Why do I hate cops?

So I grew up in a police household. My father was a cop, and my godfather is a cop too. In spite of his obligations, he still looks after me. Makes sure I'm doing all right, he's one of the nicest people I know and I love him like family.


So imagine the conflict when one is faced with the realities of the police. How can I hate cops in this circumstance?


I thought about it for a long time, and the reality is very simple. Cops obey and enforce the law. If the law told my father to kill me, then he would have to do that. Doesn't matter what he thinks of me, if the state tells him to pull the trigger then his purpose is to pull the trigger. Same goes for my godfather, and all other cops. I'd like to think that they'd disobey the rules at that point. But fact of the matter still is that they did, on some level, pledge this obedience to the doctrine of the state.


Headline after headline comes out talking about how cops are more likely to commit domestic abuse, and is that really so strange? Given how somewhere, the uncomfortable truth is that the state, much like God himself, occasionally demands its followers to sacrifice a son to prove their loyalty and commitment to the doctrine. How can you get close to your loved ones then? When this hidden barrier of hate stands between you and them? Namely the fabric of your uniform, and the metal of your badge.


I begin to see people and cops as separate entities, because they are.


When a cop takes off the uniform at the end of the day, he becomes a person. That's when the free will appears, and the person makes their own decisions. When a person goes on duty, when the shift arrives and the uniform comes on, that's when they become a cop. Their actions are no longer their own. The doctrine of the law dictates their being like automatons. No exceptions, no debating, no rationality, you just do whatever you're told regardless of how you feel about it.


And that's not my dad, nor my godfather. That's something else. That's a cop. I'll never trust a cop, and I do for a fact hate cops.


Cops kill people, they beat them, they abduct them and torture them. Confine them into tiny spaces, take away their freedoms, treat them like animals, pit them against one another in human zoos, they abuse, mistreat, violate, trespass, murder and kidnap. They commit the worst crimes to prevent petty misdemeanours. They instigate as much violence as they suppress.

They are a tool of a government that hates me, that hates me because I'm poor. That hates me because I'm disabled. That hates me because of my world view. That hates me because of my civic status. That hates me because of my sexual orientation. A government that deprives me of food, that purposefully and consciously traps me in ghetto economics. That punishes me for living. That protects people who bully and belittle people like me. That would punish me for defending myself against those people. That provides police escorts to fascists who advocate exterminating me. That sends riot police to beat and kidnap and kill those who advocate my freedom and democratic rights.

A government that makes every effort conceivable to assure that my life is as miserable and undignified as humanly possible. So why is it so controversial that I then proceed to hate them?

individualism

Individualism, or "my needs" is typically regarded as this notion of freedom. Mainly because it appropriates individuality, which is very important.

You want to know what the freest society was by individualist standards?

Mussolini's Italy. It had the most liberated individual in the world. Namely, Benito Mussolini.

Along with several others. Saudi Arabia is a great individualist country too. Those Saudi Princes couldn't have more individual rights if they tried. The US, Great Britain, Germany, France, all incredibly individualist. They have individuals in those societies that are so free they're above the law itself.

If you measure freedom by the freedom held by an individual, then every dictatorial nation provides every single liberty possible. It's only worth a damn when everyone has those opportunities and rights.

balaclavas

So I had an argument with a Unionist about the IRA. This was in the context of the British use of police brutality at IRA funerals. He argued that the IRA were terrorists, and as such it was vital to disrupt all their activities, no matter how benign.

I challenged this, and he made an interesting reply. He argued that if they weren't terrorists, then they wouldn't be attending the funeral wearing balaclavas.

That's the distinction. What made it interesting.

It's not the bombs.

It's not the rifles.

It's not the civilians in the crossfire.

It wasn't the snipers in South Armagh.

It wasn't the Provos in Belfast.

Or even the molotovs in Derry.

No, it was the balaclavas.

Reason for this is because he wasn't talking like a person at this point. He was talking like a state. I wasn't addressing him, he left the picture the second we started discussing. It was his doctrine I addressed. The state speaking through him with ideas drilled into his mind since childhood.

And the state is fine with gunfire, burning, explosions, internment, torture and all kinds of brutality. The state looks the other way when Unionists would detonate pipe bombs targeting Catholic children. They don't care.

So we have the state. Internment camps, firing squads, press censorship, torture, sectarian violence, child abuse, you name it.

Then you have the IRA. They armed themselves and they fought back like a military. I won't pretend as though there is a good side in a war, but they had no internment camps, or press censorship for instance.

But they did wear balaclavas. So that's the terrorism. That's the dividing line that could be fabricated.

But I'd like to assert the following. If someone can't even attend a funeral without feeling compelled to hide their identity in an effort to avoid persecution, then whom, pray tell, is the real terrorist?

I'm writing about this now because the same pattern is being repeated all over the world, with several insurgent groups and resistance forces who are defending their homes from western occupation. From Palestine to Syria. I'm even talking about the Cubans, who drove out the Batista regime. About the Sandinistas and Zapatistas too. They're all in the habit of wearing balaclavas.

And in the words of Fidel Castro: History will absolve them.

the science of anarchism

Is anarchism a science? I would like to say it is. People describe it as a praxis, but the scientific process is also a praxis. To understand how anarchism, much like science, is about providing observable results which may be replicated, we most examine the scientific principles that premises social analysis.

First of all, psychology, and the relationship psychology has to evolution. The following is an hypothesis, but it is an hypothesis which could be very important.

Psychology is a relative phenomenon. If we were to imagine a quantification of psychology, then on one side we're looking at stimuli response, and on the other side we're looking at free will.

An insect lacks psychology, and is simply programmed to respond to stimuli in the most basic of ways. It has no memory or self awareness, it simply is.

Whereas a being with memory and self awareness, when faced with stimuli, has the capacity to assess their own situation, and run through information that might be relevant, and then develop a response. We assume this capacity to be free will. However, this also means that our will is only as free as our biological, or possibly psychological limitations.

I believe psychology is an evolutionary measure that arrives to a being capable of travel. That isn't just a static being with perhaps divergent genomes all over the planet, but rather a being who will constantly change environments throughout its life. This is why I believe the habits of our nomadic ancestors is what bestowed us with the most complex psychology on this planet.

So on this quantifying scale, where do we fit? It's impossible to know, because we have no idea to what extents memory and self awareness will actually take us. But I would imagine we're closer to free will than to stimuli response. But what is important is how we're not at full free will.

Things like addiction, fear, hunger, thirst, pain, sorrow and other stimulus would not affect us if we had complete free will. Hunger is not actually dangerous, it is simply a warning of malnourishment that most of us require massive amounts of willpower to freely resist.

So these factors do for a fact govern our lives to one certain margin or other, and will influence our choices. This margin is what we have in common with the insects of the planet.

And I believe this margin is what makes anarchism a science. Because I believe there is a universality in this margin. That, if we establish two societies on opposite ends of the Earth, with the same politics, same culture, and same language, the beings, no matter what ethnicity, will behave identically as a people, and would be able to seamlessly migrate between these two places without naturalisation. The only divergence which would build overtime would be caused by more random factors like natural disasters, conditions of birth, and possible power structures.

But all in all, you would be able to replicate the results of a society. Which is visible. As for instance Canadians and Australians have more in common than perhaps Canadians and Hungarians.

And when anarchism is used as a praxis, we begin to understand these patterns. How language, culture and politics define a people far more than any other factors. Because these three regulate the stimulus we face regularly. Anarchism is therefore the praxis of removing as much of the limitations imposed by stimulus as possible, in order to allow human beings to have a higher free will and have all of their needs met.

And in doing this, one must conclude, that sooner or later there will develop a homeostasis in an anarchist society, which will provide an objective formula for how to make societies in the future.

In this aspect, I would conclude that anarchism is a science.

empathy for the bourgeoisie

If you propose a revolution to a liberal, then first thing they will retort with is "But what of the bourgeoisie? Are they not people too? Have some empathy! Be kind to them for they're just people like us!"

A laughable remark. Because it is the bourgeoisie we empathise the most with. The bourgeoisie hate us, and they will, with every facet of information, with every medium, teach us to hate ourselves. When we try to feel what the oppressor feels, then we feel that hatred. The same hatred they feel for us. We feel doubt in our actions. We feel deserving to be under the boot. We feel ashamed of our humanity. We can thank the bourgeoisie for that.

They rule the world around us, and it is their sentiment of us that is projected through the world. The alienation, the smallness, the constant idealisation of themselves to make us feel inferior by contrast. That is empathy for the bourgeoisie. That is feeling the exact same thing they feel.

They might be human, but all they foster is an inhumanity towards others. To feel what they feel is to feel the inhumanity we always feel. I can't think of a better way to win through to oneself, to understand the value of class warfare, to see the immediate and acute urge to fight and overthrow the bourgeoisie than to empathise with them.

If the bourgeoisie would ever surrender to us and demand mercy, then stay as far away from the sobering reality of empathy as you possibly can. Try to pity them, maybe they're pathetic enough for that to work.

Or don't, they'd certainly have you dead the moment you become an inconvenience, and the liberals demanding nonviolent action would be nowhere to be seen when it's about to happen. Although they might just appear on television afterwards, belting out a vague sentiment of police reforms that they then never pursue. Because liberals have a stake in this matter too. Marginalised and oppressed people killed by the bourgeoisie are a fine pity project for those sanctimonious vultures.

That's why they'd never have you defend yourself, and instead ask that you slavishly surrender to their soothing notions about reformations and referendums that will never see the light of day.

language

If there is one way to see the footprint of any empire, it's through its language. Spreading as far as their territories. Language is a powerful thing, because it tells us how we think. If we have no word for a thought, then that thought becomes new. However, if we have been taught words for such a thought, then that thought becomes those words, unless we learn new words.

That's the poison of an imperialist language. It teaches us words to make certain thoughts forbidden. To make us fear those thoughts, and fear ourselves. And when we fear ourselves, we become our own enemy. So we remain silent, and we fight ourselves on their behalf. Constantly repeating the mantras of oppression until the questions become silent.

Right now, the fight of language has begun. We see a new generation of revolutionary ideas meet ourselves, and their language is fighting it. This is a fight that's been going on for almost a century. Before, people didn't understand the value of language. Our rulers had only the smallest clue of its influences. Today it dominates us with great invasiveness. It manufactures a reality that justifies bleakness. It presents ideals to make that reality necessary. The biggest victory in is fight, is the victory of the self. To understand ourselves and what our needs are. To understand how the bourgeoisie have taken those needs and replaced them with their own. When we speak to a reactionary, then we speak to a tragic being. A being that's bound by the language of his masters.

It is only through the realisation of this language, through critical thought and self reflection that we can begin to develop a revolutionary discipline. It is only then that we see how they hold ourselves, and our loved ones hostage for toil and servitude. When we see that law is not an argument from moral identity, order or rational thought. But rather an argument from the gun hanging at the oppressor's belt. There is no debating the law. There is no understanding the law. The law is pitiless to people who have no choice but to break it. The law says that the gunpowder of the state is holy retribution, and the gunpowder of the people is a poison of terror.

When a reactionary hears this, their language tells us that the law is there for our benefit, and that the law keeps an order for us all. The only context in which this applies, is in the context of words spoken by the state. It is their law, and their order. Poverty, war, colonies and repression are not order at all. This is manufactured chaos. Chaos that can't be justified as a misfortune or accident of nature. But a chaos far more dangerous, that's been designed to perfection to kill and silence anyone who stands in the way of the law.

This is where new language is formed. When we examine the law in this way, we quickly begin to realise that the law is anarchy, the highest anarchy. Where no inhibitions of any kind, justified or otherwise, hold back the destructiveness of mankind.

And so to reconcile this anarchy, this state of being, there is only one natural conclusion. Namely the praxis of anarchism. Which is to adapt a circumstance of anarchy, into a circumstance of us. A praxis in which we examine anarchy and see how we influence it to fulfil our needs. The state is simply the amplified institute of a merciless nature. Where the predators are given fangs, and the toothless prey is fenced in for their taking.

So, in my synthesis, those are the two words I want to teach today. Law is anarchy, and anarchism is the discipline of anarchy.

laughter

When I was a young boy, coping with mental illness on my own I didn't have imaginary friends. Instead I had an imaginary therapist. Namely, Sidney Freedman. He was the therapist from M*A*S*H, and much like I had imaginary conversations with him, so did he write imaginary letters to Sigmund Freud.

In this context, he mentions a quote. "Comedy is anger turned sideways." A reference to the Freudian quote I mentioned earlier in my post about depression.

I think that's the best explanation for my own sense of humour. I deflect a lot of my anger with comedy, and it's when I hold it in, typically for posterity or at the demand of others, that I become depressed.

Often my jokes are seen as insensitive or inappropriate. Because to others they invoke anger, and they mistake my reaction as something else. Today I want to talk about how ableist that kind of thing is.

What really triggered this was when I was thirteen. I was sleeping in a chair next to a hospital bed. Inside it was my dying father. He had barely minutes left when I was shaken awake by my mother. "It's time now.", she said. I didn't need any explanation. Even mere seconds into groggy consciousness I knew what it meant. My father was in his bed, pale as a ghost, tubes sticking out of his nose and arms. Raspy breathing and crescent eyes. Each breath becoming more struggled than the last. He had been living on IV drip and nutritional substitutes for the last few weeks, and his ribs poked out from under his greying skin. Yet, in spite of looking so weak, he was holding death's door open as he waited for me to tell him I love him one last time. It was the greatest display of strength I've ever see a human commit. Once he had gotten that final hug, and heard those words, his eyes closed and his heart stopped. Just like that.

About a week later I was going to the corner store. The lady at the till had become a friend of the family almost, as we had been shopping there for over a decade. I never knew her name, but I knew her as a person. A familiar face I had grown accustomed to. She asked me how my dad was doing, and I just started laughing. It felt so absurd to have to tell someone how this person that was always there for as long as I had known existence itself, had been blotted out forever in just a day.

The first time I laughed after seeing death, was at death itself. Since that day I've never stopped. When there's injustice, cruelty, murder and atrocities, I laugh at death. I laugh at the oppressor. I laugh because they want me to cry. Because otherwise I'd never be able to wake up in the morning. Because that's how I express my anger.

That's my choice, and my habit. And I'm sick of having sleepless nights, sitting in the dark, smoking a cigarette feeling ashamed and self-conscious just because someone else felt entitled enough to dictate to me how I should express my emotions.

I'd yell at them, but alas, usually I just make it worse with another joke.

That's kind of my thing.

rebellion

It seems as though whenever an indigenous group take up arms to defend themselves from the burgeoning colonising of capitalists, they are responsible for all grievances of such a conflict.

This is a falsehood of history. Because history shows us that when the Aztecs stoned Montezuma II to death, then they killed the spearhead of genocide. They parried the blow of a sword held by a velvet glove. What revolutionaries do, is not to turn peace into war. But rather to turn a massacre into war. It's when the victim is no longer kneeling and praying for mercy, but rather becomes a warrior, ready to kill as they might be killed. Montezuma was mourned by the conquistadors, and he was the only Aztec out of millions to be mourned by them. The rest were killed with remorseless cruelty, and Montezuma became a martyr for representing the oppressor.

There is no doubt that there is death and tragedy in war. But there is only a propensity for it. It is when we bow our heads to bourgeois morality, when non violence is lectured to us by rulers behind rows of armed footmen, that war becomes a massacre. It is then that we see century long atrocities, where death is so common that it becomes the norm, and is then unnoticed.

It is only when we stand up and fight back, that the assured death and tragedy becomes a propensity. Rebels will always be seen as aggressors. Because it is warfare beyond the norm. We do not see the homelessness, the starvation, the depression, the toil and pain. We don't see the struggle in our everyday lives because we are born in captivity, and the cruelty of our masters look as natural to us as the barbed wire fencing does to cattle.

The possessions they take back will always be stolen in the eyes of the law. The tyrants they kill will always be murdered in the eyes of the law. The people they liberate will always be treasonous in the eyes of the law. The law is the dogma of the oppressor, and it's there to justify their deeds and admonish ours.

Bourgeoisie morality is about taking your identity as a person, and make you think with the identity of the state. That way, an enemy of the state, is your enemy. The interests of the state are your interests. This is the hardest battle to win for any individual. To win through to oneself, and to stop living in fear. To see the oppressor and to stop caring for him as though he is you.

That is the key to understanding rebellion, and to win through to yourself.

violence

Props to my comrade Red for broaching this subject.

Let's discuss violence. What is violence? Anything from a genocide to an epileptic seizure can be described as violent. We're not so much talking about the definition of the word here, we have dictionaries for that. But rather its use.

What makes violence such an interesting word, in my opinion, is that it describes no singular action. If we blow up a building on a crowded street, I would certainly say we're violent. But it we blow up a building in a controlled demolition, with the area cordoned off, perhaps to make room for a school or a hospital; We are looking at something far more constructive than violence.

That's because violence isn't a verb. We don't say "Oh look that man on the telly is violensing someone." There's violating, certainly. But that's a feeling. To be violated is to feel violenced.. Point is that it's a verb from the perspective of the victim or target, of the violence, rather than a verb from the perspective of the perpetrator.

No, in most modern discourse, and mass media, violence is an adjective, or a noun. A descriptor. Something assigned by the reporter to the reported. I believe this is key to understanding what violence implies. Headlines read "Peaceful protests turn to violence.", or "Violence disrupts in Haiti." It's a way in which we describe the peaceful protestors, or a way in which we describe the Haitians. It is, in this context, a trait. A delegitimising trait.

And traits are beyond the actions. A trait is what motivates it. A trait is what will motivate future actions, and justify the past. A trait is there to bring a distinction.

"15 Pakistani nationals killed in violent US drone strike."

A headline not very often seen. Instead it's simply "15 Pakistani nationals killed in US drone strike." Because while a drone strike is indeed a very violent thing to do, the people doing it are not considered violent. If you're violent, then you're violent when you eat, when you sleep, when you laugh, when you cry, when you're happy and when you're sad, and all the times in between your violence. Because it defines you as a character. A liar doesn't always lie. He or she do different things in between of lies. But when a moment comes when this person speaks, liar is the trait that becomes relevant.

Just like how, when people from other countries defend themselves from invaders, violent is the word that becomes relevant. How, when marginalised people defend themselves from their rulers, violent is the word that becomes relevant.

Violence is simply a matter of legitimisation. They might as well say "bad guys" or "evils". But violence describes, which is why reporters can sneak it in as an objective observation when they want to set the tone for a narrative.

In truth, violent people are simply people we're not supposed to like. To believe in their violent trait is to abandon one's own interests to those of the bourgeois. Instead, we should examine life beyond these simplistic labels and find our own conclusions, which may very well coincide with the conclusions drawn by our rulers. But it's better that we arrive there on our own, rather than to have the bourgeois bark their orders at us like obedient lapdogs.

But look at some of the Ferguson footage, or Seattle footage, or Oakland footage, look at footage of the Apartheid, or any other instance of the working and lower classes being "violent." And tell me you wouldn't have defended yourself too. Look at the drone footage from wikileaks, and tell me you wouldn't shoot back.

Violence is a word used by the oppressor, and the invader. Because they're the only ones with the power to tell the world what to think.

my news

This is just a small follow up on my previous post where I list some of the news publications I enjoy reading.

First one on the list is TeleSUR. The South American news network. They have excellent coverage of US foreign policy in my opinion.

Second on the list is Irish Republican News. The bias is right in the title, and to me that conveys trust. Helps me keep an eye on the UK. Their site design is a tad 90's, but their content is usually interesting.

Third one is VICE News. A news source I have to genuinely applaud for coming off as very impartial. Their stories are typically to the point and without spin. They let the people in the stories themselves set the narrative, and only ask questions that drive to inform. There's always bias, like I pointed it out. But VICE clearly makes an effort to keep it to a minimum.

Fourth one is Azadi Rojava. It's a twitter account representing the Kurdish YPG, YPJ and PKK forces in Syria. Majority of them are regular people fighting the Daesh, holding territories in the Northern regions of Syria. It provides live updates and relevant articles on the fighting, and it's a helpful tool in understanding the direct day to day affairs of the Syrian war.

Sometimes I also read more mainstream articles from Al Jazeera, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC and similar publications. I take most of their spin with a large grain of salt, and more times than not I feel more amused than informed by its content. But it can help to study these publications for contrast, reflection and criticism. Not to mention open mindedness.

Also this is entirely an opinion piece, I do not claim to own objectivity or truth, and I propagate as much as anyone else does. This is simply my preference that suits my understanding.

fake news

The term fake news is a fairly new concept to enter into the discussions of bourgeois politics. Reason for this is quite simple. The world has changed. Journalism has become more international, and far more difficult to regulate by bourgeois governments. This results in a lot of challenging narratives from international media. Russia is often made out to be the boogeyman in all of this. Before it was known as communist propaganda, and in modern day, with Russia being a capitalist federation; It becomes revised into "fake news."

In truth, however, it is simply differing news. Often reporting stories that suit their interests rather than the interests of the west. Western governments controlled the content of mass media for a long time by letting the US government become shareholders in major publications. Now, of course, a new generation of media without the editorial gag order of the military industrial complex emerge after the cold war. It is then vital that the old media, still regulated by the US government, propagates a narrative that discredits them. As such, it is not so much a question of whether "fake news" sites report accurately, but rather which lie to believe.

There has also been a great deal of references both in pop culture and current events which have awakened a natural scepticism to the news. The US government therefore capitalises upon this mistrust by being the first to levy accusations to countering propaganda outlets.

But in reality, no matter what publication you read, there's always a bias. There has to be. Even this writing as of now is biased. The bias is inherent in the mere choice of reporting. The bias is in what the publication and its staff thinks is important to bring attention to in the first place, and what to overlook. Objectivity never comes from news media, because that's just articulated research. The objectivity comes from the research itself, which you yourself have to conduct. It's a tiring process, and you certainly can't cover every event of the world. Or perhaps even the key events of the world.

But to have a partial world view is based on entirely on objectivity is far better than to have an entire world view based partially on objectivity.

vices

I have a lot of vices, most frequent being smoking. But also alcohol and drugs on occasion. People tell me to quit sometimes, and I try, but it's not that simple. It's a part of my condition. To tell me to quit smoking, or drinking, for instance, is to tell me to quit being disabled, or to quit being poor. Once I conclude this, I hear a lot of sanctimony about self pity. The hypocrisy of this is lost on my people.

I currently have four disabilities, and I'm scheduled to have an X-ray for number five. My bad habits are literally outnumbered by disabilities. If you want to talk about self pity, then let's discuss the response people get when I explain the circumstances in which I can drop every single chemical stimulant overnight without a second thought.

If disabled people were allowed to participate in a society that doesn't actively exclude them with a social, legal and economic system specifically geared to keep them at an arm's length. I don't smoke or drink because I like it. I do it because it regulates my stimulus to a reality that hates me. Because the idea of losing a couple of years on your life isn't all that deterring when that life in itself is barely worth living. How, when able people got to graduate and grow up, I was locked inside a small room by an abusive parent for seven years. Those seven years were spent adapting to the infinite complexities of day to day social life in a gradual manner.

I, on the other hand, was basically forced out at the age of 18, without any of these advantages what so ever. For three years I locked myself indoors because I had absolutely no idea how to speak to people, or see things, or understand everything. I had to survive not just with absolutely nothing, but rather with absolutely nothing but a massive disadvantage.

Yet, in spite of this, I manage to rent an apartment. I manage to get married. I even manage to figure out how to talk to people. I had to spend three painful years of sometimes going for weeks without food, and watching my wife's health decline since she's also disabled. More so than I am. I've had to claw my way out of abuse, neglect, marginalisation and horrors you couldn't even imagine.

And my reward for this hard work was absolutely nothing. I'm still in poverty, I still am removed from the world around me, I'm still trapped in depression and anxiety, and I'm still held back by my disabilities. In spite of having to do things to survive that most people would be afraid to even consider. I had to break the law, I had to lie, I had to cheat and swindle, I had to behave like an animal at times. And while I can finally keep a roof over my head without that, reality of the matter is that I still don't live.

And so part of me wants to die. I spend a lot of time debating suicidal thoughts. At first they shocked me but now it's like having the TV on in the background. So I compromise, and that's where addiction becomes such a great method to reconcile this crisis.

I use the term addiction very generously since I honestly don't believe in addictions. I mean, do I believe you can get physical withdrawal symptoms? Sure I do. But people endure broken legs, they endure food poisonings and surgeries. People endure all kinds of physical strain sometimes for several months on end, and they overcome it because they get help.

We call it addiction because it's inescapable, but it's inescapable because the poor, the disabled and the marginalised won't receive the help that normal* people take for granted.

But the worst part of it is how normal* people are also a bunch of ingrates. They don't understand what marginalised groups do for them. How their entire life is a product of our suffering. Because without marginalisation, without constantly devaluing people and herding them off into ghettos. Without scapegoats, social division, class gaps and bigotry there wouldn't be any ample surplus for the normal* people to help themselves to. There wouldn't be justification to allow this moral nature. There wouldn't be fear amongst the oppressed to forego this moral nature. There wouldn't be a myriad of human atrocities throughout history, each one dotting another milestone of economic growth.

The holocaust was the perfect machination of normality*. A societal device that plucked and pruned the human population of every trace of distinction. That gave way to modernised industrialised slavery. That provided a full surplus fit for the normal* sense of entitlement. A concentration camp wasn't what the liberal myth pertains it to be. It wasn't built on hate, or totalitarianism, it wasn't merely a spectacle for the deranged. It was a mode of industry. That's why they only gassed the women and the children. Their worth to the normals* was in the negative, so they had to be removed. It was only budgetary. But the men, stereotyped as strong and productive, they were given a purpose. They were forced to work themselves to death with a minimal amount of sustenance.

A formula constantly streamlined to assure the true purpose of the holocaust: To turn people into money. Simple as that. So that the normal* people in Germany could enjoy the many privileges of metropolitan life. It's Soylent Green. All of it.

And capitalism is simply a polarisation between holocaust economics and ghetto economics. The closer we move to ghettos, the more "progressive" a society is, and the closer we move to the holocaust, the more "conservative" a society is. But they both serve the exact same purpose. One just does it with a bit more industrialisation, and the other with a bit more socialisation.

And that's where I am. I'm disabled. I'm unfit for work. So they're sending me off to the gas chambers. Only, since we have progressive gas chambers, it's called poverty now. A reality so unbearably painful that it demands the rational human to self destruct.

So just remember that, normals*, remember what parasites you are. Remember how these vices are a reflection of your gluttony and unearned gains. How it is a mirror into your contributions to the world. Remember that as I stumble and laugh into an open grave. Remember the theatre of your cannibalism.

*The arbitrary social archetype currently valued by bourgeois morality.

counter propaganda: The Hill on rigged elections

This is a retort to the following article:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/325834-money-doesnt-buy-elections-and-elections-arent

I will dissect it paragraph by paragraph for your entertainment and reflection.

Searching for “rigged election” in Google News turns up “about 288,000 results.” Add “Trump” to the search and you get “about 342,000” hits. Enough already. The rhetoric is everywhere, and it’s misleading and dangerous.

This is the leading paragraph of the article. Misleading and dangerous rhetoric? We'll get back to that in a second.

Overlooked in all the rigged rhetoric is the use of the term by those who want to give government more power to control speech. Those opposed to truly free speech use this tactic on a regular basis. Issue One, a group supporting limits on political speech, claims, “Our politics is dominated by money, creating a rigged system where most Americans are shut out of the political process.” Every Voice, another group opposed to free speech, opines, “We know that the game is rigged against the majority of us.”

We're going to look at https://www.issueone.org/the-solution/ now, the group cited, and look at how The Hill defines free speech. Notice how not a single mention of media, platforms, rights to assembly, or freedom of expression is mentioned anywhere. What they do talk about is fund raising, super PACs and corporate lobbying. Three things that are in no way free speech.

If bribing an official to do your bidding is free speech, then Pinochet's Chile was the most liberated nation in history.

So two paragraphs in we're already seeing the blatant propaganda of this piece. How's that for dangerous and misleading rhetoric?

These groups and others argue that they are saving democracy by working to pass policies aimed at restoring public trust in government. But there is no evidence that such speech regulations do any good. If the system is really rigged, then how does giving government more control over its critics help?

This is begging the question, and completely distorts the argument. There is for a fact evidence that corporate funding regulations in elections play a role. Because when you turn a party into a corporate entity, it obeys market forces as opposed to the interests of their constituents. Commodifying elections is the reason they're no longer elections.

The underlined question is just laughably pathetic. Controlling its critics? By their logic, Exxon Mobil was the critic of the Iraq war. JP Morgan was the critic of the banking bailouts. Monsanto was the critic of the agrarian protectionist policies that starved thousands of people to death in South America. These are not critics, they're benefactors. And yes, using legal means to prevent politicians from representing corporate benefactors rather than their constituents is proven to make elections more democratic since literally the whole point of elected officials is to have them represent their constituents! 

The truth is, academic research demonstrates that existing campaign finance regulations do nothing to reduce perceptions of corruption or increase trust in government. More speech restrictions will equal more of the same.

Again with the misleading. Nobody is discussing trust in government. They're discussing defunding the government from private benefactors. If all they wanted was for people to trust their government then they'd fund this hogwash publication to tell people everything is fine.

Secondly, that's a bad retort. Saying that current means to assure there is no corruption clearly demonstrate how everyone thinks there is for a fact corruption, ipso facto; Revising these means to assure there is no corruption will therefore never work under any circumstances.

But that's the most self-defeating thinking imaginable in just about every situation there is. It's like saying that there's no evidence humanity will ever fly because the first ever flying machine never worked. Even though now we even have space travel due to our capacity to revisit and improve ideas. I shouldn't even have to explain this since it's so evident in literally every facet of the human condition.

Nor is there evidence that money “buys” electoral outcomes. Just ask Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton. Each vastly outspent Trump in the primary and the general elections. Indeed, pro-Clinton spending was more than double spending in support of Trump. But the fact that higher spending didn’t translate to a Clinton victory shouldn’t come as a surprise. The list of candidates who won the fundraising battle only to lose an election is long. It stretches from high-profile presidential campaigns to little-noticed Congressional races.

 This is another fallacy. It's not about how much the candidate spends, they're not the ones buying the election. It's about how much influence their corporate benefactors can buy. How many lobbyists they have, what sort of media platforms they can provide, which congressmen that they've donated to, and so on. It's not about campaign funding, it's about bribing. Two different things entirely.

In other words, advocates of further regulating political speech are making demonstrably false claims that call into question the legitimacy of electoral outcomes.

I'll just let this embarrassing remark hang in the air...

When Donald Trump first claimed that the election was “rigged” as a candidate, critics were quick to suggest that making such a claim was a threat to democracy. Why? Because it called into question the legitimacy of our election results.

So blindly trusting that the votes of three hundred million people are just magically checked and accounted for without any interference or negligence is the key to preserving democracy?

As president, Trump has continued to make similar claims. Most recently, he said that he would have won New Hampshire if not for widespread voter fraud in the state. And again, he has been charged with threatening democracy with false claims about the integrity of U.S. elections.

This is a red herring. We're discussing private funding for political parties and elected officials here, not idiotic things Trump said. Deflecting the fact that this is poor journalism by bringing up slightly different poor journalism is incredibly poor journalism.

Trump’s critics are right to call him out for making such serious allegations without providing any legitimate evidence. But the evidence that money buys elections is just as lacking as the evidence of voter fraud in New Hampshire. Those same critics who call out Trump should also criticize the “reform” lobby with equal fervor.

Ironically, some of those critics are actually part of the “reform” lobby. And unfortunately, even if Trump does drop this claim, baseless “rigged” rhetoric is unlikely to come to an end any time soon.

It's not ironic! They've vaguely defined two completely separate issues with such broad strokes that they think they both fit in the same category and are therefore identical! That's not irony, that's the early signs of dementia!

This anti-speech coalition of nonprofits will continue to spend millions of dollars each year telling Americans that our political system is corrupt and undemocratic because other citizens are also spending money on speech. That is their right. But their rhetoric does as much as Trump’s to tear down faith in the integrity of our system of government.

That's the entire argument for bribery? That's their right? Anything that's legal is someone's right. The holocaust was the right of the Nazis. Slavery was the right of the Colonists. Child molesting was the right of the clergy in Rome. Hypothetically, anything can be their right. It's a terrible appeal to state dogma, and the justifier of pretty much every horrible idea in history. Fun fact: If murder was legal then murder would be their right too. By that logic we shouldn't be allowed to repeal any laws what so ever in a political system since once it's legal; That's their right. 

Furthermore, adopting speech restrictive policies based on these activists’ claims would do more to damage our democracy than any false rhetoric itself ever could. A vibrant democracy requires that citizens be able to speak freely, particularly about political issues. And spending money on speech is essential for bringing attention to and gaining support for issues, especially those that are initially unpopular.

And there we have it. "We need people to be able to simply buy political influence because of how otherwise those pesky proles would just vote against our interests."

We're looking at the makings of the French Revolution here. Where each house, the clergy, the nobility and the commons each got one vote. A perfect system for the bourgeois government. Even though the commons had the most people. It's the same workaround. To provide a way in which to override the interests of the common people using societal privilege. It was oppression then, and it still is. 

Many ideas that are mainstream today were once considered radical. Had people not had the ability to spend money promoting those ideas, our world may have turned out vastly different. Senator Eugene McCarthy’s ability to freely raise money from his supporters played a vital role in building political opposition to the Vietnam War. He surprised then-President Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1968 New Hampshire Democratic Primary — and ultimately forced LBJ out of the race.

Ohohoho.... you did not just say what I think you said. The Viet Nam war was not ended because of fund raising. It was direct action. Activists on college campuses, the hippie movement, black liberation movements, and most importantly; Viet Mihn. 

The US were defeated in Viet Nam. The war wasn't just politely ended. Not to mention that to start the war required billions of resources poured into Anti-communist propaganda that had been carried on for three decades prior! Not just private sector fund raising but even state-funded propaganda. What are you talking about? The economy bent over backwards to start the Viet Nam war. It wouldn't have happened at all if people weren't indoctrinated and propagated to over an entire generation. 

Not only is this blatantly ahistorical, but it erases in particular the black liberation activists who fought the hardest against the Viet Nam war and their efforts and relevance only to give credit to a rich white guy. So on top of that it's also racist. Eugene McCarthy is the Abraham Lincoln of the Viet Nam war.

If you want to discuss real figures of influence, then look at Tariq Ali, or Noam Chomsky. Two people who reject great person theory and doesn't believe you can ascribe the end of the Viet Nam war to a single individual, and yet were the representing figures at the time. 

I'm digressing, let's see what the next outlandish claim is. 

Limits on political spending are limits on political speech. And limits on political speech are limits on democracy. If these groups really cared about protecting American democracy, they would stop attempting to delegitimize it in the name of further restricting First Amendment rights.

Limits on when to do surgery are limits on medical procedure, and limits on medical procedure are limits on public health. If these groups really cared about protecting the NHS, they would stop telling surgeons that they're not allowed to perform lung transplants on perfectly healthy people. 

That's the logic they're using. That's them. I'm done. Fuck this shit.

marxist-leninists

So I'm a libertarian communist, and a lot of my comrades don't get along with Marxist-Leninists. Personally I do, however, and I'd like to explain why.

Yes, if we look at the Spanish and Russian civil wars, there's certainly some bad blood between us. Undoubtedly. But there are quite a few things to remember. For instance, in South and Central America we see a presence of both Marxist-Leninists and Anarchists, who are rather capable of coexisting. Right now in Rojava, there are leftists of all stripes joining the international brigade. This sectarianism within leftism I believe stemmed from the Russian civil war, and it carried over to the Spanish civil war. As tensions cool down I find it very easy to trust most tankies, as I still call them affectionately.

Of course, there are NatBols, Ultraleftists and not to mention Trotskyists, along similar segments that I would never trust. But a Sandinista? Or perhaps a South African Communist Party Activist? An African Maoist in Harlem? Or even a Chinese Maoist? Or an Indian Naxalite? Why not? Their struggle is very far removed from that in the west, and they never strike me as practising anything other than legitimate leftism. Vanguardism beyond the west has grown into something more than the experimentations of Lenin's state capitalism. It is a way to sustain a nationality when surrounded by enemy nations. To rapidly industrialise and militarise in a part of the world that is in a perpetual state of war.

Personally I am more inclined towards communalism, but would I turn down the opportunity to leave capitalism behind and live in a Marxist Venezuela or El Salvador, liberated from US foreign policy? To see the Chile that was envisioned by Oscar Romero? Of course not! It would be far better than my reality, if perhaps not the same as my ideal.


I won't pretend as though the atrocities of the early USSR didn't happen. Most vanguardists around the world certainly doesn't. The few who make excuses for it are typically westerners who are part of CPUSA or CPGB, who gather in meetings and sing l'internationale whilst discussing Marxist literature as they lose more and more relevance with each passing day. These people aren't the lifeblood of the revolutionary movement at all. We see those people outside of capitalism, which is why so many Marxist-Leninists are quick to exhaust the libraries of Lenin and Engels and instead look outwardly to places where it's applicable.

To me, these comrades are not the fossils of the early Party Bolshevism that swept across Russia. With their nationalistic zeal, homophobic policy and worker elitism over the peasant. No, instead they have developed over the last century. Just like us anarchists have. They can teach us things, just like we can teach them things.

No ideology lasts forever, and once we live in a post-state, post-capitalist society. A vision we both have in common, the next step in human development will doubtlessly encompass a confluence of vanguardism and anarchism in ways we cannot possibly synthesise presently. If you need to take down an empire, then you ask a Marxist-Leninist how. And when you need to rebuild after the class war is over? That's when an anarchist will provide the answer.

But most importantly, the world is a very diverse place, and it does not strike me as strange at all, how in different regions, there are desires for different ideologies and societal structures.

This is why I don't mind most Marxist-Leninists. It's not my job to defend them, they can do that themselves. I'll gladly criticise them too, for that matter. But it doesn't change the fact that we both have knowledge that can help further leftism in a plethora of ways as we ultimately fight for the same goal, against the same enemy.

Just when did depression happen?

I wonder about that. Freud, albeit completely ridiculous, had a certain capacity for insight at times. He said that depression is anger turned backwards. Anger, of course, being expressed through action. Whether it's yelling, fighting, confronting someone, it is a feeling we get when we're threatened. Either physically or emotionally. So depression must derive from inaction. I don't think it's because we choose not to do anything, but rather because we can't do anything.

This could go a long way to explain a lot of our anthropological behaviours. Such as religious ceremonies and rituals. Perhaps that was a way to allow action in a situation that was otherwise hopeless. But when did depression begin?

I think, obviously, that it's probably been there for about as long as humanity has been sapient. But I'm not sure it was always a chronic thing. If you lived in a nomadic tribe, then you spent your whole life doing things. You had a wide range of options. You could hunt, you could gather, you could build shelter, you could move on, you could always try to affect your situation. I have no doubt the nomads were depressed at times, but I have my doubt it was an extensive or permanent condition. Because they had far more capacity to act.


It is in the modern large scale societies that I think depression becomes a phenomena due to all the artificial limitations that keeps us from acting. Whether it's laws, codes of conduct, regulations, or even economic limitations. If we have a problem, a lot of the time we can't just go out and solve it.
Because it's illegal to hunt without a weapon and license that costs more than the food itself, or too expensive to move on, zoning laws and private property certainly keep us from building shelter. We have no real capacity for immediate action to fulfil our needs. There's always a middle man involved to exploit us. Everything is a prolonged process of checks and balances, and the process is usually so exhaustive in itself that we lack the ability to go through once we've been granted the opportunity by our rulers. This creates a general hopelessness, in which problems are always haunting us in the back of our minds. This, I believe, is when depression happens.

I know doctors and people with depression will be quick to point out that depression doesn't always have a cause. But I'm not talking about depressive episodes, but rather the origin of depression itself. Anger is an emotion that, when in context of an oppressive society, demands rebellion. It demands confrontation. It demands you to break down the barriers between you and your ruler. To fight for your own needs. To demand to be heard, to demand justice. So it's no coincidence that we live in a modern day society that hates anger.

Anger issues, anger management, angriholics, all kinds of nonsensical words to basically articulate the inconvenience the bourgeoisie when presented with a dissatisfied workforce. Depression is a mutated emotion, created by the stigmatisation of anger. When you're told to scream into a pillow to feel better, then of course it won't. Because that's an action without result. On the other hand, punching someone in the face who mistreats you does make you feel better. Because that's what anger demands.

Richard Spencer is a good example of this. The bourgeois politicians were outraged, but the general population and a lot of public figures applauded this outcome. Because our society is an angry society, that demands rebellion. To a lot of people this represented a much needed result. For once someone wasn't screaming in a pillow, or muttering anger alone, or complaining to a friend. They were actually creating a result.

Year in and year out throughout childhood, we have no permission for anger. We're not allowed to scream and shout at the authority figures in our lives, or disobey them, or leave when they mistreat us. We're conditioned to be silent and obedient. We're told this obedience will pay off. But when it doesn't, we get angry, but by then we're so far integrated into bourgeois morality that any action is so self destructive by its punishment, that the self destructiveness of depression seems preferable.

When Marx talked about religion, and articulated it in his passages about the opium of the masses; He remarks on how religion is 'the sigh of the oppressed being'. I dare say that the modern sigh of the oppressed being is depression. It's just that. A sigh. A mild, inoffensive expression tolerated within the boundaries of social and legal conduct. An expression with no result. Which further spirals the oppressed being into a much longer cycle of mutated anger until it begins to surface without cause.

And I think that's where depression begins. Depression is the toxin the brain releases when we let an abusive boss walk home unharmed. When we let a politician declare war on its people. When we are too afraid to act on our own because the police is in an organised collective. When we pay our taxes for the benefit of the rich. When we have medical expenses demanded just for the way we were born. When racism, sexism, genderism and other injustices go unpunished; When the bourgeoisie stare us down, and we fall to our knees. Depression is a fatal emotion, because it stems from a subconscious that's been domesticated by its rulers.

idealism

Idealism is often associated with utopian thinking. I believe this is a falsehood. There seems to be a dominant rhetoric amongst capitalists and bourgeoisie advocates that their society is built on realism, rather than ideals. That their reasoning comes from a cold utilitarian sense of practice, rather than the hopes of a higher goal.

I would be inclined to argue that this is, in fact, a failure to observe the daily affairs of capitalism.

If we look at capitalism, in its social praxis, we see more idealism than in any other ideology. Everything is a means to an end. Yet the end never arrives. Voting in their bourgeois politics is said to provide liberty, and yet no liberty has arrived. They hire bullies in blue uniforms for our safety, but reality of the matter is that safety is an absence of bullies. They have judges, courts, lawyers and juries. This is for the purpose of justice. Yet when one confronts them about the astonishing reality of how one can affect the outcome of a trial with their social standing; This is supposedly a fairness. The right to legal defence. However this right must be purchased for quality. This purports not justice, but rather a society in which one can find vindication with their personal wealth. As such, when we have courts for justice, we are justifying a very unjust and grim practice with a hopeless ideal which this institution cannot fulfil.

The same criticism can be levied towards parliamentary democracy. How, it is the wealthiest parties with the most bourgeois benefactors who win the election. How exposure to the public demands payment. How one's free expression is held for ransom by private media. Some argue that there is public media to represent everyone, but this media is disproportionate. There is also the factor of labour. The constituents work, with a very marginal gap of free time to use for vital research that might weigh heavily on how they understand whether or not the party of their choosing represents them. How, in spite of how the majority of workers in parliamentary democracies feel alienated, and do not vote for their leader; They remain bereft of an optional choice. Considering how there are dozens of unknown parties running in each election, all with a possible capacity to represent them, we begin to see a reality in which democracy is equally unknown. Where the bourgeois politics dominate the elections, and thus, there are no real elections. There is simply the choice between bourgeoisie government, or bourgeoisie government.

But ultimately, no matter how much one dissects this, a bourgeois advocate will defend it with yet another unattainable ideal of democracy which cannot be met with this institution.

Furthermore, if we look at industry. It is called "modernisation", even though it is only modern from a technological standpoint. We are told we have industry to thank for our modern society. The industry provides the facets of life exploit for a higher standard of living, and the work which affords us it. Yet the cost of these facets grow higher and higher with each decade, as inflation, taxes, outsourcing, union suppression and part time employment lower our means to afford these things. If one demands the cost of these things, which grow more abundant with each innovation; If one demands increased means to afford them, both are met with the same ideal. The ideal of modernisation. How meet either of these demands is to ruin the industry, and hamper growth. It is to halt civilisation and development, and to create crisis.

If this is not true, then we see a society that does not prioritise the needs of the people. If it is true, then we see a society in which it is impossible to meet the needs of the people. Either way this exploitative and impossible industry is defended with yet another unattainable ideal which cannot be met with this institution.

Every action that will meet the needs of the common people will always be dismissed by an oppressor. Every opposition that demands that the needs of the common people will be met will be declared an enemy of the oppressor. And every confrontation regarding the grievances created by the bourgeoisie will be defended by an unattainable ideal.

Idealism is not the product of utopian thinking; Idealism is the product of dystopian thinking.

My dad was a spy, and we used to talk about it

First off, if he was still alive, he'd come in here and say he wasn't a spy. He was an "internal security official", which in layman's terms means that he was the fellow in the Fez who would chase Sean Connery through the bazaars of Istanbul rather than Sean Connery himself. Still a spy, though. Just a spy who is out looking for other spies all day.

Like this is him doing spy things:

That picture is taken of him at night.

On a rooftop.

He told me about how he infiltrated criminal organisations, did surveillance work and even caught a Polish spy ring. Got to storm in to their headquarters with a gun in his hand and everything. He had strange things laying around the house. Holsters, diving equipment, gas masks, old uniforms and, of course, one time, be brought home his service weapon. The 9mm Walter PPk. Same handgun that Sean Connery would shoot KGB goons and the minions of eccentric millionaires with. My eyes lit up at this. As I was a little kid at the time, thinking he was just like the fellow in the movies we used to watch. But that was an ideal. It depicted a world of good and evil. Of order and chaos. Where great men risked their lives for a cause greater than themselves. Who would fight for the justice and freedom that we take for granted every day.

So to my astonishment, when I was becoming of age, my father stood over me and said "I'm not a hero."

At this point in time, my father had been in the police for over 20 years. But he was talking about those days too. He was even talking about his time in the army. But for context's sake, he said "Police officers do not serve the people; Police officers serve the state."

He left it there and got back to his cooking. I didn't really understand what he meant as I was no older than 10 years old at the time. But his words stuck with me. I think the first time he told me about the dark undercurrent of his work was when I asked him about torture. He laughed and said "No, no, no. When you torture a man, that man will tell you anything he thinks you want to hear."

Instead, he explained, that the wise course of action is the opposite of torture. To convince the captive that you're trying to win their trust. You put them into a nice penthouse room, give them something to drink, perhaps a cigar, and then call in a couple of girls. And then, you simply video tape him as he is, in my father's words, "being whipped by them whilst wearing a dog collar", and threaten to show this footage to any family members or spouses. That's how you get the truth out of a man.

I was a bit shocked by this. Suddenly this world of good and evil seemed somehow murky. This, amalgamated by his previous remark about serving the state began to form my world view. My father was a man far removed from the ideals of his work. To him it had become a way to provide for me and my mum. He'd spend a lot of sleepless nights after arguing with his commissioner. He'd take me to his precinct and have hushed conversations where he complained to me about how racist his colleagues were, and once I remember telling him a joke that gave me some inclination of where he actually stood.

I said "Hey dad, how do you get rid of all crime?"

And he asked "How?"

And I said "Make crime legal!"

He smiled for a moment, and then suddenly he got serious. He looked at me and said "You know, there's actually a lot of truth to that."

My father could never openly be radical. Talking to his friends at work years after his passing, they had no idea about this. My dad would casually quote socialist authors when I was alone with him. He'd tell me about the atrocities carried out by organised religion. He'd always keep a book on the Spanish Civil War with a dog ear next to his chair in the living room. He had a personal library of volumes upon volumes of history books. My father was the first radical Marxist I ever met. I wouldn't be who I am if it wasn't for him. In his life, for the sake of putting food on our table, he had to hide it from everyone but me.

But in truth, even within the heart of the state, there are people who grow disillusioned. In fact, I think he wanted me to turn out like this. Because one final conversation I'd like to disclose is one time when I told him about how I wished to grow up to be just like him. He went down on a knee and put his hand on my shoulder, looked me right in the eyes, and said:

"Son, never walk in my footsteps."

Firing Squads

I want to talk about human rights for a moment. Which means we have to discuss why human rights exist. Namely, because of firing squads. Human rights are a list of things you can do without having to worry about firing squads.

Want to say things? Well, we promise you no more firing squads when you say things thanks to freedom of speech.

Want to be gay? Good news, now the firing squads will no longer approach gay people.

Interested in being born with coloured skin? Firing squads are now adapted to filter out skin in their firing squad equations*

Human rights are pathetic, and insulting. To be exempt from oppression in certain circumstances is to still premise one's society on an oppressor.

If we were honest with ourselves then we'd drop the human rights language all together and instead proclaim how things were "firing squad issues."

Just get rid of the firing squads and we won't need a single human right, because there's no one around to persecute us in the first place. Only argument I've ever heard against this reasoning is how our firing squads protect us from other hypothetical firing squads. Which frankly, I'll take that risk. It's the simple equation of certain death to that of speculative death. Bring it on.

Firing squads, and by extension, human rights, are for losers. End the whole thing.



*That one is still pending, but yeah.

Mourning

So whenever there's an attack on western soil, people go out of their way to mourn the fallen. Which I always thought seemed off. Ever since I was little. Something about it came off as a tad... insincere. But I could never work out why, until today when I thought about it.

These people are strangers. When someone died in a car accident we don't see public vigils, our outcry. We don't see any PrayForX hashtags. People just sort of shrug.

So I don't think people mourn the fallen at all. They mourn something else. Their identity as an imperial culture. The empire isn't supposed to be attacked. Not ever. They attack others, and when they do it is the righteous cause of freedom and civilisation, but when they themselves are harmed then it is a vile and unspeakable atrocity from a monstrous enemy. And thus, overly emotional nationalists go out on the streets to exploit the victims of foreign policy in an effort to make the tragedy about themselves, and their political interests. Because the oppressor will always have a victim complex.

Which is of course exploited by private sector media to further their political interests.

And before we know it, the Turkish airforce, at the behest of NATO, is retaliating with bombs.

Which in turn leads to a new generation of orphans who feel like they have a score to settle with the west.

Biggest cause of terror attacks in London are groups like EDL, Britain First, British National Party and UKIP. If not for their racism, there would be no alienated Muslims in the west for Daesh to recruit.

And they're the ones with the crocodile tears, holding their candle light vigils, as funding for their organisations swell, and the next attack gets planned because of their instigation.

Want to end terrorism in the west? Punch a Nazi. Then kick them. Then spit on them. Then kick them some more. Then have a gatorade while a friend kicks them, and then kick them again.