[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
[ << Previous 20 ]
[ << Previous 20 ]
|Friday, June 20th, 2014|
Clarification of new user modding policy
As part of the checks before approving a request for membership I check the requester's journal and user info, this has been noted on the community info page since this community was set up. The purpose of this is to reduce the chance of a spammer joining and posting to the community.
To aid people who want to join this community for legitimate reasons I thought I'd clarify what I'm looking for:
- Are there public entries on the person's journal, journals without public entries are unlikely to be approved
- When was the account set up, if the account was set up the same day as the request and there are no public journal entries then the request definitely won't be approved but I will check back in a week to see if any public entries have appeared
- What other communities is the user a member of. If it's a small number or a larger number but the account has been set up for quite some time (especially if there are common themes like fan communities for an actor, political communities &c) then that's fine but if the account has only recently been set up and is a member of many communities with no common themes then that's not a definite reject but it would be a red flag
- Do they have any 'friend of's, i.e. people who have friended them
|Saturday, May 17th, 2014|
|Wednesday, September 19th, 2012|
Scapegoating: Why Britain supports the cuts
Item: The great scapegoating of the poor and needy
which is happening in Britain today bears many similarities to the ancient Greek ritual of pharmakos
, a form of human sacrifice performed at times of great crisis in which a poor or disabled person was exiled or murdered by the entire community.
This was a purification ritual which in turn evolved from animal sacrifices. Hunters, feeling guilt at killing animals for food, would rope the entire village into killing an ox - a valuable working animal which it had previously been prohibited to kill. Thus, the entire community comes to share the guilt of killing, so now everyone is equally culpable. When everyone is equally guilty, nobody is especially guilty, and the hunters can carry on killing and the tribe can be fed, just as our rulers have decided to continue
with the project of killing the planet
to keep our civilisation going.
This is how the primitive mind copes with guilt - by projecting it onto someone who is blameless. And they say the Conservatives no longer stand for traditional values!( Read more...Collapse )
|Thursday, March 1st, 2012|
|Sunday, January 29th, 2012|
2 000 000 signatures in 20 days...is it possible?
The forthcoming election of president in Russia scheduled for March 4, 2012 is already illegitimate. Why? Candidates from parliamentary parties and self-nominee candidates are set in unequal conditions in violation of Constitution. If you are a self-nominee you are to collect 2 million signatures of votes in you support, in......20 days! That is the price of registration you as a candidate. Sounds unrealistic, and it is actually so! That is how unwanted candidates are being sorted out from the election. Or maybe not all of them, if you are an oligarch, like Michael Prokhorov, and have enough money to fabricate those signatures, you are welcome to continue in the election race.
|Saturday, December 3rd, 2011|
TRUTH IS HERE
Why do you think it is so hard to burst into to the ranks of elite? You may think they guard so hard the purity of their family bloodlines only out of the idea of preserving the status of their ancestors. It already became a tradition over the centuries. Does it mean people outside of their status are not considered worthy anymore? It all has much deeper reasons than you ever thought of.
|Thursday, September 8th, 2011|
What next for Capitalism?
Ten years ago I had just finished an MBA at what is usually ranked the best business school in Europe. While we were studying there was the dotcom boom and bust, so we did carefully consider the nature of capitalism and its foibles. Lecturers with much more experience than me pronounced that (beyond complying with the law) the only duty of a company is to its shareholders;
making money for the shareholders was the only way to progress as a company. If the company is going well, more shareholders will want to invest; if it does badly, shareholders will withdraw their money by selling the shares, and investing elsewhere instead. But once the company is floated on a stock exchange, the shares become a secondary market. like buying a second hand car. I could sell my car to you for whatever value it has, and Audi would not get a penny from either of us; the price becomes a proxy for reputation and quality. In the case of shares, the secondary market price reflects the probability of getting a regular dividend out of the company's profits.
What you can see here is that monetary rewards are operated not by the company, but by the shareholders looking for a return on investment. They wield the yardstick by which companies are judged; not the CEOs or the stockbrokers, and investment bankers have a duty to make as much money as possible for the investors - like you and me - who put their life savings or their pension funds into stocks and shares.
Money is literally the only measureable currency we have. Unfortunately, our society is not capable of rewarding people in other ways. If somebody suffers a terrible injury that is somebody else's fault, the damages awarded are financial. You might like to award them compassion or sympathy or practical assistance, but these cannot be mandated. All we can do is give money and hope that the victims will be able to buy whatever they need with that. (It's not possible though - i struggle to think how I might get my FIL's sheets changed or sweaters washed or letters opened and answered if I had to pay somebody to do it - maybe there is a business opportunity there.)
The trouble with capitalism is exactly that the shareholders roam around the financial landscape maximising profits. They move their investments from one company to another depending on who is up and who is down, thus providing a competitive, almost Darwinian, element to investment. A company that wants to retain its investors has to run faster than its peers, so the pressure is on to sell more, move into new markets, invent new products, new flavours, better mousetraps. It never stops, and therefore the pressure on consumers to consume more and better Stuff accelerates. In order to keep that going, consumers have to be motivated by greed or status insecurity to even go into debt to get the Stuff that other people have, and marketeers exploit our basic monkey-hierarchy needs to eternally push us beyond the Joneses.
Other useful values like community, and craft, and pride in one's work, and Art, and interesting ways to spend one's time, all get subsumed into the urge to have and to spend. Those able to earn money are flogged to death by companies that want them to be on call "24/7". Various social problems erupt as a less earnings-capable underclass, which can never afford any of this valued Stuff, gets anxious and depressed and militant. Although capitalism is the cause of good customer service, and pension provision, and consumer choice, and other Good Things, it is now causing more problems than it alleviates, and if you want any more on that subject, read The Spirit Level
or join the Equality Trust.
I can see that we are at the point where Capitalism needs to be changed in some way, but I wonder whether it isn't inherently prone to whipping itself into this kind of vortex. All the critics of various political persuasions see this too, but nobody seems to be postulating what we could have instead. Trouble is, there is no meaningful way of measuring the value of happiness or community or personal fulfilment, and only very abstruse ways of measuring health benefits (you might like to Google the QALY).
What kind of economic system could provide people with "enough" without cattle-prodding them into wanting it all? I'm unwilling to accept that Communism or Socialism in its strictest forms could be the answer. There was an experiment once where Europe was divided into two, and the rats on one side put into one kind of maze while the rats on the other side were put into a different one. After a while, the rats on one side ate through the wall that divided the lab because they hated their maze so much.
So what should be the New Order?
|Tuesday, March 29th, 2011|
Note: The truth is the last thing anyone wants to hear. I'm expecting to get abuse for this, if certain people end up reading it.
The march 26th demonstration was... interesting: Very dull, very boring but very neccesary. There was a desperate, depressed atmosphere in the crowd. They were led along, often corralling themselves behind arbitrary barriers in the road. Several times I went into the unoccupied side of the road as it was becoming dangerously overcrowded in the main march. They were just so depressing.
Then there were the anarchists. At first I liked the cut of their jib as they had a bit more life to them; while the criminal damage seemed fairly minor and tokenistic, but then after I got home I saw the footage. I noticed, not for the first time, the way the so-called Black Bloc were always surrounded by camera crews and strangely inactive police officers, and I thought: SET-UP.
Why do smart people do stupid things? Usually it betrays deep-seated emotional problems. My guess is that their leaders
are almost certainly secret policemen
- like Mark Kennedy
- and they are generally a bunch of cops and messed up kids with Daddy issues, total patsies. So why didn't the ordinary demonstrators eject them or restrain them or anything? See above - we were all so cowed that we barely scraped it together to turn up. Violence from our own ranks would simply make us more apathetic. I include myself in this - I like to think I would have got angry, but what would I say? There was no sense of unity like there usually is on demos; we were all just alone in a crowd.
For comparison, this is how to deal with provocateurs:
So you've got the crazy rioters led by the secret police, and then you've got the great mass of depressed and repressed ordinary people. This isn't going to change a thing.
Conclusion: Politics is entering its final phase of degeneration. The fact that such obvious police provocateurs as the Black Bloc can infiltrate peaceful demonstrations at will and then set the entire media tone for a march of 500,000 people, shows just how cowed and apathetic most ordinary people are, even those who demonstrate.
Prediction: Very soon, new police powers will manage to completely stifle all dissent, except the pumped-up pseudo-dissent of the fake anarchists / secret police. The State needs something to put people off demonstrating and a sponge for popular rage, and these people are both. They are so contemptible as to defy description.
Prediction 2: Tory economic policy is so bad, and the world in such bad shape, that the economy will soon go into free fall. While millions will become unemployed and homeless, there will be no way to help them. They cannot help themselves as they are too cowardly and fucked-up, and nobody else wants to help them even if they could- resources just won't exist to deal with the economic tsunami that's going to hit this country.
Prediction 3: Even without the economic shitstorm, so many of the merely poor will become utterly dispossesed as to create a new class of people. This is the so-called "underclass" beloved of, and created by, right wing social theorists. Many things will happen next, none of them good: The dispossed will turn to crime, creating a crime tsunami to go with the economic one, they will also turn to shit politics and religion (boom times for the EDL, BNP, radical Islam and Christian Fundamentalism), which in turn will make further activism and other emergency repair jobs on the body politic impossible, while dividing people from each other even more than they already are.
If you want to know what the future looks like, it is this: A mass of crazy hysterical people running around smashing their own stuff up, punching themselves in the face and trampling each other in the desperate desire to escape themselves while the rich look on, amused. Another bunch of totally desperate slaves toiling away to keep the whole bullshit edifice from falling apart, which it inevitably will. Indeed the only good thing about the new order that is being created by the Tories is that it is inherently unstable - massively polarised societies like theirs just cannot exist for long, and the ruling class will have to either elect themselves another New Labour - likely too little, too late - or be swept away in the chaos they themselves have created. In the long run though, this is just another moment in the collapse of our society, like a snapshot of a falling building.
|Wednesday, December 8th, 2010|
Mean and moronic Tories to increase crime, drug abuse
Moronic drug policy to increase drug use and crime shocker!
The most under apprecieted thing that Labour did was their work on drugs. Remember how smackheads used to roam around stealing everything that wasn't nailed down? Remember how that stopped in a lot of areas? Well, the fact that working class people can have nice things without getting them stolen all the time is down to two things: Labour, and a drug called Subutex.
What Subutex does, is it takes away the craving without creating a greater dependency. I've seen them myself, sallow mumbling junkies at the chemist, they come in, flash their credentials and get given the drug, which they take on the spot then sod off. That drug has saved lives.
Now the Tory scum have a new wheeze - get the junkies off junk, and get them back to work or they'll CUT THEIR BENEFITS! (that last bit to be read out in an appropriately shrill and mean-sounding voice)
The problem is, Subutex is not junk. It is a substitute for junk, and eventually they do wean themselves off - in their own good time. Hassling the smackies to stop taking it on pain of dole cuts will simply send them right back to their short and miserable lives on the streets, weighing in your video for their next hit of Taliban's Finest Strichnine Surprise.
Now I hate junkies - I hate the way they created their own problem which we have to clean up, and I hate the way that their self-indulgence takes resources from others who are needy - but going on a puritanical go-clean-or-sod-off binge is not going to make them go clean, and it is going to cause a drug-related crime wave. If you have any valuables, it might be worth insuring them before the premiums go up.
Oh, and by the way, the Tories still plan to empty the jails. And fire lots of cops (not the riot squad though, I suspect).
Nice one Clarke, you big penal reformer.
|Wednesday, September 29th, 2010|
in full in case the embed doesnt' show up.
It's one hour long. Hmmm, I can see why they call him "Red Ed" now. Still, he's nowhere near Fidel Castro's seven hour record lols
Interesting thing about this one is that he doesn't automatically make a good portion of the population consider regicide or bulimia. In other words, he's like a younger, nicer Tony Blair, the crucial difference being that he hasn't committed war crimes and doesn't make you want to kill him or puke your guts up.
Lots of boilerplate, lots of "No, I'm not a Communist from the planet Zargon" type stuff which is TBE, and of course lots of catchphrases and buzzwords. A couple of bits where you just think "Oh, Ed. Tut, tut" but any politician has to come out with a lot of shit to satisfy the retarded majority I suppose.
On the economy: Good to see an old-skool Keynsian at work. Yes, deciding to just stop building schools overnight will have indeed a negative effect on the building trade. But also lots of dark hints on future collaberation with the Coalition which could mean pretty much anything, but don't auger well. Still, I suppose the candidate has to reach out.
About the nicknames - He does look like Gromit doesn't he? One I would like to promote is "Sonic The Hedgehog" - he tries to keep his 'do groomed, but sometimes he just gets so passionate about change and being part of the new generation that he can't help it, and his wittle spikes come out and he looks so cuuuuuuuuuute. When I first saw Spiky Ed my heart melted and I realised I had to join Labour and vote for him. At least the view's better when you're looking at Ed.
In conclusion, Ed Miliband wins on presentation, staying power, and even some substance. He loses on cliches and repetition, but then you can't have everything.
|Sunday, September 26th, 2010|
RED ED IN COMMIE PLOT HORROR
Hi thar! I'm a n00b here. Hope I'm OK to post this. Hope you like satire!
As we all know, the Labour Party has decided, as an organisation, to elect a fresh face who will put the New Labour years behind them, and take the party in a more social-democratic direction. Which mean mean only one thing: Yes folks, it's smear time!! (In other words: The following is a work of satire. Mainly inspired by the sort of shit that's been flung at President Obama. Hell, I voted for Ed myself.)
RED ED IN COMMUNIST PLOT HORROR
At the very end of Ed Miliband's Wikipedia entry
"He was recently reunited with one of his family relatives in Moscow"(26
ORDERS FROM MOSCOW
The ToryScumMailTimesBeeboMirroGraphoGuard can EXCLUSIVELY REVEAL that this so-called distant relative is in fact, Red Ed's KGB handler or something! Probably. (Or whatever the Russkie Commies have now, like the FSB or some shit) and that she was, in fact giving him his orders from RED COMMUNIST COMMIE PARTY RED CENTRAL, the centre of the Worldwide Communist Conspiracy to make everyone live in a Communist dictatorship!
We can FURTHER EXCLUSIVELY REVEAL that this sultry Communist temptress had not only had the ear of Stalin himself,
but was also a top Soviet spy during World War 2.
Our roving investigative reporter, Octavius Murdoch McScumbag, went to Moscow to question the alleged Miliband relative and Communist spy the tough questions, but was almost immediately harrassed by police on arrival outside her lavish State-provided apartment. Members of the Moscow militia were heard to exclaim "Oh my God! What's he doing to that old lady? STOP!!" (only in Russkie, natch) in a vain attempt to make our fearless crusader for truth look bad, before rugby tackling him to the ground and deporting him for breach of the peace. A clear Communist conspiracy to silence the free press.
On arrival back in Blighty, we phoned Ed Miliband and asked him if he was a Russian spy, at which he hung up. Crucially, he has never denied working for Moscow - which means that everything we're about to say about him is true!
Given this obvious connection to foreign paymasters and antique, Communist-era secret spies, can we trust Ed Miliband to run our country - or will he dismantle our defences as part of a long-held preperation for a rebadged, revamped new-style Soviet Union to invade Britain?
He says he favours an eventual "review" of the Trident deterrent - an obvious attempt to disarm us in the teeth of future Russian agression.
TIMETABLE TO DOOM
We at the ToryScumMailTimesBeebOMirroGraphOGuard have come up with a possible timetable for the worst-case-scenario should the unthinkable happen, and Labour win the next election:
1st April 2015: Ed Miliband is installed as Prime Minister by his Russian handlers
2000 hours, 2nd April 2015: He disarms Trident and phones Putin. Being kept on hold for five minutes gives us the shortest reprieve in history; as Putin is busy he puts Red Ed through to Dmitry Mevdevev and, after a few minutes of "Yes, Comrade, the capitalist dogs will rue the day!" type chatting, the nightmare begins. Ravens leave the Tower of London.
2015 hours, 2nd April 2015: Russian paratroopers descend on London like so many locusts. The long-awaited Soviet invasion of Britain begins.
2016 hours, 2nd April 2015: First paratroopers land in Buck House. Russian occupation begins. Queen commits suicide rather than fall into enemy hands.
The tragic consequences of an Ed Miliband premiership
|Tuesday, April 13th, 2010|
|Friday, July 25th, 2008|
I'm becoming politically active.
This community seems a little quiet. However I hope it might become more active. Other politics sites on LJ are stuffed with the US elections so this seems like the best place for me to post.
This is cross-posted from my own journal. You should hear this.
Annual report comments from Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner
I was seriously spooked by our worryingly fruitcake government planning to instigate a database containing records of the entire nation's phone and e-mail traffic. Wha business is it of theirs? I was so spooked I surfed the website of that increasingly sensible organisation "Liberty", to see what they thought about personal privacy. It is interesting and informative. They did a report on the subject last year, which I think every British subject (not citizen) should read. In fact I should finish reading it myself.
Among other things, it debunks the idea that if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. It also differentiates very neatly between what is "in the public interest" and what "interests the public". Tidy.
Here are the links you need to get yourself better informed:
Later this year, this will be up for discussion as part of proposed new legislation. Watch out for it, and fight it! Who's going to march?
|Tuesday, February 19th, 2008|
Your Vision of Prime Minister
Hi everyone, I work on research devoted to Prime Ministers in Britain
Could I please ask you to describe a British Prime Minister (looks, style of work/living, origin, speech, hobbies, etc)? What I mean is your first image/thoughts/may be literature character when you hear 'Prime Minister'
Very much appreciated. Thanks in advance.:)
|Wednesday, November 21st, 2007|
This year's women-only Reclaim the Night march is rapidly approaching. It's on Saturday 24 November 2007. Assemble in Trafalgar Square at 6pm.
The march will be followed by a mixed rally for men and women in the University of London Union with speakers, music and bands until late.Reclaim The Night Dot Org
|Tuesday, March 27th, 2007|
Suppose a young person you know (e.g. your son/daughter, your niece/nephew, child of a friend, youth group/club member, Connexions client) is going to be eligable to vote for the first time at the upcoming local elections. They ask you for advice on how to decide who to vote for. What do you tell them?
Read all the election literature you can, talk to the candidates if you can then choose the candidate you think will do the best for your area.
Vote Lib Dem/Labour/Green/Tory/BNP/Whatever else the BNP/Tory/Green/Labour/Lib Dem/Whatever will get in
Vote BNP/Tory/Green/Labour/Lib Dem/Whatever if you know what's good for you
Vote BNP/Tory/Green/Labour/Lib Dem/Whatever
Vote for the one you'd like to shag
Vote? Vote? What makes you think someone your age should be allowed to vote?
Don't bother, they're all a bunch of lying sleeze merchants
Don't bother, it's all rigged
Vote Loony, they're the only ones with any decent policies. I'm serious actually, they are the only ones with any decent policies
Other (Please comment)
|Monday, December 25th, 2006|
"Time to stand up to the Russians"
"Vladimir Putin is making himself our problem1)
. There is a difference between persecuting2)
political opponents at home and doing so in neighbouring3)
states; between presiding over the murder4)
of dissidents within your borders and sanctioning their death abroad. The moral distinction may be slight, but the legal5)
distinction is vast: the international order rests on the principle of territorial jurisdiction. [...]" (Daily Telegraph...
"you know who is the enemy?"2)
"he DOES that, it is a proved fact"3)
"he is extending his evil will (the proved evil is on a march)"4)
a kick: "by the way, he is a murder"5)
"saying all that above and below we respect the law (don't we?)"
The reasoning -- although this term is quite ridiculous here -- techniques in such articles is not of my primary concern here though. ( what is more important then?Collapse )
|Monday, December 4th, 2006|
"Mr Blair said although the Cold War had ended the UK needed nuclear weapons as no-one could be sure another nuclear threat would not emerge in the future."
For God's sake, Blair. Wake up. This isn't 1963. Apart from the odd skirmish here and there, war is generally not waged between nation-states any more; it is waged between nationstates and paramilitary organisations and ethnic or religious groups against each other. Nuclear strikes only ever have a point when deployed against naiton-states: the non-national forces likely to attack us (al-Qaeda, etc.) are invulnerable to nuclear weapons by their very nature.
Who exactly are we likely to fire these nuclear weapons against? Iran? Never going to have them themselves, if the UN and US have their way. North Korea? Their missile program is hopeless. They're, what, a decade away from building an ICBM? That, and the nuclear weapons they've tested so far are about as powerful as a tortoise fart. Pakistan or India? If we ever get to the stage where we're at war with India, then i suspect lack of a sizeable nuclear deterrant will be the least of our problems.
Twenty billion pounds. That's a lot
of bling for something that's fundamentally pointless and useless. It depresses me to see all that money pissed away on nothing when so much good could be done with it.
|Saturday, November 18th, 2006|
|Saturday, November 11th, 2006|
Much as I find him and everything he says disgusting and hateful, I was sort of relieved to see that Nick Griffin got off the incitement to race hate charges. Frankly, I was disgusted by the fact he was on trial to begin with.
Why is it illegal anyway? To say admittedly pretty horrible stuff, but behind closed doors to people who won't be offended? This is illegal? If someone's harrassing someone else, lock them up. If someone acts on BNP speeches and goes and beats the hell out of someone or murders them, lock them up. Don't lock people up for stating an opinion; this isn't Airstrip One.