Click here to read the grid using ZERO EFFORT
[or scroll through the list below to browse all of the grid].

On intellectual freedom: something to challenge what most of us have been led to believe about 'language' and 'communication', and indeed the degree to which we have been led to disregard thought, erroneously, and a little bit on how little we actually know about the universe, eg the fact that the law of inertia is "of no known origin" (as Feynman put it) - nobody knows the reason why things coast forever. More on the Feynman another time, first, digest the Chomsky.

British police make statement declaring Britain a totalitarian state on matters of press freedom - former Tory Chancellor contradicts them.

Jeremy Corbyn vs the new Tory 'leader'.

Obedience, education and capitalism.

Owen Jones' capacity for learning seems weaker than I had imagined (and I hadn't thought much of him, so that's pretty awful).

Chomsky on "the future of capitalism".

The Blair-led Islamophobes use the pretence of 'anti-semitism', smearing all British muslims (the majority of whom are obviously incensed by Israeli genocide and apartheid), by association, with "anti-semitism" (other than uncle Tommohammeds whom they use as tokens to help them pretend they and their supporters are "not racist") and pandering to the Islamophobes Boris and the Tories and Farage have all pandered to, to win votes from white racist voters. Is Labour ready to pay the same price those guys are paying? This is the most strong and stable time in Labour's history, it seems. Does Corbyn want to risk letting Hodge, who voted to bomb Iraq under Blair, and those like her and Blair take away all that the Labour party has achieved?

Nick Clegg condemns Facebook's and Twitter's determination of what constitutes 'hate speech' as unfit for purpose and calls upon democracy to intervene.

The web of deceit that is 'the west' now faces "false false flags".

A speculation about Mark Field.

Sunday sermon: sobering thoughts from the adults across the pond.

If the USA armed the far right in Europe to slay many Europeans, and Americans militarily 'intervened' in Europe, supporting those 'troops' - would you blame the millions of British and European deaths on British and European people or on Americans?

Don't be distracted by grotesque pantomime, surgically resolve the systemic flaw.

"The psychology of leaders is a topic of little interest. The institutional factors that constrain their actions and beliefs are what merit attention." (Chomsky).

We're going to move the mountain.

<< It's time for this world of office-worker-proclaimed "professionals" to lose a good dose of their terminal arrogance. >> Just a few facts for you to dig into before the media roundups and other activity really kicks off on this site.

Another Branson scheme goes tits up.

Corbyn as messiah! His reputation died so that the ruling class can sin more!

The disillusionment of Abby Tomlinson? Let's hope so. Every good writer is one more to fight the idiots with.

When 'metoo' means "I also refuse to do anything about this nasty man who is manhandling, possibly assaulting a woman at this dinner engagement in front of us all".

To all the pseudo-intelligent 'well read' people who still find themselves going along with the blatantly false smears and attacks of every form on Corbyn I put one simple question to you?

Many left wing jews are not jews, opponent of Palestinian rights Momentum's Lansman feels. Only jews who agree with him are real jews, he clearly thinks, in that deranged way religious fundamentalists think.

Next, we'll need to address white collar criminals who attempt to pretend Corbyn and the movements supporting him victimise bankers and capitalists. For this Max Keiser's journalism can be very useful, not just that of left wing intellectual leaders like Alex Cockburn.

And if you want to be me, be me.

110 days of prison for young Israeli woman who refuses to commit genocide and wants to honour the memory of holocaust victims by not being like those who killed them.

So what have those who 'strategically' did not vote Corbyn at the general election to 'prevent Brexit' achieved?

The Grauniad pines still for its pre-Corbyn days of unchecked genocidal colonialism!

From the Good-old (doesn't Guard)ian: Hard Remain daily Corbyn smears, Jingoism for Women, Climate crisis, the horrific death of Mariam Moustafa in Nottingham. And in other news, some tory men in suits playing intellectually-dishonest disingenuous political and verbal tennis.

Guide for office workers, politicians and other special needs humans relating to the area of networked information phenomena, democratic media manifestations and how you can handle them for example if you are electioneering, cheating, lying, exploiting and want to avoid being fully exposed to large audiences as such.

The FAQ on FAQs: maybe it's almost time to take a small step for online debate.

"The complexity of language which you have to learn when you learn a language is almost entirely externalisation" (Chomsky).

Never let your opponent know what to really expect.

Just a quick one.

Jeremy Hunt condones 'sentiment' behind labelling London 'Londonistan'.

Science has demonstrated that your 'skin colour' or 'race' has zero link to your mind, your intelligence, etc.

Britain's virulent racism. If Rory Stewart wants to convince us he's not onside with the racists, he should talk about this problem. Well Rory? Are you a fake? Or can you do as Corbyn does and stand up to white British racism? Did your 'military' career only teach you cowardice or can you be a public servant who protects us?

A preliminary list of free news media sources of assorted types across assorted political spectra.

What is now Bangladesh was one of the richest parts of the world before the British arrived and deliberately destroyed its cotton industry. When India's Andaman islands were devastated by December's tsunami, who recalled that 80,000 political prisoners had been held in camps there in the early 20th-century, routinely experimented on by British army doctors? Perhaps it's not surprising that Hitler was an enthusiast, describing the British empire as an "inestimable factor of value", even if it had been acquired with "force and often brutality" (Milne).

Rory Stewart cannot escape his seemingly racist colonialist upbringing, no matter how much of a Tory Corbyn they try to sell him as!

Some Saturday Night entertainment. An extract from a collection of stories I'm working on called "Bob and the Quantum Leap" or "Bob and The Spacetime Traveller". Not sure yet. That old uncertainty principle, eh?

Some theory: << Impatience is how the counterpunch will ultimately beat you. >>

Something 'new', and a tad more streamlining.

Back by popular demand.

Scroll up and down titles on left and click to read debating points.
Quick reference:
[cow marketing has reserved this space;] [Crisps? Onions? Wizard.]
All grid points have the capacity for reference links and in time everything will be referenced more than in triplicate. All points have records of shadow points: showing all changes. Everything is open to rebuttal. If anyone has any factual basis for arguing with anything, all they have to do is present any facts at all which demonstrate their case. All rebuttals and support are welcome and treated fairly. The four boxes are: 1. facts, 2. thrust of resistance, 3. rational basis for removing resistance, 4. unification.   About Shams Pirani, the editor of TVhobo. Send email to grid@tvhobo.com

Point 43:

Thrust:


Direction of resistance:


Removal of resistance:


Unification:


References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 42: On intellectual freedom: something to challenge what most of us have been led to believe about 'language' and 'communication', and indeed the degree to which we have been led to disregard thought, erroneously, and a little bit on how little we actually know about the universe, eg the fact that the law of inertia is "of no known origin" (as Feynman put it) - nobody knows the reason why things coast forever. More on the Feynman another time, first, digest the Chomsky.

Thrust: (Much of this taken from my numberwang document, in the references below).

Here we have Chomsky shocking you with things you were blissfully unaware of, on the key topic of language, thought and communication:

<< A few things have remained pretty constant. One is that at the core of language there must be some generative procedure: recursive, compositional procedure >> Noam Chomsky tells us about the scientific endeavour over the last sixty years aiming to understand the nature of human language.

<< The second is that the field ought to be framed within a biological context. So we're interested in what's come to be called i-Language, internal individual language, viewed intentionally, we care about the actual system of rules, not just some class of objects you might enumerate. .. In the background is a concern to try to show how this biological system could have originated. What's misleadingly called 'evolution of language'. Of course it's misleading because languages don't evolve, but the language capacity, U.G. (universal grammar), does evolve, or must have evolved .. you can derive some surprising conclusions: one of them is that the output of the generative system yields the proper forms for semantic interpretation in quite complex structures .. so that means that what's generated is essentially a language of thought, maybe, I suspect, the only language of thought. The second conclusion is that externalisation .. is just an ancillary process, it's not part of the core of language. .. (these externalisations are) reflexes of the sensory motor system and the nature of the externalisation depends on which sensory motor system you're using .. the sensory motor system is not specifically adapted to language, it was apparently around hundreds of thousands of years before language suddenly emerged and there are many ways to map one to the other and it's a hard process and in fact what we find is that the complexity of language which you have to learn when you learn a language is almost entirely externalisation .. >>

<< A third conclusion is that most of the doctrines about the nature of language and related fields .. most of them are just flat wrong. There's a doctrine which is held virtually at the level of dogma. The way it's put is the function of language is communication. It's a kind of a curious notion because biological systems don't have functions. .. the dogma is that language, uniquely among biological systems, has a function and the function is communication, but if these first two conclusions are correct that has to be false because communication is based on externalisation and if externalisation is an ancillary property of language then communication is even more so. >>

As you now appreciate, the very basis of what our 'establishments' call knowledge, call reason, call logic, is shaky. It's worth mentioning a few other upsetting truths here also.


Direction of resistance: I think the following extracts from written material on Chomsky's site will give you yet more awareness of how much our ideas fall short of what the average human imagines our ideas to be.

<< One of the most profound insights into language and mind, I think, was Descartes's recognition of what we may call "the creative aspect of language use": the ordinary use of language is typically innovative without bounds, appropriate to circumstances but not caused by them - a crucial distinction - and can engender thoughts in others that they recognize they could have expressed themselves. Given the intimate relation of language and thought, these are properties of human thought as well. This insight is the primary basis for Descartes's scientific theory of mind and body. There is no sound reason to question its validity, as far as I am aware. Its implications, if valid, are far-reaching, among them what it suggests about the limits of human understanding, as becomes more clear when we consider the place of these reflections in the development of modern science from the earliest days. >>

<< The background is the so-called "mechanical philosophy" - mechanical science in modern terminology. This doctrine, originating with Galileo and his contemporaries, held that the world is a machine, operating by mechanical principles, much like the remarkable devices that were being constructed by skilled artisans of the day and that stimulated the scientific imagination much as computers do today; devices with gears, levers, and other mechanical components, interacting through direct contact with no mysterious forces relating them. The doctrine held that the entire world is similar: it could in principle be constructed by a skilled artisan, and was in fact created by a super-skilled artisan. The doctrine was intended to replace the resort to "occult properties" on the part of the neoscholastics: their appeal to mysterious sympathies and antipathies, to forms flitting through the air as the means of perception, the idea that rocks fall and steam rises because they are moving to their natural place, and similar notions that were mocked by the new science. >>

<< It is commonly believed that Newton showed that the world is a machine, following mechanical principles, and that we can therefore dismiss "the ghost in the machine," the mind, with appropriate ridicule. The facts are the opposite: Newton exorcised the machine, leaving the ghost intact. The mind-body problem in its scientific form did indeed vanish as unformulable, because one of its terms, body, does not exist in any intelligible form. Newton knew this very well, and so did his great contemporaries. >>

<< John Locke wrote that we remain in "incurable ignorance of what we desire to know" about matter and its effects, and no "science of bodies [that provides true explanations is] within our reach." Nevertheless, he continued, he was "convinced by the judicious Mr. Newton's incomparable book, that it is too bold a presumption to limit God's power, in this point, by my narrow conceptions." Though gravitation of matter to matter is "inconceivable to me," nevertheless, as Newton demonstrated, we must recognize that it is within God's power "to put into bodies, powers and ways of operations, above what can be derived from our idea of body, or can be explained by what we know of matter." And thanks to Newton's work, we know that God "has done so." The properties of the material world are "inconceivable to us," but real nevertheless. Newton understood the quandary. For the rest of his life, he sought some way to overcome the absurdity, suggesting various possibilities, but not committing himself to any of them because he could not show how they might work and, as he always insisted, he would not "feign hypotheses" beyond what can be experimentally established. >>

<< As the import of Newton's discoveries was gradually assimilated in the sciences, the 'absurdity' recognized by Newton and his great contemporaries became scientific common sense. The properties of the natural world are inconceivable to us, but that does not matter. The goals of scientific inquiry were implicitly restricted: from the kind of conceivability that was a criterion for true understanding in early modern science from Galileo through Newton and beyond, to something much more limited: intelligibility of theories about the world. This seems to me a step of considerable significance in the history of human thought and inquiry, more so than is generally recognized, though it has been understood by historians of science. >>

<< Honesty should lead us to concede, I think, that we understand little more today about these matters than the Spanish physician-philosopher Juan Huarte did 500 years ago when he distinguished the kind of intelligence humans shared with animals from the higher grade that humans alone possess and is illustrated in the creative use of language, and proceeding beyond that, from the still higher grade illustrated in true artistic and scientific creativity. Nor do we even know whether these are questions that lie within the scope of human understanding, or whether they fall among what Hume took to be Nature's ultimate secrets, consigned to "that obscurity in which they ever did and ever will remain." >>

I appreciate it's complex stuff, and there's a lot of context you need to spend more time reading about to entirely understand what even that much tells us about the state of 'science' in the west today, but once you enter the domain of quantum physics, it all falls apart completely - the universe, Richard Feynman tells us, at its core, essentially, is, in a word, "NUTTY". Yes, the universe is nutty. And he doesn't mean the kind squirrels enjoy. He means it's nuts. It's insane. "I don't understand it either," he informs his dumb but credulous audience, which laughs with joy at this stark stark truth.


Removal of resistance: And whilst I'm sure you need a rest from the head-fuck, I have to ensure I mention something about what Chomsky has told us about 'empiricism', which is very very important as far as I can see. He has told us: << Hume, for example, really did his best to show that his elementary principles concerning the acquisition of human knowledge were sufficient to cover an interesting class of cases and challenged his opponents to produce a legitimate "idea" that could not be derived from sense impression by his principles. There is a certain kind of ambiguity in his procedure here, since in part he seems to be engaged in a kind of scientific inquiry, trying to show that certain principles he proposed were in fact adequate to cover the crucial cases, while at other times he relies on these principles to demonstrate that some notion is "illegitimate," since it cannot be derived by them - an argument that rests on our accepting his not very plausible principles concerning the nature of the mind. Hume regarded the principle of inductive reasoning as a kind of "animal instinct," which would appear to be an empirical assumption. In modern versions, his assumptions have often been converted into dogma presupposed without serious effort to show them to be valid, or to reply to classical criticisms that were raised against these principles.

There is no reason to believe today that Hume's principles or anything resembling them are adequate to account for our "ideas" or our knowledge and beliefs, nor to think that they have any particular significance. There is no place for any a priori doctrine concerning the complexity of the brain or its uniformity as far as the higher mental functions are concerned. We must proceed to the investigation of the diverse cognitive structures developed normally by human beings in the course of their maturation and their relation to the physical and social environment, seeking to determine, as best we can, the principles which govern these cognitive structures. Once a certain understanding of the nature of these systems has been obtained, then we can reasonably study the basis on which they are acquired. In my opinion, the little that we know about these questions suggests that the mind, like the body, is in effect a system of organs - we could call them "mental organs" by analogy - that is to say, highly specific systems organized according to a genetic program that determines their function, their structure, the process of their development, in quite a detailed manner; the particular realization of these fundamental principles naturally depends on their interaction with the environment, as in the case of the visual system... If that is correct, the mind is a complex system of interacting faculties, which do not develop by means of uniform principles of "general intelligence"; it is constituted of "mental organs" just as specialized and differentiated as those of the body. >>


Unification: Most people are far more concerned about freedom of speech than about freedom of thought, and yet thought is much much much more important than speech and limitation of thought, unintentional and intentional both, as well as control of it and censorship of it and policing of it, these topics, starting with basic ways in which thought is limited by anyone or anything outside of you individually, should be of maximum interest to you and concern to you, whoever you are. And if you suspect that you won't digest or remember all the key points in this document unless you read it a few times, I have to admit I think you're probably onto something there.


References: http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 41: British police make statement declaring Britain a totalitarian state on matters of press freedom - former Tory Chancellor contradicts them.

Thrust: On the topic of Darroch, whom Craig Murray reminds us is a fully fledged war monger NATO git and pity for him is somewhat absurd, the police issued a statement ordering the press to follow totalitarian law set out arbitrarily by one random police officer rather than honouring Magna Carta and the freedoms afforded to us in our democracy. No need for a d-notice, the police officer feels, just basically do what the police officer (or perhaps any police officer ever) tells you, with no reference to law or judges or juries, or press freedom.


Direction of resistance: To be precise the officer said: << I would advise all owners, editors and publishers of social and mainstream media not to publish leaked government documents that may already be in their possession, or which may be offered to them, and to turn them over to the police or give them back to their rightful owner, Her Majesty's Government. >>


Removal of resistance: The Guardian tells us: << Osborne described the statement as "ill-advised .. If I were the Metropolitan police commissioner, and I wanted to maintain my credibility and the credibility of my force, I would quickly distance myself from this very stupid and ill-advised statement from a junior officer who doesn't appear to understand much about press freedom." >>


Unification: They inform us << Tim Shipman, political editor of the Sunday Times, criticised the "sinister, absurd, anti-democratic statement this evening threatening journalists with arrest for printing government leaks" >> and then tell us how Shipman then followed this with some racist remarks about Russia, essentially, ruining an otherwise good observation.

In short, British society is totally ignorant, police running around behaving like they own the country and we're all basically prisoners and have to do as they say. The police officer in question apparently doesn't realise that police officers are OUR SERVANTS and work for us, the public, and cannot arbitrarily make rules for us to obey. We, the people, make the rules, via our elected representatives. Leaks and whistleblowers are the cornerstone of democracy and without them our laws are meaningless - without the right to challenge and evolve, our laws are meaningless.

Meanwhile Galloway has pointed out (see youtube link below) that the entire political class is toasting the leaking and publishing which the police criticised, yet condemns Assange for having done exactly the same thing. Galloway's video certainly humiliates those islamophobes and other racists who stand by the genocide and war crimes of the USA under all its presidents in my lifetime.


References: https://www.theguardian.com/[..]-met-of-flouting-press-freedom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PQW4HETKtk
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/19/spying-on-julian-assange/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 40: Jeremy Corbyn vs the new Tory 'leader'.

Thrust: <<

I am proud to lead the Labour Party - the greatest political party and social movement in this country.

We all recognise that the issue of Brexit has been divisive in our communities and sometimes in our party too.

As democrats, Labour accepted the result of the 2016 referendum. In our 2017 manifesto, Labour also committed to oppose a No Deal Brexit and the Tories' Brexit plans - which threatened jobs, living standards, and the open multicultural society that we as internationalists value so much.

I want to pay tribute to Keir Starmer and the shadow Brexit team for holding the Government to account during this process. That helped secure a meaningful vote on their deal - which we then defeated three times - including inflicting the largest ever defeat on any Government. And following their refusal to publish their legal advice, this Government became the first to be held in contempt of Parliament.

Labour set out a compromise plan to try to bring the country together based around a customs union, a strong single market relationship and protection of environmental regulations and rights at work. We continue to believe this is a sensible alternative that could bring the country together.

But the Prime Minister refused to compromise and was unable to deliver, so we ended cross-party talks.

Now both Tory leadership candidates are threatening a No Deal Brexit - or at best a race to the bottom and a sweetheart deal with Donald Trump: that runs down industry, opens up our NHS and other public services to yet more privatisation, and shreds environmental protections, rights at work and consumer standards.

I have spent the past few weeks consulting with the shadow cabinet, MPs, affiliated unions and the NEC. I have also had feedback from members via the National Policy Forum consultation on Brexit.

Whoever becomes the new Prime Minister should have the confidence to put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote.

In those circumstances, I want to make it clear that Labour would campaign for Remain against either No Deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs.

Labour has a crucial, historic duty to safeguard jobs, rights and living standards. But no Brexit outcome alone can do that.

We need a general election. After nine years of austerity, too many people in this country cannot find decent secure well-paid work, and have to rely on public services that have been severely cut back.

Our country is ravaged by inequality and rising poverty, huge regional imbalances of investment, and the government is failing to tackle the climate emergency facing us all.

That is why we need a Labour government to end austerity and rebuild our country for the many, not the few.

>>


Direction of resistance: That's from Jeremy Corbyn's facebook page.


Removal of resistance: I have no idea how many readers out there will be exposed to much or any of those words via the mainstream media.


Unification: Corbyn has said what he has said. What happens to Britain now is in your hands, readers, voters and apathetic masses.


References: https://www.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/posts/10157471175078872
https://labourlist.org/2019/07/how-were-doing-corbynomics-in-jeremy-corbyns-own-backyard/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 39: Obedience, education and capitalism.

Thrust: Coming soon, to this space.


Direction of resistance: Mainly just a transcription of what Chomsky has to say about obedience and education and the relationship of both to commercial society and/or indeed "capitalism".


Removal of resistance: The transcription about education etc makes it easy to understand, with emotions and knee-jerk responses stripped away, what causes people to be like Owen Jones or Robert Webb or causes men like Donald Trump and women like Hillary Clinton to be 'elected' 'president' and women like Theresa May and men like Boris Johnson to be 'elected' 'Prime Minister'. The cause is the same, the root is the same and you can see from the Chomsky transcription coming to this spot soon very clearly why it is that these fairly stupid characters misguide a relatively stupid society ever onwards towards a now demonstrably near global meltdown - driven, ever more aggressively, by men like Trump and Johnson, indeed.

It also is the same thing which causes the easily led populations to chase after red herrings, divide themselves and intensify their self-destruction and entirely avoid in any way curbing the power of monster capitalism, if we may call it that (for what else is it?). It's why hyperconsumers are hyperconsumers. It is all easily explained in this analysis of Chomsky to come shortly (or watch the video below, right now).


Unification: It will take me a little time to transcribe the Chomsky as I haven't found any transcription online. It's slow work, is transcribing Chomsky. At least if you want to do it properly.


References:

"Oh they'll never get the bandit express"

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 38: Owen Jones' capacity for learning seems weaker than I had imagined (and I hadn't thought much of him, so that's pretty awful).

Thrust: The recent events concerning Chris Williamson, who 'claimed' to some extent that the 'anti-semitism' smears thrown at the Labour party are disingenuous and need to be faced responsibly and called out for what they are, has been followed by Owen Jones toeing the (Blair-and-Thatcher)-party line and 'telling off' Williamson etc.

Chomsky points out << "The charges against Chris Williamson are a case in point. There is nothing even remotely anti-semitic in his statement that Labour has 'given too much ground' and been 'too apologetic' in defending its record of addressing 'the scourge of anti-semitism' beyond that of any other party, as he himself had done, on public platforms and in the streets. >>


Direction of resistance: Jones has learned nothing at all from the ("numberwang") document in the references below even though it has been around for months already, the opening very clear and pertinent and capable of educating Jones - and whilst hundreds, maybe thousands of people have accessed it and read at least part of it, Jones, whether he has read any of it or not (I'd definitely bet not), has learned nothing from it.


Removal of resistance: Over a period of months, Jones, in an average/normal set of (however many) months, is presumably going around in circles patting himself on the back regularly for being so wonderful, never learning one single thing, just constantly improving his ability to put on a neoliberal play-act.


Unification: In fact, reader, in a period of a few months almost all of you should be aiming, almost all of the time, to progress, develop, learn, evolve. For people like Jones it seems that 'progress' really means nothing but 'take take take' (from the world). 'Giving' to the world is never seen as 'progress' to such materialistic base minds. Thus learning is something they never feel naturally inclined towards. Your presence, as a reader, at the end of this paragraph, particularly if you reached it by starting at the beginning and journeying along the words all the way, shows you are at least slightly different to those, like Jones, who seem designed to never learn. No need to post references to his attacks on Williamson. I'm sure the popular corporate media will spread the links far and wide and you'll easily find em if you look!

Jones 'attacks' Williamson, an anti-racist, because Jones wants to be seen (by neoliberals and corporatists) to be 'right', whereas Jones would, I suspect, never dare to call Yochanan Gordon racist. Who is Yochanan and why is Jones likely to be afraid that if he calls Yochanan racist he, Jones, will 'suffer', the way Williamson is suffering? This, from my numberwang article:

<<<

<< The Times of Israel is under fire on Friday after publishing a blog post titled 'When Genocide Is Permissible.' The post, written by Yochanon Gordon, was quickly removed from the Times' website, but cached and screen-captured versions of the piece quickly proliferated on social media. >>

The racist blogger wrote: << Hamas has stated forthrightly that it idealizes death as much as Israel celebrates life. What other way then is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than obliterate them completely? >> (I wonder what the average westerner would feel about that argument's being used in relation to the damage the USA, the UK and much of western Europe has done to the world, for centuries?!!)

Finally this Israeli then declares << If political leaders and military experts determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide is it then permissible to achieve those responsible goals? >> (I guess that's what the terrorists who bomb westerners feel they are doing when they commit Israeli-style genocide in Britain, France, the U.S. etc).

>>>

Will Owen Jones make any kind of loud noise about the genocidal racism of Gordon? Nope. I doubt he ever has or will. Yet if attacking Williamson, an anti-racist, will help Jones' career, there he is in the front line, throwing stones at a good man.

Go over the links relating to Chris Williamson in the references below, and digest the Chomsky quote, and you'll find Labour MPs and writers like Owen Jones who insult Holocaust victims by pretending that Chris Williamson is 'anti-semitic' in any way ought to be utterly ashamed of their rancid racist behaviour. That means YOU Yvette Cooper and Stella Creasy, you racist women. Resign right now, you disgusting racists. Your rancid racism is unacceptable. STELLA CREASY, YVETTE COOPER (and plenty of others, but you two really should just get on and resign, you obviously never intend to serve the public) IT IS YOUR TURN TO RESIGN FROM PARLIAMENT - YOU DO NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC. RESIGN NOW. READ THIS: The Blair-led Islamophobes use the pretence of 'anti-semitism', smearing all British muslims (the majority of whom are obviously incensed by Israeli genocide and apartheid), by association, with "anti-semitism" (other than uncle Tommohammeds whom they use as tokens to help them pretend they and their supporters are "not racist") and pandering to the Islamophobes Boris and the Tories and Farage have all pandered to, to win votes from white racist voters. Is Labour ready to pay the same price those guys are paying? This is the most strong and stable time in Labour's history, it seems. Does Corbyn want to risk letting Hodge, who voted to bomb Iraq under Blair, and those like her and Blair take away all that the Labour party has achieved.

And then resign. Because you are unfit for the office you have been given by the people's consent only.


References: Read this, Jones: http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/chomsky-speaks-out-against-the-attacks-on-chris-williamson


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q3MkjqLDnLn2Ii5pp7__J-AQ83_aK0NX/view/
https://off-guardian.org/2019/07/09/guardian-deletes-open-letter-defending-chris-williamson/
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jul/08/jewish-support-for-chris-williamson
https://skwawkbox.org/[..]hatchet-job-is-embarrassingly-thin-misdirection

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 37: Chomsky on "the future of capitalism".

Thrust: <<<

Q: Question about the future of capitalism.

Chomsky: The general future of capitalism?



Q: Yeah.

Chomsky: first of all we should bear in mind that capitalism is a bit of a myth. We don't really have capitalist societies. We have state capitalist societies and the state has always played an essential central role in development and extension of the capitalist system, so that goes back to England in the 17th century and all the way through the history of development.

But let's just take the recent period, so take today's high-tech economy. Take your iPhone. If you take your iPhone and you take the technology - take it apart and it turns out that almost everything comes from the state sector. The GPS was developed by the Navy, the electronics was developed in military labs. You know: everything. The computer that's in front of you. The computers began to be developed in the 1950s, actually in a large part in the lab where I happened to be working. It wasn't until 1977 that Apple was able to produce a computer that could be marketed for profit - that's after about 30 years of research and development in the state sector.

Now suppose we had capitalist societies, one of the principles of capitalism is supposed to be that if you invest in something, especially if you invest to make a risky costly investment over say 30 years, and there's some profit that comes out, it's supposed to go back to you.

But our system doesn't work like that: it goes to Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos. The public pays the costs through various devices, the university labs and so on and then after many years something is handed over to the private corporations and they make the profit. Same with the internet. The beginnings of the internet were in the late 1950s actually in same lab where I was working at MIT that began thinking about the internet and it developed over decades within the government system, meaning taxpayer support. Finally around 1995 the public made a gift simply a gift to private corporations to say ok you guys can have the internet that we developed. Now we have the half a dozen huge mega corporations which run the Internet. It's a public gift, you know.

And in fact across the board that's the way it is: it's the same if you go back to the 19th century when what was called the American system of production developed and kind of amazed the world. You know: mass production, quality control, interchangeable parts. Most of it was developed in government armouries. That's where you can do experimentation you can you can make investments for the long term. Private corporations don't do that, they want to make profit tomorrow not invest for what might happen in 30 years, and that's in fact the entire history of development of what we call capitalism and its current function.

If you look at the present: take the people who are saying we have to have a small government and devote ourselves to the market, just look at how they live. There are huge public subsidies, government subsidies, to every major sector of the economy: agribusiness, energy, finance - they're all heavily publicly subsidised. That's okay. That's a "proper function" of the government just not pensions and security and health and "irrelevant" things like that.

So that's what's called capitalism but it's a very specifically shaped and designed form of capitalism. So can that survive? Well it certainly shouldn't survive and I think that can be changed. In fact the public wants it to be changed.

So again if you take a look, the United States is a very heavily polled society mainly because business wants to know what people think and it's important so we know a lot about people's attitudes. One thing we know is that across the spectrum people want much higher taxes on the rich but the taxes keep going down. In fact those results usually aren't even reported. That of even people who are considered very right-wing, tea party let's say - if you take a look at their actual attitudes they're more or less social democratic.

People say yeah we want a very small government but we want more expenditures in health and education and support for people who can't feed their children and so on but just a small government but all the things that a big government does - in fact even attitudes on things like foreign foreign aid are very interesting like in the polls about foreign aid everyone says it's way too high, we're giving everything away to the undeserving foreigners. But when you ask them what foreign aid should be it's just about about ten times as high as it actually is you know because - these are the results of extensive propaganda systems which indoctrinate people into having certain conceptions. You know: everybody's stealing from us, the poor are taking away, the government's putting the poor in front of us, immigrants are flooding the country. Take, say, immigration: huge concern about immigration in the United States you know Mexican rapists and criminals. Almost half the immigration is from Asia: educated trained people who are being brought in to help develop the high-tech economy. It's about 40% of the immigrants. It's not what people hear, you know. What they hear is something that doesn't exist. Mexican criminals.

But it's it's pretty much the same in Europe so for example in fact it is very striking, I mentioned the other day the latest elections in Europe were in Sweden a couple of weeks ago which again the right-wing did get a much higher percentage in everyone wanted which is a frightening development but there was a careful study of the rise of the right in Sweden and what it showed was very interesting and generalises. Turns out that the rise of the right in Sweden was before the wave of immigrants: it was a reaction of people who were basically cast aside by the abandonment of the social democratic policies as the government including the Social Democratic so-called left began to move towards the so-called austerity programs. People know the mass of the population was left out.

Some people do fine you know they get rich - the elites, as they're called. So what most of the people see is: those guys up there are doing fine and I'm left out so I object and I'm gonna respond by voting for the Nationalist xenophobic party. That was before the wave of immigrants once the immigrants come in they serve as a convenient scapegoat and so it's their fault it's not the fault of the corporations up there, we don't see them.

Finland, the same study showed, has the same rise in the right-wing parties but they have almost no immigration. If you take a look at the United States it's quite interesting - the 2016 election - there have been extensive studies of why people voted for Trump and almost all the studies say it's racism and sexism which is not false but the question is why did these attitudes emerge and if you look back they emerge from people who were left out who have been stagnating for forty years even worse: wages declining, benefits declining, organisation declining, those are communities that are ripe for a demagogue who can blame everything on a scapegoat.

The racism is there undoubtedly, misogyny is there, xenophobia is there and it comes out of the bottle when people are angry and resentful and don't know where to turn to for explanation for their plight. I think the source of a lot of this is simply the neoliberal policies of the last generation which were designed. They're not a law of nature, you know, they're designed to have certain consequences which they have and one of them is leaving the mass of the population as what's sometimes called a precariat: people living precarious existences, no security, pensions aren't coming, no organisation, [..] who are going to look for somebody responsible and the easiest place to look is people who are even more vulnerable than you are and so it shows up in these dangerous antisocial attitudes.

The decline of democracy is a consequence and in fact a desired consequence of the policies that were instituted: they overcome what was called "the crisis of democracy", "too much democracy". So now yes we've succeeded in reducing the crisis of democracy with the consequences that follow from that.



Q: How about the resistance? You said this system will not survive like this. Can't.

Chomsky: Yes, impossible for a reason we haven't discussed. There are two huge crises growing one of them we know about the nuclear threat. If you look at the history of the nuclear age it's an absolute miracle that we have survived. If there was time we could go through it but case after case dozens of times sometimes by accident mostly by accident, sometimes by reckless acts of leaders we came literally within minutes of terminal destruction. Literally. Some of the cases are shocking when you look at them and miracles don't continue, so sooner or later we'll manage and destroy ourselves.

The other is global warming which is very serious. I mean if the use of fossil fuels continues at anything remotely like the present level, by the end of this century let's say we might see sea level rising 6 to 10 metres. You can just imagine what that would mean. Plus what we already see severe weather: droughts, hurricanes, typhoons, all escalating and it already has big effects. Like the the Syrian war for example: at one of its roots is an unprecedented drought, nothing (like it) in hundreds of thousands of years of history. Huge drought surely the result of global warming which drove peasants off the land into the cities. No way for them to survive. It creates a kind of a kindling which any spark will set off, it's part of the background for the conflicts that arose.

The same happened in Darfur: the huge drought drove nomads into the agricultural areas and there's also ethnic conflict there, and that immediately led to conflict and confrontation, ended up with big massacres. These things are not are not just the future, we're living with at beginnings of them take a look at Bangladesh which is mostly a coastal plain, the sea level starts rising. What's going to happen to hundreds of millions of people?

If the glaciers keep melting in the Himalayas the already meagre water supply in South Asia is going to be severely threatened. Right now there are several hundred million people in India who do not have potable water. We're taught in Pakistan it's going to be even worse.

I mean we're talking about the fate of hundreds of millions of people in the near future.

The rich may think they can escape by going to a mountain somewhere but that's not going to happen. And the policies that are being pursued are to escalate the problem - it's not just Trump, take a look at the big banks. Take a look at the JPMorgan Chase huge banks they know exactly what the consequences are and they're increasing their investments in fossil fuels. That's the nature of capitalism. As I said its we have a mixed form of capitalism but there is a market system underlying it somewhere and an imperative of the market system is that you try to make maximal profit tomorrow and you disregard what are called externalities. The things that are not charted. And if you don't do that you're out of the game. It's part of the structure of the system. So Jamie Dimon who's a smart guy, head of JP Morgan Chase, understands perfectly well the consequences but nevertheless is compelled by the logic of the institutions to maximise the threat to his own grandchildren. He may not like it, maybe on the side he gives money to the Sierra Club, environmental groups, but functioning within the system they're destroying the possibility for organised life.

That is nothing that you can put band-aids on. This is much deeper. Then of course the Trump administration that's just the worst by far. We ought to have big headlines and the newspapers every day saying these guys are trying to destroy the possibility of organised human life and if you think about it honestly there's been nothing in all of human history to compare with this not a Atilla the Hun not Genghis Khan not Hitler.

Horrible as they were they never tried to destroy organised human life. This is something new. There's no word to describe it: evil doesn't capture it. Insanity doesn't capture it because it's not insane it's planned, and conscious and part of the very logic of the system in which they work.

Now of course with Trump and his associates they're trying to extend it make it worse. That's not part of the logic of the system - the system could function with palliative efforts as Obama in fact was doing and most of the world is doing. Not enough but at least something, but it's a very deep problem. It's like class hatred in Brazil. This is deep, you can't put a bandaid on it. It's fundamental things that have to be dealt with.



Q: How about resistance, the movements against capitalism, against those things?



Chomsky: that's the encouraging part of the story: all over the world there is a resistance. So the most popular political figure in the United States by a considerable margin is Bernie Sanders which is kind of unthinkable in the framework of American political history. It's never happened in American political history that somebody like Sanders could become even noticed let alone become the most popular political figure in the country. Now just think of what happened. You have to recognise that American elections are literally bought: you can you can predict the outcome of elections with remarkable precision simply by looking at campaign funding, Executive and Congress.

Goes back well over a hundred years, now here's somebody who entered the campaign virtually unknown. No media support. Barely mentioned if the media mentioned him they just made fun of him you know. No support. Zero from any of the funders. No corporate support. No support from private wealth. He even used what in the United States is a kind of four-letter word. The United States is I suppose the only country in the world outside of maybe some dictatorship where you can't say the word socialism, let alone communism: it's just unspeakable. You know it's literally a four-letter word: he said he was a socialist.

Socialist really means New Deal Democrats, doesn't mean anything very profound but with all of that he came very close to winning the nomination for the Democrats.



Q: you are for Hillary at that time?



Chomsky: No. After the nomination yes. But that's not for Hillary that's against Trump. That's something quite different she was awful. But if Sanders had been able to win the nomination frankly I don't know what would have happened because the Republican propaganda machine which had not been directed against Sanders and which is huge, corporate backed, fantastic. It would be directed against Sanders and what you'd start hearing is things about this atheist Jew communist wants to destroy everything a ton of stuff like that. He probably probably couldn't have withstood it - but so it's kind of unpredictable but that's what certainly would have happened. How people would react to that you really don't know.

You can see it in England right now, the attack on Corbyn. I mean there's an enormous fear including the Labour party you know the old Labour Party, the Guardian: you know the idea that you might have a political party that actually represents the general public and its interests and suffering people abroad and is led by a decent human being. That's totally intolerable so you have this enormous attack of the kind you can't defend yourself against like anti-semitism you say somebody's a Holocaust denier and anti-semite - there's no defence basically. And it's just across the board: a huge attack on Corbyn and the Labour Party and that's the kind of thing you would have seen if Sanders (had won) - you know. They'd pick a little differently but anti-israel, you know all this huge propaganda which is so familiar you can just make it up - so there's a lot to overcome but what the Sanders campaign showed and what the Corbyn success shows is that you can do quite a lot.

Sanders and Yanis Varoufakis just came out with a joint declaration, that's very important I think. Varoufakis is a very smart interesting guy - he is the centre of this new political organisation diem25, which is in fact running candidates, transnational candidates for the European Parliament and ultimately in the Greek elections and later other ones - which is a kind of a counterpart to Corbyn and Sanders and the Varoufakis Sanders declaration a couple of days ago is you know it's not radical it's calling for sensible multipolar and Liberal Democratic structures. It wants in Europe to preserve what's good about the European Union and to overcome the serious flaws, the same in the Western Hemisphere and things like the Obrador election in Mexico, another example.

So I think if you look around the world and the [. just plain.] level of activism mainly among young people which is quite surprising, striking. I think it's much higher almost than it's ever been, except for a few few brief moments - 1968 there's a brief spike but this is lasting, so I think the basis is sort of there, if it can be brought together and organised.

>>>


Direction of resistance: I took a particularly poor transcription of that and cleaned it up. Hopefully cleaned now.


Removal of resistance: I suggest you read it a few times over since the material it contains is all pretty seriously fundamental to the survival of you and anyone you "love".


Unification: I will take key extracts from it and summarise much of its content to aid and abet education of people, asap, in what Chomsky is saying in the above interview. Watch the whole extract on youtube via the link in the references below, if you prefer.


References: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkcDT4l7e4o
http://show.tvhobo.com/?1.x.3

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 36: The Blair-led Islamophobes use the pretence of 'anti-semitism', smearing all British muslims (the majority of whom are obviously incensed by Israeli genocide and apartheid), by association, with "anti-semitism" (other than uncle Tommohammeds whom they use as tokens to help them pretend they and their supporters are "not racist") and pandering to the Islamophobes Boris and the Tories and Farage have all pandered to, to win votes from white racist voters. Is Labour ready to pay the same price those guys are paying? This is the most strong and stable time in Labour's history, it seems. Does Corbyn want to risk letting Hodge, who voted to bomb Iraq under Blair, and those like her and Blair take away all that the Labour party has achieved?

Thrust: Jeremy Corbyn, and others whom it may concern, I have been reading grid point 21: << Many left wing jews are not jews, opponent of Palestinian rights Momentum's Lansman feels. Only jews who agree with him are real jews, he clearly thinks, in that deranged way religious fundamentalists think >> and I have just seen something - a HUGE danger to YOU - which you cannot see as you are inside the box and I can as I am an outsider - I may vote for Corbyn's Labour but I am 'not Labour' - I am 'anarchist' and 100% unpartisan, will probably never join any party, not even Labour, probably.


Direction of resistance: So this is it - the Tories display their Islamophobia in order to prove themselves to the voters they want.


Removal of resistance: LABOUR's false 'anti-semitism' scandal is actually definitely driven by a need by that part of Labour's desire to appease the same voters. Their version of abusing muslims is deeming all muslims anti-semites, by assocation, other than a few Uncle Tomohammeds like Chukkka the British mini-Obama (without the pzazz).

The reason they cluelessly do this without realising they are going to suffer the same problems the Tories have for being so Islamophobic is that they use Saudi Arabia as their 'muslim friend' to demonstrate (and kid themselves) that they are 'allies' of muslims - whilst unconsciously demonising and hating just about all British muslims, most of whom find Saudi Arabia's imperialism as vile as they find Israel's, just as the most intelligent and ethical British jews find Israel's imperialism as vile as Saudi Arabia's. The only muslims Blair's mob really deals with on 'equal terms', as with the Tories (the same muslims) are the ones who are xenophobic, imperialist and hated by most other muslims!

This may be 'amusing to watch' - as people like Blair and Hodge destroy their own careers, but think about what it means for Labour to be a party which many still want to appeal to the Islamphobes whom Johnson and Hunt have fully appealed to (Hunt's support of Trump's remarks were, perhaps, hoping to please many of those white men I meet who tell me, in any political discussion, that Britain is being taken over by muslims and there's sharia law all over the country).

In the longrun this could have as devastating consequences for Labour as it clearly will have for the Tories, assuming it hasn't already - I mean we don't know how much the general election will savage the racist Tory party.


Unification: So to repeat, and clarify, and sum up: the racist members of Labour want to appeal to the SAME vote that the Islamophobic Tories do - the antisemitism fiasco is even more disingenuous than I realised. They are doing it precisely because it 'proves' to lots of white racists that they too hate muslims, but they do so in a way which is 'unovert' and thus many oblivious white middle class people and white working class people who are unsuspecting can go along with it, supporting Blair-Labour's rampant Islamophobia. The Harvey Weinstein jewish hollywood grooming gang thought experiment demonstrates clearly who the rampant Islamophobes in Labour are. Anyway readers, maybe this map of what is in front of me and what you are stuck inside can help you a little. The answer is there - they are electioneering and seeking the Islamophobic vote when they call you 'anti-semitic'.

The trouble is, what will THAT cost Labour in the longrun? Look what Islamophobia really costs the Tories. Look at the real costs. Corbyn or no Corbyn, Labour is at risk of paying that price too, within surely not much more time than the Tories have taken to implode under the pressure to bow to racists whilst attempting to be respected in a diverse global economy at a time when global technology and global integration is at its peak with respect to all of human history so far.

If Britain's governments and institutions, left, right and centre, are to be sincerely respected by the world community, society has to evolve and it has to become the case that having a Parliament overflowing with Islamophobes in government and opposition is no longer something which could happen in this country. Any pretence by the world of respect for Britain is just that. Until the day our MPs are people who respect all humans across the globe and all humans inside Britain, regardless of 'tinge'. Only racists, or those entirely guided by racists, call Corbyn racist. That is the overarching fact. Beyond all reasonable doubt.


References: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-islamophobia-[..]-a8971731.html
http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48778129 (Stella Creasy makes it very clear that she supports the Islamophobes and will carry on doing so until she is deselected or beaten at the ballot. Londoners should show her the door at the election.)(I had hoped that the lessons Corbyn has taught Britain would teach Creasy to stop pandering to Islamophobes and stop being as racist as she pretends Williamson is. A vain hope. Any belief I had that I should not call for the resignation of Creasy is 100% eliminated. Resign, you racist Creasy. You are exactly what you pretend Williamson is.)

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 35: Nick Clegg condemns Facebook's and Twitter's determination of what constitutes 'hate speech' as unfit for purpose and calls upon democracy to intervene.

Thrust: In an article in the Telegraph Nick Clegg has admitted that Twitter and Facebook mislead people with their categorisations of 'hate speech'.


Direction of resistance: I was posting this a lot on twitter, in response to idiots, in different forms, not always exactly the same words: << The sincerity of those who claim to mourn the holocaust of jews a century ago is not real if such people are silent about the genocides committed by the USA, Europe and Israel THIS century, THIS decade, THIS year, THIS week, THIS morning, THIS minute. >>

And in one conversation which then unfolded with a racist who hates muslims and non white people and supports Israel's genocide and the USA's - I called him rude names, like dipshit.

He 'reported' my account to twitter and for 24 hours the two-hourly tweet exposure dropped from 2000 to a mere 100.


Removal of resistance: Some people, you see, can only 'win' an argument by making sure nobody hears what their opponent is saying.


Unification: << The former deputy Prime Minister, who now heads Facebook's global affairs team, claimed that there was a "pressing need" to introduce new "rules of the road" to determine appropriate use of user data, as well as what counts as hate speech. >>

Meanwhile, readers, do not expect Facebook or Twitter to act in democratic and honest ways, they will continue to breach the spirit of the law with reference to your rights as a consumer.

Take a look at the extracts (in "fritter.pdf") in the references to read about 30 examples of what Twitter claims is 'hate speech' by me, for which they 'temporarily' disabled some of my account features (in response I have deleted my account, a recently opened one, and will not ever use Twitter again - I used it for less than 2 weeks, during which time I was abused and my abusers protected by twitter). The guy "Richard" who had me "policed" by twitter was, only yesterday, gloating at having been blocked by Matt Lucas. That's the kind of guy he is. The things Twitter has called hate speech include expressions of defiance against a bully, perfectly reasonable ones, as you will see - have a read of the extract in the references below. With reference to 'fritter.pdf' (Richard M, 'days are gone' - the guy proud about being blocked by Matt Lucas) if you're wondering what I was talking about I brought up the fact that I write powerful trading algorithms and that the racist guy would never be able to beat me in a fair fight on a trading floor even if he could repeatedly have me silenced by Twitter in his virtual life computer game style usage of Twitter (I use trading platforms with the same skill he uses Twitter).

The truth is that until democracies take the action against Twitter's and Facebook's flaws and failures those sites are not really the same for you if you are non-white or a white anti-racist compared with what it is for white racists. It is actually a 'safe space' for white racists. This is why if you are not white or are white and anti-racist I strongly suggest you permanently boycott both sites, or boycott them to whatever extent is possible without reducing contact with those you actually want to keep in contact with that way. Try to stick to real world contact with all people, I suggest.


References: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/06/24/facebook-cant-left-alone-deal-fake-news-hate-speech-nick-clegg/
http://grid.tvhobo.com/fritter.pdf (that's the pdf showing twitter breaking the law, pretending I have said 'hateful' things when I unhatefully rebutted someone spreading hate speech against left wing jews, muslims and anyone who criticises Israeli war crimes).
http://dembones.tvhobo.com is a page on which I charted facebook's failures, and sent that material to Clegg - his statement reported in the Telegraph came only weeks after that, as you can see, so that shows some degree of decency on his part, but not a lot. Then again, who can actually go through every case like mine and look at the white racist abuse against me and others truthfully and deal with it - there are millions of white racists doing this every hour of the day. They cannot manage it. The truth is that they will not fix it - this fatal flaw will sooner or later lead to the full demise of facebook and twitter as web sites and companies. Today, for example, Twitter permanently lost a user who reaches 100s of 1000s of readers!! ie me.
Again with reference to "fritter.pdf", If you're wondering what he had asked which led me to say that thing about Hitler and Mainwaring, he asked why Palestinians carry out 'violent' resistance against their nazi occupier, the way the English did when Rome invaded and when Hitler was about to invade. He didn't refer to them as Palestinians or talk of resistance - he asked why 'Hamas wants to kill Israelis'. Anyway, this is my opportunity to escape the cycle of social media usage!
I wonder if you, reader, will ever escape from that cycle. Currently I cannot use facebook either, still, so the habit of non-social-media-usage is regaining ground. I used twitter as a kind of facebook substitute for a few days, but it's time to go cold turkey!

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 34: The web of deceit that is 'the west' now faces "false false flags".

Thrust: Counterpunch tells us: << Even if its ostensible European and Asian friends capitulate to them - as they are doing, despite their professions of solidarity - Iran is not going to discuss or negotiate or live under crippling sanctions imposed by the US. It is going to act against them. It's done seeking relief from its completely untrustworthy besieger through infinitely regressive talks. It's determined not to talk about the siege, but to break it. >>


Direction of resistance: They warn: << Iran is now going to act in ways that require Europe and Japan either to put up right quick about their promises to defy US sanctions and abide by their commitments in the JCPOA, or to shut up, watch Iran fight back, and pay the consequences. It is telling the US and the Trump administration that it better back off on the sanctions, or face Iran's version of "maximum pressure." >>


Removal of resistance: I don't think any commentators are really ready for what will happen if Iran does, in the end, decide to 'fight to the death' against the white supremacist imperial forces which plague so much of the world.


Unification: So I won't try to predict it myself. Other than to say we should blatantly do what we can to prevent that - ie we should force the USA to 'make peace' with Iran, and force Israel to do the same, obviously (can't do one without the other).

How to 'force' Israel to do anything? Well, we'll have to find a way, won't we? Or maybe we'll all die. The ingredients in the saucepan are deadly, and the heat is on.


References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/24/eve-of-destruction-iran-strikes-back/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 33: A speculation about Mark Field.

Thrust: In the room, he was there, and only those in it who weren't in his way were in it - this is my theory. For some reason it was some (perhaps one of many, regular) good moment for him, some new small 'victory' within the private sphere of his work and play.


Direction of resistance: And then some 'stupid woman' came and was ruining it and he had to remove her.


Removal of resistance: Normally, within that sphere, since totalitarianism is essentially the law INSIDE any corporation or similar private grouping of people, his way of removing obstacles was, through words and financial actions (hirings and firings, snubbings and social beatings - among himself and all present there - all subject to the same jungle law, totalitarian law inside the world of private concentrated power) exactly what we saw turned into physical action.


Unification: In other words, for the simple, he overlooked the fact that the activist was not one of his 'tribe' and treated her by internal tribal rules instead of those genuinely acceptable to extra-tribal 'law' (the spirit of our laws and the unspoken morality of people everywhere, albeit outside of corporations and totalitarian frameworks like them).

Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe, as the Blues Traveler music group sings, I'm right. We all know that inside the average 'big company' the display of brutal forceful control we saw in Mark Field is part of the environment every day - not of being physically removed (although 'security' CAN do that to you any time, of course, ANY OF YOU who may work in such places) but financially and hierarchically controlled. There's always someone above you, and what they say is law. Field reminded us of that. Those still trapped in the corporate world, my sincere condolences to you. I hope you are well. Drop in when you get out - whenever you're finally free. Assuming you have no time before then ever - which is a fair assumption. One only needs to be a mathematician to be very clear on that.

I gather Mark Field has claimed that he was scared of terrorists. That's right Mark, instead of admitting "I overreacted and committed an unnecessary violent physical act on a harmless individual" stick to the whole "what happened here today is the fault of Muslims, and Jeremy Corbyn" line. Who would disbelieve you?

Reader, in the link below from "Conservative Friends of Israel" you can see Mark Field telling Hamas to "renounce violence". Mark, I feel YOU need to renounce violence. Violent men like Mark are the vanguard of those who 'defend' Israel and its immoral and illegal violence, reader. Take a good look at Conservative Friend of Israel Mark Field. He embodies the values of the Israeli state today, of Trump, of Netanyahu - his violence against that Greenpeace activist, which he then blamed on muslims, the way the Israeli state blames its violence on muslims. You are an utter numpty, Mark. Renounce your violence.


References: https://cfoi.co.uk/fco-minister-mark-field-hamas-must-renounce-violence-and-recognise-israel/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 32: Sunday sermon: sobering thoughts from the adults across the pond.

Thrust: Kenn Orphan writes: << Thousands of socialists and leftists were marched into stadiums in Chile in the 1970s and gunned down, tortured, or disappeared in a country with a much smaller military than the US. Between 1965 and 1966, at least a million communists, or those believed to be communists, were hunted down and brutally murdered in Indonesia by rightwing death squads and the police. And millions of Jews, Roma, communists, homosexuals and the disabled were persecuted, rounded up and sent to concentration camps in the 1930s and 40s in Germany and Nazi occupied countries, where most perished at a time when many ordinary people thought "the logistics" of doing something like that were too "enormous" to be fathomed, much less carried out. And each atrocity was preceded by the rise of a pernicious fascism and the language of dehumanization by leaders. >>


Direction of resistance: The neoliberals may remain in denial but you reader ought to heed Orphan's warning: << One thing history has proven is that mass atrocity can be committed with few people, with great efficiency at a moment's notice, little technology, and with shocking approval or the complacence of the majority of ordinary people. But it must first be normalized. To be sure, if a people can tolerate dehumanizing language of entire groups by its leader, and the utterly sadistic policy of ripping children from the arms of their parents and putting them in cages, or pregnant women being shackled to beds, or the torture of non-violent LGBTQ and mentally ill migrants via solitary confinement for days, or militias working in tandem with government agencies to round up unarmed migrants, or a government prosecuting those who provide water and shelter to other human beings in desperate need, it is certainly capable of tolerating, or even applauding, even worse monstrous depravity. And without a doubt, we are only one absurd tweet away from that potential nightmare. >>


Removal of resistance: And let us not forget, and repeat as often as necessary, what neoliberalism really is, what it is precisely that we are attacking:

<<

Let me begin by saying something about liberalism, which is a very complicated concept, I think. It's correct, surely, that liberalism grew up in the intellectual environment of empiricism and the rejection of authority, and trust in the evidence of the senses, and so on. However, liberalism has undergone a very complex evolution as a social philosophy over the years. If we go back to the classics, or at least, what I regard as the classics, say, for example, Humboldt's limits of state action which inspired Mill and is a true libertarian, liberal classic, if you like. The world that Humboldt was considering--which was partially an imaginary world--but the world for which he was developing this political philosophy, was a post-feudal but pre-capitalist world.

That it was a world in which there was no great divergence among individuals in the kind of power that they had, and what they command, let's say. But there was a tremendous disparity between individuals, on one hand, and the state on the other. Consequently, it was the task of a liberalism that was concerned with human rights, and the quality of individuals, and so on. It was the task of that liberalism to dissolve the enormous power of state, which was such an authoritarian threat to individual liberties. And from that, you develop a classical liberal theory in, say, Humboldt's or Mill's sense. Well, of course, that is pre-capitalist. He couldn't conceive of an era in which a corporation would be regarded as an individual, or in which enormous disparities in control over resources and production would distinguish between individuals in a massive fashion. Now, in that kind of society, to take the Humboldtian view is a very superficial liberalism. Because while opposition to state power in an era of such divergence conforms to Humboldt's conclusions, it doesn't do so for his reasons. That is, his reasons lead to very different conclusions in that case.

Namely, I think, his reasons lead to the conclusion that we must dissolve the authoritarian control over production of resources, which leads to such divergence as among individuals. In fact, I think, one might draw a direct line between classical liberalism and a kind of libertarian socialism, which I think, can be regarded as a kind of adapting of the basic reasoning of classical liberalism to a very different social era. Now if we come to the modern period, here liberalism has taken on a very strange sense, if you think of its history. Now liberalism is essentially the theory of state capitalism. Of state intervention in a capitalist economy.

Well, that has very little relation to classical liberalism. In fact, classical liberalism is what's now called conservatism, I suppose. But this new view, I think, really is, in my view at least, a highly authoritarian position. That is, it's one which accepts a number of centers of authority and control--the state on one hand, agglomerations of private power on the other hand, all interacting with individuals as malleable cogs in this highly constrained machine, which may be called democratic, but given the actual distribution of powers, very far from being meaningfully democratic and cannot be so. So my own feeling has always been that to achieve the classical liberal ideals--for the reasons that led to them being put forth--in a society so different, we must be led in a very different direction. It's superficial and erroneous to accept the conclusions which were reached for different society and not to consider the reasoning that led to those conclusions. The reasoning, I think, is very substantial.

>>

Lazy attempts to sidestep having to read and face up to that, oh 'protectors' of corporate power, like that MP (once I can dig up what it was you said and identify which MP you are I'll edit this post to include your name, and any other examples of people who say what you recently said), will not pass muster. I will put these questions on the lips of 10 million young adults as soon as I can. It's happening day by day, and you cannot stop that, least of all by burying your head in the sand and reverting to your shallow pantomime.


Unification: I address my comments above all to the so-called 'genuine left wing' in Britain, ie the (in many ways) admirable movements which together make up one significant part of Jeremy Corbyn's voters and supporters, if we may call them that for now, but they have been doing what they do and Corbyn came out of all that, he didn't create it, the way those who see him as Satan often seem to imagine.

It's up to this 'genuine left' to learn and teach and act upon the truth forensically, precisely, in a determined way, and not be distracted and side-tracked. Understanding what neoliberalism really is and explaining it well is one of the primary tasks of all 'left wing' or 'libertarian' persons who participate in our political systems, even 'just' with a vote.

What neoliberalism is, in a nutshell, that is the key to making most ignorant people understand who their enemy really is! Learn to understand that core truth and relay it easily as and when you 'need to'.

Pay especial attention to the fact that: "The psychology of leaders is a topic of little interest. The institutional factors that constrain their actions and beliefs are what merit attention."

And the American left may do well to note this (the genuine American left, as they see themselves, distinct from the right wing and corporate power fully - ie without compromise) that Chomsky is an anarchist, not a socialist, and thus does not see socialism as a kind of ideal form per se, thus it is itself a corruption, thus working with it is already 'a lesser evil' - thus when he chooses to support Sanders, AOC and even, at times, only to oppose Trump, Hillary Satan Clinton herself, he is only moving along a scale of lesser evils which has always been there. She's less less evil than a genuine left wing government, but even that is only a lesser evil on the way to the anarchist utopian civil society at the end of the road of all this hungaama and mussibat.

Note also that even the 'genuine left' in Britain, unlike the genuine American left, is often ignorant of the history of 'the right turn' in the USA, the scandalously demonic behaviour of men like Nixon, the purges in society, above all the media, of 'evil people'.

A great deal has to be learned about that and some of the key material you will find in the 'numberwang' document in the references below. Perhaps starting there may be a good idea. Although you may want to read the counterpunch article first - it's a hell of a lot shorter than the numberwang doc.

Perhaps out of intellectual honesty I should not hold back something I'd otherwise "keep in the closet" but belongs in a sermon, this one, at this time:

(something I wrote today but wasn't intending to publish)

<< Angela Eagle equates not teaching 5 year olds about homosexuality with forcing adult gay people to 'go back in the closet'.

I fully believe that in sex ed lessons, British (and all) students should learn about homosexuality.

But teaching 5 year olds about homosexuality doesn't seem like a good idea.

To suggest that criticising the teaching of 5 year olds about homosexuality is 'homophobic' is fairly stupid.

Even stupider is to pretend that criticism of those who teach 5 year olds about homosexuality amounts to telling gay people to 'get back in the closet'. Angela Eagle's intellect is not good enough for the job we have given her. She should not be an MP. She is far too stupid. Can anyone here pretend that 'failing' to teach 5 year olds about homosexuality is a way to force gay people 'back into the closet'? Anyway, I'll bring this up another day, not today, because the responses to the situation are clearly overly emotive and not made using the faculties of the mind which should be used.

There is nothing wrong with being gay, nothing at all. And whether or not 5 year olds should be taught about sexuality, about homosexuality, is an interesting question. Taking one side or other doesn't make you a bad person. It's clearly not a straightforward debate at all: young people do see many romance-related things, although never sexual ones. Teaching 5 year olds about homosexual romance is what is being debated. There is no doubt that many of us can understand why some parents may be concerned about teaching 5 year olds anything at all to do with sex.

Frankly the 'debate' should be secondary to real debates about what sexuality really is, what marriage really is, and so on - I believe the latter debate if argued correctly would preclude the need for this less important debate, because once people's attitudes and beliefs matched with reality, I think that anything being taught would be taught in an intelligent way. Right now, on the other hand, we can be sure that those who teach, those who lobby, all these gobshites are somewhat divorced from a genuinely scientific view of our world, our selves, our lives. That's why this topic isn't worth debating on tvhobo right now and remains 'in the closet'! People like Angela Eagle force me to keep it here, in the closet. They are not capable of listening to objective debate on this topic. >>

I'm probably right, though, to suppose it's not really worth going into at this time in such an unenlightened society, submerged in hyperconsumerism and mindless chattering as it is. Since Eagle's remarks may well be part of more efforts to brand all muslims evil, though, I cannot keep that particular observation "in the closet", sorry Angela.


References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/21/normalizing-atrocity/
numberwang doc
The education system in Chomsky's words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgXZuGIMuwQ

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 31: If the USA armed the far right in Europe to slay many Europeans, and Americans militarily 'intervened' in Europe, supporting those 'troops' - would you blame the millions of British and European deaths on British and European people or on Americans?

Thrust: Yet if we change British and European to Iraqi or Afghan, then suddenly half the racists out there, at least, pretend that somehow the Iraqis killed themselves, and that American and European and British militarism in the region is "not responsible" for the fact that As many as 7 million innocent, mostly 'muslim' people may have been killed in your name. That's something like 23,000 buildings like the Grenfell Tower all being incinerated in that fashion - that's how many people 'we' have killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, 23,000 lots of the Grenfell Tower. Died in the same way - innocent and in the way of corporations' dollars. All this death has to be stopped and everything leading up to it. 'Our' war machine is beyond the pale.

Many of those deaths were due to sanctions, do note as well. Are sanctions by Clinton, which killed these people, something 'the iraqis did'? Really? Is that going to be the case you make? Are you sure? What happens if the world puts sanctions on the USA, Britain and Europe one day? What if it's soon? Or indeed what if the American far right continues to arm right wing European and British militias to the point of internal military conflict? Will you blame yourselves when the Americans arm white racists to start a civil war in this part of the world? A continent overflowing with them?


Direction of resistance: When you prove to a western racist that they are being racist, 999/1000 times they will walk away and refuse to dignify the conversation any more, they will go into total denial and pretend it never happened, perhaps use you as an example of someone evil and 'not western'.


Removal of resistance: These are questions anyone responsible must ask.


Unification: If that's you, ask. Ask yourself, first. And then ask 'truth' - ie research and read everything which is actually necessary - which may help you change what may otherwise happen (if people like you fail to act appropriately and in a timely manner). At the moment some of you are on the brink of setting off the killing of many many more people, perhaps in Iran next. Perhaps all over the Middle East, perhaps all over the world, as a result of your catastrophically stupid and violent activities. Meanwhile you are loudly busy pointing at people like Corbyn and calling him names, and people like me. Whilst we are insisting on change, on education, on cessation of this global gang warfare driven by gluttony and money-worship, and you continue to rack up murder victims of your huge crime spree.


References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/21/normalizing-atrocity/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/30/have-millions-of-deaths-from-americas-war-on-terror-been-concealed/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/19/empire-over-life/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfXmpJRZPYI

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 30: Don't be distracted by grotesque pantomime, surgically resolve the systemic flaw.

Thrust: Chomsky explains: << Despite the frank acknowledgment of the need to deceive the public, it would be an error to suppose that practitioners of the art are typically engaged in conscious deceit; few reach the level of sophistication of the Grand Inquisitor or maintain such insights for long. On the contrary, as the intellectuals pursue their grim and demanding vocation, they readily adopt beliefs that serve institutional needs; those who do not will have to seek employment elsewhere. The chairman of the board may sincerely believe that his every waking moment is dedicated to serving human needs. Were he to act on these delusions instead of pursuing profit and market share, he would no longer be chairman of the board. It is probable that the most inhuman monsters, even the Himmlers and the Mengeles, convince themselves that they are engaged in noble and courageous acts. The psychology of leaders is a topic of little interest. The institutional factors that constrain their actions and beliefs are what merit attention. >>


Direction of resistance: Whether 'left' or 'right' or 'center' or 'people who don't compartmentalise fanatically', everyone's talking about people like Johnson and Trump from the point of view of their friend or relative or opponent - making it personal.


Removal of resistance: This is what corporate power needs you to do. Some MP was attacking people who try to hold corporations to account, the other day. This Chomsky quote is vital to repeat to her until she grows up. Childish idiots like you, dear MP, should resign. You have NO RIGHT to be an MP. Your intellect is absolutely insufficient and your integrity is therefore faulty - or, if you know exactly what you're doing, your integrity is absolutely disgustingly absent. Here's the Chomsky, you silly fake-public-servant:

<<

Let me begin by saying something about liberalism, which is a very complicated concept, I think. It's correct, surely, that liberalism grew up in the intellectual environment of empiricism and the rejection of authority, and trust in the evidence of the senses, and so on. However, liberalism has undergone a very complex evolution as a social philosophy over the years. If we go back to the classics, or at least, what I regard as the classics, say, for example, Humboldt's limits of state action which inspired Mill and is a true libertarian, liberal classic, if you like. The world that Humboldt was considering--which was partially an imaginary world--but the world for which he was developing this political philosophy, was a post-feudal but pre-capitalist world.

That it was a world in which there was no great divergence among individuals in the kind of power that they had, and what they command, let's say. But there was a tremendous disparity between individuals, on one hand, and the state on the other. Consequently, it was the task of a liberalism that was concerned with human rights, and the quality of individuals, and so on. It was the task of that liberalism to dissolve the enormous power of state, which was such an authoritarian threat to individual liberties. And from that, you develop a classical liberal theory in, say, Humboldt's or Mill's sense. Well, of course, that is pre-capitalist. He couldn't conceive of an era in which a corporation would be regarded as an individual, or in which enormous disparities in control over resources and production would distinguish between individuals in a massive fashion. Now, in that kind of society, to take the Humboldtian view is a very superficial liberalism. Because while opposition to state power in an era of such divergence conforms to Humboldt's conclusions, it doesn't do so for his reasons. That is, his reasons lead to very different conclusions in that case.

Namely, I think, his reasons lead to the conclusion that we must dissolve the authoritarian control over production of resources, which leads to such divergence as among individuals. In fact, I think, one might draw a direct line between classical liberalism and a kind of libertarian socialism, which I think, can be regarded as a kind of adapting of the basic reasoning of classical liberalism to a very different social era. Now if we come to the modern period, here liberalism has taken on a very strange sense, if you think of its history. Now liberalism is essentially the theory of state capitalism. Of state intervention in a capitalist economy.

Well, that has very little relation to classical liberalism. In fact, classical liberalism is what's now called conservatism, I suppose. But this new view, I think, really is, in my view at least, a highly authoritarian position. That is, it's one which accepts a number of centers of authority and control--the state on one hand, agglomerations of private power on the other hand, all interacting with individuals as malleable cogs in this highly constrained machine, which may be called democratic, but given the actual distribution of powers, very far from being meaningfully democratic and cannot be so. So my own feeling has always been that to achieve the classical liberal ideals--for the reasons that led to them being put forth--in a society so different, we must be led in a very different direction. It's superficial and erroneous to accept the conclusions which were reached for different society and not to consider the reasoning that led to those conclusions. The reasoning, I think, is very substantial.

>>

Lazy attempts to sidestep having to read and face up to that, oh 'protectors' of corporate power, like that MP (once I can dig up what it was you said and identify which MP you are I'll edit this post to include your name, and any other examples of people who say what you recently said), will not pass muster. I will put these questions on the lips of 10 million young adults as soon as I can. It's happening day by day, and you cannot stop that, least of all by burying your head in the sand and reverting to your shallow pantomime.


Unification: Every reader here should take a look in the mirror, you've been doing it for years - being distracted by personality contests and your own lazy inability to follow through anything other than the easiest and lowest common denominator.

Most companies you work for or buy from are full advocators of this policy of narcissism, decadence, laziness, self-promotion and a complete inability to really do anything properly which should be done properly. I don't doubt you package donuts well, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Why is it any different now? When you scream at Boris for being racist (which I suppose he blatantly seems to be and has made statements which are clearly islamophobic and drive up the racism in our country).

The real question has to be not just why the Tory party didn't deal with this racism when asked and never will, ever - but why the entire system governing us is similarly flawed and similarly not going to change, not on its present path (although the election of Corbyn may change that).

Strategically, I mean. Nothing you seem to do seems to help you, even if it starts well. Talking about Boris's racism or whatever, doesn't help - because it's people, not systems, you focus on.

Even when it's good - ie Corbyn - you still, many of you, aren't learning to BE Corbyn - you want only one Corbyn, to run the country, and everyone else can privately behave like Alistair Campbell. What you need to do is ALL be Corbyn. He is Spartacus. Be Spartacus.

When Corbyn arrived on the scene millions started precisely and forensically learning how to debate and cutting their teeth on the key issues they have to defend themselves with reference to - health and medicine, education and jobs, global bank robbery being called 'war' or 'peace keeping' {even more absurdly}.

But then the Corporate Puppet Master in Chief threw something at you which knocked you right out. He/she/it called it 'brexit' and 'a referendum'. And since then you stopped trying to learn any more than you'd already learned about debating and reason, which still wasn't much, and returned to your cult of personality western-word-warfare - your numberwang lives. Living like the people in Numberwang all your lives and any time anyone actually evolved and intelligent tries to interrupt your answer is always: "sorry, that's NOT numberwang".

Which leads to a very interesting comparison - we can, sane people here, see how the use of the word 'anti-semitism' is now disingenuous more often than not and spoken by racists at anti-racists more often than by anti-racists at racists!

But look at 'Remain' and 'Leave' - the same sane people all know, whatever they 'voted for', that the degree to which those two words are used disingenuously is also probably above 50%, ie another case where it's just a way of saying 'numberwang' - the choice is arbitrary and the choice-maker's taste, unconnected to reason.

If you turn the word your 'campaign' pivots on to numberwang, what will happen to 'your cause'? But the truth is most such 'causes' are just personal greed intertwined with peer group decision making led by corporate interests and millions of sales and marketing staff everywhere! And all the staff who keep their brave sales and marketing soldiers on the front line against human survival.

Racism, by the way, will die only through education (so the numberwang approach just makes racism worse). You are looking right now at the only type of solution which defeats racism. Education. Understanding. Science.


References: that chomsky quote via google books
are YOU numberwang?

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 29: "The psychology of leaders is a topic of little interest. The institutional factors that constrain their actions and beliefs are what merit attention." (Chomsky).

Thrust: Institutional factors constraining the actions and beliefs of our leaders. Take a look at them.


Direction of resistance: Institutional factors constraining the actions and beliefs of our 'academics' and 'intellectuals'. Take a look at them.


Removal of resistance: Institutional factors constraining the actions and beliefs of our 'media' and 'legal workforce'. Take a look at them.


Unification: Institutional factors constraining the actions and beliefs of everyone in society, from top to bottom. Take a look at them.


References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 28: We're going to move the mountain.

Thrust: <<

There's more to this feeling than a differing mind to anatomy

On my own who's going to hold me?

A burning heart lifts me up to my life

I can't run from the truth and I won't try

'Cause it wouldn't matter who you were in this world

There's nothing on earth that we can't change

But on the inside I could never be the same

Come into the garden

Baby

Oh

You've got to come on in

Come into the secret garden

We're changing the way we're made

And in our own eyes

We're going to move the mountain

So how do you see me now? Can you see me?

Don't butter me up and tell me lies

I've seen the black and white coloured in your eyes

But trapped in a cage is not the place

You can leave me or cover it up to ease your mind

In this confusion I can always see the light

into the garden

Come into the garden

Baby

Oh

Come on in

Come into the secret garden

We're changing the way we're made

And in our own eyes

We're going to move the mountain

>>

Songwriters: Carol Ann Decker / Ronald Phillip Rogers


Direction of resistance: Isn't it tragic that a society which can produce something as beautiful as that can also yield minds and personalities as hideous as those of Katie Hopkins or Tommy Robinson, Tony Blair or Philip Green?


Removal of resistance: Well look on the bright side.


Unification: Consider the meaning of that song. Get hold of it and have a listen - the video is particularly good, I think.


References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 27: << It's time for this world of office-worker-proclaimed "professionals" to lose a good dose of their terminal arrogance. >> Just a few facts for you to dig into before the media roundups and other activity really kicks off on this site.

Thrust: <<<

Let us not forget, when considering the genocidal racism of right wing Israelis, that Salon reported in 2014: << The Times of Israel is under fire on Friday after publishing a blog post titled 'When Genocide Is Permissible.' The post, written by Yochanon Gordon, was quickly removed from the Times' website, but cached and screen-captured versions of the piece quickly proliferated on social media. >>

The racist blogger wrote: << Hamas has stated forthrightly that it idealizes death as much as Israel celebrates life. What other way then is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than obliterate them completely? >> (I wonder what the average westerner would feel about that argument's being used in relation to the damage the USA, the UK and much of western Europe has done to the world, for centuries?!!)

Finally this Israeli then declares << If political leaders and military experts determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide is it then permissible to achieve those responsible goals? >> (I guess that's what the terrorists who bomb westerners feel they are doing when they commit Israeli-style genocide in Britain, France, the U.S. etc). >>>


Direction of resistance: << CHOMSKY: Well this raises quite a welter of questions. Let me begin by saying something about liberalism, which is a very complicated concept, I think. It's correct, surely, that liberalism grew up in the intellectual environment of empiricism and the rejection of authority, and trust in the evidence of the senses, and so on. However, liberalism has undergone a very complex evolution as a social philosophy over the years. If we go back to the classics, or at least, what I regard as the classics, say, for example, Humboldt's limits of state action which inspired Mill and is a true libertarian, liberal classic, if you'd like. The world that Humboldt was considering--which was partially an imaginary world--but the world for which he was developing this political philosophy, was a post-feudal but pre-capitalist world.

That it was a world in which there was no great divergence among individuals in the kind of power that they had, and what they command, let's say. But there was a tremendous disparity between individuals, on one hand, and the state on the other. Consequently, it was the task of a liberalism that was concerned with human rights, and the quality of individuals, and so on. It was the task of that liberalism to dissolve the enormous power of state, which was such an authoritarian threat to individual liberties. And from that, you develop a classical liberal theory in, say, Humboldt's or Mill's sense. Well, of course, that is pre-capitalist. He couldn't conceive of an era in which a corporation would be regarded as an individual,

Or in which enormous disparities in control over resources and production would distinguish between individuals in a massive fashion. Now, in that kind of society, to take the Humboldtian view is a very superficial liberalism. Because while opposition to state power in an era of such divergence conforms to Humboldt's conclusions, it doesn't do so for his reasons. That is, his reasons lead to very different conclusions in that case.

Namely, I think, his reasons lead to the conclusion that we must dissolve the authoritarian control over production of resources, which leads to such divergence as among individuals. In fact, I think, one might draw a direct line between classical liberalism and a kind of libertarian socialism, which I think, can be regarded as a kind of adapting of the basic reasoning of classical liberalism to a very different social era. Now if we come to the modern period, here liberalism has taken on a very strange sense, if you think of its history. Now liberalism is essentially the theory of state capitalism. Of state intervention in a capitalist economy.

Well, that has very little relation to classical liberalism. In fact, classical liberalism is what's now called conservatism, I suppose. But this new view, I think, really is, in my view at least, a highly authoritarian position. That is, it's one which accepts a number of centers of authority and control--the state on one hand, agglomerations of private power on the other hand, all interacting with individuals as malleable cogs in this highly constrained machine, which may be called democratic, but given the actual distribution of powers, very far from being meaningfully democratic and cannot be so. So my own feeling has always been that to achieve the classical liberal ideals--for the reasons that led to them being put forth--in a society so different, we must be led in a very different direction. It's superficial and erroneous to accept the conclusions which were reached for different society and not to consider the reasoning that led to those conclusions. The reasoning, I think, is very substantial. I'm a classical liberal in this sense. But I think it leads me to be a kind of anarchist, an anarchist socialist. >>


Removal of resistance: Chomsky states in the preface to Necessary Illusions the opinion that << citizens of the democratic societies should undertake a course of intellectual self-defense to protect themselves from manipulation and control, and to lay the basis for more meaningful democracy. >>


Unification: <<<

there are some events you need to understand, from our recent past, which have shaped all this. In Necessary Illusions, Chomsky informs us about a great deal. So here come some more lengthy quotations - to those who do not believe that effort and literacy are important when trying to understand the politics of our world, I am sorry to disappoint you, there simply is no other way.

Chomsky begins by saying << These lectures suggest certain conclusions about the functioning of the most advanced democratic systems of the modern era, and particularly, about the ways in which thought and understanding are shaped in the interests of domestic privilege. >> He adds: << But, to my knowledge, there is no serious effort to respond to these and other similar critiques. Rather, they are simply dismissed, in conformity to the predictions of the propaganda model. >> Indeed that is true. I've seen Nick Cohen accuse Chomsky of things which if Cohen had read Chomsky's works Cohen would find the opposite is true - eg claiming Chomsky doesn't tell us about the bad things the Soviet Union did. In fact you can look it up for yourself - what will become clear to you is that men like Cohen attack Chomsky without reading Chomsky. Chomsky on the other hand (and hopefully you and I will be like him, not like Cohen) takes the other approach - knowing what you're talking about before you start talking.

According to Chomsky, then: << the tension [caused by decision making power's being in the hands of the few but impacting on a large scale throughout the social order] could be resolved, and sometimes is, by forcefully eliminating public interference with state and private power. In the advanced industrial societies the problem is typically approached by a variety of measures to deprive democratic political structures of substantive content, while leaving them formally intact. A large part of this task is assumed by ideological institutions that channel thought and attitudes within acceptable bounds, deflecting any potential challenge to established privilege and authority before it can take form and gather strength. The enterprise has many facets and agents. >>

Chomsky suggests: << One way to resolve the tension would be to extend the democratic system to investment, the organization of work, and so on. That would constitute a major social revolution, which, in my view at least, would consummate the political revolutions of an earlier era and realize some of the libertarian principles on which they were partly based >> .

So what exactly has caused us to go so far astray, since the 60s, since indeed the time of Chomsky's Massey Lectures in the late 80s. Well it goes back to before those lectures, of course, and in them Chomsky advises us: << I will be primarily concerned with one aspect: thought control, as conducted through the agency of the national media and related elements of the elite intellectual culture >> . No, not B-movies, perfectly rational and sane assessment of how our society works: << In accordance with the prevailing conceptions in the U.S., there is no infringement on democracy if a few corporations control the information system: in fact, that is the essence of democracy. In the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, the leading figure of the public relations industry, Edward Bernays, explains that "the very essence of the democratic process" is "the freedom to persuade and suggest," what he calls "the engineering of consent." "A leader," he continues, "frequently cannot wait for the people to arrive at even general understanding ... Democratic leaders must play their part in ... engineering ... consent to socially constructive goals and values," applying "scientific principles and tried practices to the task of getting people to support ideas and programs"; and although it remains unsaid, it is evident enough that those who control resources will be in a position to judge what is "socially constructive," to engineer consent through the media, and to implement policy through the mechanisms of the state. If the freedom to persuade happens to be concentrated in a few hands, we must recognize that such is the nature of a free society. The public relations industry expends vast resources "educating the American people about the economic facts of life" to ensure a favorable climate for business. Its task is to control "the public mind," which is "the only serious danger confronting the company," an AT&T executive observed eighty years ago. >>



No, nobody is pretending Laura Kuenssberg is an evil but intellectual giant of a woman, scheming to rule the world.

Chomsky explains: << Despite the frank acknowledgment of the need to deceive the public, it would be an error to suppose that practitioners of the art are typically engaged in conscious deceit; few reach the level of sophistication of the Grand Inquisitor or maintain such insights for long. On the contrary, as the intellectuals pursue their grim and demanding vocation, they readily adopt beliefs that serve institutional needs; those who do not will have to seek employment elsewhere. The chairman of the board may sincerely believe that his every waking moment is dedicated to serving human needs. Were he to act on these delusions instead of pursuing profit and market share, he would no longer be chairman of the board. It is probable that the most inhuman monsters, even the Himmlers and the Mengeles, convince themselves that they are engaged in noble and courageous acts. The psychology of leaders is a topic of little interest. The institutional factors that constrain their actions and beliefs are what merit attention. >>

It goes back to the time of Nixon and Watergate (British 'leftists' pay attention - too few of them have a clue about these matters): << The standard image of media performance, as expressed by Judge Gurfein in a decision rejecting government efforts to bar publication of the Pentagon Papers, is that we have "a cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press," and that these tribunes of the people "must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know." Commenting on this decision, Anthony Lewis of the New York Times observes that the media were not always as independent, vigilant, and defiant of authority as they are today, but in the Vietnam and Watergate eras they learned to exercise "the power to root about in our national life, exposing what they deem right for exposure," without regard to external pressures or the demands of state or private power. >>



Where is the evidence of this? Neoliberals may want to ask, accusing you of 'conspiracy theory' if you attempt to persuade them of the truth. Tell them: << A 1975 study on "governability of democracies" by the Trilateral Commission concluded that the media have become a "notable new source of national power," one aspect of an "excess of democracy" that contributes to "the reduction of governmental authority" at home and a consequent "decline in the influence of democracy abroad." This general "crisis of democracy," the commission held, resulted from the efforts of previously marginalized sectors of the population to organize and press their demands, thereby creating an overload that prevents the democratic process from functioning properly. >>

Chomsky tells us that << The charge that the Democrats represent the special interests has little merit. Rather, they represent other elements of the "national interest," and participated with few qualms in the right turn of the post-Vietnam era among elite groups, including the dismantling of limited state programs designed to protect the poor and deprived; the transfer of resources to the wealthy; the conversion of the state, even more than before, to a welfare state for the privileged; and the expansion of state power and the protected state sector of the economy through the military system - domestically, a device for compelling the public to subsidize high-technology industry and provide a state-guaranteed market for its waste production >> . This applies to pre-Corbyn (and non-Corbyn) Labour. Evidently.

Chomsky indicates support for Ginsberg's belief that << western governments have used market mechanisms to regulate popular perspectives and sentiments. The "marketplace of ideas," built during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, effectively disseminates the beliefs and ideas of the upper classes while subverting the ideological and cultural independence of the lower classes. Through the construction of this marketplace, western governments forged firm and enduring links between socioeconomic position and ideological power, permitting upper classes to use each to buttress the other ... In the United States, in particular, the ability of the upper and upper-middle classes to dominate the marketplace of ideas has generally allowed these strata to shape the entire society's perception of political reality and the range of realistic political and social possibilities. While westerners usually equate the marketplace with freedom of opinion, the hidden hand of the market can be almost as potent an instrument of control as the iron fist of the state. >>

One piece of evidence Chomsky presents is this: << The influence of advertisers is sometimes far more direct. "Projects unsuitable for corporate sponsorship tend to die on the vine," the London Economist observes, noting that "stations have learned to be sympathetic to the most delicate sympathies of corporations." The journal cites the case of public TV station WNET, which "lost its corporate underwriting from Gulf+Western as a result of a documentary called 'Hunger for Profit', about multinationals buying up huge tracts of land in the third world." These actions "had not been those of a friend," Gulf's chief executive wrote to the station, adding that the documentary was "virulently anti-business, if not anti-American." "Most people believe that WNET would not make the same mistake today," the Economist concludes. Nor would others. The warning need only be implicit. >>

Chomsky's investigation concludes that << Case by case, we find that conformity is the easy way, and the path to privilege and prestige; dissidence carries personal costs that may be severe, even in a society that lacks such means of control as death squads, psychiatric prisons, or extermination camps. The very structure of the media is designed to induce conformity to established doctrine. In a three-minute stretch between commercials, or in seven hundred words, it is impossible to present unfamiliar thoughts or surprising conclusions with the argument and evidence required to afford them some credibility. Regurgitation of welcome pieties faces no such problem. >>

Where the title of Necessary Illusions comes from is significant and is evident from this extract from chapter one: << Harold Lasswell explained in the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences that we should not succumb to "democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests." They are not; the best judges are the elites, who must, therefore, be ensured the means to impose their will, for the common good. When social arrangements deny them the requisite force to compel obedience, it is necessary to turn to "a whole new technique of control, largely through propaganda" because of the "ignorance and superstition [of] ... the masses." In the same years, Reinhold Niebuhr argued that "rationality belongs to the cool observers," while "the proletarian" follows not reason but faith, based upon a crucial element of "necessary illusion." Without such illusion, the ordinary person will descend to "inertia." Then in his Marxist phase, Niebuhr urged that those he addressed - presumably, the cool observers - recognize "the stupidity of the average man" and provide the "emotionally potent oversimplifications" required to keep the proletarian on course to create a new society; the basic conceptions underwent little change as Niebuhr became "the official establishment theologian" (Richard Rovere), offering counsel to those who "face the responsibilities of power." >>

Chomsky explains << in practice, the state media are generally kept in line by the forces that have the power to dominate the state, and by an apparatus of cultural managers who cannot stray far from the bounds these forces set >> .

Many people see the Guardian as the left wing and people like Counterpunch as some sort of radical extreme segment of the political spectrum.

Chomsky points out << One consequence of the distribution of resources and decision- making power in the society at large is that the political class and the cultural managers typically associate themselves with the sectors that dominate the private economy; they are either drawn directly from those sectors or expect to join them. >>

Chomsky then quotes radical democrats of the seventeenth-century English revolution who held that << it will never be a good world while knights and gentlemen make us laws, that are chosen for fear and do but oppress us, and do not know the people's sores. It will never be well with us till we have Parliaments of countrymen like ourselves, that know our wants. >>

Chomsky enlightens us about the demise of the left wing and workers' rights in the 'UK' in the 1960s:

<< As for the media, in England a lively labor-oriented press reaching a broad public existed into the 1960s, when it was finally eliminated through the workings of the market. At the time of its demise in 1964, the Daily Herald had over five times as many readers as The Times and "almost double the readership of The Times, the Financial Times and the Guardian combined," James Curran observes, citing survey research showing that its readers "were also exceptionally devoted to their paper." But this journal, partially owned by the unions and reaching a largely working-class audience, "appealed to the wrong people," Curran continues. The same was true of other elements of the social democratic press that died at the same time, in large part because they were "deprived of the same level of subsidy" through advertising and private capital as sustained "the quality press," which "not only reflects the values and interests of its middle-class readers" but also "gives them force, dainty and coherence" and "plays an important ideological role in amplifying and renewing the dominant political consensus." >>

In Necessary Illusions Chomsky also speaks of << the disintegration of "the cultural base that has sustained active participation within the Labour movement," which "has ceased to exist as a mass movement in most parts of the country." The effects are readily apparent. With the elimination of the "selection and treatment of news" and "relatively detailed political commentary and analysis [that] helped daily to sustain a social democratic sub-culture within the working class," there is no longer an articulate alternative to the picture of "a world where the subordination of working people [is] accepted as natural and inevitable," and no continuing expression of the view that working people are "morally entitled to a greater share of the wealth they created and a greater say in its allocation." The same tendencies are evident elsewhere in the industrial capitalist societies. >>

And what underpins all of this deception? Well, foreign policy. More about all this later when we get round to NATO, but a primer, from Chomsky, first, on what exactly NATO really is.

Chomsky says: << the global planning undertaken by U.S. elites during and after World War II assumed that principles of liberal internationalism would generally serve to satisfy what had been described as the "requirement of the United States in a world in which it proposes to hold unquestioned power."6 The global policy goes under the name "containment." The manufacture of consent at home is its domestic counterpart. The two policies are, in fact, closely intertwined, since the domestic population must be mobilized to pay the costs of "containment," which may be severe - both material and moral costs.

The rhetoric of containment is designed to give a defensive cast to the project of global management, and it thus serves as part of the domestic system of thought control. It is remarkable that the terminology is so easily adopted, given the questions that it begs. Looking more closely, we find that the concept conceals a good deal. The underlying assumption is that there is a stable international order that the United States must defend. The general contours of this international order were developed by U.S. planners during and after World War II. Recognizing the extraordinary scale of U.S. power, they proposed to construct a global system that the United States would dominate and within which U.S. business interests would thrive. As much of the world as possible would constitute a Grand Area, as it was called, which would be subordinated to the needs of the U.S. economy. Within the Grand Area, other capitalist societies would be encouraged to develop, but without protective devices that would interfere with U.S. prerogatives. In particular, only the United States would be permitted to dominate regional systems. The United States moved to take effective control of world energy production and to organize a world system in which its various components would fulfill their functions as industrial centers, as markets and sources of raw materials, or as dependent states pursuing their "regional interests" within the "overall framework of order" managed by the United States (as Henry Kissinger was later to explain). >>

The term "Grand area" is clearly just a translation into 'American' ideology of the notion "lebensraum".

The 'US' is often seen as a mighty and brilliant military superpower which has evolved beyond other cultures in terms of skill and even courage. There is no shortage of people who will cheer this view of the 'US' - everywhere from crappy gungho-films enjoyed by idiots to the 'cultured' broadsheets of the 'privileged'.



As Chomsky explains, << another task was to overcome the dread "Vietnam syndrome," which impeded the resort to forceful means to control the dependencies; as explained by Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz, the task was to overcome "the sickly inhibitions against the use of military force" that developed in revulsion against the Indochina wars, a problem that was resolved, he hoped, in the glorious conquest of Grenada, when 6,000 elite troops succeeded in overcoming the resistance of several dozen Cubans and some Grenadan militiamen, winning 8,000 medals of honor for their prowess. >>

To add to all of this, we are dealing with a society which every day becomes louder in its proclamations amongst its "individuals" that it is "heroic", "brave", "advanced", and even (yes, this will make you laugh) "honourable".

Chomsky wrote << It is beyond imagining in responsible circles that we might have some culpability for mass slaughter and destruction, or owe some debt to the millions of maimed and orphaned, or to the peasants who still die from exploding ordnance left from the U.S. assault, while the Pentagon, when asked whether there is any way to remove the hundreds of thousands of anti-personnel bomblets that kill children today in such areas as the Plain of Jars in Laos, comments helpfully that "people should not live in those areas. They know the problem." The United States has refused even to give its mine maps of Indochina to civilian mine-deactivation teams. Ex-marines who visited Vietnam in 1989 to help remove mines they had laid report that many remain in areas were people try to farm and plant trees, and were informed that many people are still being injured and killed as of January 1989. None of this merits comment or concern.

The situation is of course quite different when we turn to Afghanistan - where, incidentally, the Soviet-installed regime has released its mine maps. In this case, headlines read: "Soviets Leave Deadly Legacy for Afghans," "Mines Put Afghans in Peril on Return," "U.S. Rebukes Soviets on Afghan Mine Clearing," "U.S. to Help Train Refugees To Destroy Afghan Mines," "Mines Left by Departing Soviets Are Maiming Afghans," and so on. The difference is that these are Soviet mines, so it is only natural for the United States to call for "an international effort to provide the refugees with training and equipment to destroy or dismantle" them and to denounce the Russians for their lack of cooperation in this worthy endeavor. "The Soviets will not acknowledge the problem they have created or help solve it," Assistant Secretary of State Richard Williamson observed sadly; "We are disappointed." The press responds with the usual selective humanitarian zeal. >>

Attackers of Chomsky often imagine that in doing so they are standing up for 'decent' regimes who don't kill journalists.

Outlining the U.S. position on Central America, Chomsky tells us that << There had been an independent press in El Salvador: two small newspapers, La Crónica del Pueblo and El Independiente. Both were destroyed in 1989-81 by the security forces. After a series of bombings, an editor of La Crónica and a photographer were taken from a San Salvador coffee shop and hacked to pieces with machetes; the offices were raided, bombed, and burned down by death squads, and the publisher fled to the United States. The publisher of El Independiente, Jorge Pinto, fled to Mexico when his paper's premises were attacked and equipment smashed by troops. Concern over these matters was so high in the United States that there was not one word in the New York Times news columns and not one editorial comment on the destruction of the journals, and no word in the years since, though Pinto was permitted a statement on the opinion page, in which he condemned the "Duarte junta" for having "succeeded in extinguishing the expression of any dissident opinion" and expressed his belief that the so-called death squads are "nothing more nor less than the military itself" - a conclusion endorsed by the Church and international human rights monitors.

In the year before the final destruction of El Independiente, the offices were bombed twice, an office boy was killed when the plant was machine-gunned, Pinto's car was sprayed with machine-gun fire, there were two other attempts on his life, and army troops in tanks and armored trucks arrived at his offices to search for him two days before the paper was finally destroyed. These events received no mention. Shortly before it was finally destroyed, there had been four bombings of La Crónica in six months; one of these, the last, received forty words in the New York Times.

It is not that the U.S. media are unconcerned with freedom of the press in Central America. Contrasting sharply with the silence over the two Salvadoran newspapers is the case of the opposition journal La Prensa in Nicaragua. Media critic Francisco Goldman counted 263 references to its tribulations in the New York Times in four years. The distinguishing criterion is not obscure: the Salvadoran newspapers were independent voices stilled by the murderous violence of U.S. clients; La Prensa is an agency of the U.S. campaign to overthrow the government of Nicaragua, therefore a "worthy victim," whose harassment calls forth anguish and outrage. We return to further evidence that this is indeed the operative criterion. >>

>>>


References: http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 26: Another Branson scheme goes tits up.

Thrust: 21st Century Wire reports << It was all the rage back in February - Sir Richard Branson, the maverick billionaire entrepreneur of Virgin fame, proudly announced he was organizing a new "Live Aid" benefit concert in the Colombian city Cúcuta, all to help the 'poor people' of Venezuela who we're told were being starved to death by the evil Maduro regime. The event was held on February 22, and attracted some 200,000 punters, with the goal of raising $100 million to buy food and medicine for Venezuelans teetering on the brink of a mass famine. 'Feed the world' rang once more. But the media fairy tale would be short-lived.

Four months later, the story has ended in tears, with associates of Washington's own hand-picked "interim president" of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó, implicated in the embezzlement of funds raised by Branson's high-profile 'charity event.' According to reports, the Guaidó camp apparently siphoned off the cash which was meant for humanitarian aid, and instead spend it on lavish hotels, posh nightclubs and designer retail shopping sprees.

Guaidó has been forced to sack some of his appointees who were allegedly running the cash embezzlement scheme. >>


Direction of resistance: They also inform us: << Guaidó's staff botched the distribution of aid sent by the US, with an estimated 60 percent rotting in the warehouses and having to be thrown away. The full extent of the scandal is yet to be revealed >>.


Removal of resistance: Meanwhile Mark Steel recommends, on Twitter, that we contribute to the Venezuelan economy by drinking more Venezuelan rum. Given the state of British politics, I feel that a lot of MPs and civil servants could kill two birds with one stone, help Venezuela (with this excellent rum-drinking scheme) and lessen their own misery just a little.


Unification: Almost a year ago today, RT reported: << Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Care group has successfully sued the NHS, after losing out on an £82m contract to provide children's healthcare services in Surrey - pocketing £2m of public money in the process. >>

Virgin, RT reports, says they did not pocket the money, and insists: << We took this action because we were concerned that there may have been serious flaws in the procurement process. >>

The question is this: is inviting vulture/'venture' capitalists to make a profit out of our health a serious flaw in the procurement process or not? Just wondering. You know? Throwing it out there. Whaddaya think Richie? Is it or is it not a flawed healthcare procurement process which factors profits for companies into how we deliver medicine? Any statement for the public on that? Anything? I'm curious. I don't think you can possibly rebut me. I'd love to see you try, though.


References: https://21stcenturywire.com/[..]-aid-benefit-cash-embezzled-by-guaido-camp-for-luxury-sprees/
https://www.rt.com/news/462175-guaido-aides-embezzled-aid/
https://www.rt.com/uk/430468-branson-virgin-sues-nhs/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 25: Corbyn as messiah! His reputation died so that the ruling class can sin more!

Thrust: I think some racist commentator in the public eye recently called Corbyn a 'false messiah' - taking things to a biblical plane, as those defending Israel's genocides are prone to do, as a side-effect of their evangelical zeal.


Direction of resistance: In truth Corbyn has been labelled evil so that - we can call all these other people good, even when they grab and body slam protestors against walls.


Removal of resistance: Donald Trump locks children in cages, and the tories and lib dems and Farage-parties (there's so many of them - is Jayda Fransen one of your parties Nige?) just carry on regardless, Hunt and Johnson actively supporting Trump, Farage practically bearing Trump's children and having domestic arguments with him - and the only virulent opposition to him in Britain is Corbyn, whose 'evil' nature is blamed for his 'snub' of Trump.

So bodyslamming people who are hassling you to not hurt the environment, locking kids in cages, what else have we 'let people off' whilst focusing on how 'evil' Corbyn is?

Remember 'even' the Lib Dems will easily get into bed with, at the very least, Jeremy Hunt, who backs Trump's wild stupid statements up for he, Hunt, is far more interested in what Trump can do FOR him than what you, voter and reader, can do TO him!!


Unification: Readers, I invite you to have a field day. If you think of anything to add, share it on facebook or twitter and sooner or later I'll find it and add it here. I'll add to the list myself before long but the first two are a good start: bodyslamming activists against walls and locking children in cages - and calling muslim women letterboxes and bank robbers - (that's three) are all now totally acceptable thanks to Corbyn's sacrifice of his reputation.

So even if the anti-corbyn evangelists are a tiny bit too mad, and (as we see in the fast and loose behaviour of Mark Field) somewhat dangerous, it's not entirely false to assert that in one way at least Corbyn is 'like Jesus'.


References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 24: The disillusionment of Abby Tomlinson? Let's hope so. Every good writer is one more to fight the idiots with.

Thrust: In my point << When 'metoo' means "I also refuse to do anything about this nasty man who is manhandling, possibly assaulting a woman at this dinner engagement in front of us all" >> I have looked at how Abby Tomlinson was appalled when she saw a room full of men and women who did fuck all to stand up for a woman being abused by a man (although if it had been a man being abused by another man or by a woman that'd be the same to me, protests are not sex, the gender can be either way, frankly, and we all know it - a woman would have had the protestor dragged away by uniformed men, not really that different to Mark Field's behaviour).


Direction of resistance: The fact is that Tomlinson has clearly been raised the neoliberal way, believing that women and the 'right' men (eg not antiwar ones) are enlightened and must lead everyone else, the way Bernays and Niebuhr have preached. (Look em up, Abby, you need to do a lot of homework).


Removal of resistance: In the end she saw what men like Corbyn already know - that most of those women, no doubt 'feminist' in 'public' were, in private, actually just paid up members of total immorality! Yes, the morality Tomlinson imagined all the women in the room to have and some of the men at least, turns out to not exist.


Unification: Sorry Abby. It'll be hard for you to cope with what the world really is, and the absurd hypocrisy of what M.G. Piety calls << kneejerk 'feminists' >>, in all probability (that's my speciality, probability) you will go into denial and continue to hold neoliberal beliefs. Alas. Nor will my encouraging you to read TVhobo help, even though it could, but people like you (members of the fake elite) just can't handle reading this. My many many readers never include people like you! More women read it than men, though. Tells us something about your take on 'feminism', though doesn't it?

Just remember the word 'feminist' is widely used. I remember deleting a facebook friend in America who refused to take my advice about not posting/sharing 'feminist memes' from Jayda Fransen, involving videos of black male shop lifters being beaten up by white female shop assistants. Not really sure that's what you, Abby, want 'feminism' to be associated with - Jayda Fransen? Really? The more you bury your head in the sand over criticisms like the one I've made about you today, the more people out there call Jayda Fransen a feminist!!! Do your homework, journalist. You're paid to write what you do - and yet you fail. Take a lesson from one who does this for free, and for years has done, just giving my abilities to society, not collecting some cheque from a corporation which helps create propaganda to drive genocide the way you do in the end (not your fault - EVERY SINGLE 'mainstream' journalist, sadly for them, can be 100% accurately described that way and no court in the land is likely to ever contradict that patent truth, the evidence is so overwhelming).

Again, Abby - JAYDA FRANSEN IS NOT A FEMINIST - it's time people like you try and educate more women to appreciate that, and men, no doubt, although male readers are much more likely to listen to me or M.G. Piety than to you, I suspect.

There's only one thing you or I can do to make it so that the WOMEN and the MEN in the room would actually do what they all knew they should do, you need to address subservience to our current corporate-consumer customs, the totalitarianism which controls the way people behave towards their bosses and their 'underlings' and their 'co workers' and all beyond that, their friends, their family.

Gender is not something to worry about - ALL the people in the room failed, not just the men.

If you want to fix the problem you have to take away their/your 'god' - the reason they all sat like lemmings and did nothing.

I know if I had been there I'd have taken the fucker down, punched his lights out, and the last time I hit anyone was about 1992. I could never be employed so as to have been in that room. If anyone had ever let me into a room like that, there'd be ten others in the room in front of me, decking him, in fact.

Once he became violent, he needed to be controlled physically. The room failed to do that. ANY woman could have merely spoken. Anyone in that room could have driven a counter-response quickly.

Instead, one story I hear, is that they applauded. They applauded. Did any women applaud? I'll look into it and see if there is any detail of that nature. The fact is that it seems probable that if there was applause it wasn't 'just' from men.

If you want to really do something and not just play 'let's pretend' and talk a lot of emotive crap, Abby, what you need to face up to is what caused the problem in that room.

ALL of the people in it failed. Some of them were clearly women. You should be addressing them all, otherwise nothing at all will change.


References: Start investigating Bernays and Niebuhr here, anyone honest but uninformed: http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-48147994
https://twitter.com/SocialistVoice/status/1133770741147754497

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 23: When 'metoo' means "I also refuse to do anything about this nasty man who is manhandling, possibly assaulting a woman at this dinner engagement in front of us all".

Thrust: The Indy writes: <<As we saw last night, in the video of Mark Field manhandling a protester, it happens at black tie dinners, perpetrated by an MP, with more than 100 people watching.

How many of the people in that room have put themselves in such a situation before, have thought about what they would do if they saw such an act of unprovoked violence happening in front of them? I bet not one of them would have reasoned that it would have been OK to just watch, and yet that is what so many of them did.

When the MeToo movement took place and allegations of violence towards women were revealed about powerful men, from comedians to directors to politicians, so many people around these men must have asked themselves: how could I not see? How could I not see when it was right in front of me? >>


Direction of resistance: << What he did was so unspeakable because he did it so casually, in front of a room full of people, a room full of eyes and cameras. It was as though he thought it was completely normal and justified behaviour towards a woman peacefully protesting, walking past him and barely looking him in the eye. >>


Removal of resistance: I have asked myself why the women and men watching this happen did nothing.


Unification: Abby Tomlinson almost gets that but misses a key point, perhaps blinded by sexism (where one gender is, to you, more important and more universally innocent than the other). How come no women in the room did anything, said anything there on that video, when this happened? When will the 'metoo' movement realise that the abuse of women in our society is not conducted by one gender but by both. If Tomlinson wants to admit that the people at the table are shameful, she must also admit (for it is visible) that some of them are not men. Why did the women say and do nothing when it happened? I did see a rather disconcerted look on the face of the man next to the Tory MP. So maybe there was some reaction. But who intervened? Did any women intervene? No. They were saying 'me too' to the cause of being a paid up member of 'polite'* society.

*What a use of a word, eh?!

Anyway, Abby, have you an answer? I agree with the thrust of your point but wonder why you aren't annoyed at the women in that room for their apparent lack of 'feminism'. And this time it really is feminism they lacked. You lack it too, but not 'feminism' in single quotes, where it is a word which does NOT mean a balanced and honest view of gender problems in society but what M.G. Piety calls << kneejerk 'feminism' >>.

If, Abby, you are honest and want to help fix the problems, I suggest you read the numberwang doc in the references below, particularly my attacks on racists who call themselves feminists. Let's hope you're not one of them, or you'll never read it!


References: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mark-field-[..]-metoo-[..].html
http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html
https://twitter.com/SocialistVoice/status/1133770741147754497

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 22: To all the pseudo-intelligent 'well read' people who still find themselves going along with the blatantly false smears and attacks of every form on Corbyn I put one simple question to you?

Thrust: Aren't you a bit ashamed that you allow marketing and advertising - and peer pressure - to force you to 'accept' things which you know if you really thought about it you would absolutely agree are patently untrue? There is no shortage of clear evidence of that fact and you brush it under the carpet, and you know that more than anyone else does.


Direction of resistance: It's you whom Einstein would be most ashamed of.


Removal of resistance: It's you who waste humanity's progress the most.


Unification: The idiots have no way to do anything but what the marketing tells them. That you have let laziness and fear drive you to behave like (and become a paid up section of) the idiots is the same as saying "this part of the human race gives up on evolution and will lay down and die, in amongst the chaos of what a stupidly-run society brings upon us".

Consider what happens to them if you let homicidal maniacs continue to run all of our countries ONE DAY LONGER THAN 'necessary'. We need a general election to be announced right now.


References: Time, ladies and gentlemen, time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=earfw9iV39A

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 21: Many left wing jews are not jews, opponent of Palestinian rights Momentum's Lansman feels. Only jews who agree with him are real jews, he clearly thinks, in that deranged way religious fundamentalists think.

Thrust: The Canary informs us:

<<<

Momentum founder Jon Lansman is facing criticism after he claimed a group of left-wing Jews are 'not part of' the Jewish community.

Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) is made up of Jewish Labour members, and the organisation is active in around "half of all local constituency [Labour] parties".

Still, in an email to JVL, Lansman claimed that the organisation is not "part of the Jewish community", saying:

<< neither the vast majority of individual members of JVL nor the organisation itself can really be said to be part of the Jewish community >>

>>>


Direction of resistance: The Canary's conclusion: << Who is really in denial?

Neither JVL nor its supporters are denying that some antisemitism exists in Labour. The people in denial seem to be those like Lansman who refuse to properly acknowledge the weaponisation of antisemitism allegations against Corbyn's leadership. In fact, this apparent cowardice from some on the Labour left has allowed the political attacks to gain their current traction. So we should commend JVL for standing against dangerous smears that are obscuring the fight against real antisemitism and damaging the only real alternative to Conservative austerity. Suggesting JVL members are the 'wrong sort of Jews' for taking a stand, meanwhile, is frankly a disgrace. >>


Removal of resistance: To Lansman I have one or two things to say right here, and to all others out there who make up outrageous claims about 'anti-semitism' in order to OBSTRUCT the defence of other people (whether Palestinians, Iraqis, Libyans, Yemenis, Iranians, or anyone else) from genocide and imperialist or mercantile-feudal military attacks and occupations.

It is no secret that most of those who opposed Apartheid in South Africa, perhaps all, see Israel as a worse "apartheid state". To obstruct justice for Palestinians is, as Zijek and Sanders have both made clear, in public, to continue the work of those who committed the holocaust of jews last century, and to say that you do it in the name of those jews is a desecration of their memory.


Unification: So, Lansman. Let me tell you.

I'm sick of anti-semites and racists like you who obstruct Corbyn shamelessly. Particularly when not only does he have so much jewish support but most non white people in England see him as the only anti-racist leader in Parliament (although Lucas is the same as him).

The sincerity of those who claim to lament the holocaust of jews last century is a joke if such people oppose Corbyn and in any way support or are silent about the genocides committed by the USA, Europe and Israel THIS century, THIS decade, THIS year, THIS week, THIS morning, THIS minute.

I never realised it before and most of my friends from school don't realise it but they really do NOT sincerely lament the holocaust of jews.

ANYONE sincere in that lament would oppose today's genocide as firmly as they condemn Hitler's.

But the sincerity was never going to be there, not in a society which portrays Britain's centuries of genocide and destruction of people's lives as a "civilising" force.

Shame on you.

As many as 7 million innocent, mostly 'muslim' people may have been killed in your name. That's something like 23,000 buildings like the Grenfell Tower all being incinerated in that fashion - that's how many people 'we' have killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, 23,000 lots of the Grenfell Tower. Died in the same way - innocent and in the way of corporations' dollars. All this death has to be stopped and everything leading up to it. 'Our' war machine is beyond the pale.

Jack Balkwill writes << Australian scientist Gideon Polya did a study of the effect of war on the Afghanistan population and concluded that as a result of the invasion and occupation up to 2009,'This carnage involving 4.5 million post-invasion violent and non-violent excess Afghan deaths constitutes an Afghan Holocaust and an Afghan Genocide as defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention.

So if this estimate is correct, there are 4.5 million dead in Afghanistan as a result of the invasion and occupation. Combined with the 2.5 million who died from war and sanctions in Iraq, we arrive at the rough figure of 7 million dead.

But if 7 million people died, why is it that few seem aware of these numbers? After all, anyone you ask on the street can tell you 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust. Why aren't 7 million Muslims important enough to notice? >>

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.

Be ashamed of anyone who disregards those 7 million dead.

As ashamed as I and many are of anyone who does that OR disregards the 6 million jews who died in a similar genocide which clearly too few people truly learned from. 7 million people may have been slaughtered in Afghanistan and Iraq. Are 6 million Jews MORE important than 7 million Iraqis and Afghans (or the same? Just as important?)

As for Labour party racism - isn't it time we address JEWISH RACISTS in the Labour party?

Imagine if Sarah Champion had said about Jewish Men what she said about Pakistani Men? She WOULD be called racist - indeed 'anti-semitic'.

So there's no doubt SHE IS A RACIST.

Her attitude to Pakistani men is such that if she had the same attitude as that towards Jewish men, she would never again work in Whitehall.

She could say it after the Weinstein incident, for example - and it'd be a similar statement to that she has made about Pakistani men.

Eg if after Weinstein was exposed as a sex abuser she had implied that it was a Jewish problem and that there were Jewish grooming gangs in Hollywood. And there's Jess Phillips, who makes wild claims about Pakistanis or Bangladeshis importing wives for disabled children. Would she make generlisations about jews based on a few cases like Weinstein's were Jess in Hollywood and a Christian? Perhaps. If what she had said had been said about jews it would be correctly labelled racist/'anti-semitic'. She's unfit to be an MP. The world is bigger than the 3 non-white people (or whatever it is) you know, Jess. It is unacceptable that this needs to be explained to you, you are unfit to be an MP, please resign and, as Marina Hyde puts it, go and save hedgehogs. I'm sure you can do less harm that way.

And this:

<<

NEW YORK (JTA) - The Anti-Defamation League found that 1,879 anti-Semitic acts were committed in the United States in 2018.

Right-wing individuals were responsible for 1,328 of those incidents - nearly 71 percent. Left-wing individuals were responsible for none of 2018's attacks, and Islamist individuals were responsible for four, according to the organization's data.

"Neither side of the political spectrum is exempt from intolerance. The idea that this is a problem with only one side is wrong," ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency during a conference call. However, he added that "white supremacy is a global terror threat."

Examining the ADL's data going back to 2002, JTA found that 2,633 - approximately 34 percent - of the 7,686 reported anti-Semitic and extremist incidents have been attributed to perpetrators with right-wing ideology, compared to 137 attributed to Islamists or those with a left-wing ideology.

>>

Clearly the pretence that corbyn, the left and muslims are generally 'anti-semitic' helps the right wing, the real source of almost all anti-semitism, and obviously other racism (as if racism should be divided up, it's ALL racism - or xenophobia, for the nit pickers), stay in denial.


References: https://www.thecanary.co/uk/[..]-left-wing-jews-are-not-part-of-the-jewish-community/
https://forward.com/fast-forward/423538/right-wing-responsible-for-71-of-anti-semitic-extremist-incidents-adl/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/30/have-millions-of-deaths-from-americas-war-on-terror-been-concealed/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/19/empire-over-life/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 20: Next, we'll need to address white collar criminals who attempt to pretend Corbyn and the movements supporting him victimise bankers and capitalists. For this Max Keiser's journalism can be very useful, not just that of left wing intellectual leaders like Alex Cockburn.

Thrust: First of all, let's look at a classic example of how broken, irresponsible, criminal and criminally negligent the overseeing of our 'financial system' has become.

<<<

Stacy Herbert on outrageous stock valuations. Meet the 25 million dollar grilled cheese truck.

Stacy Herbert and Max Keiser report that << The grilled cheese truck company has four grilled cheese vehicles and they have commenced trading on the over-the-counter market under the term GRLD [..] the company has a market value of 108 million. [..] (The company) has about one million dollars of assets and almost three million dollars in liabilities. In the third quarter of 2014 it had sales of almost a million dollars on which it had a net loss of almost 900,000 dollars. >>

Max Keiser observes << Markets go through cycles and sometimes trade at excessive highs and they get wiped out. >>

>>>


Direction of resistance: These white collar criminals and their representatives who try and pretend Corbyn's backers do not include a considerable portion of the real elites of this land, across every field, should pay attention to this particular nugget (much more to come, to deal with these particular criminals, right here, with clear arguments) concerning the misallocation of capital. Bear in mind that Keiser is a Wall Street expert. I know how much you'd like to just smear him and ignore him, but the facts are against you:

<<

Dumb money misallocates capital.

Stacy Herbert argues that misallocation of capital in the healthcare system is the result of the idiocy which underlies how it is controlled, who controls it and why they do that.

Max Keiser feels that misallocation of capital is short-changing infrastructure of important institutions (healthcare, for example) and of the economy in general.

We need a healthcare system which is thought out intelligently, Keiser insists.

Governments are pressured by "interest groups" to just do what corporations require. There is no bona fide healthcare system in the US. Cameron is paving the way for the UK to follow suit completely.

>>


Removal of resistance: Now take a look at this - extremely rich and powerful individuals and families sucking welfare out of society whilst failing to share due profits with workers, leaving staff paid so little the state has to provide welfare to them to help them survive on such low income:

<<<

Subsidy of $900,000 per store, per year.

Dady Chery and Gilbert Mercier write << Given that WalMart currently employs 1.2 percent of the US workforce in the private sector, one could say that a significant part of SNAP serves to subsidize Walmart. That is not all. Many WalMart employees also rely on Medicaid and other government programs for anything approaching a decent living standard. Indeed, taxpayers are estimated to subsidize WalMart to the tune of $900,000 per store, per year. By contrast to the dire poverty of those who generate WalMart's wealth, if we put aside Forbes' official list of the super rich and do some of our own math, it immediately becomes evident that 'Number One' (Bill Gates) and 'Number Two' (Warren Buffet) are rather puny compared to Walmart's owners. >>

>>>

I would call it 'fake capitalism' - where people enrich themselves essentially by breaking the rules, by passing the cost on (eg to workers, to consumers, to the environment and thus state and taxpayer).


Unification: Let's finish with a couple of items from the past which, together with what I've said so far, is a kind of starter which these stooges for or actual white collar criminals should try to digest before the main course kicks off, perhaps this weekend or next week:

<<

All you 'proud capitalists' who praise our current failed-capitalist status quo, let's focus on how stupid you are being.

Corporations must deduct from their income the cost of -

repairing environmental damage they do, including to human bodies of workforce (thus proper income is also vital - outsourcing to factory slaves is an act of capitalist-failure)

anything else which is caused by their actions when producing what they sell us.

Instead, things like environmental damage and even low pay are left to society to make up for, we have to pay their bills.

For example frackers in the USA go to a place and frack it until it can be fracked no more and leave. The local government ends up having to pay the cost of dealing with most of the environmental damage done by the frackers. Fracking is alleged to be 'profitable' to some extent, some of the time, because considerable cost is just not covered.

If processed food makers cause cancer in society, the cost of those cancers must also be deducted from their income.

It is the case in every situation of a similar nature: those who do stuff to make money must pay for ALL the costs of the stuff they do including those which are knock-on costs.

So when you pretend that you support profit making you're lying to yourselves. What you're saying really is that if an armed robbery planner only spends about 100 pounds on the petrol and a few 100 on the weapons, that's good business, intelligent work and a clear profit - rather than a criminal way to just take money without earning it which technically anyone could do in a lawless society - and the corporate world's lack of regulation, particularly the financial sector, is certainly at a level of lawlessness which is comparable to armed robbery or the British empire or something like those things. Hitler's invasions. That sort of thing.

>>

and this is pretty key:

<<<

A response to people who rarely use their minds, are lazy, ignorant and visibly so, and yet who often accuse 'the left' of 'being bad with money' or figures or some vague accusation of that kind which leads to asserting that the economy is 'not safe' in the hands of people who are not right wing moronic corporate whores with no minds. Let's consider this theory of theirs for a moment.

After all, people often 'ask Corbyn' where he will 'get the money' to save the NHS and public services from being financially predated upon by American corporations and people who include Richard Branson.

Unashamed to use public money on a grand scale to bribe the racist, homophobic, sexist, creationist, insane DUP, even Theresa May has spoken of 'money trees' in her bid to infantilise a very serious topic.

So let's take a little look into a good example of what's really going on and what these cult-of-personality game show hosts like May, Cameron, Davidson, Clinton, Blair and that sort of fool/tool are really failing to do - where we really are losing money, to pure idiocy and weakness and all the things they'd like to pretend that men like Corbyn are, when the opposite is true.

Pete Dolack writes: << Technology companies squeeze somewhat less out of their employees. Apple ranks as the technology company with the most revenue per employee, at about $1.9 million. Google ranks second at $1.2 million. But how much profit does a company need to make? Apple's products are produced through sweatshop labor outside the U.S., mostly in China, through an army of subcontractors that dwarf the size of Apple's direct employees.

U.S. President Barack Obama once asked Apple's chief executive officer, Steve Jobs, what it would take to bring those jobs back to the U.S., and Jobs replied, "They aren't coming back." Apple claims it can't afford to pay higher wages. Yet Apple is sitting on an immense pile of money - $206 billion according to its own quarterly financial report.

Research by the Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change in Manchester, in 2012, found that the cost of manufacturing a 4G iPhone in China is $178 while the phone sells for $640 - a profit margin of 72 percent. The Centre calculated that if it were made in the U.S. by employees making $21 an hour, the production cost would be $337, a still robust profit margin of 46 percent. >>

So let's consider that - not only are these various transnationals whom men like Blair bow down to and obey like Daleks or something - not only are they taking huge additional profits by diverting employment and earnings away from the countries they come from and are nurtured by, not only do they drive slave labour and awful conditions, but they also find ways to avoid their fair share of tax - so that indirectly they are stealing from the public purse - large sums which are their profits, much of it simply taken from the public purse and from society - which subsidises and nurtures them - and then their attitude to the workforce is as shown with the example of Apple and the iPhone.

So consider all that next time you start bleating, on behalf of corporate dalek-like idiots, about where Corbyn will 'get the money' to stop corporations basically destroying and raping the world and future which belongs to your children.

Alex Cockburn wrote: << So there's nothing irrevocable about the job loss. US workers, taught the necessary skills, can put things together properly. But if the jobs keep going away, why would any American lay out the money to learn those skills? Obama's recent State of the Union speech was a step in the right direction: calling on business leaders to "ask what you can do to bring the jobs back." Specifically, he proposed ending tax breaks for US corporations operating overseas, rewarding US-based production and turning the unemployment sinkhole into a re-employment system. "These jobs could and would come back to America," says Prestowitz, "if Washington were to begin to respond tit for tat to the mercantilist game.. It wouldn't be difficult to make a lot more of the iPhone in America and to make it competitively if either Apple or the US government really wanted that to happen." >>

>>>

So, all you criminals or stooges covering for them, who accuse Corbyn as you do (and I'll dig out some of your marvellous quotes asap), you are projecting. You justify theft and tyranny by pretending that the masses are guilty - indeed the main crimes you seem to assign to them are thought crimes, since you no longer can pretend, in such a transparent world, that they are the criminal filth you like to see us all as.

I shall provide you with a very full picture of the way in which our so-called 'capitalist' system today is seriously messed up and the fact that the problem lies in mismanagement, misallocation, ultimately with incompetence and immoral practises right at the top.

Max Keiser and Alex Cockburn have provided, along with other fine journalists, plenty of information we can all use to see what's going on. Your deceitful way of denying the truth, obstructing any attempt to look at or for it, and basic lack of any real understanding of the financial and capitalist system you 'defend' - or rather the cancer killing that system which you really defend, rather than any 'system' itself, which is in fact being defended by all of those, from Cockburn to Keiser, who seek the truth about what's going on, what has gone wrong and what needs to be done.

I am particularly pleased to note, at this stage in this document, that there's no way in hell I could post an object like this with ONE click, in ONE blob, on some half-arsed bullshit website like Facebook or Twitter. Mediocrity is typical of corporate entities, and Facebook and Twitter are VERY mediocre, as far as human history, even in the present, goes. I gather there are many particularly amazing online phenomena in places like South Korea and Japan, contrasting with the hillbilly cultures of America and much of Europe-Britain.

I think that attempts to pretend Corbyn is interested in people rather than dodgy practises are themselves attempts to defend dodgy practises and to continue to obstruct PEOPLE, all people, from the rightful egalitarian society they want and deserve to be build if they have the tenacity to do so.

Later I'm going to have a look at Alex Cockburn on the topic of the concept of "the poor". Right now, however, I'll leave you to read all of the above.


References: http://rt.com/shows/keiser-report/232155-episode-max-keiser/
http://rt.com/shows/keiser-report/175580-episode-max-keiser-632/
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2013/09/23/the-united-states-obscene-wealth-inequality/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/25/they-make-millions-per-employee-and-cry-they-dont-make-enough/
http://www.thenation.com/article/165979/sure-apple-could-build-iphone-here

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 19: And if you want to be me, be me.

Thrust: << You can do what you want

The opportunity's on

And if you find a new way

You can do it today

You can make it all true

And you can make it undo

You see, ah ah ah

It's easy, ah ah ah

You only need to know

Well, if you want to say yes, say yes

And if you want to say no, say no

'Cause there's a million ways to go

You know that there are >>

Songwriters: Yusuf Islam / Cat Stevens.


Direction of resistance: Listen to it on your spotify or such.


Removal of resistance: << Well, if you want to sing out, sing out

And if you want to be free, be free

'Cause there's a million things to be >>


Unification: Official Cat Stevens youtube version in references below.


References: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_p2LoGO7Uo

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 18: 110 days of prison for young Israeli woman who refuses to commit genocide and wants to honour the memory of holocaust victims by not being like those who killed them.

Thrust: 972 blog writes << The Israeli army released conscientious objector Atalya Ben-Abba from mandatory military service on Tuesday after she spent 110 days in military prison for refusing to be drafted. Ben-Abba was released on grounds of unsuitability, after her request to be recognized as a conscientious objector was rejected a day earlier. >>


Direction of resistance: Just as in the USA and Europe younger generations are rejecting the older generations' vitriolic imperialistic race-war on the 'non white' world, even in Israel, where rejecting the alleged racial superiority of Israeli jews is clearly viewed as a particularly immoral position to take, amazing young women like Atalya Ben-Abba are all the more driven to stand up for and defend the sanctity of their heritage from the ignorance of racists whose Israel is no better than Hitler's Germany.


Removal of resistance: Meanwhile attempts by the British government and others to criminalise criticism of Israel and Israel's racism have been overturned in the courts and government actions in that arena have been deemed illegal.


Unification: Your average Britain fake-elite lackey, like Mitchell and Webb or David Baddiel, to use recent examples, will NEVER EVER talk about the reasons why young women like Atalya refuse to condone Israel's genocide or participate in it. Indeed numerous jews who take the same position as her are totally ignored by idiots like Baddiel who clearly seems to think that being 'a jew' is at odds with being someone who believes in equality for all.

No doubt people like Baddiel haven't the slightest idea, too busy echoing their hatred of people who stand up against racism, of what I wrote in a point entitled: << "Some 40 Jewish Holocaust survivors and more than 200 direct descendants of survivors signed a public letter condemning Israel's military operation in Gaza." >>

What I wrote was:

<<<

Democracy Now reports << More than 300 people affected by the Nazi Holocaust have published a letter condemning "the ongoing genocide of Palestinian people." The signatories include 40 Jewish Holocaust survivors, as well as descendants of both survivors and victims. In their letter published in Saturday's New York Times, they condemned the United States for its financial support of Israel, writing, "Genocide begins with the silence of the world." >>

Forward.com reports << Some 40 Jewish Holocaust survivors and more than 200 direct descendents of survivors signed a public letter condemning Israel's military operation in Gaza. >>

Forward.com explains << In a statement, the network said the letter was written in response to an ad campaign in which Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize laureate, compares the murder of children during the Holocaust to Hamas' actions in Gaza.

"We are disgusted and outraged by Elie Wiesel's abuse of our history in these pages to justify the unjustifiable: Israel's wholesale effort to destroy Gaza and the murder of more than 2,000 Palestinians, including many hundreds of children. Nothing can justify bombing UN shelters, homes, hospitals and universities. Nothing can justify depriving people of electricity and water," the letter reads.

It concludes: "'Never again' must mean NEVER AGAIN FOR ANYONE." >>

Naturally even these holocaust survivors are immediately pelted with abuse and insults the moment they "attack" Israel by condemning its crimes.

>>>


References: https://972mag.com/idf-releases-conscientious-objector-after-110-days-in-prison/128399/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQZiHgbBBcI
http://www.mintpressnews.com/court-uk-illegal-block-israel-boycott/229202/
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170714-opposing-zionism-is-not-racism-rules-scottish-court/
http://forward.com/articles/204626/-holocaust-survivors-condemn-israel-for-gaza-war/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 17: So what have those who 'strategically' did not vote Corbyn at the general election to 'prevent Brexit' achieved?

Thrust: Well let's turn to Mark Steel for what our new tory government and Prime Minister will no doubt be doing to us, and all who voted for anyone, whether Corbyn or not:

<< We're in safe hands. A two-to-one majority of Conservative members who will choose our next prime minister would be willing to accept "significant economic damage" to secure Brexit. Even more, would accept a break up of the UK.

I expect 85 per cent would be happy to "have the house filled with fox s***, even the fridge, and the cupboard full of broken board games and the coffee pot if it ensured Brexit". Seventy-nine per cent "would be prepared to hand their children to a trafficking gang for up to nine years" if it meant we definitely left the EU on 31 October, because sometimes you have to make sacrifices for the greater good.

We might be crawling through the woods eating maggots, but at least we'll know the EU can't tell us they have to be less wriggly or we can't call them maggots. >>


Direction of resistance: Meanwhile the Royal Variety comedians have yet to come up with a single funny joke this century, after years of agonising over it and so very many attempts, the bulk of them televised, merchandised and monetised fully.


Removal of resistance: Robert Webb recently tried: he made a joke on Twitter in which he said something like "if Jeremy Corbyn isn't evil and satan reborn then my bell-end can play Beehoven's ninth on the piano" - I mentioned to him (see numberwang article below) that he was actually no more successful in getting fans for himself, really, than a popular tampon (for example) - ie that he doesn't gain fans through his comedy just through advertising and so on.

For whatever reason, Webb did, as far as I can see, delete his stupid comment about bell-ends. Perhaps that means he realises that he hasn't yet made a funny joke and must try some more.


Unification: Steel demonstrates how funny you can be if you aren't a sycophant to power and an obedient tool, the way your average establishment comedian tends to be, whether or not Mitchell and Webb, Baddiel, or any of these stick figures (who drive those of us with taste to buy a lot of old dvds, or just write our own comedy and entertainment generally) will ever do anything other than waste humanity's time and resources and fail to be funny, intelligent or useful in any way but to their egos and need for gratification.

Steel on the honesty of many of the racist white and token moral-cowards I went to school with, ie tories (and blairites) - this just about sums up most of the people I sat with when I learned that you should try to be intelligent and honest - I guess they were only at that school to get 'cv points', not to actually learn what our teachers were teaching: << Some of us will reassure ourselves that many Tory MPs are violently opposed to him, but they'll issue statements that start: "I'm aware I pledged if Boris Johnson becomes leader I would become a suicide bomber to blow him up, and let the remains of his floppy hair scattered across my charred body be a lasting epitaph for this holy act; but upon consideration, I believe he's an excellent leader and I'm delighted to serve under him as junior minister for kiwi fruits." >>

Indeed, so many years after Greg Dyke pointed out how << hideously white >> the bbc is, it still hasn't evolved or begun to make anything which could possibly match the talent British television shone its light on back in the 70s and 80s.


References: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tory-party-leader-contest-conservatives-brexit-johnson-gove-hunt-a8967806.html
Can Mitchell and Web or David Baddiel or such weak 'comedians' claim they are any more responsible for who becomes their 'fan' than a tampon's innate excellence determines whether or not women buy it? How much of the cause of watching crap like Webb or Baddiel is 'the power of marketing' and the distribution-end determination of audiences - rather than, as with someone like Steel or Dave Chappelle, say, their fans' being brought to them by how well they take the piss out of those others cannot - eg people with immense power and authority who misuse that? Read the numberwang article to consider the matter more deeply.

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 16: The Grauniad pines still for its pre-Corbyn days of unchecked genocidal colonialism!

Thrust: On Facebook, this from Tariq Ali: << The puff piece in todays Guardian propaganda section by Patrick Wintour in praise of David Miliband takes one back to thew worst days of Blair's reign. No reference to the Iraq war, its casualties, etc. Nor too Libya. Yesterday there was a free ad for Blair in podcast propaganda. Are they preparing for a new party. Sounds like it >>


Direction of resistance: Can't be arsed to look for it or link to it.


Removal of resistance: The daily banal bullshit of the fleets of brainless western faux-academics and faux-"professionals" is a loathesome thing to handle. Now that I've given us (including me) a little example of the media roundup plan, I may carry on with my plan for a wee holiday first anyway.


Unification: You could always read Tariq Ali's site, if you're looking for something to read right now.


References: http://tariqali.org

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 15: From the Good-old (doesn't Guard)ian: Hard Remain daily Corbyn smears, Jingoism for Women, Climate crisis, the horrific death of Mariam Moustafa in Nottingham. And in other news, some tory men in suits playing intellectually-dishonest disingenuous political and verbal tennis.

Thrust: Worst things first, in Nottingham, a girl the Guardian describes as an "Egyptian student" was assaulted by a "gang" of what the Independent calls four teenage girls. Her later death is, the Guardian mentions, "not legally linked" to the incident.

The Independent explains: << Mariam Moustafa suffered a stroke, which left her in a coma after being "pushed so hard" that she was slammed against a bus shelter in Nottingham last February, and died almost a month later. >>

A horrific incident. The papers assert that the courts spared the children guilty of what presumably one can call grievous bodily harm (or is that not 'legally linked' to what they did?) jail sentences and 'criminalisation'. One, aged 20, was ordered to do << 40 hours unpaid work >> which is the equivalent of about a week of work at any job anyone here has ever done, presumably. On average.

<< Dobbin and the others were either filming the incident or laughing while watching events unfold >> one or other of those papers mentions. I'll leave you with those facts (unless you feel you should read more, via the links below). That's all rather grim. And the question I am wondering is whether or not you, or anyone, feels that the girl who died has received any justice. And then of course people will ask, when gathering data and 'statistics', whether she'd have received such justice if she had some sort of 'different name'. That's an interesting question I think.

Back to the media roundup, though.


Direction of resistance: So, as well as spotlighting a particularly grim event, perhaps not making much comment about the apparent leniency of the sentence, going along with justifications, the Guardian (I'll check the Independent tomorrow) naturally (as well as a trivial main feature about tory boys and their pantomine) make sure they 'cover' the latest news on Corbyn and 'Brexit' - ie the pursuit of 'hard remain' - the need to force all voters to vote remain, somehow, or undo the referendum which was, after all, a tactic by Cameron, Clegg, Lib dems, Blairites, all the nasty racist shit-heads I loathe because they're morally bankrupt and need to evolve, to destroy Corbyn - they fully believed the referendum would lead to a remain outcome and also destroy Labour, instead it did the opposite (Old Pauline Kenneth Baker was gloating about it at the time of the referendum, look up his article - he was 100% wrong - his predictions for Labour all happened to Conservatives and what he thought would happen to the Conservatives happened to Labour and Cameron had to resign and the Tories are broken forever!)

"fractious and inconclusive" are the keywords the Guardian wants its smurf-hoob drones to be indoctrinated into perceiving Corbyn as.

" a more wholehearted remain stance" is what the Hard Remainers call their extremist position!

The rest of the Guardian article is apparently just a dinner party list or advert for various celebrities working in the MP sector. Just your usual tedious press release.


Removal of resistance: In even more terrible news, generally:

<< We have to not only slow down greenhouse gas emissions, we have to reverse them. That is the challenge for the next 20 years. >>

Widespread mayhem bearing down on our backward species.


Unification: And then the total dross, for example "Women's World Cup" - I think I'll have to share some Chomsky on Sport with you asap.

Looking forward to writing, asap, some more roundup of Guardian front page, other sections, not just main news headline.

As for Tory boys, I'm sure whatever it is the Guardian says you already know, or don't care, which is more sensible.

The Hard Remain fiasco, the climate disaster and the growing violence and immorality throughout our society, particularly among the young, are the main headline news in the Guardian right now.

And for the Trident-lovers out there, chew on this from the Guardian you risk-taking ace-of-spades-singing suicidal nutters: << The Pentagon believes using nuclear weapons could "create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability", according to a new nuclear doctrine adopted by the US joint chiefs of staff last week.

The document, entitled Nuclear Operations, was published on 11 June, and was the first such doctrine paper for 14 years. Arms control experts say it marks a shift in US military thinking towards the idea of fighting and winning a nuclear war - which they believe is a highly dangerous mindset.

"Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability," the joint chiefs' document says. "Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict." >>

You've focused on the bogey man so long, you trident-loving self-destructive crazies, you have totally failed to control the serial killer (the USA) in the room! You total Baldricks.

In other Baldrick news, Berger the Labour MP who with a bunch of others formed what we in the Reggae Community call "The Tinges Are Funny Corporation LLC". Within an hour of formation, a member of this new group of MPs, all being thrown out of Labour, all facing reselection, had disgraced herself and outed herself as a racist. Another then tried to justify her racism, saying she 'mis-spoke'. Now they've all jumped their own mini-ship, apparently, and are turning Lib Dem - those Lib Dems will clearly work with any racists at all. So 'hard remainers' remember - those Lib Dems will as readily work with Farage or Johnson as with Berger or Umunna. you can rely on their dishonesty and disloyalty, not on ANY policy. Policies come and go for people like them. To avoid Hard Brexit you have to ensure Corbyn gets in, I would guess! Good luck.


References: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/[..]-bus-stop-attack-nottingham-a8966496.html
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019/jun/19/four-teenagers-spared-jail-after-bus-stop-attack-on-student
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/19/labour-mps-warn-corbyn-not-to-commit-to-second-brexit-referendum
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/19/himalayan-glacier-melting-doubled-since-2000-scientists-reveal
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/19/nuclear-weapons-pentagon-us-military-doctrine

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 14: Guide for office workers, politicians and other special needs humans relating to the area of networked information phenomena, democratic media manifestations and how you can handle them for example if you are electioneering, cheating, lying, exploiting and want to avoid being fully exposed to large audiences as such.

Thrust: Well, the bad news is that by the time they have a white paper ready for you on any particular technological innovation that innovation will already have kicked your arse.


Direction of resistance: Nonetheless, you can always save yourself. There are known ways: be honest, do your job, don't exploit others.


Removal of resistance: Other than that there's really nothing at all you can do to withstand networked technology and that which it makes possible.


Unification: Or did you manage to stop Jeremy Corbyn rising? Well? Did you? Do you feel you did? And yet how many of you even understand the basics of how grassroots online political networking evolves, what really ties it together, what causes it? I'll give you one clue: it works VERY differently to the marketing, advertising and bullshit YOU made all your money thanks to, you workshy talentless Royal Variety performers!!


References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 13: The FAQ on FAQs: maybe it's almost time to take a small step for online debate.

Thrust: I think it's soon going to be time to begin some preliminary roundups of media action.


Direction of resistance: But before that, one last bit of preliminary/preparatory material.


Removal of resistance: An extensive set of 'faqs' is planned for tvhobo now, and so on this page the plans for those faqs can emerge.


Unification: To begin with, without a doubt, an faq on anti-semitism smears and white/jewish racism has to be penned.

Other topics for faqs to be developed for:

corporate misbehaviour

media unreliability

western 'science'

To pick three key topics out for now. Plenty more to add. The faq section may prove very useful in time.


References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 12: "The complexity of language which you have to learn when you learn a language is almost entirely externalisation" (Chomsky).

Thrust: In that nutshell (read a longer extract concerning the matter via the link in the references below, and references on that link) lies the problem with the so-called 'west' today.


Direction of resistance: The reason idiots like, for example, Alistair Campbell or Robert Webb or Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton are 'up themselves', (a list of 10,000 people could be made right here right now, but why? You can extrapolate) is that they have been taught to see the complexity of communicated/external language as a great evolutionary trait, and to measure their own 'worth' and 'survivability' in terms of their capacity to learn by rote all sorts of theoretically needlessly complex forms.


Removal of resistance: There must be a hundred different ways in which I can try to explain that problem without there being at least a majority of readers who still do not get it.


Unification: Read the Chomsky. That's the best way to be sure you may manage to comprehend the real nature of the organisation of your mind.

I was reading through what I wrote about the 'numberwangers' earlier and noticed this: << How much of the media, of big companies, and small ones, of the people you meet everywhere, important and unimportant, onscreen and off it, are not actually mediocre when it comes to their capacity to be intelligent, to be honest, to be diligent, to be thorough, to be on the case like Rumpole, to be facing the truth like the Pythons, to be true to the spirit like Briers and Kendall and Eddington and Keith? How many of them are, instead, in fact, weak minded, weak willed, servants of narcissism and any tyrant who can open a door for them to some comfort? >>

In fact it is me, more than 99% or 100% of readers who can understand what I'm saying there. If you ARE mediocre you have nothing to measure by and do not know you are mediocre. The nature of the document as, primarily, self-communication, before any other form of communication, says much about reality which most of you miss.

On top of everything else it says this: that if you are truly 'enlightened' then your chief audience is yourself, so your object is only ever to disseminate truth in total correspondence to all internal organisation of your mind. You are "intellectually honest".

Thus anyone who takes as an a priori the need for 'p.r.' and basic dishonesty, of any sort, most of the time - is tending away from evolved, not in the direction of evolution.

This is the majority of humans in our times. The misunderstanding over language which the Chomsky quotes draw attention to is key to you, reader, if you want to be one of the ones to evolve, asap.


References: http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 11: Never let your opponent know what to really expect.

Thrust: So on that note let me explain why I'm not bothering to add Jacobin to my list of journalistic sources (I'm sure it doesn't count as a corporate source, but if it does I'll add it there later, once I have evidence that it is a corporate source).


Direction of resistance: So Jacobin, whom I appear to recall having found printing rubbish in the past, have written this false statement:

<< Antisemitism is a serious problem and should be rooted out wherever it is found, be that in the GOP, the Tory Party, or Labour. Precisely because it's serious, it shouldn't be wielded fraudulently or as a synonym for whoever criticizes Israel (which also associates Jewish people in general as responsible for the actions of a foreign state). Like the headmaster who recently compared attacks on the elitism of private schools to antisemitism, saying that any criticism of the powerful is an attack on Jews isn't a good look. >>

What's false is only the claim that the headmaster in question said what Jacobin says he said. If YOU, reader, find Anthony Wallersteiner's words you'll see he says that some attacks on elites are crass - he does not say, as Jacobin implies, that attacks on elites are ACTUAL anti-semitism, all such attacks - which is an absurd and infantile error by Jacobin in every way.

In fact he did not even, as the other of Jacobin's contradictory pair of claims falsely (you can check, his words are in the public domain) asserted [and writers less illiterate than Jacobin's, elsewhere, will also have lazily asserted], suggest that attacks on elites were (generically) akin to antisemitism, he just said that there exist many attacks on elites (among all attacks, some of which are very legitimate, eg his own) which are in fact exactly the same as anti-semitism - he mentions some anti-semitic document I know nothing about - these stupid attacks include your illuminati type of weird conspiracy theory - although what Wallersteiner seems to draw attention to is the fact that some people have blanket hatred for all the so-called elites, the entire privately educated class. Which is absolutely different to making valid, even socialist, criticisms about 'elites'.

And intellectual laziness by 'the many' is a serious flaw in any society, and the harm to elites, as I mention further on in this doc, is something Chomsky has warned of and of course with its double-standards Jacobin is unlikely to pretend Chomsky said that scapegoating elites is antisemitism, yet he said EXACTLY what Wallersteiner said which they then ludicrously claimed was what they ludicrously claimed (that Wallersteiner said that people who criticise elites are anti-semitic - demonstration of SERIOUS illiteracy and journalistic failure by Jacobin, I have a duty to emphasize).

Consider this - when I first applied for jobs in software development it was working class white men, churlishly, denying me any job at that company in Wimbledon, where I grew up. I sought to have work in the development side of a travel business website, a fairly big operation. Since then, on my own, sites I have built single-handedly with effectively zero budget and zero support have spanned across most of the world, had 100s of millions of eyeballs seeing pages of mine and other content of mine on other domains, and in my youth when working with 'the affiliate networks' I generated a few 100,000 pounds of profits for the high streets and malls, by means of just one little website I made with no one else's help - earning something like a 10% commission overall. (About 25,000 over several years before I finally quit and agreed to 'get a job' - in the telesales sector).

So I probably would have been quite good at such jobs, you know.

When I found work, I worked as a bottom end telesales operative in many companies after that those in charge of me were often white males with state education. Once it was a privately educated white south african who admitted to still having certain apartheid era values, and who would sit on her computer playing games whilst we, her 25 underlings, slogged away cleaning data. A jewish guy there, a teacher, was the other definitely privately educated person working as a slave. The rest, it's true, had state education or were migrants passing through.

Nonetheless in all my other jobs, I answered to working class white men with far more privilege than I or any non white privately educated member of staff of any company I have seen receives.

So the idea that the employment world is dominated by the privately educated isn't exactly true. Not, at least, from my perspective or that of many of Anthony Wallersteiner's students, certainly almost all of the 'non-white' ones.

A lot of the ideas of much of the 'left' are as simplistic and out of touch with the changing real world as the majority of 'right' wing 'followers' - ie people who decide, unlike anarchists of the Chomsky variety, to pin themselves to one or other parochial short-term system forever and ever amen.

Having been taught by Anthony Wallersteiner when he was a history teacher at another school I know that he is anti-racist, anti-imperialist and does not stand by Israel's racist apartheid. Not sure he'd want me to mention that here in public, eh? But it's for the common good that you face up to that, Jacobin. That's why you are not included in the list of reliables.

To sum up, since this document has become overcrowded with ideas, the attempt to portray the privately-educated as universally dominating our socio-economic life is scapegoating. Chomsky has himself warned against it. People are treating elites as an enemy to scapegoat along with migrants, Chomsky has said that specifically.

Will Jacobin use Chomsky's words in the same weaponised way it has misused Wallersteiner's? No, because they already know that Chomsky thinks what Chomsky thinks. That Wallersteiner teaches exactly what Chomsky teaches is something they don't know about so lazily they just re-purpose what little they have decided to hear in what he said and use it as a weapon. Familiar? Yep. It's EXACTLY what people who misuse the word 'anti-semitic' do!!

Gotcha Jacobin. Now pull up your socks.


Removal of resistance: Never mind. Try harder - one day you'll be good enough. But readers here should understand that what Anthony Wallersteiner said was correct and in fact his biggest critic was Margaret Hodge, the Israel poodle who has abused Jeremy Corbyn and called him 'antisemitic'. Jacobin is run by dilettantes, I would say, and that is why they make such basic errors, leap to conclusions, don't really help deal with our opponents in a fully forensic manner.


Unification: Naturally I agree with much of what they say, and of course with the fact that anti-semitism smears are, these days, usually nothing to do with actual anti-semitism and a word used by racists, often Islamophobes, to defend genocide and defend allegiance to genocidal systems and policies. Nonetheless, between Jacobin and Wallersteiner, one is intelligent and honest, the other is sadly not good enough to make my list.

In actual fact attempts to positively discriminate against private schools in awarding places at Oxford were what Mr Wallersteiner was attacking, not any privilege, but inequality.

What anyone like me who is a non white former student of a private school, who went to Oxford, understands only too well is that this means that Oxford is seeking to give the places earned by non white privately educated children to white state educated children.

That is ultimately the way this discrimination must be going and will continue to go until idiots take Mr Wallersteiner's lament more seriously.

I myself 'walked into' Oxford with a '2E' offer. Once there I found that most students from schools outside London other than from reputable private schools found it very hard to not treat non-white people as implicitly less intelligent than themselves.

People from private schools and/or London schools were the ones who tended to be decent to me and treat me as an equal - whereas people from outside London demonstrated, much of the time, that to them I come from "Londonistan" and furthermore that truth is owned by people with 'white skin'.

When you disregard Mr Wallersteiner's warning, you piss on the people who suffer from that intolerable inequality.

This is why Chomsky chooses a loftier position that that merely of 'socialism' - because these parties, this partisan division, often allows people to make a lot of mistakes they don't realise they're making. Jacobin's error over Wallersteiner is absurd. He is one of their greatest allies and one of the people who taught me to do everything you see me do here on this site. And Margaret Hodge, who hates me, and you (after all, you're READING this) loathes what he said. It really pisses her off that he said that. And it's true. He was, above all, demonstrating what a genuine comparison with anti-semitism is, and no doubt it is muslim students, amongst others, he is thinking of when he worries about which of his boys will lose their deserved places at a good university to someone who has been chosen above them in the name of 'social engineering'.

Playing games with which children get places at university, disregarding the work they do and what they visibly deserve - is a backward approach to life and one which is entirely disconnected with any sort of utopia.

I refer Jeremy Corbyn to this fact: those I met from grammar schools from the north tended towards being very racist and were enablers of Blair and sycophants to the right wing Labour 'elitists' (what Escobar points out are 'fake-elites'). Those who treated me extremely well tended to be people who had been in environments where their teachers, above all, had taught them to have respect for each other and had eliminated racial barriers to whatever extent, socially, teachers can.

Private schools do this well. Grammar schools, evidence I have seen would make anyone suspect, are not so good. Beyond that, in state education - that sort of utopianism is just out of the window.

Thus my experiences often contrast starkly with misconceptions put about by lazy people on the left, just that lazy segment ready to leap to conclusions, not so ready to do adequate appropriate thought and research.

In romance, this difference became particularly pronounced and thus I am able to be so clear on the matter, and on how grim an aspect of Britain's failures as a society it is - a key thing for your social justice department to investigate, no doubt.

I'm not sure if my college and its neighbouring 'northern' colleges like St Hugh's and Lady Margaret Hall have a higher number of state school and grammar school students than the rest of Oxford - but for whatever reason, I was exposed to a fair bit of evidence on that front.

Nonetheless, within privately educated students there was also some racial division, but far less. Most of the best times I had at Oxford were with male or female ex-private school students, and I do remember many good times if I think hard. My other 'friends' - the faux-socialists whom my own college thronged with - I had less good times with. Much of my time was spent facing their crusading, their racism, their drinking and vomiting, their vandalism, their slander. Some people you don't really miss when they're gone!!

Returning to the topic of this grid point, since the previous 11 grid points have all been so clear and this one has become so complex and filled with detail that only the most intelligent readers, those willing to make an effort to understand something important (at least to me, it's important, and maybe others in my shoes) will be able to digest it - I have to wonder if it's a 'bad idea' to post this, if I have muddied clear waters.

The answer is no (I'll later quote Chomsky on whether or not to "learn from the PR industry") - the fact is what I have said is true and must be said for those reasons. Everyone who is upset by anything I say simply 'deserves' to be upset and has to face the truth and make changes - if they want words to not be said, they must make the world so that such words are simply not true. If the words are true, who am I to pretend I should feel bad in any way for saying what I've said, no matter how hard it may, even, be - to even read this document.

Elsewhere some of the key points in this document will be remade poignantly, powerfully, even 'usefully', from the 'mainstream perspective'.

Truth liberates, reader. Nothing else does. Don't believe in anything else. Not love not money. Nothing can save YOU reader, nothing other than truth.


References: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/06/trump-jeremy-corbyn-pompeo-coup-labour-antisemitism
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2019/05/11/some-criticisms-of-private-schools-echo-anti-semitism-says-stowe-headteacher/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 10: Just a quick one.

Thrust: Know your song well, reader.


Direction of resistance: << Dear Ilhan Omar,

Impeach Trump for things he does (locking kids in cages, lying us into war with Iran, killing 40,000 Venezuelans with vicious sanctions, suppressing science on planet-killing climate change) not bullshit he says. >>


Removal of resistance: That's from: JUNE 14, 2019

Roaming Charges: In the Land of 10,000 Talkers, All With Broken Tongues

by JEFFREY ST. CLAIR.


Unification: Check it out via the link in the references below.

I think this request made of Ilhan Omar is a pretty key one. Perhaps it would make sense for a woman like her to have more focus and stick to pushing back the enemy, rather than allowing even the slightest lapse or capacity to 'compromise' with what is, essentially, ignorance.

That's all for now folks. More from tvhobo in a few days. Hopefully I can force myself to take a little holiday and pace myself. For now I must keep adding urls to the list of sources. After that, when ready, I'll kick off some regular roundups from across the spectra, as often and comprehensively as possible, daily, weekly, whatever I can. Whatever it takes.


References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/14/roaming-charges-in-the-land-of-10000-talkers-all-with-broken-tongues/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 9: Jeremy Hunt condones 'sentiment' behind labelling London 'Londonistan'.

Thrust: The Mirror tells us: << The Foreign Secretary said he "agreed 150%" with the "sentiment" behind the President's swipe at London's mayor on knife crime.

The row erupted when Trump branded Mr Khan a "national disgrace" on Saturday following three killings in the capital in two days.

As part of his attack, the President retweeted a post by Katie Hopkins branding the city "Khan's Londonistan".

Mr Khan, London's first Muslim mayor, accused the President of "amplifying a racist tweet" and becoming "a poster boy for racists around the world".

Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott added: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that President Trump may be singling out Sadiq Khan because he is of the Muslim faith."

Yet asked about the 'Londonistan' post today, Mr Hunt failed to condemn the language used. >>


Direction of resistance: I think Mr Hunt needs to read a bit of history and wake up to why it is that racism like Trump's, and presumably Hunt's, is extremely damaging to Britain, its future and it standing worldwide.


Removal of resistance: Please resign Jeremy Hunt. Warsi has defended you like this: << He believes the the term Londonistan is offensive and would never endorse sentiments that try and frame Londons knife crime challenge as a racial or religious phenomenon.

We should always call out racism but also important to allow people to clarify and judge them accordingly >>

But that's pathetic. You are a public servant in the public eye and you did not, when given the opportunity, in public, condemn the term Londonistan, did you? You did this 'in private'. Please resign. You had a job to do for non white London and you failed. Our Parliament deserves better than you.


Unification: Our Parliament needs to be rid of shameful racists and their stooges and weak electioneers who (out of fear of losing votes and indeed financial support) refuse to stand against racism when they are in a unique position to stand against it.

If you REALLY don't agree with the racism in Trump's statement or with his very racist sentiment, you have as much time as you like to make loud proud public statements attacking white supremacism and racism and racists who say things like 'Londonistan'. Quoting or 'supporting the sentiment' of someone who speaks of 'Londonistan' is inappropriate for an MP - for anyone decent. For a parent, for a teacher, for anyone with responsibility.

If Warsi is not merely covering for you for party reasons (and because your idea of being 'cleared of racism' is getting one non white person to give their personal opinion that you're not racist, no really - not a bone in your body, as they say) surely you would make sure all your "sentiments" about fighting virulent racism against non white people in Britain, racism against the public, much of it, whose servant you are, are widely heard. You would tell us loudly and proudly that you don't accept the racist narratives of men like Trump or Orban or Robinson - of Katie Hopkins - who has referred to migrants as cockroaches or something, I gather, in amongst the least sick of her sick statements of self-worship and racism.

If you have different views to Hopkins and Trump how come you share 'their sentiments'? So the question is how stupid are you? If you're lying (which I think it's clear you are) then we don't need to expect you to make numerous statements against racism, the sort which causes the 'patriots' to label Corbyn a 'racist'.

As Reverend William Alberts tells us: << Many white Christian males who voted for Donald Trump were motivated by the fear of losing their cultural supremacy, not their economic well-being. >>

And that's what's going on here too - the attackers trying to bring down Corbyn are people who simply are worried about losing their white privilege when society starts to become truly pluralist.

And you, Mr Hunt, are clearly not going to stand up the way Corbyn does, against racism. Not at all. You actually praised a man making a racist statement. You never once attempted to say he was racist for saying it. You're pathetic. Resign, you fool. Don't leave it to some broken Prime Minister to just fire you once and for all. Resign now, do your Tory companions a favour, you're a joke. When I was a young man I saw men like Major who, at the very least, weren't pathetic incompetent dilettantes like you Mr Hunt. Just get out of Parliament. You're not fooling anyone. You are not a servant of the public, you're just another corporate tool, stealing from this country, a fifth columnist working for American corporations, primarily.


References: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-jeremy-hunt-says-150-16530695
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/08/15/united-we-kneel-divided-we-stand/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-islamophobia-sharia-law-poll-conservative-[..]-a8971731.html

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 8: Science has demonstrated that your 'skin colour' or 'race' has zero link to your mind, your intelligence, etc.

Thrust: 'Western' 'whiteness' is a recent (about 5000 years old) and arbitrary mutation in humans: 'white' skin has only been on 'European' bodies for a few thousand years, before which they were the same as many people they call 'black', eg 'Hispanic', 'Asian', 'African' etc.

The mutation which led to whiter skin survived in cultures where agricultural practises lowered vitamin D intake and white skin absorbed vitamin D from the sun much faster. Due to the switch from hunter gatherer to farmer, humanity's diet made it harder to survive cold European weather with previously normal human skin, only with the white mutation did you have a chance of producing enough vitamin D - the vitamin had previously come to us via our diets, whereas once the diets changed (to the precursor of today's western processed-food diet) the only source of vitamin D would be the sun, meaning that if you had dark skin and were in 'Europe' you would often have a serious vitamin D shortage - causing people to die or migrate to more suitable conditions.


Direction of resistance: Chomsky has pointed out (read the long Numberwang related doc in the links below) that thought, as a capacity, evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago, whereas we know that 'white skin' on 'Europeans' is a mere 5,000 years old.


Removal of resistance: If you need someone to spell out for you what that means, I recommend spending a few years in basic education, because it means you're not so bright.


Unification: Anyway, the rest can see - there is 'no such thing as race', basically. The pretence that 'whiteness' is a 'cultural characteristic' is already disproved. How long before society catches up? If only, readers, you were all just a tad more scientific, eh?


References: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/07/where-did-white-people-come-from/
http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/where_does_racism_come_from.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caepDj0udmo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q71DWYJD-dI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gq77rOuZck
http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 7: Britain's virulent racism. If Rory Stewart wants to convince us he's not onside with the racists, he should talk about this problem. Well Rory? Are you a fake? Or can you do as Corbyn does and stand up to white British racism? Did your 'military' career only teach you cowardice or can you be a public servant who protects us?

Thrust: In an article called "The Dark Side of Brexit: Britain's Ethnic Minorities Are Facing More and More Violence", Patrick Cockburn tells us: << Pictures of Daniel Ezzedine show him to be a fresh-faced 17-year-old with a warm cheerful smile. His parents are Lebanese but he was brought up in Germany where he had just left school. His teachers brought him to celebrate his graduation on a trip to Canterbury, where he was assaulted and beaten half to death by a gang of youths in what local people are convinced was a racist attack.

It took place at 6pm on 6 June in Rose Lane in the centre of the city about 250 yards from Canterbury Cathedral. Daniel received a merciless beating from his numerous attackers, which left him close to death. Rushed to hospital in London by helicopter, he is still in a coma and doctors initially gave him only a 30 per cent chance of surviving. Seven people were arrested - six of them teenagers - but none have been charged. >>

Cockburn warns: << The fate of Daniel Ezzedine is evidence that Britain is becoming a more racist country since the Brexit referendum. Pro-Brexit politicians like Michael Gove deny this, but a poll by Opinium found that overt ethnic abuse and discrimination reported by ethnic minorities has risen from 64 per cent at the beginning of 2016 to 76 per cent today. >>


Direction of resistance: Indeed alarmingly Cockburn informs us: << But this understates the change for the worse that we are seeing. The Brexit vote promoted English national identity and questions about who is and who is not English - increasingly distinguished from being British - to the top of the political agenda, and this is not going away. One can see this in Canterbury, normally a liberally-minded and tolerant little city accustomed to large numbers of foreign visitors and students.

But since 2016 expressions of gut racism have become much more common. Soon after the poll, an Argentinian woman asked for directions from a guard at Canterbury Cathedral and was told: "That way to Dover, love." More recently, a homeless person in the high street told a friend of mine: "Soon the immigrants will go and I will be able to get a job." >>


Removal of resistance: It goes on. 'White' Britain (that includes you Rory Stewart) needs to pay attention:

<< Shavanah Taj, a national officer for the Public and Commercial Services Union, whose father came from Pakistan to work in a steel plant in south Wales in 1958-59, said that racist harassment had risen in the past three or four years, though it had also been bad in the past: "In the 1980s, we used to regularly have dog shit in Tesco bags pushed through our letter box and 'Pakis Out' in big letters written on the side wall of our house." That sort of thing had ebbed but is now back and more virulent than before.

As an Asian woman with two small children, she finds her way often deliberately blocked by white men in the street. She and her Nigerian husband have asked themselves for the first time "if we will get to the point when we will no longer think of this country as our home". >>


Unification: Let us all hope that Daniel Ezzedine comes through. And let us hope that some of these 'powerful' 'white' men like Rory Stewart learn how to be public servants, learn what a social contract is and learn to have dignity and humility. No more Roderick Spodes!!! Enough with your mad jingoism you dinosaurs. Rory Stewart for one so young to tout such dinosaurism, calling upon Churchill-Spode for votes - is just a very bad sign. Britain's future is bleak if it cannot break out of its centuries-old colonialist white racism! Come on Rory. You can do better.


References: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/17/the-dark-side-of-brexit-britains-ethnic-minorities-are-facing-more-and-more-violence/

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 6: A preliminary list of free news media sources of assorted types across assorted political spectra.

Thrust: I think I should simply split them into 'corporate media' and 'journalistic media', although to say that about one or other entire source is not entirely unmisleading. Thus the division is really just a guideline, not a hard delineation. Many exceptions exist.


Direction of resistance: Corporate media:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk

https://rt.com/

the times (not available to readers free of charge, so we won't, at this time, analyse it)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/

https://www.salon.com/

https://www.spiegel.de/international/

https://www.asiatimes.com/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

http://www.standard.co.uk/

http://edition.cnn.com/

http://www.independent.co.uk/

https://www.thenational.ae/international

https://www.mirror.co.uk/


Removal of resistance: Journalistic Media:

https://www.counterfire.org/

http://counterpunch.org/

https://wikileaks.org/

http://chomsky.info/

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/

http://craigmurray.org.uk/

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://www.un.org/

http://www.who.int/

https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/

https://www.jonathan-cook.net/

https://www.globalpolicy.org/

https://www.versobooks.com/

new left review (not free)

https://mondoweiss.net/

https://worldbeyondwar.org/

http://tariqali.org/

https://www.strategic-culture.org/

https://fair.org/


Unification: This grid point has just been created today on Monday 17th June. For those who cannot understand how this page works and have not seen any like them before, note that this particular 'grid point' will be expanded until its contents are sufficient, and then I'll begin on the next phase my new activity of rounding up the media.

In future other items may also be added to this list, and naturally will be - particularly good blogs, as and when I find them. Try not to be 'bound by forms', to put it in the least non-form-bound way I can.

In the short term I will be adding new links to those two lists every week, as I go through much old data to look for key material which should be added to the current batches of outbound (in your general direction) information.

It is very important for you, and me, to understand that I now intend to use this platform to unify all those sources listed as 'Journalistic sources' on this page - such writers, groups, activists and movements cannot unify on places like facebook and twitter.

One reason for that is that it is not 'their territory' but belongs, outright, to corporate totalitarian powerr - so people like us are constantly censored and banned, and divided. There is no real way for a unity to form in that environment, allowing all the good work from all those different sources to meet up in one place and grow and spread from there.

TVhobo will now do that.

Those who don't know about TVhobo should be told - in its initial years TVhobo reached hundreds and thousands of readers across most towns and cities in the UK, much of the USA and Germany.

The reason it stopped was because I chose to switch it off - and that was because once Corbyn's power had been consolidated I felt that I had a duty to clean up this site and make it much more precise before returning it to the 'political battlefield'. Hence in recent months the item called "Owen Jones, Israel and Numberwang" appeared - in order to return to the public part of this site some particularly pertinent info from the rest of the site.

Anyway, what's important now is this - by posting systematically, regularly, in large volumes, from all those sites, unifying them, binding them together with sound commentary and facing up to the corporate media, I can form something as yet not seen 'even' in the 'facebook era' - ie an environment where all these good sources merge into one ultra powerful source.

TVhobo has had addictive usage for years, when it was functioning in the past - and its readers will mostly all return as will 100s of 1000s of new ones.

I will attempt to get going on this soon, but for now it is important that I spend weeks gathering up urls to use, for both lists, journalistic and corporate.

I will do my best to spotlight and rebut all the bullshit in the corporate media whilst spotlighting and emphasising the key points the real journalists make.

By 16th September 2019 let's see how much I can have done. That's the first target date to see what kind of good result can be achieved by then.

Remember on facebook that your 'posts' are spread apart - that users all subscribe to different collections of pages or friends and that there is, even before you consider the censorship and banning of democratic anti-corporatist ideas, little strength in delivering newsmedia that way.

The truth is that it isn't social media which has made it possible for the world to read alternative views to the corporate media, it's all the journalists I mention and their sites - which just happen to use social media as the most likely way to reach otherwise sheltered/sequestered audiences.

Fortunately TVhobo is a little different, it belongs in the same class as facebook and google not in the same class as those journalistic sources I have cited. It is capable (as in the past) of reaching a hell of a lot of people and linking them up to the information they particularly want and need.

Anyway, in the meantime, whilst I get on with this list, why not read the long work via the link in the references below. It may not be 'complete', but what's there is definitely worth reading.


References: http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 5: What is now Bangladesh was one of the richest parts of the world before the British arrived and deliberately destroyed its cotton industry. When India's Andaman islands were devastated by December's tsunami, who recalled that 80,000 political prisoners had been held in camps there in the early 20th-century, routinely experimented on by British army doctors? Perhaps it's not surprising that Hitler was an enthusiast, describing the British empire as an "inestimable factor of value", even if it had been acquired with "force and often brutality" (Milne).

Thrust: In 2015 Seumas Milne wrote << Speaking four months earlier at the British Museum, an Aladdin's cave of looted treasures from Britain's former colonies, Brown insisted: "We should be proud . . . of the empire" (2). Even Blair, who was prevailed upon to cut a similar line from a speech during his first successful election campaign in 1997, has never gone quite this far (3).

Brown's extraordinary remarks passed with little comment in the rest of the British media. But the significance of a Labour chancellor's support for what would until recently have been regarded as fringe rightwing revisionism was doubtless not lost on his target audience. This is a man who, despite his neoliberal enthusiasms and tense alliance with Blair, has always liked to project a more egalitarian, social democratic image than his New Labour rival. His imperial turn will have given an unwelcome jolt to anyone hoping that a Brown government might step back from the liberal imperialist swagger and wars of intervention that have punctuated Blair's eight-year premiership. By the same token, his determination (in advance of his own expected leadership bid) to wrap himself in the Union Jack - dubbed "the butcher's apron" by the Irish socialist James Connolly - will have impressed sections of the establishment whose embrace he is seeking. >>


Direction of resistance: Milne points out: << It would be interesting to hear how Roberts - or Brown - balances such grotesque claims with the latest research on the huge scale of atrocities committed by British forces during the Mau Mau rebellion in colonial Kenya in the 1950s: the 320,000 Kikuyu held in concentration camps, the 1,090 hangings, the terrorisation of villages, electric shocks, beatings and mass rape documented in Caroline Elkins's book Britain's Gulag (8) - and well over 100,000 deaths. This was a time when British soldiers were paid five shillings (equal to $9 in today's money) for each Kikuyu male they killed, when they nailed the limbs of African guerrillas to crossroads posts. And when they were photographed holding severed heads of Malayan communist "terrorists" in another war that cost over 10,000 lives.

Even in the late 1960s, as veterans described in a recent television documentary (9), British soldiers thrashed, tortured and murdered their way through Aden's Crater City; one former squaddie explained that he couldn't go into details because of the risk of war crimes prosecutions. All in the name of civilisation. The sense of continuity with today's Iraq could not be clearer.

Such evidence is a timely corrective to the comfortable British mythology that, in contrast to France and other European colonial powers, Britain decolonised in a peaceful and humane manner. It's not as if these end-of-empire episodes were isolated blemishes on a glorious record of freedom and good governance, as Ferguson and other contemporary imperial torchbearers would have us believe. Britain's empire was in reality built on genocide, vast ethnic cleansing, slavery, rigorously enforced racial hierarchy and merciless exploitation. As the Cambridge historian Richard Drayton puts it: "We hear a lot about the rule of law, incorruptible government and economic progress - the reality was tyranny, oppression, poverty and the unnecessary deaths of countless millions of human beings" (10).

Some empire apologists claim that, however brutal the first phase might have been, the 19th- and 20th-century story was one of liberty and economic progress. But this is nonsense. In late 19th-century and early 20th-century India up to 30 million died in famines, as British administrators insisted on the export of grain (as they had done during the Irish famine of the 1840s) and courts ordered 80,000 floggings a year. Four million died in the avoidable Bengal famine of 1943 - there have been no such famines since independence. >>


Removal of resistance: Milne draws attention to the key problem here: << There has been no serious attempt in Britain to face up to this record or the long-term impact of colonialism on the societies it ruled, let alone trials of elderly colonial administrators now in Surrey retirement homes. The British national school curriculum has more or less struck the empire and its crimes out of history. The standard modern world history textbook for 16-year-olds has chapter after chapter on the world wars, the cold war, British and US life, Stalin's terror and the monstrosities of Nazism - but scarcely a word on the British and other European empires which carved up most of the world, or the horrors they perpetrated.

What are needed are not apologies or expressions of guilt so much as education, acknowledgment, some measure of reparation and an understanding that barbarity is the inevitable consequence of attempts to impose foreign rule on subject peoples. Like most historical controversies, the argument about empire is as much about the future as the past. Those who write colonial cruelty out of 20th-century history want to legitimise the new imperialism, now bogged down in another colonial war in Iraq - just as those who demonise past attempts to build an alternative to capitalist society are determined to prove that there is none. If Brown really wants to champion British fair play, and create a new relationship with Africa, he would do better to celebrate those who campaigned for colonial freedom rather than the racist despotism they fought against. >>


Unification: Yet only today I saw a white male facebook user tell a non white facebook user that he lived in a 'third world shit-hole' and basically talked down to him on the basis of that.

Here's the whole thing:

<< Aamar Dastgir-Sheikh The USA is screwed up.

A laughing joke of the world

James Keith Harwood II Aamar Dastgir-Sheikh but you and your third world shit hole can't whoop us though chump.

>>

So those here who refuse to talk about what a serf EVERY PRIME MINISTER in living memory Britain has had has been to the US president and corporations, you must understand that you may pretend that James Keith Harwood II is not you, that you don't "think like him" - but he and his ilk have operated for decades, carrying out genocide, ONLY because of your support and failure to join people like me and Corbyn in opposing him and other Hitlers like him. You pretend that you believe in honour and courage, but it really is only that, and anyone who has it knows that about you!


References: https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155-history/25985.html

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 4: Rory Stewart cannot escape his seemingly racist colonialist upbringing, no matter how much of a Tory Corbyn they try to sell him as!

Thrust: In a comment, in the New Yorker I think, made by Rory Stewart, the Tory party's final desperate attempt to undo all the harm they have done - an attempt to merely copy Corbyn, to produce a leader whom Corbyn's fans may hate slightly less than the other racist corporate whores the Tories, Lib Dem and Blair-Mob have 'offered' us, Stewart joked that the Tory party has gone from Winston Churchill to Bertie Wooster - demonstrating that he, to begin with, has respect for the racist ignorant Churchill, which in this day and age is out of place except among throwbacks, racists and the far right (usually one and the same).


Direction of resistance: It also demonstrates that he is far too incapable of self-criticism or criticising his party.


Removal of resistance: In fact it has gone from RODERICK SPODE (and people like Churchill) to the drones club dining committee (minus Wooster - no one with a shred of actual integrity has been in any Tory cabinet in my lifetime).


Unification: That 'even' Stewart, touted as a 'former left wing' Tory who agrees in his words with what Julian Assange has told us - that 'on the ground' in places we bomb is very very different to what governments and media tell us, is so incapable of the self-critical just nature we all know Corbyn has ought to be another kick in the arse to the Tory psyche - you must understand, you party of sickos, that you have totally lost all capacity to realise what being decent is. Even your best attempt, old Rory Stewart there, comes away disastrously, proving he is as much a racist, deep down, as May, Johnson, Farage and Blair. Sorry Rory - you have to learn to distinguish between Spode and Wooster better - and Wooster and the general membership of the drones club. The very idea that any Tory leader we have had would lay down his life and marry Madeleine Bassett out of honour is a joke. An utter joke. That you are so self-deluded that you could make such a mistake, in public, despite your need for good 'p.r.' demonstrates you're not really pressed to be anti-racist and anti-stupidity. To brand Roderick Spode as Winston Churchill, as you have unconsciously done, Mr Stewart, means that you have failed the Shams test. You are NOT the tory Corbyn, my good man. When one comes I'll let the world know. You are not he, dear boy. You must learn to stop respecting men like Roderick Spode. I know you have been brought up to cheer on Britain and see it as better than the rest of the world. But perhaps you can rise above your primitive grooming/upbringing, lad?!!

Let me re-iterate: Wodehouse portrays crazy patriots as Roderick Spode. Spode preceded Churchill of course. Wodehouse's behaviour during WW2 makes it fairly clear that to him the side of Churchill the people today idolise, the jingoistic Spode-like Churchill which electioneers call upon, was to Wodehouse what he characterises in Spode. It is absurd to pretend, even implicitly (by laughing with Wodehouse at Wooster), that Wodehouse didn't take the piss, emphatically, out of jingoism and theatrical patriotism like Churchill's. Whilst people who attack Wodehouse presumably take Orwell's view that Wodehouse was a fool, remember that Orwell, without a doubt, was 'a snitch'. Just read about what he did to Michael Foot. Honour is in the hands of men like Wodehouse (and Wooster) not Orwell or Churchill. Would Jeeves work for Orwell or Churchill? I very much doubt it.

Stewart's attempt to suggest that Parliament would be best run by Spode shows how deluded Stewart is.

Any Wodehouse fan here ought to accept that Stewart, for all his public relations friendliness, is a fool, an arse, who deep down believes in the greatness of Roderick Spode and scorns Bertie Wooster despite the latter's impressive selfless integrity.

When I attempted to make Stewart aware of this by posting this comment on his facebook page, it was ignored and eventually the account used to post it was banned and 100% censored, removed. So Stewart can pretend that he doesn't need to face this criticism, his 'aides' can even convince him that is the case, but what he needs to know is that this page, on this domain, will be read 100s of 1000s of times during the rest of Stewart's career, unless that career ends very quickly, ie by the next general election outcome! In which case there won't have been time for that many readers to see it.


References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 3: Some Saturday Night entertainment. An extract from a collection of stories I'm working on called "Bob and the Quantum Leap" or "Bob and The Spacetime Traveller". Not sure yet. That old uncertainty principle, eh?

Thrust: This particular story is called: "The time Bob saved the Bank of England."


Direction of resistance: << The time Bob saved the Bank of England.

The Spacetime Traveller took Bob to see an instance where he, Bob, would save the entire pound and the Bank of England, using his deftness and mathematical peerlessness. They arrived shortly after the event, so that Bob could see the end result.

"I cannot show you how you actually did it because if you know before the time comes then the future will no longer be the result of the past but because of the unseen future, which would then cause all sorts of unpleasant anomalies. You'll just have to find out, at the time, how it is you manage to save it!" explained the Arthur Lowe lookalike, when Bob asked what exactly had happened to threaten the Bank of England and how Bob had handled it.

Before they left that particular part of spacetime, the Spacetime Traveller also showed Bob what Boris Johnson and his aides were doing at the time Bob was saving the Bank of England and the pound: Johnson and his aides were in a Fleet Street pub, having a competition among themselves to determine who could shove their own head the furthest up their own arse, literally as well as metaphorically (for they had had rather a lot to drink).

As ambulances arrived on the scene, Bob and the Spacetime Traveller returned to Bob's own real now-moment on the spacetime continuum. >>


Removal of resistance: Not sure where that fits into the main collection yet, it's just a scratching in my notes.


Unification: Should it end up in the final draft it may (or may not) be slightly edited/polished - potentially shortened/extended, etc. Fyi.


References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 2: Some theory: << Impatience is how the counterpunch will ultimately beat you. >>

Thrust: << Speed and agility are key for the counterpuncher, as well as a willingness to patiently chase down every ball to frustrate opponents. >>

Bits of truth can be like punches, to a weak or lost mind.

You have to make them leave an opening before the punch is likely to hit.

They will block a lot, so the art is to hammer and hammer and hammer until gaps open and you can punch and that makes them weaker and worse at blocking from that moment in the match - and your persistence will make the truth get through in the end.

I once read this about players in tennis who favour counterpunching - a bit like how Rumpole of the Bailey favours defense, not prosecution: << Speed and agility are key for the counterpuncher, as well as a willingness to patiently chase down every ball to frustrate opponents. >>

Floating around the internet, with that information, I also just dug this up: << Counterpunchers also have a tendency to anticipate and are usually equipped with extremely good passing shots, thus enabling them to turn lots of defensive situations into offence. The game of the defensive counterpuncher has more to do with physical endurance and willingness to get every ball back in play as well as mental determination to keep from getting bored or trying for too much. Their game plan often involves moving their opponents to the back of the court and outmanoeuvring their opponents. >>

And this:

<< Style 3: The Counterpuncher, also known as the Pusher, is all about consistent defense. This type of player knows the percentage shots and always hit them. They know that 2/3 of points won in tennis are from errors, so they will never make one. They will never go for too much on shot, they almost never hit winners, and will win most of their points because you will eventually make the error. To top it off, they are usually fast and have good court coverage. They wear opponents down forcing you go for too much and to make the mistake. The best counterpunchers keep their shots deep, have good lobs, and place balls effectively.

The counter-puncher is a particularly difficult style of play to beat at beginner and intermediate levels of play (NTRP ratings 4.0 and below) as these levels do not have a reliable weapon with which they can consistently hit winners or force errors.

ATP and WTA Pros Who Are Counterpunchers:

Andy Murray (Great Britain)

Caroline Wozniacki (Denmark)

David Ferrer (Spain)

Jelena Jankovic (Serbia)

Gael Monfils (France)

Arantxa Sanchez Vicario (Spain) (retired) >>

(I'm heartened to discover this as I was always a huge fan of Sanchez Vicario. I guess the truth is counterpunchers play a captivating game, as far as audiences are concerned).

Watch out, counterpunchers, for the following methods of attempting to resist your strength:

<< Key Strategies to Beat the Counterpuncher

Attack the net. Counterpunchers do not like to be rushed, and they do not wish to be pressured into trying for too much. Be aggressive at coming in to the net to finish off points.

Be patient. You are going to have points where you will need to hit more balls than you want. You must patiently construct points to get your opening to the net. Impatience is how the counterpunch will ultimately beat you. However, don't stay in long protracted rallys for too long. Otherwise, you are playing right into their hands.

Hit behind them. A lot of counterpunchers cover the court well by running to the open court. Hitting balls behind them can effectively wrong foot them and either draw a ball that you can attack and come into the net behind or, if you're really lucky, an error.

Getting lobbed to death? Embrace your overhead. The lob is a high percentage shot - especially for the Counterpuncher. Do not get into a long lob-counter lob fest with them. Hit an overhead, drive the lob, or better yet, hit an overhead from the baseline off of those deep lobs.

Move them forward and backward. Counterpunchers are excellent movers from side to side, but often times they are not good movers from forward to back. Hit drop shots and short cross-court angles to move them forward then follow it up with a deep lob or deep, penetrating groundstroke to move them back again. It's effective at drawing short balls for you to attack or even errors. >>


Direction of resistance: The majority of people out there use repetition and force to 'make a point' and have no genuinely 'scientific' approach anywhere in what you can see of what they say and do.


Removal of resistance: Yet they will, due to something nowadays often referred to as "cognitive dissonnance", overlook this and fully expect you to treat actual gibberish as reason and logic.


Unification: This is why in such a society men like Donald Trump or Boris Johnson are even dignified as potential 'statesmen'. As Carlin has said, we get what we deserve. Garbage in, garbage out. Only a society which makes men like Boris and "The Donald" can get such men "in charge".

It would be well to follow the example of famous "counterpuncher" Alex Cockburn, and others of his ilk. We are speeding towards the delta of regression, the furthest point in our history from human evolution - what we need to do is stop this vehicle and turn it around.


References: https://howtheyplay.com/[..]-Styles-and-Strategies-to-Beat-Them
Anyone for tennis?

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 1: Something 'new', and a tad more streamlining.

Thrust: TVhobo has been, mainly, a kind of note pad and archive for handling many of the key problematic arguments faced by today's governments, media and societies of living beings (or consumers, if they prefer to see themselves that way), enabling much organisation of ideas and pursuing of crucial exercises in gathering data as factual as possible about matters few 'official' and 'mainstream' sources are ready to even consider, let alone master the truth about any such thing.


Direction of resistance: So what's happening now is something a tiny bit different, and new.


Removal of resistance: What I intend to do is to produce a list of all the mainstream free sources of 'news', along with as extensive as possible a list of important blogs and other independent sources of news.


Unification: Then I will do media roundups as often as possible, as fully and swiftly as possible, but using the same format of grid points and urls in the references, so that from a utilitarian point of view TVhobo is basically in 'business as usual' mode, and will deliver to the public as fully as before.

But now there is an evolution involved also. It will conduct a regular roundup of these sources, and that's mostly all it will be, my comments and points will of course be there, but on the whole it will be as broad as possible a survey, as regularly as possible, on all the stupidity many are saying along with what we can find is really going on if we read the words of the diligent and the honest.

Moreover the original plan to do a kind of overview of every MP currently in parliament will work perfectly in this 'new format' - I'll basically pick a new MP every few days or less, ideally, and publish grid points looking deeply into their votes, their media presence, etc. One by one we'll assess them all, eh? All the MPs together.

Now that the password barrier is off, tvhobo is clearly open for you to read (although nothing's back for you to read, yet, sorry).

As for when I will kick off this next phase - first I feel I will have a wee holiday. Read the numberwang document I've been working on for a while (incomplete still), below, if you're jonesing for some truth about our times. Many many links in the references of that page, much much reading you can do.


References: http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html

Place mouse over this line to close this box.

Point 0: Back by popular demand.

Thrust: Welcome.


Direction of resistance: TVhobo is back online.


Removal of resistance: The world is crying out for it.


Unification: And so it is here. Shortly, a brief recap of what TVhobo has done so far, since its conception in 2013.


References:

Place mouse over this line to close this box.