“We own you!!”

The Free Market is an interesting concept. Mainly, in that, it doesn’t work. The financial sector recently offered the best evidence into why greed isn’t always good, and why greed doesn’t benefit society, and why short selling and derivative betting isn’t productive in the long run. Banks, don’t seem to have learnt a thing since 2008, when Lehman’s collapsed. In fact, neither do Governments. Surely further regulation is required? Surely protecting the consumer from a continuously shrinking market, dominated by only several huge multinationals, is required more than anything? Because when you deregulate further, the consumer and ultimately society suffers, but it’s hidden away from us, because those with the money and the power benefit.

I, like most people, have store cards. It’s a wondrous way for the consumer to fall into debt, whilst shareholders for the company, make a fortune. Saying that, I knew that store cards are a bit of a con, and I went for it anyway. I was 18, and a little bit hungry for MORE of everything. One of these cards that I own, is for the clothing store River Island. The store cards and payments were controlled through GE Money, a part of GE Capital Bank Limited. On January 7th, 2009, GE Capital Bank Limited was bought out by Banco Santander SA.

Here’s where the free market system starts to play games with consumers.
Whilst with GE Capital Bank, the interest rate on my River Island Card, was sold to me at 16.620%, which in itself, is extortionate. Today, I received a letter informing me that my interest rate, under new management, was now 21.659%. I’m locked into this agreement. I didn’t sign anything to say that’s perfectly acceptable. I was told my interest rate would be at 16.620%. I have no choice now. I have to pay an extra 5%. There is no “choice” in this. I can’t switch to someone other than the increasingly strong and wealthy Santander.

This begs the question, why would Santander put interests rates on store cards up by 5%, when the base rate is so incredibly low? The only reasonable conclusion I can possibly come to, is that they know we’re locked into an agreement, they know base rates are at the lowest they’ve been for a very long time, they know how rich and powerful they are, and they want more wealth and more power.

The letter continues…
“Why has your rate changed“
Ah here should exist the answers to all my questions. Surely this next sentence will just read “Firstyly, because…. we own you! ahahaha. And secondly, because we’re quite greedy, and I want a new Yacht.“
Actually, what it does say, is a much more elaborate version of what I just assumed they’d write…
“We are committed to responsible lending and so we regularly review our customers’ accounts using our own internal data.“
Firstly, I didn’t want Santander to have my internal data, nor did I know they did have it, until almost 9 months after they acquired it.
Secondly, committed to responsible lending, by encouraging forcing me into much more debt than I was originally paying? REALLY?
Thirdly, what they’re trying to say is, over the past couple of months, i’ve been paying less per month, because financial troubles mean I need to save a little bit more…….which they don’t like…….so they increased my interest rate to force me to pay more….. which I can’t afford. Lower rate increases will affect those who have the money to pay more. Higher rate increases will affect those of us who can’t afford it. This will obviously please Conservatives and Republicans everywhere.

So, I decided to give “Tim Woods” the guy who signed my letter, the “Head of Customer Services, Santander Cards” a call. A lady answered and I asked to be put through to a Mr Tim Woods. She said “Oh no we can’t do that“. So I told her I wasn’t happy with this new interest hate hike that I had no say over. She told me she could explain this, and pretty much just said what was already written on the letter. So I asked again, to be put through to Mr Tim Woods, to which she replied “he doesn’t take calls“. The head, of customer services, doesn’t deal with customer services apparently. But he’s more than happy to deal with customer services, when it makes him a lovely bit of extra money, by signing my letter.
Whether it’s legal or not is irrelevant. I’m just not entirely sure how one can justify a 5% interest increase, when base rates are at their very lowest, and your company is making a fortune. At some point, a board of directors must have got together round a table, and agreed that putting their rates up by 5% on accounts that are struggling recently, is a great idea. It is that way of thinking, that bewilders me. It is exactly the reason that free markets do not work.

These are simple things that need to change. We as consumers (including me) need to get out of the habit of “owning” whatever we can. Home ownership causes misery. The culture of “you MUST own your own home!!!” needs to end. It has become an obsession. And if it doesn’t end, this kind of crises will never cease, there will always be problems. Secondly, if you’re “head of customer service” try to provide a service….to customers, rather than to the company. And lastly, the banks, and financial sector, which was deregulated largely in the 1980s by the Thatcher government, needs to be much more heavily regulated. It is the only way these immoral idiots are ever going to contribute a decent service to society, rather than to the board or shareholders.

July 4th – Hypocritical Day

It would be easy for me to suggest that America has completely turned from a Country that prided itself on liberty and freedom of the 18th Century, to a Global tyrant of epic proportions. It would be easy. But it isn’t true. The tyrant of America has always been present, it simply grew and grew and is now at that stage where it surprises no one, and so we let it happen. As terrorists go, the greatest of them all, over the past Century at least, has been America.

It is a tradition in the USA to suffer a strange case of denial. Early Americans pillaged their way across the continent; committing nothing short of a total genocide of the Natives. Between 1850 and 1890, author David E. Stannard concludes that at least 22,000 Natives had been killed. The Indian Removal Act of 1830, which demanded that 17,000 Cherokee Indian’s leave their homes immediately (known as “The Trail of Tears“) purely so Americans could benefit from their lands financially. Elizur Butler, an American missionary estimated that 4000 Cherokees died during the removals. And yet, they managed to pride themselves on being the “land of the free and brave“. It’s a mask of denial, that still exists today.

The destruction of indigenous populations, for resource purposes, for financial gain, is ingrained into the blood of America. When it suits America, they hide behind the concept of spreading Capitalism and Democracy. It is not unreasonable to suggest that millions have died unnecessarily for what the US likes to call “freedom”. It is then, overly ironic that the US has been quite staunch supporters of evil non-democratically elected regimes, who just so happen to fill the pockets, of America, whilst slaying their population.

In 1953, the democratically elected government of Iran, lead by Mohammad Mosaddeq was overthrown by a US and UK backed Coup designed primarily to free up the oil reserves that Mosaddeq had Nationalised earlier in his premiership. Mosaddeq (remember, he was democratically elected, and incredibly popular with the Iranian people) was subsequently put in prison and died under house arrest. America had become what the 1776 revolutionaries fought to destroy; oppressors. Iran became a US colony in all but name. A new leader, a puppet for American interests, the Shah was installed. Thousands of people took to the streets in 1971 after the Shah announced plans to spend upwards of $100,000,000 on an extravagant, pompous tent city for the Iranian rich, and business leaders across the World who had recently enjoyed a more open Iranian market place. Whilst huge sums of money were spent, the nearby villagers continued to starve. And so they protested. The Shah (supported by the US) couldn’t let this happen, which resulted in thousands of people killed in horrendous circumstances, tortured, and political opposition repressed and “disappeared“. Fully supported of course, by America.

Whilst also supporting the dictatorship of Batista in Cuba in the 1950s, America was planning a coup elsewhere. Up until 1951, Guatemala had been opened up to American investment, and thousands upon thousands of miles of the Countryside had been eaten up by American businesses, whilst Guatemalan peasants lived in dire poverty. The new democratically elected President Jacobo Árbenz, proposed the agrarian reform laws of 1952, which proposed to move uncultivated lands from upper middle class land owners (whom consisted primarily of Americans), to the peasantry. Arbenz also opened up voting rights to the peasantry thereby spreading democracy, and gave labour rights to those being dreadfully exploited (again, mainly by American business interests). Apparently America had no problem with the fact that 2.2% of the Guatemalan population owned 70% of arable land. Arbenz then joined the “Caribbean League”, a group of Latin American Democracies who plotted to overthrow evil dictatorship regimes, not for resource gains, but purely for the sake of democracy. The problem was, that these dictatorships, were supported by the USA, and so were not “evil”. And so it leads on to 1953; America sends CIA Director of Central Intelligence Walter B. Smith to investigate opposition to Arbenz, in order to figure out which group of rebels the USA could best fund in order to overthrow Arbenz and install an American backed dictator. Smith came back with no names, because opposition to Arbenz was pretty slim, except with the rich classes. The US cut a deal with Dominican unelected dictator Rafael Trujillo (whose regime is known as one of the most violent and bloody of the 20th Century), in which both the U.S and Dominican Republic provided funds and support to the far right rebel army of Carlos Castillo Armas. The coup succeeded and Armas became the new dictator of Guatemala from 1953 until his assassination in 1957. During his reign, he rolled back voting rights from those who couldn’t read or write, he stripped land away from the peasants, forcing millions out to live on the streets, and he created (with CIA backing) the National Committee of Defense Against Communism, which systematically killed and tortured anyone suspected of having left wing views. He cancelled the elections, but allowed Congressional elections, as long as only his party was allowed to field candidates. President Nixon referred to Armas dictatorship as “…the first instance in history where a Communist government has been replaced by a free one.“

On November 4th, 1970, Chile swore into power, democratically elected Marxist President Salvador Allende. Real democracy in action. President Nixon of America decided that Allende should not be President of Chile because it might affect American business interests in a negative way. Apparently, democracy is only democracy, if it doesn’t include the Left Wing. According to the U.S Department of State, the U.S Government, just before the 1970 election, “directed CIA to carry out “spoiling operations” to prevent an Allende victory“. That sounds like quite the opposite of democracy to me. This follows on, from the same report that “CIA also provided assistance to militant right-wing groups to undermine the President and create a tense environment“. Needless to say, on September 11th 1973 (the first 9/11), Allende, under intense pressure from US business interests (Pepsi-Cola and ITT were the main culprits) was the victim of a coup, that placed perhaps one of the World’s most evil dictators, General Pinochet, in control of Chile. But, Pinochet opened up the Country to foreign (and by “foreign” mean Western and by “opened up” I mean – let America plunder it’s resources) investment. These pro-free market measures didn’t do much good, given that inflation reached 375% by 1978. Wages decreased by 8%. Budgets for education, health and housing had dropped by 20%. Good times!
According to the Rettig report, 2,279 people (mainly left wingers, not necessarily politically active) were killed immediately following the coup, and close to 32,000 were tortured beyond description by the Pinochet regime. Thousands more were tortured and killed between 1973, and the end of Pinochet’s reign of utter terror, nothing short of Hitler-esque in 1990. Quite despicably, the U.S and U.K (especially Reagan and Thatcher) grew close friendships with Pinochet. Thatcher, in defending Pinochet’s human rights record, quite ridiculously and shamefully blamed the left wing, or more specifically, in her own words, an “organised international Left who are bent on revenge“. This then leading to Thatcher, in 1999, claiming that Pinochet should be released from his house arrest. It’d be like President Roosevelt telling Churchill to “go easy on Hitler, he isn’t THAT bad“.
One of my most favourite authors into U.S Foreign Policy, Noam Chomsky had the following to say, about the Chilean 9/11….
“Suppose that on September 11, Al-Qaeda had bombed the White House and killed the President, instituted a murderous, brutal regime which killed maybe 50,000 to 100,000 people and tortured about 700,000, set up a major international terrorist center in Washington, which was overthrowing governments all over the world, and installing brutal vicious neo-Nazi dictatorships, assassinating people. Suppose he called in a bunch of economists, let’s call them the ‘Kandahar Boys’ to run the American economy, who within a couple of years had driven the economy into one of the worst collapses of its history. Suppose this had happened. That would have been worse than 9/11, right? But it did happen. And it happened on 9/11. That happened on September 11, 1973 in Chile. The only thing you have to change is this per capita equivalence, which is the right way to look at it. Well, did that change the world? Yeah, it did but not from our point of view, in fact, who even knows about it? Incidentally, just to finish, because we the U.S. were responsible for that one.”

And then we wonder why half the World hates the West? Is it not plainly obvious?

I could easily talk about Iraq, Iran, the US arming of the Taliban, the assassination of President Diem in South Vietnam leading to the unnecessary deaths of 4 million South East Asians in perhaps the most needless war of the 20th Century, and many more instances when the USA, the light, the beakon of Freedom and Democracy has supported the World’s most evil regimes in order to further its own business interests. Capitalism and what the US calls “Democracy” haven’t been a true success, they’ve been a forced package that the victim Nation’s citizens have had to embrace, or die. The USA therefore, has no right to celebrate “Independence Day” on July 4th. The most hypocritical day in World history. Having said that, Jefferson would be proud that the abolition of slavery in America, didn’t stop the U.S from finding slaves elsewhere.

No to Trident

The situation involving a group of people, holding a gun to each other’s head, is not a sane situation. Nor is it going to prevent one of them from eventually pulling the trigger, which in turn, will set a domino affect rolling, in which all the people involved pull their triggers, and kill each other. The only way to stop that situation developing, is the outright ban on each of those people ever being allowed to own a gun.

Our current crop of Nuclear weaponry, consists of four Trident submarines with the capacity to hold up to 48 Nuclear Warheads, each eight times the power of the warhead that struck Hiroshima in the 1940s, killing 140,000 people. I’m not sure why we are tying in our foreign policy, with a weapon that can kill millions upon millions of people, whilst other nations (Norway for example) who do not wish to own Nuclear weaponry, seem to be coping just fine.

Gordon Brown has announced that he plans to cut the number of Trident Nuclear Submarines, from four to three when the time comes to update them. I’d assume this is some lame attempt to stick to the principles that we’ve seemingly deserted since signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty back in 1968, stating that we intended “to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament“. And whilst this is a step in the right direction for total Nuclear disarmament, it isn’t a big enough step. It is barely a step at all. The Submarines may be on the verge of being cut from four to three, but there is no talk of scaling back the 160 warheads Britain currently keeps locked away. We are still armed, which of course, leads to proliferation elsewhere. A seemingly endless Cold war mentality driven by fear and suspicion, is long out of date. Tident itself, does not need replacing.

We no longer have to worry about the Soviets. The fight we face today, is against an enemy that has no State. There is no Nation. If the largely falsely perceived threat of a unified “Al Qaeda” were to strike us with a Nuclear weapon…. who do we strike in return, especially against an enemy that is prepared to die for their cause? A farm in some obscure corner of Afghanistan? Perhaps we use the Republican American concept of just pointing to a Middle Eastern Country on a map and start to destroy it piece by piece? Or more likely, we aim the Nuclear missile toward their home in Birmingham……… not a bad idea actually.

What of Iran? That Country that poses less threat of a Nuclear attack, than Iraq did in 2002? In the 1970s, when the Shah was running the Country, and was far more evil and dangerous than the current regime in Tehran, the USA supported Iran’s nuclear program publicly. Purely because the West recognised the need, economically, for Iran to rely on Nuclear power. It freed up it’s oil supplies. Suddenly, the war men of the Republican Right have decided Iran poses a threat. In fact, Dafna Linza, writing for the Washington Post in 2005 states: “Ford’s team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium – the two pathways to a nuclear bomb.“
Quite coincidentally, the same people who were running National Security back in the President Ford era, supporting the evil Shah, were the same guys behind the immense suspicion and fear aimed toward the current Iranian administration; Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld. They were perfectly fine with Iran acquiring Nuclear technology, when it enriched their oil prospects…… but then, suddenly, in December 2007 Iran completely ceased trading oil inU.S dollars and in early 2008, Iran started trading oil primarily in Euros, and so threatened the US economy, which relies on selling mass reserves of the Dollar to other Nations who then buy Oil traditionally with. Not any more. The threat posed by Iran is miniscule when it comes to Nuclear technology. The treat, which goes unreported, comes completely from it’s new Oil-in-Euros venture.

By 2004 the World Bank had made loans worth up to £2.1bn to Iran. The World Bank, funded by the IMF, which in turn gets it’s funds from member States debts and donations; including $37.2bn a year from the USA. And so, some of the money that funds the perceived Iranian Nuclear program, is coming directly from American taxpayers, who are then told by their Politicians who don’t seem to have a problem, let alone mention this to their people, that Iran is a huge threat. YOU FUNDED THE THREAT! Those politicians of course will start wars, but be well hidden away whilst the bombs are dropped.

Now, for the sake of the boring, fatuous Right Winged argument that Iran actually does pose a threat to Global Security (let’s not forget that the biggest threat to Global Security over the past decade….in fact, since World War II… has been the USA…and that the nuclear “deterrent” hasn’t deterred Iraqi’s from killing our troops….and also coincidentally, the only nation to use a Nuclear weapon has been the USA), what do we do if we were to be attacked by an Iranian Nuclear strike? If New York, or London were hit by an Iranian Nuke, what then? If hundreds of thousands of American or British civilians are killed by an Iranian attack, how do we respond? Do we Nuke them? Another waste of hundreds of thousands of lives, living thousands more horribly burned and disfigured? Whilst our leaders who started the whole thing, are locked safely away in an underground bunker? It’s like saying “well, he ran down and killed my family member, so it’s only right that I run down and kill his family member”. If London were nuked (why am I even saying that? I sound like a Cold War fear mongering idiot), Trident submarines would come in no use whatsoever) It’s ridiculous. As seen with Hiroshima, the affects of a Nuclear strike, are horrific. It should never be repeated, or even threatened. And given the US and UK’s policy of using Iran for it’s own benefit over the past sixty years; overthrowing regimes, installing evil dictators like the Shah, referring to it as “evil” when it suits the West – it is largely unsurprising that Iran may attempt to acquire Nuclear weapons, they are obviously suspicious. If the US has the right to possess Nuclear weapons, so does Iran. Despite this, it’s overtly obvious that Iran, like Iraq, has no WMDs, because if it did, Israel would be straight in there, without a second thought. We now need to work toward better relations between States, between the West and the Islamic World, and install into the minds of the next Generation the need for a World completely free from Nuclear proliferation.

And lastly, when we apparently can’t afford decent equipment to protect and aid our troops in Afghanistan, why are we planning to spend close to £100bn, on updating an out-of-date Nuclear deterrent? Trident is an expensive waste of money, built around the Cold War mentality of fear, distrust, out right lies, and profiteering. We do not need it in a modern, civilised World. They are a disgrace to humanity. Japan has managed without them, Norway has managed without them, we can manage without them.

The Tyranny of Business

Often, (especially from America) you will hear that the larger the size of Government, the smaller the freedoms of the Nation’s public. I’d argue that the bigger the size of power of big Business, the smaller the size of freedom for the Nation’s public. The argument presents itself beautifully today.

So according to a report from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI)… the Union of Corporate criminals has decided that Students should be the ones to pay thousands of pounds straight off, for their University education, to help fill the gap created by cuts in public spending. We should have less grants, higher interest on loans, and hugely inflated tuition fees of up to £5000, they have suggested.

Where is their report aimed at cutting Corporate Tax loopholes?
Where is their recommendation to close down tax havens?
Where is their recommendation to cut the pensions of top bosses who earn up to 30 times that of their workers? Or their annual salary being cut from 100 times that of it’s workers?
Where is the idea that the CBI helps to fund certain courses, given that the future of it’s businesses and profitability depend on state funded education of it’s future workers?
Where were their complaints when businesses were receiving emergency injections of cash?
Why are they encouraging further debt? Have we learnt nothing over the past few years?
Students are the future of this Country, we shouldn’t be suggesting the creation of a new generation of elites, with a generation of those who couldn’t afford to go to University and so spend their lives as slaves to the children of CBI members.
Do these people get worse every day, or are they just born without a soul? Just when I thought I didn’t need any more reason to despise big business, they produce this report.

Of course, the CBI haven’t commented on todays report that shows a huge funding deficit in the pensions of top bosses. Whilst millions of workers have seen their pensions slashed over the last few years, the FTSE 100 top employers have hidden the true cost of their own pensions, by sometimes up to £5m. I think the CBI needs to get it’s priorities in order.

It’s the way of thinking, which really annoys me. It’s the rich way of thinking. The Tory way of thinking. The USA Anti-National Healthcare way of thinking. The way of thinking that says “I’m rich, I shouldn’t have to fund the education of others!!!“, and yet their family, somewhere down the line, had a family member who came from nothing, and was funded by other peoples tax money, to be educated, which lead on directly to the success he/she passed down to this generation of selfish idiots.

The Tories, as usual, did not dismiss this matter. Of course not. It isn’t their children who will be affected. In fact, it benefits their children quite handsomely. The Conservatives’ university spokesman, David Willetts, commented on the report, saying it was “a good opportunity to bring this whole issue back to life”. No it isn’t. It’s a good opportunity to smack the arrogance of the CBI, back down to reality.

Another of the CBI’s suggestions, is to cut the number of degrees that they consider to be unneeded economically, and concentrate more on Science, Maths and English degrees. If we’re talking about useless degrees that tax payers have funded over the years, i’d say the biggest waste of public money, has gone on economic and banking degrees. Did my family, help fund the education of Sir Freddy Goodwin, who then went on to destroy the economy? I’m guessing the CBI would say differently. I’m not entirely sure where these people get the nerve to decide what degrees are right for this Country? Is there any other aspect of my life, these arrogant shits want to control? My life does not revolve around getting a job that will serve only to make members of the CBI richer whilst I hate my job. Again, is this the freedom the Free Market proponents talk about? Is freedom only so, if I do whatever big business wants me to do? I’m about to embark on a Journalism Degree, should I email the CBI to ask if that’s okay with them? Or should I change my course to include something I have absolutely no interest in, just to suit a bunch of criminals in suits? As if we don’t pay enough. I’m likely to leave university in three years time, in immense debt…… the interest on which, will far exceed what I borrowed in the first place. We pay our way, to enjoy fair education and opportunity for all, not just the elites. I’m still not entirely sure why a bunch of corrupt middle aged men, think they have the right to make any kind of money saving suggestions. The National Union of Students should retaliate, with a list of money saving techniques business leaders should embrace, including cutting their salaries and pensions, and selling their multitude of cars.

Thankfully, this generation of University Students will not listen to middle aged upper class toffs dedicated to turning us all into good little workers for their benefit. We have much more intelligence and creativity than to fall for that. Unfortunately, if the battle of ideology between this ridiculous “free market” bullshit, and those of us on the Left is not won by us, our children will suffer the most.

In a Tory Toff World, you have the freedom to be whatever you want……. as long as you can afford it, and big businessmen decide it’s okay. I’m surprised the CBI didn’t include a report on the idea of sending children to work long hours, for a piece of bread every day. It’s only a matter of time.

The Conservative smoke screen

The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, was correct when he referred to David Cameron as the biggest conman in British Politics. Cameron, along with Osbourne are a complete disaster. They have said nothing of substance….ever. They are merely riding the tidal wave of anti-Gordon Brown sentiment. They don’t need to say a word, they are destined to become the next PM and Chancellor of Britain. They are Friedmanites in ideology, but why don’t they say so? I’d suggest it’s because people weren’t that keen on Milton Friedman’s experiment here in Britain in the 1980s, and they aren’t likely to have forgotten the misery it caused.

Watching shadow Chancellor George Osbourne on Sky News (which is apparently trying to take over the World at the minute….. unsurprising, given that it’s run by Murdoch) talk about the Country being in financial ruin, whilst stood on the steps of his Notting Hill home, was a little bit cheeky to say the very least. The Conservatives, are certainly up to their old, regular tricks.

What they have rather cleverly managed to achieve, bewilders me, and destroys what little faith I have left in the British public. They have managed to turn the debate toward public spending cuts. The public are now engrossed in talk of public spending cuts, as if it’s going to be the saviour of Britain. One thing is for certain, without investment over the past year in public services, by the Government and opposed by the Tories, we’d be in much deeper mess than we are now.

Now, they don’t ever mention that public spending cuts should only come when the economy improves and we can afford to cut the deficit a little, so as to keep as many in work as possible; the way the Tories speak of spending cuts is in the context of the tough times we’re in today, as if spending needs to be cut immediately! Which, it doesn’t. They are no different. Fight for the Country, put your life on the line when war rears it’s ugly head…..and then work for next to nothing (they opposed the minimum wage) when you return.

It is interesting that they’ve taken this route, but it’s an illusion. It is simply a smoke screen to take our minds off the real problem. The system of economics that the Tories themselves brought into the Country in 1979, failed miserably. Yet they cling to it. They’re anti-Brown, when the Country is anti-Brown, they’re climate change progressives when the Country is climate change progressive, they then hide behind manipulative terms like “progressive Conservatives“, suggesting they are capable of changing their colours. They aren’t capable of changing their colours. How did we get to spending cuts? The real issue is the economic structure. Deregulated, free for all, Capitalism does not work. It failed. It is no surprise that the financial crises we now find ourselves in, came directly from the two epicentres of the neo-liberalist agenda of the 80s; America and Britain. They instilled into the minds of a generation the idea that we must all strive to own our own home by any means necessary. Fast forward thirty years, and the sub-prime market melts down horrifically. It allowed banks to inflate beyond destruction, steal, bribe, corrupt their way through life, and then it brought the entire World down with it. You can be thrown in jail for robbing money, on any street in the World…..apart from Wall Street. The Thatcherite revolution destroyed the power of the unions, yet masturbated the egos and gave power to arguably a bigger threat than the unions….big business and the financial sector. The Thatcher era, lead into the Blair era, which will lead into the Cameron era. There is no real change. It’s the the same tired message. Cameron will not address this. He will carry on, and we’ll hit another financial crises when the next deregulated financial bubble of unsustainable growth bursts. Neo-liberalism, whilst cloaked in manipulative language such as “freedom” is merely the horrendous suggestion that a stable economy is built on immense debt and excessive risk taking.

The Tories have made the wrong call on pretty much everything, since this crises began. They opposed the stimulus. They opposed the bank bailouts. They opposed further regulation of the utterly immoral financial sector. In fact, in early 2007, the produced a report that called for the TOTAL deregulation of the financial sector, which means sub prime would be the least of our problems. They are just a nightmare of a party. They are the problem, not the solution. The idea that regulations that exist to protect consumers against con tricks like sub prime, should be rolled back to allow the free market to flourish, is a Conservative/Republican ideology, an epic failure of an ideology. The idea that markets will deliver respectable services, when unhindered, is simply ridiculous. With the regulations pulled back, the corrupt banks were able to look to short term gain, without assessing the risk of long term Global meltdown. Sub Prime was a scam, the epitome of the heartless unhindered greed of a Conservative ideology, that failed miserably.

It follows then, that those who support the Conservative ideology of less government intervention (I have little faith in government, but I have far more faith in government, than in the private sector) would support Matt Ridley’s ideal, that less government intervention in the financial sector is preferable to sustain a healthy financial industry. That Socialism is a great evil. Of course, Matt Ridley was on the board of Northern Rock when it collapsed, due to it’s ridiculously over risky business model, unethical with it’s saver’s money, leading to Socialism bailing it out (which Ridley didn’t seem to complain about).

Why are we complaining about Government? The market placed failed. And why isn’t Gordon Brown (who is hugely responsible for this mess) saying “okay, I made a mistake, I followed on where Conservatism left off, and it failed, miserably. Time to do it the right way!“?
The Conservatives aren’t offering anything different, the Conservatives are being Conservatives. This is what they do. Tax cuts for the rich, public service cuts, and lack of support for those struggling the most. It’s an ideal time to be a Tory.

I guarantee nothing will change. Banks will go back to excessive risk taking (worse than before, given the roll backs in regulations likely to come from the next Tory government), another bubble will appear, there will be widespread misery, job loss, suicide rates will shoot up, homes repossessed, but those at the top will enjoy greater wealth than ever before, and the bubble and will eventually burst, in 20+ years time, and we will be faced with another round of Socialism having to bail out the miserable failure of Capitalism. They have simply been incredibly clever in turning the debate away from the failures of free market capitalism (I haven’t heard Cameron mention anything like closing Corporate tax loopholes), and onto the role and financing of the public sector.

To sum up, I wont be voting Conservative, ever!

Murdoch VS BBC

In between spitting at tramps, and kicking orphans, James Murdoch (son of the Devil) has took a swipe at the BBC, calling it “state-sponsored news” and that only free market news organisations can produce “independent news coverage that challenges the consensus“. Murdoch, owns Fox News. Need I say more? Yes, Fox does indeed challenges the consensus; in the sense that Fox challenges intelligent thought and replaces it with Glenn “WE NEED TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK (but stay magically quiet when our right winged politicians illegally invade foreign lands, and magnificently destroy the economy in the first place)” Beck, and Bill O’Reilly. They then spend a few hours telling me that Obama (who they’ve referred to as a Fascist a few times recently) is planning a mass communist revolution, in between his efforts to kill your babies and let old age pensioners die in extreme pain. So yes, Murdoch’s idea of independent broadcasting does indeed challenge the consensus, insomuch as it creates a ridiculous parody of the news.

Murdoch’s main worry is that the size and scope of the Beeb, means that competitors are already at a disadvantage and struggle to compete. I’d assume, Murdoch is simply smoothing the path for an attempt to get us all to hate the BBC, whilst he and his devilish father start trying to convince us all that charging for news content, is in the spirit of “freedom” (that nasty little Right Winged word).

Murdoch also owns The Sun, the paper that (referred in to previous blog entry) puts it photographers on the streets to get up skirt shots of female celebrities getting out of a car. Perhaps that’s what the BBC is doing wrong. Perhaps what we need is BBC news to be a frequent Right Winged propaganda showing with the cameramen pointing their cameras up the skirts of the female news readers.
Or perhaps, if Murdoch gets his own way and the Tories after the next general election allow more Press independence by rolling back fairness as defined by the Broadcasting Act, Sky News will become the British version of Fox. I cannot imagine anyone in Britain wants to see that happen. There’s only so much of Glenn Beck crying on screen about how much he loves his Country, I can take. If Sky were to become more like Fox, we’d need new News Anchors. The likes of Adam Boulton are just far too middle of the road, not crazy enough to host a British Fox. Perhaps Richard Littlejohn; columnist for The Daily Mail might strike a chord? Littlejohn is our very own version of Bill O’Reilly. Maniacal, ignorant, unpleasant, despicable with an unhealthy need to be as cruel as humanly possible. Take for example, his article in 2006 about the murders of the five Suffolk prostitutes. Six months after their murders, Littlejohn felt it necessary to say….

“We do not share in the responsibility for either their grubby little existences or their murders. Society isn’t to blame.
It might not be fashionable, or even acceptable in some quarters, to say so, but in their chosen field of “work”, death by strangulation is an occupational hazard.
That doesn’t make it justifiable homicide, but in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss.
At Ipswich Town’s home game on Saturday, there was a minute’s silence. We were supposed to believe that this was a true reflection of the community’s sympathy.
I don’t buy it. Most people went along with it in the spirit of emotional correctness and through fear of getting their heads kicked in if they didn’t.”

Ipswich VS Leeds, observing a minutes silence because they felt forced too by evil liberal political correctness? Reeaaally? Have Leeds fans become super sensitive to political correctness recently?
There was a minute silence, because five women had just been killed. People who happen to exert some form of compassion, notice that people should not be defined by how they make money. And i’d argue that being a prostitute, is far less disgusting a profession, than spewing hate filled right winged propaganda, and a rather disturbing attempt to destroy lives with words.
This deeply unpleasant, hateful little insensitive prick would fit in beautifully at a Murdoch run deregulated “news” channel.

“As Orwell foretold, to let the state enjoy a near-monopoly of information is to guarantee manipulation and distortion. The only reliable, durable and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit.“
- If Fox is anything to go by, that statement just there, by James Murdoch, could not be filled to the brim with any more irony, without a disastrous irony spillage.

Sky News isn’t a victim in all of this, as Murdoch seems to be suggesting. IRN recently dropped ITN as it’s content supplier, in favour of Sky News. Which, gives Sky (and Murdoch) pretty much a monopoly over commercial radio news. Sky is the sole news provider, to over 250 radio stations in the UK now. This, along with Channel 5 news (also provided by Sky) suggests that this worry of Orwellian State media monopoly, is disastrously hypocritical of the Murdoch’s.

We need the BBC to provide the balanced reporting that 100% independent broadcasting fails to provide. It is a key resource for Global news, provided to millions across the Planet. The BBC provides sensible coverage, it doesn’t lean too far to the Left, and it doesn’t lean miserably to the Right (which is what Murdoch has a problem with, he’d clearly like to see it lean to the Right as much as possible). Whether Murdoch likes it or not, the BBC works. It is cherished by millions. That is why it’s a threat to Murdoch, because he can’t control it. The Murdoch family seemingly have a deep need to control everything we see, read, and hear, and when it doesn’t go their way, they get all critical and employ typical right winged fear tactics. Nevertheless, the BBC is a national treasure that should not, under any circumstances, become fully independent. We certainly do not need a British Fox News.

See you all in Copenhagen!

In 2008, Royal Bank of Scotland lost £28bn. Their website reads “Everyday banking, extraordinary service“…. so extraordinary, they lose your money, and then get bailed out…with your money. That is certainly out of the ordinary of usual banking. In October 2008, the UK Government saved the bank from collapse after it’s shockingly misinformed takeover of ABN AMRO in 2007. The Treasury took a 57% share of RBS by 2008. The Government in 2009 was then forced to create a State backed security scheme, to inject a sense of confidence into RBS to convince them to start lending again. In March 2009, RBS then decided to close down it’s “Tax avoidance department” (that’s nice of them!) possibly to make it sound less crooked. Oh, and not forgetting the CEO who ran RBS into the ground, taking home £700,000 pension whilst thousands lost their jobs because of him.
All in all, a shit company, run by shit, greedy people (Thatcherites).

So, it will no doubt surprise you that the EuroFinance Conference 2009 to be held in Copenhagen, is chiefly sponsored by…….Royal Bank of Scotland. When you click on “about the conference” you’re greeted with the rather ironic tagline of “Meet economists, futurists and regulators who will be influencing and shaping your world“. You couldn’t make this shit up. Of course, not content to be sponsored by just one failed, corrupt banking group; EuroFinance Conference is also sponsored this year by Citigroup; famed for receiving $28bn bailout by the U.S Government for it’s piss poor attempt at self regulation, fed by greedy bankers obsessed with short term gain apparently unable to assess the risk that the housing boom may not last forever. And Merrill Lynch; whom according to Bloomberg, have lost up to $51.8 billion in mortgage backed securities since this crises began, this was just before they were saved from collapse by Bank of America and paid out $3.6billion (of taxpayers money) in bonuses.
Not forgetting Barclays, another sponsor of the event. In 2008 Barclays refused UK Government bail out money of £6.5bn preferring to go it alone…….. but then decided it couldn’t possibly go it alone, and so quite horrendously received $8.5bn from AIG in America, which was money that came directly from AIG’s bailout. So, taxpayers own RBS, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, and a chuck of Barclays. Do we get to go along to this big important luxurious weekend in Copenhagen, given that we paid for it?
Ah the joys of Capitalism. It just keeps getting better.

Are these banks really in any place to be sponsoring a luxurious weekend in Copenhagen, with talks about the future of responsible banking? They shouldn’t even exist, let alone be in this position.

It’s like having a Hospital wing named after Harold Shipman.

We’re all Sisyphus

“The meaningless absurdity of life is the only incontestable knowledge accessible to man.”
Leo Tolstoy

Please excuse me whilst I try – in a particularly weak fashion – to define what I consider to be the meaning of life.

It is entirely pointless. That is the meaning of life. The universe itself is chaotic, without order, it is neither moral nor immoral, happy nor sad, just nor unjust, it simply…is. It is devoid of point, or meaning, or direction, because all of those concepts are man made abstractions that ultimately do not exist without man. To apply the abstractions of man, to the cosmos, is deeply flawed.

I’m not sure how anyone could define a purpose to existence; there can never be a definition. Language itself is far too limited. It is limited to human experience. It cannot transcend human experience, and so any concept (such as ‘meaning’ or ‘purpose’) cannot be an objective reality in itself, it is a man-made version of reality. ‘Meaning’ is a concept, that we have created. ‘Meaning’ and ‘perfection‘ and ‘success’ and ‘right‘ and ‘wrong‘ among every other concept we know of, has not been given to us, it did not exist before humanity; we invented it. Their definitions, are ultimately meaningless and absurd.

You’re born, and then you lose yourself. For that very short period, as a baby, you see the World as it really is. You have that sense of wonder, and that sense of unknowing. You do not know happiness, or disappointment, or shame, or anger, or joy, or love, or any other form of emotional response. You do not know what a rainbow is, or why water that you see coming out of the taps, is now falling from the sky. You do not know what clouds are, or the twinkling dots illuminating the night. You’re completely at one with the World because the concept of meaning does not exist to you, much like it doesn’t exist to reality. Your World is chaotic and unrecognisable, no one has attempted to explain it or define it in their own subjective way to you, you haven’t been brainwashed by advertising, your soul hasn’t been sold to Corporations yet. You do not even understand what a flower is (although, I’d argue that a baby looking at a flower for the first time, knows what it is far better than you and I), all you see is a mix of beautiful colours and elegant parts that make up the flower, no word has been taught to you to sum up what you’re looking at. You see the beauty as it’s supposed to be seen, untouched by language and experience. You see the World as it is meant to be; very very chaotic. The meaning of life, the purpose, the nature of being; dies when we’re a child and the human concept of ‘understanding‘ takes over. But it isn’t real understanding, it is our own version of understanding, that just isn’t logical. It is almost as if we have created a halfway point between reality, and our own special little dream World, to try to make sense of something that cannot be made sense out of.

Oddly, after childhood, after knowing just how meaningless the World is, ‘understanding‘ becomes a life long search for meaning, that you can never ever discover. You try and convince yourself that you have a place and a purpose, and you don’t. You’re just as meaningless as everything else. Plato tried to explain this search, as being the search for the ultimate perfection; that we have a concept of perfect in which to compare aspects of life, suggests that the perfect version of that particular aspect must exist, in what Plato deemed the “World of forms“, in other words….heaven. It was a way to explain something that didn’t need explaining. Perfection, as with “meaning” is a man made concept. We have created a definition for a meaningless word, searching for answers in a World that has absolutely no answers, and so we invent them. This isn’t a bad thing. It gives man and woman freedom to frame the World for ourselves without unnecessary ‘forces’ or reliance on dogma. God, for example. Plato, (and Religion thereafter – so, in fact, humanity) appears to try to create order within Chaos with the creation of heaven. It is the ultimate in perfection, it is the ultimate in justice, it is the ultimate ultimate. There is nothing greater, it has meaning. The man made creation of Heaven is almost an admission by those whom accept it, that this life has absolutely no meaning, or order, or rationale and so is in fact utterly absurd. It is an admission, because it is based on belief. A crossing of the fingers, and just hoping for it to be true. But then they must accept, that God created an absurd World, an amoral World – which means that God is not a perfect, all loving God.

People often say “you make your own destiny“, which is partly true, but hugely false. We live in a structure. Rules are placed before us from an early age; we’re educated to “fit in” as good little unquestioning citizens. We are increasingly taught that money is everything. We did not have a choice. We weren’t consulted. We have been moulded a certain way by society. Of course it is true that you are (almost) utterly free to be whatever you so wish. If you want to be a baker, you can be, if you want to be a drug addict, you can be; you are no more or less important if you’re the son of a rich business man than if you’re a prostitute. However, your actual freedom, your reality based freedom, your freedom that transcends economics is only possible if you reject all what you have been told, and start again, with a mind that is free from preconceptions and manipulations. Given that we exist on a framework, it is supremely difficult to break free from that framework. Rene Descartes tried it, but ultimately failed. Apparently the Renaissance artist Leonardo, despised education because it taught second hand experience, and so he searched to understand life, for himself, and some would say he succeeded, given that he’s the most famous artist of all time. But ultimately, human life, and it’s fictitious constructed reality exists in a tiny box, on an endless shore.

So in fact, we have two options in front of us. Firstly, we could refuse to accept that we only really transcend the confines of the barriers of humanity when we’re a new born child and go about our lives searching for a meaning that simply doesn’t actually exist. Or, we could accept that we live in a World full of absurdities and inexplicable chaos and create our own version of that man made concept of “the meaning of life” for ourselves as individuals. If we choose the second option, we then have two further choices. We can create our own meaning, safely and securely within societies rules and limits (again, man made, not natural) but accept that we’re never truly free and never truly in control of our own destinies which become controlled by the need to be rational in a space full of irrationality; or we can become the outcast, setting our own rules and our own limits and never accepting what we’re told as objective truth without first analysing the World for ourselves and breaking free from the chains of humanity; the rest is just a futile game.

I’d conclude that you and I can only possibly be free, when we accept, quite morbidly albeit, that we have no meaning whatsoever. Once we accept it, we can mould our own ‘meaning’ out of the reality. And that, is beautiful.

Breaking News: Britney is a bit tanned.

Today, the North Koreans announced they had sent a delegation of diplomats to Beijing. This comes a week after reports surfaced that a cargo of weapons from North Korea had been seized, on it’s way to Iran.
Meanwhile, Iran itself has announced it is ready to sit down and negotiate with World powers over it’s nuclear program.
Over here in the UK, Jack Straw announced plans to release all documents corresponding to the ridiculous release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi from a Scottish prison for his involvement in the Lockerbie bombing; an attempt to prove the UK government had nothing to do with the release and that no trade deal with made for his release (it still seems a little coincidental that Scotland released a well known terrorist, to a Country that has the biggest oil supply on the African continent, [sarcasm] but if Jack Straw says it didn’t happen…… then who are we to say otherwise [/sarcasm])

To sum up, Newspapers have a lot of material to lead with today. They must have had a field day. So having said that, The Daily Mail website today leads with a story that the rest of the World seems to have quite ignorantly pushed aside for it’s crazy talk about North Korea, Iran, and the release of terrorists. Britney Spears and her sister Jamie Lyn Spears………..are both “toned and tanned“!!! ….. if you could do what I had to do, and take just a second away from feeling like you’ve just been raped by stupidity, that would be nice, The story continues….
“While Britney, 27, had been regularly flaunting her honed physique on stage and in bikinis in recent months, the more low-key Jamie Lynn, 18, is rarely photographed“
Well that’s a load off of my mind. Do you know why the “more low key Jamie Lynn, 18, is rarely photographed“? ……. it’s because nobody cares. Why do I care how tanned the younger sister of a pop star I have absolutely no care in the World for, is? It isn’t like I’ve been sat at home ignoring phone calls, locked in a dark corner, rocking backward and forward chanting “how tanned is Jamie Lynn Spears” over and over. I couldn’t care any less about anything in the World. I’ve never felt this uninterested by any story, ever. It’s a new feeling for me. One of complete disinterest. They say in Heaven, that everything is perfect. I guarantee the perfect feeling of disinterest, will be God handing me the Daily Mail.

There are, six photos on that Daily Mail story, quite clearly taken by a man hidden in bushes, of the kids of Britney and her sister. Is that legal? Because if I go to a park, hide in a bush, and take a photo of some kids, in all likelihood, i’m going to be arrested, after being beaten by the father of the kids, and most probably called “sick and twisted” by the Daily Mail the next day.
“An eyewitness told Us Weekly magazine: ‘They both looked to be in pretty good shape‘”
An eyewitness? As if it was a major Global event. You have eyewitnesses when planes are flown into the side of sky scrapers. You don’t have “eyewitnesses” when a woman is sat by the side of a pool, with her child.

But it isn’t just the Daily Mail that we seem to allow to get away with it. The Sun earlier this month printed a story about Kerry Katona facing questions from Social Workers. As if it’s any of our fucking business. The poor girl faces a constant mauling by the deviously perverted press, who on this occasion chose quite ironically to use the word “shame” when describing her, whilst showing a completely unrelated picture of her topless, taken by a disgusting little shameful paparazzi cock hidden out of sight, purely so the paper can make a bit of money. Which in turn, creates a generation of easily led, misinformed morons into voting the poor woman “worst celebrity mum”. I can’t imagine how horrible one would feel after a frankly despicable poll is conducted, finding you to be a shit mum, by people who don’t know you, have never met you, and yet think they know you enough to call you a shit mum, simply because their boring, pathetic, little ignorant lives revolve around what they read in magazines designed purely to manipulate this stupid generation of white collared drunks into handing over their money for a publication designed to make money for itself, not to tell any form of truth.
The truly vile “Carole Malone” goes one step further in masturbating the finances of the News of the World, without any regard for compassion or human decency, by starting another unintriguing article of utter vomit enducing bullshit, with “Like her mum Sue, Kerry will be a hopeless drug addict, she’ll be living on benefits because she’s fit for nothing except the grubbiest kind of fame and her kids will either be in care or with their dad“. Doesn’t it make you proud to be part of a species dedicated to collectively ruining the lives of as many troubled and depressed people as possible, just because it pays well? Not that Malone is all that surprising in her hatred for Katona. Perhaps if Katona were to contract a deadly disease like Jade Goody did, Malone will suddenly fall in love with her. Because in 2006, Malone referred to Jade as having “tumbleweed for brains” and “all the charm of your average slug“, this was just before an article written also in 2006, in which Malone referred to Goody as “the size of a shed“, and in 2003, referring to the birth of Jade’s son, Malone said “Ex Big Brother inmate Jade Goody has given birth to a bouncing baby boy. One can only hope that little Bobby Jack turns out to be good at sport. With a mum who thinks East Anglia is ‘abroad’ he won’t be going to Oxford” Yet, oddly, in February 2009, Malone is pictured with Jade like a mother and daughter, in an article Malone wrote, in which she seems to have some new found love for Jade. In reality, Malone is a vulture, digging her claws in when it will make her some money, regardless of the consequences of what she says, and then releasing her grip, and serenading us all with flowers and meadows and pretty soft feathers when it will make her some money.
“The truth is, I’m in awe of Jade Goody. I have been since I was in the Big Brother house with her and saw that for all her faults, her unfettered anger, her lack of education, this was a kind girl, a loyal girl, a strong girl.”
Fuck off, you devious fickle little witch.

And whilst we’re on the subject of Media irony, The Sun back in 2004 printed this story about a man who had set up a webcam under a woman’s desk in his office to get upskirt shots. Yes, the man is a pervert. No question. But it strikes me as beautifully poetic that a newspaper that constantly prints pictures of the upskirt of Lindsey Lohan getting out of a car, by a photographer quite obviously laying in the gutter waiting for the door to open to catch that magically intrusive (yet apparently perfectly legal) moment, or photos of women tennis players bending over to pick up a tennis ball, has the nerve to refer to anyone else as a “pervert“.

The amorality of the Tabloids reached it’s pinnacle for me, with it’s apparent new found sense of love for Jade Goody just before her death, and not just from Carole “I have absolutely no shame” Malone. Now obviously it wasn’t real love. It was tabloid love. The type of love that says “oooo a woman who has sold papers in the past for being a bit racist, is now dying of cancer….. we could make a fortune off of that!!” It’s the same love that her dirty excuse for a husband has for her. A greedy love. A golddigging love. I say that, because The Sun, The Mirror and The Mail spent 2008 referring to Jade Goody as much as humanly possible as “racist” (even though it was the other equally as useless “celebrity” on that version of Celebrity Big Brother, who said the most racist nonsense like “I think she should fuck off home“….. but you know, she’s not that famous, so the tabloids ignored it), or comparing her to a pig; anything they could get away with. Much like they are doing with Kerry Katona now. Suddenly, Jade contracted cancer and the tabloids loved her for it. They canonised her. But they falsely canonised her. She didn’t exert any virtues that enrich our life, Jade Goody was a product to be bought and sold, she was no longer a human being by the time she died.

The tabloids are actually quite the logical manifestation of the concept of consumerism and all the shit it brings with it. Nothing is sacred. There is no morality. Every so often, they try to appear moral in their quest to inform us, but they fail miserably. They represent modern life perfectly. They are simply amoral products that certainly do have a place in an amoral marketplace. It would amaze me if humanity, 500 years down the line, looks back at our time with anything but a sense of great antipathy toward a past maligned with this unforgiving, self-driven consumer based World of greed and vanity and nothing much else. And we all buy into it.

Who cares about North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, when Britney Spears is looking a bit tanned.