Fake Election Day 2

Now, much too late, the calls are going out for a ‘Progressive Alliance’ to win the snap election, or at least limit the damage.
There was a chance for this early last year. Ideally late 2015. But Corbyn blew it playing Mother Teresa to Daesh. With the help of the SNP and Greens in the Commons, Labour could have had the Tories on the rack throughout 2015/16, and with the further help of European progressive parties would have won the fatal referendum. As the biggest progressive party in Europe, it was Labour’s clear duty to lead such a movement, and it failed miserably under Corbyn’s leadership.
All too late

I learned today from Desert Island disks that Corbyn and Sturgeon have not even met.
A ‘good Marxist’ would have identified and secured alliances from useful co-progressives. By now Corbyn should have visited half a dozen european countries to create a critical-mass of ‘political consciousness’ which, as every ‘good Marxist’ knows, is essential to any revolution.

The truth is more that Corbyn chose the wrong battlefields from the start, and decided to make enemies rather than friends. The ‘constructive critique’, which was aired even before the General Election, was an alliance of the progressive forces gathering support across europe to fight the myth of ‘austerity’. Instead of seizing this opportunity to prove the general appeal of his politics, he gave way to pressure from his 6th-form agit-prop society, and defined himself by his parochialism, semi-mystical faith, and lack of vision.

And neither does he display any sense of the need for a wider alliance of progressive parties. On the whole, village-green pacifist Fabianism just about sums him up.
He isn’t too radical, he is not radical enough. Replacing NU-Labour with Nu-Age Labour is not progress.


Naturally the bizarre campaign continues against the BBC by the ‘Corbynites’ who in fact need it most.
The BBC is not to blame for Corbyn’s isolationism and poverty of imagination. He is. But that will not prevent the Pussyfoot Left from launching a campaign of hate and lies against the BBC in solid alliance with Rupert Murdoch and the rest of the unregulated, foreign-owned, tax-avoiding billionaire gutter sheets.

Meanwhile, predictably enough, Brexiteers are squealing about having to endure an election. ‘There’s far too much politics!’ is the latest rallying cry.
They obviously thought June was the last time they would be asked to make up their minds about anything. That all that bothersome voting was now over and the businessmen could be allowed to get on with running their lives for them.
I don’t expect them to play much of a role in future elections. Their reactions now show that the end of democracy was what they wanted all along.

The Daily Mail has branded anyone who asks questions about Brexit as ‘Saboteurs’.
In an age when most words mean their opposite, what else is to be expected?
This election is a Brexit Loyalty Oath, as used by fascists throughout history. As even the most moderate commentators have noticed.
‘I try to avoid glib use of F word. But ‘Crush the saboteurs’ is the language of fascism. The Mail has form.’ Michael White.

Corbyn: Out With The ‘New’ – In With The True Labour

If he was as concerned about human life as he claims, and actually believes his own propaganda, Jeremy Corbyn would whip the PLP without hesitation over allowing Daesh off the hook. And if that caused a historic split in the party, so much the better for him. A complete purge of the Blairite baggage would allow the long-overdue formation of a truly radical party eager to forge a massive continental alliance able to confront the horrors of Consumerism with appropriate firepower. Which is what I foolishly imagined would be the first thing on Corbyn’s to-do list. Instead, I hear he has not even met the leader of the SNP.
But he doesn’t seem to have the imagination or vision. He is apparently happy to carry on fighting the sterile battles of the past, to Jeremy-mander any action against blatant genocide, and for the root cause of the terrorist disease to live while refusing even to treat the symptoms. He is more concerned with protecting ISIS than fighting TTIP
He’s shaping up to be a Paper Tiger. But since all pacifists are reactionaries, that is only natural.

Corbysoxer Menace

As the Facebook frenzy of the last 3 weeks has shown, Corbyn’s worst enemies are his most fanatical disciples, who have no concept of critical analysis, and react like spoilt brats when their hero is subjected to routine media scrutiny – or any serious questioning. This Labour party has to be more self-critical, not less. The technology demands it. Whether Corbyn is light-footed enough to survive depends on how much he believes the hype of his disciples, and how little he rises to the media bait and throws tantrums when called nasty names.
If he can start a genuine debate rather than provoke knee-jerk anti-politics, then Labour may stand a chance of power, but only in co-operation (or even coalition) with other progressive parties. If Labour tries to take all the glory, boundary changes alone will defeat them.
But even then, the main legacy of Corbyn’s bedside manner may be a change in the tone of politics across the spectrum for at least a generation. All politicians will have to adopt his style to a certain extent.
Being the first suitless party leader is a start. Who will be the next to get informal? In an age when style is as powerful as substance, this is not as trivial a question as it sounds. And in any case, Corbyn’s main weapon so far has been his style, his policies are still unformed, as they always are at this stage of proceedings. But since he and his deputy disagree about major issues, and he will be forced to rethink his European policies inherited from Tony Benn, the final Labour platform will not be the one a lot of people voted for.
Bizarrely for a modern socialist, Corbyn (like UKIP) seems to still believe in the existence of the so-called ‘sovereign state’, not realising that it died as a coherent political entity over a generation ago with the advent of global communications, and was only ever a bi-product of the steam engine.
The first thing Corbyn will have to do is stop telling lies like “…the prime minister will soon again be asking us to bomb Syria. “.
Daesh is not ‘Syria’. It is a genocidal invasion of Syria and Iraq – ‘sovereign states’ according to Corbyn.
This Stop The War Coalition terminology is as transparent as it is perverted, and will force a U-turn, or lead Corby-Labour up a blind alley, where it will be seen as indifferent to the mass persecution which is creating refugees, and which can only be stopped with military action, and which would not have existed on this scale had decisive action been taken when needed.
If Corbyn insists on playing the Mahatma, he will also lose the respect of the British people, who do not like to sit back and watch the slaughter of millions.
He needs to ‘open his mind’ to preventing the genocides by Daesh and Assad which drive people from their homes.
Not talking about them, doing something about them. Not watching genocide, but stopping it. There is a time to fight, as the Chartists knew.
‘By moral force if we may. By physical force if we must’.
Daesh don’t listen to moral force.

Tom & Jerry Win Labour Leadership

A great day for Labour, electing its most socialist leader since Kier Hardie. And drawing in masses of young people eager to fight the obscenities of Osborne’s fundamentalist Consumerism. The politics of Hope is alive, especially for those in London terrified for their homes. A London Labour Mayor would reassure millions, and pave the way for other cities to fight the property pirates.
But the most interesting contribution so far is from the SNP, and it’s not as fraternal as it needs to be, given that on paper, there isn’t a sheet of political Bronco between CorbyLab and the SNP. And that between them, they could cripple the government in the Commons.

However, the reality today is that at a time when the country needs strong opposition to the Tories, Jeremy Corbyn leads a deeply, and very bitterly, divided party. Indeed, if Labour cannot quickly demonstrate that they have a credible chance of winning the next UK general election, many more people in Scotland are likely to conclude that independence is the only alternative to continued Tory government.
“In the meantime, it is clearer than ever that the only credible and united opposition to the Tories, north and south of the border, is the SNP.”

If the SNP won’t join with Tom Watson & Jerry Corbyn its ‘progressive’ credibility is blown. As is any reputation for political pragmatism. And it has to be remembered that the main reason for SNP popularity was the unpopularity of NuLabour in Scotland. Without that collapse Labour would probably have won the last two general elections. In a political sense, Nicola Sturgeon is the bastard child of Tony Blair.
With a decidedly anti-Blairite Labour in Scotland, will Sturgeon see sense and work with Corbyn, or allow the SNP to be eroded by an exodus of the same Labour exiles which put it in power?

The next interesting thing will be the announcement of Shadow Chancellor, which is where he will really put his cards on the table. John McDonnell would be the uncompromising choice.

See also. 2015 Election Tips


Abu Qatada (and Dickens and Ian Paisley.) All ‘Radicals’ according to the media. If there is evidence that Qatada has broken a real law (not some cowboy martial law left over from 9/11) stick him in the dock and lock him up for as long as it takes to make him a nice man. But don’t persecute him for being a ‘radical’. That is both an abuse of the language, and of millenia of British culture.
I realise that it is also a grand British tradition to persecute every radical from the Tolpuddle Martyrs through the Chartists and the Suffragettes, none of which ruled out violence as a means of change. But that doesn’t make persecuting radicals right. It just means that reactionaries are always afraid.
A society is judged by how it treats its enemies. This should be obvious on the day that Syria butchers its people while Ayatolloh Paisley, Grand Dragon of the Protestant Klan is peacefully dying in his bed, apparently ‘mourned’ by the media for his lifetime of hatemongering and incitement to acts of terrorism.
Abuse of the word ‘radicalisation’ should be pounced on by anyone who values language. ISIS are fanatical psychotics, not radicals. Tom Paine and Mary Wollstonecraft and Aneurin Bevan made all our lives better, they didn’t want to plunge us back into a new dark age. Reactionaries are not radical.  And calling ISIS ‘radicals’ is to spit on the legacy of all progress, and help to slow it down by polluting the word – which is what ISIS and all reactionaries want. They want to be thought of as ‘radical’ and progressive, as the C20th fascists and Stalinists did. Pandering to their delusions is complete appeasement.

The reason nice middle class boys from Leatherhead are going crazy and joining ISIS is the same reason nice middle class people are going crazy everywhere. Nice middle class life is poison. A prison from SATS to the Retirement Community.
Why are there so few radicals out there who object to being labelled with this gang of psychos? It is so easy to use the word ‘fanaticised’ instead, and be right, instead of insulting every thinker in history who made our lives better.
This cannot be a mere slip. There is a sense that the nose of progress is being rubbed in the dirt.

ISIS are not RADICAL, they are REACTIONARY. Possibly the most reactionary neurosis in human history. They do not seek to alter the system from the roots by new growth, but to return to a dead rootstock, and keep the plant standing by force. Their only innovation is in their reinvention of the Nomad as a threat to Civilisation. Call them what they are, extreme reactionaries. The word ‘radical’ implies causal thinking, the progressive nature of growth from root to stem to flower to seed. Reactionaries deny cause and effect, relying instead on myth and superstition.

ISIS The Best Thing to Happen For Generations

12 August 2014 2:30pm


Rampaging Death-Worshipping Cult though they are, ISIS may yet prove to be the best thing to happen for years. The fact they are everyone’s enemy is the best chance to forge unlikely alliances, which while active, could solve a lot of other outstanding problems.
Failure to sieze this opportunity will lead to confrontation with Israel, a nuclear power with a record in Iraq, and a chronic ideological dilemma for the dogmatically pacifist anti-Israel cults such As Stop The War. Who have yet to admit that ISIS are a problem, let alone offer any solution.
And it isn’t an ‘Islamic State’, no more than the Nazis were any kind of ‘socialists’.
They are ISIS, just as the nazis were nazis.

But, will you thank Israel when it wipes out ISIS?

If ISIS are destroyed by Israel, would Anti-Zionists see that as a setback? Would that be an ‘intervention’ they approved of?
Just how illegal under international law would a concerted air attack on ISIS forces be, anyway? They have no status except as terrorists. And no identifable allies. They neither deserve, expect nor want any mercy. What’s the problem?


Who is supplying arms to Isis?

A few nutters in golden penthouses. But certainly no governments, as rumoured down in Conspiracy Bog.
Since the stakes are so high, and the enemy so freindless that even Putin doesn’t send them Xmas cards, it shouldn’t be a problem to form an alliance against them, and then use that to sort out other long-standing issues.
ISIS could be the best thing that’s happened for years. A common enemy.


Mere involvement by western powers fuels fundamentalism

What is this? The Japanese Cauliflower Court of the C15th?
Contact changes cultures. That’s how people work.
Fundamentalism is merely an obsolete dogma being confronted with its obvious successor, and retreating into extremism as a form of self-defence. The Man-Eating Tiger syndrome caused by the encorachment on the territory and habitat of native species. It is pure charcoal filtered 100% proof Reactionary Politics. Exactly like the Counter Reformation or The Countryside Alliance (whatever happened to them?)
Unless you put every culture in a glass jar, you’re going to get ‘involvement’. Without ‘involvement’ via its trade routes, there would be no Islamic culture at all. The entire empire was built on trade and involvement and influence. You credit the frightened with too much stamina and the rest with no hope.


For as long as Israel continues to misbehave, the trouble will manifest all over the Near and Middle East.

And the Pope wears a hat.
So how do you stop ISIS from making Israel ‘behave’? Or are they the answer? They seem to think so.
Which is the ‘lesser of the two evils’?
Most reasonable people would be both Ant-Zionist and Anti-ISIS. In which case their logical position is to support action against ISIS and Israel. But what about the unreasonable people? Those still in denial about ISIS, or going down in Conspiracy Bog for the third time?


The temptation is to label this as the climax of the epic Shiah/Sunni theo-historical battle. A religious war “like the 30 years’ religious war of 17th-century Europe,” which was nothing to do with religion either.
From the very start, the Shia/Sunni split was nothing but a family squabble over Mohammed’s estate. A fight for political and economic power, as it is now. And since it is not just a matter for rival Imams, but a global economic re-shuffle, we are in it up to our necks whether we like it or not.


20 Aug 2014 5:49pm

▲ collapse 2 comments


the Syrian “rebels” got so many recruits because of the passionate advocacy of the Western media

Lies. The western media gave little or no coverage to the FSA. And the politicians even less support. And the results are all too visible.
Nice try at tarring all opponents of Assad with the same brush, if despicable.


Nobody is pretending that Isis is going to be defeated by a few rousing renditions of Kumbaya.

Oh yes you are. And in pretending that there is an alternative to what ISIS want.
Too late to be smug now. While you’ve spent the last three years cuddling up to Assad and scoring agit-points off ex-politicians, hundreds of thousands are running for their lives.
Any genuine suggestions?

23 Aug 2014 11:25am

▲ collapse 5 comments

If you haven’t noticed the routine conflation of the FSA with ISIS in Syria, you haven’t been paying attention.
There are several instances on this thread..
‘They’re All The Same’ is the message. One which completely asserts that the only struggle in Syria is between Assad’s police state and the Shariah police state. And a plague on both of them.
This is a slander on the Syrian people, and essenitally racist since it denies them any capability of common human aspirations.

Those who can’t discriminate between Sunni Muslims and ISIS are also objectively racist. There aren’t that many kinds of Islam, and most of them as unchosen as race.

The widespread inability to distinguish between the Free Syrian Army and ISIS is objectively racist. Tarring all unruly Arabs with the same brush.
Whether this is a willing suspension of critical faculties for political purposes or a genuine neurosis is largely irrelevant. The effects are the same, betrayal and cynicism. The emotional diet of the terrorist.

supporting the rebels in Syria.

Get this into your skull. The FSA are not now and never have been in any way associated with ISIS. They are mortal enemies.
In fact, FSA were the first to warn of the growing ISIS threat, one which they alone and unarmed were not capable of countering.
A swift turnover by the FSA would have left no room for the ISiS infection to take hold. Western governments withheld the antiseptic, and vacuous pacifists and conspiracy nutjobs rubbed dirt in the wound. No wonder gangrene set in.
When faced with Kamikaze pilots, US sailors didn’t agonise about how shooting them down would be ‘what they wanted’. ISIS are in the same mass-psychosis. You urge talks? See the chair you’re sitting on? Tell it to dance.


outside intervention will not heal the region’s centuries-old fissures

The objective of military action is not to patch up the ridiculous Jarndyce Versus Jarndyce family squabble over the Prophet’s will. It is to disarm ISIS of their hoard of captured weapons, which they depend on for their success. And without them, and further advances, their local teenage Iraqi Sunni support would soon melt away, leaving a rump of psychotics to fend for themselves.
In spite of the media hysteria, ISIS are not a fashionable cause among any community other than the severely psychotic. Unsurprisingley enough, their hate is drawn to Iraq and Syria like a duck hunter on the first day of the season.

24 Aug 2014 5:21pm

▲ collapse 1 comment


The reason nice middle class boys from Leatherhead are going crazy and joining ISIS is the same reason nice middle class people are going crazy everywhere. Nice middle class life stinks. A prison, from SATS to the Retirement Community.
And please stop using the word ‘radicalisation’. These are fanatical psychotics, not radicals. Tom Paine and Mary Wooltstoncraft and Aneurin Bevan were not fantatical psychotics, they made all our lives better. Calling ISIS ‘radicals’ is to spit on the joint legacy of raqdical progress, and in effect, help to slow it down. Which is what ISIS want.
They want to be thought of as ‘radical’ while freezing growth, just as they want to be thought of as an ‘Islamic State’ while inflicting barbarism.

27 Aug 2014 2:47pm

▲ collapse 10 comments


Yeah. But I didn’t say that.

You tried very hard not to use those words. But that is what they mean. By denying the existence of any rational consensus, you are automatically condemning them all as extremists
The only ‘average’ Libyan by your analysis is one with a gun trying to kill someone. You admit you cannot concieve of them having any common ground, with each other or, of course with you and the rest of humanity.
You can’t imagine them wanting the same rights you enjoy.
If they had freedom, they’d be like a hog with a bicycle.
I am an ordinary Brit who opposed the 2003 Iraq War. Calling someone ordinary is not ‘patronising’. And fprcing thousands of people to act against their will is easy. It’s calledintimidation. As the accounts from Tripoli show, dire threats were made in the event of non-compliance. Easy enough to do. The Soviet Bloc managed it all the time, well past the time when hardly anyone bought the Party line.
And British charities do it now with moral blackmail. And the advertising industry gets us to kill ourselves in droves every year with poisonous foods, drinks and inhalations.
You really need to get out more.
You need to talk to some Libyans.
Facebook is a good place.


I’m an ordinary Brit. It’s a complement, given the ignorance, arrogance and bigotry of the experts and commentators.
The enforced demonstrations by Gadaffi have long been unmasked. if you believe them, you’ll believe anything.
Stalin was voted into office by 100% majority every party congress. Therefore Stalin was the most democratic leader ever.
You don’t care about the blooodshed anywhere, just about being able to play your game of blaming everything on ‘western interference’. With every corpse a point to you.
If you spent 5 minutes listening to Libyans instead of lecturing them, you’d be able to make an informed decision. But you won’t, so you can’t.


I don’t think that in a country composed of many competing tribes there is a useful, describable category of ”average Libyan”?

Even more telling.
They’re all nutter extremists baying for blood. You just stereotyped yourself into another corner.
The violence in Libya is being caused by a tiny minority. The vast majority hate it and stick by the reasons they voted the way they did in the general election. You simply won’t read what they say on any of their outlets, and the western mass media are no help.
Your willingness to write off the majority as terrorists reveals your true level of bigotry. You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.


not because they are ”children” or ”farm animals” like you say,

Not me sunshine, your mob of ignoramuses who are intent on denying Libyans the same rights you wallow in. You are the ones imposing your inertia on people struggling for democracy.
if you want to know what the majority of Libyans want, ask them, and stop theorising from behind your desk.
They wanted UN1973, and they want help now.

United Nations Security Council, and the International community: Protect civilians in Libya. Provide logistical and administrative support
We, on the behalf of the Libyan citizens, are hoping that The Security Council Committee with the support of the US government, the Arab league and the international society as a whole to bring the resolution 1970-1973 into effect and stand with Libya through immediate, substantial actions before it is too late. We need an international engagement for protecting the residents of both Tripoli and Benghazi through urgent peacekeeping forces, protecting Libya’s vital installations and finally, providing a sincere administrative and logistical support, so with a second chance the Libyan would enjoy a real democratic, successful and peaceful country. “

The trouble with your 100% negativity is that it kills any political action, and with it any political imagination. Which is why progressive politics is in the shite. It has been infested by reactionary peaceniks, sneaking in under the cover of two fingers and a string of beads.


Even if I took you at your word,

Enough said. Very telling.
It’s obviously news to you that the Libyan people have a voice at all. Let alone one which counts.
If you had taken the trouble to listen to it over the past 3 years, you might not be so keen to dismiss Libyan aspirations as you are. Not so keen to treat them as farm animals or children who can only be controlled by all-powerful despots, installed and maintained by the super-powers.


Garbage. Religion is just the pizza shop acting as a front for the mob.
I can’t make up my mind whether you’re peddling gullible garbage – just another threadbare cliche. Or malicious garbage, designed to cause trouble.
Which is it?


Read anything about Libya recently?

Ever read anything by an ordinary Libyan? Or don’t they count?Recent Post from closed FB group:

After night duty in al Jalaa hospital we are going to our Car parking one stranger came by jeep to beside our car and he called one of us and he says that, (he from ansar sheriya )
if you work in al Jalaa hospital I will kill all of you.
He told him to tell in the office now. After that he came out of jeep and kept big gun in the neck says
give phone,money and he beaten shoulder and face with the gun and collected all mobiles he teared one of us shirt and took his spectacles..we were 2 Indians and 3 Sudanese in the car.during yesterday night duty one of our colleague got problem which was some of young guys came to duty room and they closed the door and shouted rashly..and we talk to administration department about security situation in the hospital so they were plan to close the hospital.

typical comment in response.
The international community needs to act as a collective and hunt every last one of the bastards down. Why is there such global apathy? I tell you why, the terrorist has caused nations to become suspicious of each other I.e invasion because of oil etc. Now each nation will not involve itself in another’s problems. The result, terrorism can spread


Just the messenger, sunshine.
In spite of everything, even now the average Libyan still supports the elected secular settlement, which would never have happened under your tyrannical pal.
if the media gave more space to Libyan voices than Harvard professors and Hackeny activists with a dog on a string, perhaps you’d have some clue about why the revolution happened in the first place. But since you don’t give a monkeys about what Libyans want, why should you bother finding out?
But if you don’t understand why Gadaffi had to go, then you don’t understand people. And can be ignored with confidence.


Ask its victims. For a change.


“By backing the Syrian rebels against Assad”

Oh yeah.
How much weaponry did we supply to the predecessors of ISIS? If it was as little as we supplied to the FSA they would not have noticed.
By failing to back the FSA we allowed Assad to sit back and watch as ISIS did his job for him, while the west watched too.

31 Aug 2014 10:49am

▲ collapse 9 comments

‘Guardian Progressives’ will support anything anti Western. Even to viewing ISIL as ‘resistance’.

Blatant lie. Quote your examples.
Not even STWC endorse ISIS. But they hate the Guardian for appeasing Israel, and they’re not ‘progressive’ by a long shot. Their mystical intertia is reactionary. You have to learn the difference.

not presenting an implausible interpretation.


large numbers of Muslims from all over the world flocking to join this group

How large?
There are a lot of psychos out there of all religions. And most of them nice middle class boys.
Where else should they go to do some killing?
Texas, maybe? The good ol’ boys there know a thing or two too.

‘I ain’t seen one good lynchin’ in years..’


Whatever ISIS militants do has been sanctioned by neo-Caliph Al-Baghdadi, an Islamic scholar and careful reader and student of the Qur’an, Surah, and Hadith.

Whose fanatical interpretation is apparently not shared by any representative Islamic institutions. And instinctively, aggressively rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, who don’t need elitist scholarly perversion from a wild man in the woods.
‘Careful’ is right. Careful to do to the Quran what Torquemada did to the Sermon on the Mount.

not at all like Beveridge either.

A lot like Beveridge, in fact. Mohammed’s true achievement wasn’t religious but bureacratic. A resources-manager.


Not like Hiroshima or the Treaty of Versailles at all, then.

Big Oil went mad

And, as you say the R is H.
But why wouldn’t they go mad? Given the exploding oil and energy markets of the time.
And apart from the companies, who else benefited from the era of cheap oil?


based as they are on emulating the behaviour of the Prophet

Not according to any Muslims you can find. Which behaviour?
Mohammed was more like a proto-type Beveridge than a Ghenghis Khan.
ISIS are emulating the behaviour of his renegade successors, squabbling over the inheritance.


They are not Islamic and not a state.
Granting them their own name is like taking ‘national socialism’ literally. And only a NAZI or an appeaser would do that.
A growing section of the Islamic world want ISIS referred to as QSIS (al-Qaida Separatists in Iraq and Syria,)

The campaign by the Dar el-Ifta, the top authority that advises Muslims on spiritual and life issues, adds to the war of words by Muslim leaders across the world targeting the Islamic State group, which controls wide swaths of Iraq and Syria. Its violent attacks, including mass shootings, destroying Shiite shrines, targeting minorities and beheadings including American journalist James Foley, have shocked Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Shawki Allam, previously said the extremists violate all Islamic principles and laws and described the group as a danger to Islam as a whole. Now, the Dar el-Ifta he oversees will suggest foreign media drop using “Islamic State” in favor of the “al-Qaida Separatists in Iraq and Syria,” or the acronym “QSIS,” said Ibrahim Negm, an adviser to the mufti.




All too ‘radical’ I’m afraid.
Radicalisation is now terrorism, rather than the tradition which has made everyone’s lives better. The word and idea have been abused. And the result is that radical change is much less likely. And we need radical change to prevent terrorism


04 Sep 2014 3:20pm

▲ collapse 1 comment


When Nato learns the lessons of previous wars, we will stop protesting

What were the lessons of the war to liberate Kuwait?
And out of curiosity, what were the arguments against it? If their rotting corpses can be dug up, they might serve as arguments for not destroying the ISIS heavy weaponry.
Plan A to counter ISIS was to do nothing. Amazingly, it hasn’t worked.. So why not try plan B? Kick the shite out of everything they’ve got with wheels. It would slow them down a bit, and take some of the shine off their appeal to the global psycho cuommunity.
They are outlaws, remember. They have no rights, status or expectation of clemency under any treaty or convention.

Again, we discuss strategy and not Islam as a religion

And fall into the usual trap. Which you seem to quite like.
Why not discuss ISIS as the barbarian outlaws they are. That would make eliminating them easier.
Using ISIS as yet another stick to beat Muslims with only creates fanaticism, unsurprisingly.
ISIS is neither Islamic, by any respected authorities, nor a state. This is an even more legitimate action than the operation to liberate Kuwait from Saddam.
I don’t remember any coherent arguments against that.

04 Sep 2014 3:20pm
▲ collapse 1 comment


When Nato learns the lessons of previous wars, we will stop protesting

What were the lessons of the war to liberate Kuwait?
And out of curiosity, what were the arguments against it? If their rotting corpses can be dug up, they might serve as arguments for not destroying the ISIS heavy weaponry.
Plan A to counter ISIS was to do nothing. Amazingly, it hasn’t worked.. So why not try plan B? Kick the shite out of everything they’ve got with wheels. It would slow them down a bit, and take some of the shine off their appeal to the global psycho cuommunity.
They are outlaws, remember. They have no rights, status or expectation of clemency under any treaty or convention.

06 Sep 2014 12:49pm
▲ collapse 1 comment


There is no argument for not acting.
If it weren’t for the US strikes, ISIS would still hold the Mosul Dam, and be using it as an environmental bomb.
Leaving aside everything else, that is reason enough to eradicate all their captured weaponry with airstrikes, making them vulnerable to Iraqi and Kurd troops, who can take all the glory.
And if their remnanats get cornered up an alley by the FSA, and their Syrian territory captured by Assad’s real enemies, more the better.

08 Sep 2014 5:32pm
▲ collapse 2 comments


There were literally hundreds of western and other reporters in Gaza carefully following the ‘Hamas line’.

And in the middle of the desert, among barbarians who behead western jourmnalists, there were none.
Big surprise.
There were western journalists being shot at alongside the Kurdish troops retaking Mosul dam with USAF support. That was a front line they could access. And the images were available. Airstrikes are best where the targets are most vulnerable, out in the wide open spaces. .


Strangely enough, there aren’t many BBC camera crews with the mobile ISIS convoys which are destroyed without warning from the sky.
Some nonsensical Elf’n’Safety red-tape or other no doubt.
There has been lots of bombsight footage, but I take it for granted that you think that’s all faked.
Destroying ISIS heavy weaponry means killing significant numbers of ISIS troops, but not civilians. Not if the weapons are being used for purpose.
ISIS is one of the most vulnerable forces in history. Its only strength is its momentum, which relies on captured weaponry, which is in turn extremely vulnerable to modern air attack. And while neutralising ISIS won’t solve Iraq’s problems overnight, it is essential now.


09 Sep 2014 6:49pm
▲ collapse 9 comments

the difference between having a set of beliefs and being a set of beliefs

You can sink as deep into the mire of nonsense as you like.
What beliefs do you ‘ be‘?
‘By their actions shall ye judge them’.
The Islamic world is judging ISIS, and finding it wanting in the balance. Nomatter what Islamophobic kranks you dig up to brand Islam as a religion of conquest.
All religions end up being co-opted by politicians.

ISIS is not a real form of Islam.

In spite of being the ‘original’ or ‘real’ form. You should drop the trendy meme-talk and talk English instead. Then you might get your head sorted out.As the divine oscar almost says.
Ah! that is clearly a semantic speculation, and like most semantic speculations has very little reference at all to the actual facts of real life, as we know them.
Or is it Semiotic?
Have fun.

The original form of Islam is a form of Islam, and I haven’t said otherwise. ISIS is not “a form of Islam”

Even though you say it is ‘false’ to say it’s not “real” Islam
You’re a caution and no mistake. Your tangle just got into a double granny knot. A clear example of tormented language producing tormented thinking.
Anjem Choudary is probably the nearest ISIS will get to open support in this country, and he doesn’t believe Islam is a spritual belief at all.

“Islam is not a spiritual belief,” he says. “The sharia has a penal code, it has a foreign policy, it has an economic system, therefore it cannot exist or coexist with capitalism or communism, which are also political beliefs.”

Religion is merely the pizza shop in front of the mob HQ. And only those who evade the economic realities of war blame religion for it.

The other statement doesn’t contradict this,

Yes it does. Keep the bullshit for your roses, and learn to use English, not abuse it.
if the original form of Islam is not a ‘form’ of Islam, what is it?
ISIS are paramilitary opportunists, not representatives of any religion. Everything they do is rejected outright by even the most hardline Islamic scholars. Their only support is from those who are as opportunist as themselves. They are not a ‘real’ form of Islam, they are a real form of piracy.
Islam is a phantom menace, as is all religion in war. By pandering to ISIS own evaluation of itself, you are using them as a stick to beat Islam with.

You yesterday:

‘the false meme that ISIS POS are not practicing “real” Islam?’

You today:

ISIS is not a “form of Islam,”

So is it true or false that ISIS are practising “real ” Islam, when ISIS is ‘not a form of Islam’?
You don’t think you’re in a tangle?

What does

‘the false meme that ISIS POS are not practicing “real” Islam?’

Do you mean that ISIS are a valid form of Islam, if not the ‘real thing’, which all Muslims aspire to?
So if you say you’re in favour of bombing ISIS, where do you stop?
You got yourself in this tangle by trying to tar all Muslims as fanatics.
I don’t know why you think trendy post-modernist jargon helps your argument. It just tars it with the same brush as the posiest kind of columnist.


speaking truth to Islam.

‘Unto’, surely?
Don’t know what you mean, except the bit about them all being the same.
In which case, try your war of ideas against ISIS first, where its needed most at present. See how far it gets you. If it doesn’t work there, why should it work in Bradford?


the false meme that ISIS POS are not practicing “real” Islam?

So where do you want him to stop bombing? Bradford?


-he US knows what’s best for the middle east – yet more bombs.

How about a Small Claims Court letter? Or we could all give ISIS a dirty look, perhaps that would make them go away. Send your ideas on the back of a postcard to Santas Workshop. Lapland.
Unless you prefer that the highly unstable Mosul Dam be used as a weapon of mass destruction, you will support the Arab League’s call today to destroy ISIS by any means required.
Everyone knows what’s best for ISIS.

11 Sep 2014 5:49pm
▲ collapse 11 comments


Ha, what a strawman! Name 3 people,

Name one person then who objected to the liberation of Kuwait. You’re still rambling on about 2003. Desert Storm was in 1990.
What are your criteria for liberating an invaded country?
Apart from it not having anything to liberate.
When do you think rescue is necessary? Before or after everyone under threat is killed?


Shame they’re not bombing Assad’s palaces and airfields.
Stop him from poisoning his own people for a while.
It is no crime to eradicate international pirates attacking defenceless villages, relieving them in the process. Nor to reduce acres of dust to dust..
Moscow’s red-tape can be confidently ignored. See you in court Vlad, where you will be presented with a counter-suit for the invasion of Ukraine, supplying the butcher Assad with everything needed to commit systematic genocide for the last 3 years, with other charges held in reserve.


I fail to see what Putin has to do with millions of dead Iraqis,

Then get a TV and turn it on. Or just open your eyes.
ISIS is a direct result of the Assad & Putin partnership. Assad gave up fighting ISIS and merely directed them at the FSA, while his helicopters dropped barrel bombs of chorine on them.
As I suspected. You approve of Putin’s outrages but not those of Bush. CIA BAD! KGB GOOD!
And are now you’re prepared to let ISIS completely off the hook to benefit two rotting tyrants.
And please don’t come the 6th form debating society theory about Obama the Ruthless Dictator and the myth of democracy.
Putin is for life, not just 3 terms.


Eh, a lot of people objected to Desert Storm

Name 3.
How many reasons do you need to liberate a country from an invader? Kuwait only had one resource.
Your theory is that no country deserves liberation unless it has nothing to liberate.
So you were also in favour of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. How do you justify that?
You crazy.


Milions of Iraqis sacrificed to keep to make W. Bush

2 wrongs make a right do they?
So either you agree with me and disapprove of Bush and Putin.
Or you approve of both Puytin or Bush. Which maes you as barbaric as ISIS themselves.
Or you disapprove of Bush but not Putin, which is insane.
Which is it?
When you’ve perfected your time machine and made everything nice for us, let us know.


You can throw all the books you like at ISIS, they won’t go home to Mother.
Please stop ignoring unpleasant facts, like the existence of ISIS, come out of your time machine, and suggest a way of disarming ISIS which doesn’t involve force.
We’d all love to hear one. Especially the millions of people under threat.


Trivial tripe.
The same diversionary tactic you accuse the evil CIA of.
All conspiracy theories are a CIA plot. Didn’t you know?


The US invasion of Iraq

bears no comparison.
This is more like Desert Storm. Which nobody objected to then, or has raised any objections to since, other than that it didn’t become ‘illegal’.
What’s your objection to ‘Desert Storm’? If you have one.


So Mr Clever. Tell us how you would persuade ISIS to go back to Mother.
Without all the usual Time Machine Syndrome please.
You’re no history teacher.


It’s a shame Iran didn’t persuade Assad to step down

It’s a shame Putin didn’t persuade Assad to step down. Now they’re both in it together up top their necks. Depending on ISIS to keep the FSA occupied. Milions of Iraqis scarificed to keep Assad in power for another few years, and to make Putin look like a hard man to his serfs.

Tell you what.
Why don’t we let ISIS play with Iraq’s irrigation system for a few months. Just to see how big a catastrophe it can cause.
This is one military action even the Geen Party cannot oppose and be true to its principles.
That’s the situation we would be faced with now without the US airstrikes of the past few weeks. In the real world.


15 Sep 2014 6:48pm
▲ collapse 2 comments


There is no such thing as a ‘religious war’.
The Reformation was about the freedom to trade, and become richer by personal effort, not patronage. Protestantism merely embodied that ethos.


There simply are no shortcuts.

So what are the long-cuts? You don’t say.
Or how to prevent ISIS from walking into Baghdad. After which they will have to confront Israel at some point. How long do you expect them to wait before addressing the short-term problem of survival?
The wholesale disarmement of ISIS is not a short-term solution to anything but the survival of the hundreds of thousands of people it has imprisoned. But it is the vital first step to a long term solution involving the surviving alliances formed to destroy it.
By forming them in the first place, ISIS may be the best thing to happen for decades.
Airstrikes have already worked by liberating several towns, ethnic Christian communities, and two hugely destructive dams, which could have killed thousands if sabotaged. This is not a rerun of 2003 but far more like Desert Storm, which no sane

17 Sep 2014 3:29pm
▲ collapse 9 comments


It’s difficult for ISIS to maintain rule by fear long-term without resources.

And as long as they keep and use the resources they have, the more they will accumulate. As will their prestige and charisma.
Power and success breed power and success. Without breaking that vicous circle, anything more sophisticated is a daydream.


Their fame exploded with their success, courtesy of Assad’s soft-touch, hands and heels approach to guiding them against the FSA.
They were known as a name and a nuisance, but not as the main story. And they were not the same 3 years ago as they are now. Few if any of the Syrian militias are.
They are the group that gave terrorism a bad name.


Doing nothing is not an option.
Ask any of the people who escaped ISIS. Or who are now fighting them.
Or ask the Green Party and any responsible environmental agency who they would prefer hold custody of Mosul Dam.
The luxury of sitting back and lighting your pipe and watching the flames is not one enjoyed by those being killed.
The sooner ISIS are disarmed the sooner the future of Iraq can be planned. Until they are, all bets are off, for obvious reasons.


I think, given the fact that these types are violent by nature..

By nurture you mean.
Nice well-brought up boys from Buddleigh Salterton become homicidal maniacs for the same reason WBU boys in Texas and Connecticut do the same. Or why any marginalised outsider will hate the rest of humanity, like Raol Moat.
ISIS are just Raols with a cause.


Pure attention seeking.
Nothing as flimsy and feeble as this can be taken seriously as anything but sheer ostentatio0n.


so the IS wasn’t formed in opposition to the west and western ideas, in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion etc?

We only heard of ISIS since they became a military force, and that was the result of captured weaponry and donations from mystery millionaires.
They are largely Assad’s baby. Given an easy time by him to use against the FSA, and able to gain momentum, and captured arms, and take off in Iraq to feed off Sunni resentment at the Iraqi government.
You want to spend the next ten years trying to untangle the navel-fluff knot of 2003, go ahead. But don’t expect to solve any problems.
Action, political consolidation, massive international aid.
What’s so complicated about that?


And that in the long run, this tactic will starve the IS of recruitment and ultimately lead to it’s disintegration;

Shame she doesn’t say how, or who will pay the price.
It is not ‘a tactic’ at all. It is a cop-out. How is it a good idea to allow ISIS tio destroy the Mosul Dam? Or take Baghdad?
This kind of drivel needs to be rideen out of town on a rail as fas t as possible.
Destroying ISIS heavy weaponry is not a complicated matter. And that is all they have. Their only significant support is the result of resentment at Al Malaki. And that depends in turn on military success. Deny them that, which is ridiculously easy against an army which only succeeds by moving across open deserts, and the snail is salted.
The aftermath needs to involve genuine international investment on a Multi-Marshall Plan scale. But that is 10 year old news.


Chelsea gave reasonable, backed-up arguments in her article

She suggested a few absurd ‘solutions’, ‘backed up’ by her ‘experience during the time’.
Nothing credible or substantial on how to get ISIS to ‘fall on its sword’, and a lot about how to let it run free, with no regard for its victims.
Underneath all the attention-seeking, that is what she is saying. Starve a fever.
If people choose to fall for her guff, that’s their problem. The truth is that nothing destroys captured missiles like another missile, or a bomb.
Fairytales about talking to ISIS and playing Rope A Dope with them are just cleverdickanery. Talks? See your table? Tell it to dance.


In short, let them get on with it and they’ll soon get bored of killing and destruction and find a new, shinier toy.



23 Sep 2014 12:37pm
▲ collapse 1 comment

the international community has responded just as the jihadists wanted

Your concern for their feelings does you credit as a humanhj being.
I’m sure they were terrified that they were going to have a free rein from the Mediterranean to the Arabian Sea. All that not getting martyred – the shame. And all those massacres to organise, and dams to blow up.. The drudgery of it.
They’ll be much happier when all their heavy weaponry is destroyed. Make them feel like real AK47-totin’ terrorists again. Like Millwall supporters:
‘No-one Likes Us – We Don’t care!
Going into the desert to eat some worms.’

The law is quite clear. There is an international duty to prevent genocide, and ISIS do not qualify for any legal protection, and no military action against them requires UN approval. In fact that would only delay and compromise the action by allowing Putin to get his claws in it.
The mania of global jihadism is not open to diplomacy, and feeds on success. There is no argument against making ISIS less succesful which does not condone the genocide they are committed to. And the only practical way of making ISIS less succesful is to destroy their captured heavy weaponry. Which, given their size and vulnerability, and the precision now available, should be easily-feasiibly.
Ask Geoffrey Robinson QC. (18 minutes)
His position on Newsnight was a breth of sanity after the months of cringeing to protocols which don’t apply.
And he agrees with his fellow expert on international law Marc Weller
Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge.

“Indeed, until very recently, it [Syria] has made no attempt to dislodge it [ISIS], leaving this task instead to the armed opposition groups. Damascus is manifestly unable or unwilling to discharge its obligation to prevent IS operations against Iraq from its own soil. Syria cannot impose the costs of its inaction or incapacity in relation to IS on neighbouring Iraq.
Hence, under the doctrine of self-defence, the zone of operations of the campaign to defeat IS in Iraq can be extended to cover portions of Syria beyond the control of the Syrian government.


25 Sep 2014 10:37am
▲ collapse 5 comments

Serves you right for not paying your licence fee.

What duty,

~The human burden. Wouldn’t interest you.
In Principle since 1948

On 9 December 1948, the General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.26 In Article I, contracting parties declared genocide to be ‘a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish’.

In practice since much more recently.

It has been established that every state with the capacity to effectively influence genocidal actors has an obligation to take all means reasonably available to prevent genocide as soon as they become aware of a serious risk that the crime will be committed. Moreover, it can be cautiously argued that this obligation extends to the other ‘responsibility to protect’ crimes including war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing,

And an interesting footnote

“at the time of writing, the inability of the Security Council to pass even a resolution merely condemning the Syrian government for violence against civilians would seem to indicate that at least someSecurity Council members feel little legal compulsion if any to contribute to the international protection of populations”

Any guesses which ‘members’ condone Assad’s genocide?


wait and see. that will be my advice

Wait and watch while the genocide continues. That’s your advice.
I’m no Geoffrey Robinson. But doen’t a dereliction of duty constitute culpable negligence?
Inaction is far more illegal than action, not to mention immoral. Not that the smart-alec classes care about that.


See you in court, where you try to grant human status to heavy weaponry. And diplomatic immunity to stateless nomadic barbarians.
Destroying an arsenal is not genocide. And something every pacifist should applaud. Every pacifist that isn’t now apologising for both Assad’s genocide and that of ISIS.


Not clever and not funny. Self indulgent intellectualism.
A complete red-herring.
There is a clear international duty to prevent genocide, and ISIS have no international legal status and are therefore fair game. It is open season on them, and the diplomatic bulshittery stops here. At last.
As Geoffrey Robinson QC made clear on Newsnight.


26 Sep 2014 3:48pm
▲ collapse 4 comments

Just read this.
Evidence that Assad was funding ISIS all along.
Nop wonder he let them run free.
No wonder they’re now in Iraq causing chaos.
No wonder they have to be picked off wherever they show their snouts.

Islamic State ‘Selling Oil to President Assad’s Regime’

The Assad Regime’s Collusion With ISIS and al-Qaeda: Assessing The Evidence, Part 1


Mr. Hain makes a good case for some kind of intervention, but does not articulate what the ultimate objective of intervention is to be

Disarm. That’s the clear objective.
Blast their captured heavy weapons to kingdom come and see how many more dams they capture.
This is not about bombing ideas. ISIS do not have an ideology, they have pathology. There is a difference.
This is about bombing weaponry.
What genuine pacifist could object? Especially since it will prevent widespread genocide in the process.
Stop them in their tracks, then the future will become clearer and more manageable. You seem to want a time-machine.


we actively supported the same people you claim you’re trying to defeat now

Toxic lies. Nothing else.
A blatant attempt to rewrite history, and crush Syrian freedom at the same time. Well done, another convert to Fascifism by the Pop-Pol department of Stop The War.

27 Sep 2014 7:53pm

your advocacy of dropping explosives on innocents

You’ve certainly got your lying trousers on today.
Quote this ‘advocacy’.
A campaign of destroying ISIS weaponry can only succeed in keeping them holed up. In other words, no more gallant surges across the desert at undefended towns. They are now stuck with pre yesterday boundaries, within which they can be legally targeted wherever found.
It’s a lot more help to preserving Iraq than however many choruses of Kumbaya you intend to sing. As all the people effected agree, from the Kurds to the refugees in all the neighbouring states, and their legitimate governments. Why should any of them seek your permission or obey your judgement? The arrogance of the Hampstead-Hackney Fascisfists.

28 Sep 2014 2:51pm

Saddam Hussein’s regime also, apparently, cause so-and-so many deaths

Whatever else it was, Saddam’s Iraq was a soveriegn state.
ISIS are the anti-state. A cancer or virus, with no rights or status other than that of a psychotic sect. There is no comparison with any previous military intervention.
The closest was the other invasion which met with global condemnation, and which collected an alliance which was internationally approved, legal and sanctioned. Desert Storm.
If the rule is All Intervention is Disaster, what went wrong then?

28 Sep 2014 2:45pm

And a nation with which we offer sanctuary to it’s Rulers and millionaires, no less

So when the Saudi people rise up against their tyranny, as the Libyan and Syrian peole did, will you be among those telling them to sit still and not Rock The Boat? To mind their P’s and Q’s, Keep Their Noses Clean, and Know Their Place?
As the Fascifist Tendency have been doing to all those in the region wishing to rid themselves of butchers like Assad.

28 Sep 2014 2:39pm

What Isis lose in strength from the air strikes

Is their success on the ground, which is their only aphrodisiac.
Winners always attract more support than losers. Especially among the sociopathic community.

28 Sep 2014 1:03pm

The simple truth is that if the international community does not bottle up ISIS, then they will be delivered sooner or later to the tender mercies of the IDF, whose record on avoiding civilian cassualties is not good.
But since they seem to have made no significant advances in the weeks since sporadic airstikes began, and that those few strikes made possible the recapture of territory and key strategic sites, it is reasonable to assume that they have reached their maximum range, which can only now shrink, taking with it the aphrodisiac of success and power which makes them irresistible to the sad psycho teenager class.
Perhaps some of the supreme intellects who deny the genocide being committed and planned by ISIS might stretch their powers to calculating what the region would be like if ISIS achieve half their stated goals. They obviously cannot provide any alternative to military action.

‘Je Suis Un Blasphémateur’

General Purpose Blasphemy

General Purpose Blasphemous Doggerel 1989

All Gods are Bastards.
And all of their Prophets are Shits.
Every Man-Jack’s a necrophiliac
Infested with maggots and nits.

Gods Love to Destroy and wreak Vengeance,
Dealing Pain with a flick of a wrist,
And what is more, every Son of a Whore
Doesn’t even Exist.

We invent and then fear these shadows
Like children afraid in the dark.
But we roast any wight who turns on the light
Or even who shows us a spark.

We cower in terror of Nothing,
And nothing we get for our Pains.
For the Heaven that we crave is a box in a grave.
Nothing where Nothingness reigns.

The silence of Death is no stranger.
We hear it each night in our bed,
And remember our Birth and the first smell of earth
When we wake up well slept and well fed.

It is then that we truly fear nothing
And Nothing fears us, by degrees.
But the day comes and then the cruel world again
Drives us down on to our knees.

It seems Death is fine (for a visit)
But we’d give it a miss – given the chance.
Because under the loam, the retirement home
‘Dunlivin’ is booked in advance.

While we frantically plan for our post-life:
‘All those things that we never could share.’
We all know that our fate is not God’s Estate
But a stain in a graveyard somewhere.

Our powerlessness in this contract
Festers Ultimate Grievance , with age.
So we yearn for a Being – Allmighty, All-Seeing.
ENTER: ‘God’ – (PUFF OF SMOKE) – Centre stage.

And show after show he screeches
One line from the Stalls to the flies:
‘Just you tell Man his life’s a short span.
And to put bums on pews – or he dies !’

Grant us only the temperate frenzy
To say what we feel with each breath.
We ask little more, no eternal encore:
One full life scares the Hell out of Death.

London’s Partial Metro System

Real Scale London Tube Map

Real Scale London Tube Map

Hurricane Politics 2014

It’s been compared to the Blitz by some victims, but to me, the Typhoon season of 2014  seems more like the Big Freeze of 1963, only with rain. And while the turbo-charged Jet-stream has brought a series of warm systems from the south this year, with a slight change of direction at source, next winter could bring two months of snow. One year hurricanes, the next, blizzards. Either would be consistent with a climate struggling to convert energy. Our traditional British seasons seem to be coming to an end.
Most intriguing of all is the fact that after two months, Britain still hasn’t thrown up a national charity to help the victims. In spite of such a thing never having been easier, and the obviously vast degree of sympathy, the predominant national response has been either fear, blame, or mean-spirited penny-pinching from those even worse off in the shape of demands to divert foreign aid to the stockbroker belt.
During emergencies it is natural and proper to expect support from the state, and even those ghastly people in Brussels. But how can this government now continue the farce of dogmatic opposition in principle to the role of the state, when it is plain to everyone that the banks and corporations aren’t going to help, either with the current national disaster, or with radical, expensive planning for an all too predictable future. I hear no tories demanding that the free market be allowed to solve the problem (yet) or that the taxpayer should not be required to pay the price. The Unseen Hand of the Market isn’t so all-knowing now, is it? And since good old Victorian philanthropy has also failed, and Global Warming Denialism lies in tatters, as does petty nationalism in the wake of the European aid on its way to devastated areas, what fig-leaf excuses for ideology do reactionaries have left? The steam age economics of climate change are obviously running out of steam.
When the chips are down, it seems all tories are socialists. Nevertheless, it won’t be surprising to see some Spectator nerd penning a column berating the government for rescuing flooded areas, and for planning for global warming, proposing instead that the fittest areas (and wisest market choices) be rewarded and the losers be thrown to the waves as a deterrent to folly and false bargains. The market will be the best protection against climate change. The solution and the cause of all life’s problems, as Homer Simpson says of beer.

Woolwich Social-Media Murder

There is little doubt that yesterday’s murder in Woolwich was partly driven by the new ability to bi-pass traditional media outlets. Mobile Social-Media Broadcasting. That’s why the murderers neither destroyed themselves nor ran away. The uncensored footage was the point, the killing was just the crowd-puller. Twenty years ago an attack like this, where the murderers talked to the public, would have been pointless since there would have been no direct exposure.
Obviously, it was also driven by the global war, and by the fact that these are people who have lost their traditional identity (in their case religious) and had to find a new one which expressed their rage. Just like the Boston bombers, Mick Philpott, Raol Moat, and every over Nutjob created by our hate-fuelled society. They are all broken on the same wheel. Insanity is just another word for total alienation.

Whatever the criminology turns out to be, the reasons for this murder are the same as for all the other mad human sacrifices  which turn up every week nowadays. It’s a sick society which creates sick people. Driven to insanity by being in constant competition for jobs, homes and services, while being expected to look and spend like millionaire filmstars, most people are only a few humiliations away from cracking up.

The reaction from the EDL was predictably deranged, and used the same technology. They clashed with police, having threatened reprisals in the area. Mosques were attacked last night in redneck strongholds like Braintree and Gillingham.
These people are fascists who are determined to destroy British culture and replace it with an intolerant fictional Neverland from a past they will not specify. Everything they say points to about 1933 in terms of uniformity and lack of social cohesion. Much before that and women don’t have the vote, and much after and we have the Windrush and everything that followed. Their ideal period of British history seems to be a permanent Great Depression without a functioning welfare state. In reality, they are merely exploiting the death of this soldier to push their twisted ultra-nationalist political agenda. Both EDL and the Islamicists are trying to foment the same war.

Bizarrely, many voices on forums are demanding that families of the murderers should be punished. Collective Guilt by Association, as practiced by the Third Reich in occupied countries. Punish the innocent families for the crimes of the individual – without trial, naturally. Which is a leap to almost pure totalitarianism, as both the Islamicists and fascists want. The murder of a British soldier on home territory somehow means that ‘We are second class citizens in our own country’ according to those who want to believe it. As if British soldiers and Britain itself were immune from the outside world and the consequences of its actions. This absurdity is being used to incite violence.

The great mistake is to swallow the line that this was anything to do with religion. People do not believe in religion any more, they identify with it for all they’re worth, which is a completely different matter and more like being a football fan than thinking and behaving as if an omnipotent Being were watching and judging and controlling everything in the cosmos. Only feudal cultures without mass-literacy truly ‘believe’ that. This is Zealotry, not Faith, and all about asserting the individuality of the person, not following any spiritual path. This perversion of religion is as blatant as the Spanish Inquisition.

The challenge is to provide a positive progressive ideology of peace to replace the current war-economy and dead myths of the past. But nothing Cameron or Boris Johnson or Barak Obama say today will offer any real hope of positive change, just more of the same. The same ‘narrative’, which will be a very popular word over the next few weeks. A different ‘narrative’ must be found to counter Islamism. Not a different ideology, which implies something real, but a different story, which is what a narrative is. Or ‘lie’, in plain English. Young people have to be found another fairytale other than genuine politics to identify with.

When a drone bombs a Pakistani  village of 200 people in pursuit of a star target, it merits a minor report in the media, if any. The casual justification for drone casualties is that war is war is hell. The Daily Mail uses it all the time. But it only ever applies one way. Which is a hypocrisy key to the perversion of young, alienated minds. If this attack helps redress the balance, and increases awareness of the reasons for hatred, it may even be judged by history to be a martyrdom, of sorts.

This was not the result of ‘radicalisation’ but psychosis, if a politicised species. To call it radical is to invert and insult the true, invigorating sense of the word, and pollute true radicalism by association, making every radical in history a murderer. An attempt to poison the word and the idea. This form of Islamism is an ideology of death imposed from above, not growth from the roots. But this particular act was essentially no different to any of the other murders committed by the deranged. The victim might just as well have been killed by any of them. The fact that his deranged killers were politicised Muslims just made it inevitable they would lash out at him. Those who go insane in the comfortable suburbs, or in country villages have nobody to lash out against other than those within reach, and their families.

Michael Pedersen was a soldier, who who rode the horse Sefton during the 1982 IRA Hyde Park bomb attack. Last October, for whatever reason, he calmly killed his two young children, and then himself. If an ex-soldier disintegrates, he is not likely to turn on symbols of the British state. If the same thing happens to a young politicised Muslim, a British soldier is the natural target. There is no difference between the two terrorisms.

If the British Identity is defined by anything it is by Tolerance, in spite of everything the Empire did. We  like tolerance, tolerance pays. All kinds of fascism are by nature intolerant. Which is why, in Britain, fascists have always been unanimously derided as lunatics and casualties. An implicit recognition of the truth that there is no such thing as a reactionary ‘intellectual tradition’ or ‘thought’, merely a neurotic phobia of change and equality. As the mad self-styled historian Dominique Venner demonstrated yesterday in Notre Dame cathedral when he destroyed the world he hated in the only way he knew how. Hardly surprising since we live in a society in love with hatred and only at peace when at war.