle class white male types once saw a woman in the street wearing a veil and just didn’t like it. It’s also clear that the needs and desires of veil-wearing women have not been considered at all. Had there been any level of consultation with veil-wearing women the government and press would realise that veil-wearers often love their veil. Often their parents don’t actually want them to wear it, but they insist on doing so.

So, I can only assume then that the banning of the veil is all about Britain’s misguided lurch to the right. It’s all about populist faux-politics. Create a false issue, then deliver a false fix to the false issue and rake in the votes in 2015. Who gives a toss about those people actually affected, because let’s be  brutal here. If you don’t wear one, it shouldn’t make a blind bit of fucking difference to your life. If it does make a difference to you, then you’re probably an insecure, paranoid little Englander with shit for brains. And that answers question number two, it doesn’t serve any value to the British public whatsoever. It really does not make a difference.

Have the needs of veil-wearers been considered? Stupid question. Stupid, stupid question. The White Knights that are actually thinking about this kind of policy probably think that all Muslim women are poor little creatures who are forced to do this, or forced to do that. The fact is, they don’t even know a Muslim woman. They don’t know that Muslim women generally are given far more freedom by their faith than any other. The biggest oppression Muslim women face is from white cunts that think it’s ok to shout abuse at them and attack them in the street.

As for the punishment for failing to adhere to any future ban, well f*ck me. “So Mrs Akmal, due to your insistence on adhering to your beliefs instead of the ones we’re attempting to enforce on you, we’re going to fine you, imprison you or make you do community service.”

Have you not seen France? No further comment required.

Are you f**king stupid? Yes, if you think that banning a piece of cloth is a good idea then you’re not just stupid, you’re a f**king brainwashed moron. And yes, you’re a complete c*nt too.

Have you ever met a woman wearing the veil? No, but you really should. Because their views on the clothing that they choose to wear might just surprise you.


Taking Sides: Black or White

September 16, 2013 at 9:15 pm

It’s been quite some time since I last posted, mainly because I’ve been the subject of a mini spam attack. I don’t quite know why a Japanese designer bag retailer thinks people who visit my site would be interest in the latest Gucci, in fact I don’t know what makes them think anyone even visits.

In the time I’ve been away I’ve largely been trying to hide from the news. I find the way that news is presented to us quite offensive to me as a person. Mainstream media is a bit like the market trader who’s overstocked on poor quality, Chinese manufactured toasters. He/she’s desperate to get rid of them and expends a lot of energy on diverting the punters’ attentions towards these dreadful toasters. The trader tries to make you feel like you have much less choice than you actually do. This is essentially what our governments and press do day in, day out.

To test that theory, you need look no further than Syria. The next time you read, watch or listen to a news item about Syria pay close attention to what is actually being said. Try to imagine yourself as a customer, what are your options? What is your outlet of choice actually trying to sell you? Take closer look at the ‘product’, are they being transparent? Are they trying to conceal something from you?

In the case of Syria, the press are largely selling us two options:

  1. Military intervention in the form of airstrikes
  2. Do nothing, and let Assad kill more people with chemical weapons

If you believe what you’re reading/seeing/hearing, ask yourself this: If I was at the market, and this trader was trying to sell you a poor quality toaster, at an inflated price; would you be so insufferably stupid? Would you allow yourself to be led down the proverbial alley and mugged? Of course you wouldn’t. So why do the masses allow governments and media outlets dictate our choices?

Now go back to Syria, and this may seem a little crazy, try to think of some different options. Can you do it? Can your mind stretch beyond the simple binary equation of bomb/not bomb? Of course it can! Life isn’t quite as black or white as that, there’s a hell of a lot of grey in between. And buried deep within this large mass of grey, you’ll find the real options, the real choices. You’ll find that in all major news stories you’ll be given two options. Black or White. What’s it going to be? There are no alternatives. Choose now. Black or White. Don’t forget now, Black is so unpalatable you’ll be ridiculed if you choose it. White or Black. No pressure now. All your friends have already chosen. Black or White. Experts have chosen white already, what’s taking you so long. Black or White. Look at this photo, look what big, bad Black did to poor little White. WHITE or Black. Too late. It’s done.

Governments and Media revel in how stupid we are. In presenting information in a way that leads us deep into this alley, we become gripped with fear. We see we are being offered just two choices, even though we may think there is actually a third, much better, choice we are too far in to the alley. If we speak now, we’re certain to be beaten to a pulp. As we go deeper still, we find quickly that one of the two options becomes increasingly less viable. We have one option left, but it still doesn’t quite feel right. But all of your friends think it is, experts think it is, our Prime Minister thinks it is, so it must be… right?

It takes a bit of courage whilst in the alley to think the unthinkable, it takes courage to say ‘No, I’m not buying this’. But when you do take that step, you’ll find others who have made that step too. You’ll find that your own actions inspire others to think it too. You’ll find that whilst the world can be a horrible place full of horrible people, it’s also a wondrous place full of incredible people.

Once you’ve taken that step, then you’ll begin to see what our trusted sources of information have been concealing from us. We hear that Assad is the first to use Chemical Weapons since 2001. Really? What about Bush in Iraq, 2003? What About Israel in Gaza? We hear from President Obama that no nation would stand idly by and watch bombs rain down upon it, except Pakistan eh? We hear that drones in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen target and hit militants, yet we don’t hear that the US classes all males of military age as militants.

What do you think of that? Can it really be that Black or White?

What is quite frankly unbelievable is that Putin asked Assad: “Can you put your Chemical Weapons into neutral hands?’ and he said “Yes.” Our Government, our media never gave us that option. That wasn’t on the table.

Perhaps we’re sat at the wrong table.

The Free World is Dead

July 30, 2013 at 7:14 pm

A hero is not a (wo)man who always follows orders unquestionably, a hero is a (wo)man who always questions orders.

I always question the mentality of a person who dismisses another based on their past. In the UK recently the press came down on Papiss Cissé, a footballer, who publicly declared that he would not wear a shirt adorned with the logo of his club’s new shirt sponsor, payday loan company Wonga. The reason for this is that he felt that it contradicted his Islamic Faith, which seems fair enough to me. Islam bans any form of usury, and Wonga are renowned for drawing profit from people who often don’t have a lot of money.

It didn’t take all that long for the press, not just the tabloids mind, to bring up the following facts that made his declaration look a bit ‘odd’:

  1. Newcastle Utd had Virgin Money emblazoned on their shirts last season, he had no issue with that at the time
  2. He was photographed visiting a Casino in November 2012
  3. Several of his team-mates are Muslims and they have no issue with it

All three are fairly pathetic observations:

  1. True enough Virgin Money are a similar type of organisation to Wonga albeit with far less negative publicity surrounding it, perhaps Papiss has recently had a spiritual awakening and/or thought that Wonga was just a step too far?
  2. Firstly, do we know that he was gambling in the casino? Secondly, this was eight months ago. People change.
  3. So what? Faith is unique to each individual, Islam is about people not robots. Just because two adherents don’t have an issue does not mean that the third person by default should follow suit.

These observations played out in the media were a pretty blatant attempt to discredit the guy, either orchestrated by his own club or by a media that has absolutely no intention of understanding the spiritual needs of someone who is a little bit ‘different’ to them. In the end, Papiss gave in. I don’t know why exactly he did give in, but I rather hoped that he wouldn’t, not based on Islamic principles but on the principle that Wonga exploit those in need with exorbitant interest rates. At least Papiss made a stand though, he’s not a hero as such but he should be commended for drawing attention to the issue.

Another man who was taken a rather more high-profile stand is of course Bradley Manning. Bradley truly is a hero, one of those people that come along once in a generation and take a stand against the highest form of evil in our world. The United States isn’t so dissimilar to the (in)famous empires we so keenly read about in history lessons at school, though there is one key difference. Where these famous empires failed in the past was their reliance on a strong leader or figurehead to steer them through the lowest of lows and lead them to the highest of highs.

Rome, The Mughals, The Macedonians and The Mongols are just a few examples of Empires that collapsed in the hands of weak or uncharismatic leaders. The American Empire is of course unofficial, we don’t know how much of the world is actually in their control but we can be certain that their influence is felt everywhere. That’s not necessarily sinister in itself, it just depends on how much of that influence is positive. What Bradley Manning showed us is that their influence is often negative. He showed us the dark truth that lurks just beneath the shiny, happy, smiley surface of The Corporate Empire of The United States of America. He said ‘This is not what I signed up for’ and instead of being ‘A Patriot’ and ignoring the issue, he confronted it head on, via Wikileaks.

He will now serve the rest of his life in a cold, dark cell. While he wastes away in there, Barack Obama and his successors will give orders to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in far away lands. The CIA and maybe even the future Presidents themselves will work in the background to destabilise ‘threats’ across the globe from Venezuela to China. The US will seize upon unstable nations, even regions, they will make their profits, grab any resources they can and leave behind power vacuums to be filled with civil wars and decades of unrest.

America will continue to oppress those who quite simply do not wish to live the way Americans do, in fact America will even oppress Americans. More obviously it will continue to allow white murderers of black people go free, it will disproportionately imprison non-whites and ethnic minorities, and more discretely it will allow large corporations to continue buying off Senators and Congressmen/women to ensure that Average Joes and Janes, even if white, will always get a raw deal. They’ll still have to pay for healthcare, guns will never be controlled, Monsanto will still control (genetically modified) seeds and profits will always come before the good of the people.

Bradley Manning will still be in prison, he’ll still be innocent and the truly guilty will still walk free and remain unaccountable for the worst of all crimes: Crimes against Humanity.

The Free World is Dead. It has been for a long time, but I fear that the worst is yet to come. Steadily and gradually, life on this planet is only getting worse. Unless you’re filthy f**king rich or just don’t give a s**t about anyone else.

We Are Not Free

July 25, 2013 at 7:35 pm

This morning I began reading ‘We‘, a Russian novel by Yevgeny Zamyatin completed in 1921. I’m only on Chapter 8, or Record 8 to be true to Zamyatin’s naming convention yet already I find myself deep in thought because of it. Just a little background then, it’s set in the distant future following a 200 year war in a country called OneState. Our main protagonist is called D-503, people are not given names as we know them but are designated numbers. George Orwell’s 1984 drew heavy influence from it, and so far there are a great deal many similarities.

The reason I got to thinking is that D-503 loves OneState and revels in its uniformity and lack of freedom. Their entire lives are timetabled, even sleep. What does it mean to be free though? We may read novels like ‘We‘ and ‘1984‘ and think how horrendous these worlds are and how far removed they are from our own existence. But are they really? Are we really free?

Think about industry. Why does the banking industry exist? Why do manufacturing industries exist? Why do large supermarket chains exist? Why do cars exist? Why does the Military Industrial Complex exist? Why does anything like that exist? We are all born in to a system whether we like it or not. We are all put in to an education system that discourages children from thinking outside of this system. The media bang the drum for this system. Every day of our lives we live and breathe this system. Any respite from this system is only temporary. There is no escape.

We are all stuck in this perpetual cycle of waking up, going to work, coming home, going to sleep until your mind and/or body can no longer compete with the energy and productivity of youth. When you go to work, what do you do? I mean what do you actually do? Does your work make a positive difference to the lives of others? Do you even remember what you did at work yesterday? Probably not. Because the industries we work in are large, vacuous empty spaces seeking to fill themselves with money, money and more money. But to what end? Purely for the pleasure of making more money. What do those with all the wealth do? Do they enjoy it? No, they hoard it. While we work 9-5 in a meaningless job trying to pay our mortgages, loans, credit cards, utility bills whilst also trying to have as much fun as possible.

In totalitarian, dystopian future worlds as in 1984 the people are unable to speak out against their systems or against injustice, yet we are. So surely we are free! Well, let me ask you something. If you told 100 people that you were unhappy with the system, how many of those would agree with you? How many of those would attempt to talk you out of your unhappiness and into acceptance? How many would laugh at you? Our governments have no need to severely restrict freedom of speech or thought because our media, be that TV, Radio, Print or Web, do a perfectly fantastic job of that for them. They guide the thoughts of society down a deep, dark alleyway. The only original thinking they revere is thinking that takes further into the abyss. If a person questions the system, they are shot down. Not with bullets or by the police (at least not openly). But with laughter, derision and ignorance.

The world that we live in is not one that fits with my definition of ‘free’. A bird is free, a cat is free, a shark is free but we are not free. We are products of a system that is unjust, unfair and actually pretty evil. It moulds us to accept a life rich in standard yet poor in quality. It moulds us into unknowing machines of industry, ready to carry out the orders of the elites and expand their wealth. We are all slaves to the elites and they know it and they love it. They exploit the natural human desire for self-improvement and competition for their own benefit and to our detriment.

We really do live in a Matrix, where most of the population sleepwalk through life never really questioning anything, trying to convince themselves that they are free. They may be happy with their lives, but they are not truly free, not like the birds anyway.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: