Threat of 22 Shit Street Controls the Middle Class

Back in the mid-1990s there was an issue of Viz comic that featured a miniature porcelain house of the sort that features on the back of certain magazines aimed at the more senior, doddery citizens.  The difference was that this was no cute country cottage but a dilapidated council house in a run-down estate.  As the Telegraph wrote in a 2004 article about Franklin Mint:

” Viz captured the spirit of those promotions brilliantly in a late Nineties parody supposedly marketing a porcelain model of a decrepit council house. “No 22 Shit Street” was perfect in every detail, from “the fire-damaged, urine-stained mattress, carelessly discarded below the bedroom window, to the jauntily angled dustbin spilling its putrid contents across the path in a splash of repulsive colour”. “

I still wonder how much the UK establishment uses the threat of ending up at 22 Shit Street as a means to control the working- and especially the middle-classes and accept whatever draconian Neocon measures that are thrown at them.  You know with a kind of sneer saying: “Be thankful for what you have, life could easily be a lot worse … get on the wrong side of us and we’ll have you in 22 Shit Street faster than a ned in a stolen Ford Escort.”


Posted in Politics, Poverty, United Kingdom | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

UK: Step by step fascism is coming

Excellent comment on Craig Murray’s blog today by Mary:

Day 1. Cameron promised he would scrap the Human Rights Act. Now he says it’s at the top of his list.

‘Among Mr Cameron’s first legislative priorities will be to enshrine an EU referendum into law, bring in the so-called ‘snoopers charter’ to give police greater powers to monitor internet communications and give English MPs a veto over legislation only affecting England. The Tories also intend to publish plans to scrap the Human Rights Act within their first 100 days. All proposals had been previously blocked by the Lib Dems.’


The fascisti are coming.

They Thought They Were Free – Milton Mayer
The Germans, 1933-45

‘But Then It Was Too Late

“What no one seemed to notice,” said a colleague of mine, a philologist, “was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

“This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.’

Posted in Politics, United Kingdom | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Why do we kill our weakest citizens to control this deficit thing?

Poverty_in_ukWhat is this deficit we hear about continuously?  Why are we driving the weakest people in our society to suicide in order to reduce this deficit?  When was the last time someone explained to you exactly what this word and the number it represents means?  When did your MP tell you why we’re going to kill the vulnerable just to make the number smaller?

Essentially what all the plonkers on TV and in your newspaper are talking about is the gap between what’s coming into the government in taxes and receipts versus what’s being spent. Now considering that the government can simply create money out of thin air and distribute it via the banks it does seem rather bizarre that anyone gives a flier about deficit, but anyway let’s play along.  If we agree there are only two variables:

  1. Money coming in
  2. Money going out

And the difference is either the deficit or surplus, then it means there has been more money going out than going in.  If you think of your own household it effectively means you’ve run up debt.  To pay back your debt you can either spend less or earn more.  For the government it means they can either spend less or get more tax.  Spending less means cutting back on things like health, education, welfare, maintenance, infrastructure, weapons, quangos, etc.  Getting more tax means increasing income tax, VAT, company tax or closing down tax avoidance loopholes.

Austerity allows richer people to maintain their lifestyle at the expense of the poor in the face of an unsustainable trade deficit.

Naturally given that wealthy people mostly call the shots they are not keen on higher income tax, company tax or closing loopholes.  Surprisingly they are not all that keen on spending less either on things like giant infrastructure projects such as high speed railways, management consultants, tax breaks, private prisons, private hospitals, nuclear power and weapons – these right-wing Neoliberals are more socialist than Karl Marx when it comes to these kind of uses of tax.  No, better cut back on the stuff poor people need.

flags-8220_640But this still does not answer why we should care about a number.  One reason is that letting the deficit get out of hand can lead to runaway inflation.  That is true if money is misappropriated and poorly used.  But a more important reason is that European and world level banks tell us we need to target a certain value.  And if we do not?  Well then our credit rating will drop.  So?  Well then we need to pay more for borrowing.  Pay who?  Actually this is where we come to the crux.  In the end the only deficit of any importance is the balance of trade.  That is the difference between what you import and export.  If you import more than export you’re going to need to borrow “international” money if you want to keep buying German machinery and gadgets from China.  International money is essentially what your currency is worth compared to other currencies and is therefore a kind of barometer for comparing economies and their outlooks.

Why does the domestic deficit not matter when looked at independently of balance of trade?  It’s rather simple and my recent article on the DIY Austerity Experiment reveals all.  Basically I show that the amount of work you undertake in your own household (=country) is limited only by the efforts expended by the family members (=citizens).  As soon as you need something substantial that you can’t make yourself (=computer) from a neighbour or local shop (=foreign country) then you better have something of similar value you can exchange it for (=balance of trade).

In a nutshell:

  1. UK imports more than it exports.  Blame Thatcher, unions, class system, UK doesn’t like making things.
  2. Germany and China want paid (how unreasonable!).
  3. UK needs to borrow to pay this.
  4. The interest rate is set according to numbers such as the deficit.
  5. Increasing tax might make rich people cry and threaten to move somewhere else so instead we cut spending (on things that don’t upset rich people).
  6. Deficit looks good so interest rate stays low.
  7. Keep buying more on loan from abroad as UK’s manufacturing and exports sink further due to cuts in spending.
  8. Rinse and repeat until society breaks down completely.
  9. Civil or international war resets system.
Posted in Business, Economics, Politics, United Kingdom | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Yes Voters Were Actually Rather Brave

After the initial massive disappointment last September I began to think a little more about what was actually achieved by the Scottish independence movement.  Recently I’ve begun connecting with people on Twitter again and discussing the General Election in May.  And surprisingly I began to realize that the people who voted Yes last September were actually rather brave.  Although it may appear to be completely logical that the Scots would want to leave the United Kingdom, the fact that there was so much fear mongering and threats made the result still impressive.


It takes bravery and single-mindedness to vote for independence when:


Posted in Independence, United Kingdom | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Mysteries of the World: Jim Murphy (or rather those who support him)

psychopathic-coverWill Black’s brilliant book Psychopathic Cultures and Toxic Empires is absolutely essential reading if you want to stop being shocked every day some Establishment figure or powerful organization does something disgusting.  Of course they do terrible things – they are psychopaths.  It’s their job.  Do you condemn every time you see a lion kill an antelope?

If a small number of people will always be at the psychopath or sociopath range of the spectrum then the important consideration is why do the rest of us permit their like to access positions of power from which they can inflict more damage?  Why was Jimmy Savile able to indulge unhindered in his sick, predatory behaviour for a period of 60 years?  There is little chance that the many at the BBC, charities, police and Westminster who actually knew about his crimes would condone what he did?  I am relatively certain most would have been quite sickened.  But they did not seek to stop him either.  Why?

Jim_Murphy,_April_2009_croppedCould it be that psychopaths with their single-mindedness and drive are actually useful weapons for many of us?  Surely his unique publicity attracting presence boosted careers of many TV and charity managers?  And apparently pedophiles are useful in politics – easy for the party whip to keep in line.  Most people have doubts over their decisions, what actions to take, morality, right from wrong, the meaning of life, whether there is a God.  A psychopath can short circuit much of this: does his current action bring them closer to or further from more power over others or their chosen fetish?  Life for them can be much more black and white, can contain that admired ability to make quick authoritative decisions instead of the infinite shades of grey that the rest of us poor suckers struggle under.  Hence useful psychopaths can assist us in handling our darkest, basest fears and beliefs by doing the donkey work that we can’t stomach.

Lovis_Corinth_006It’s with such thoughts that I look at Jim Murphy, leader of the ailing Scottish Labour Party and politically somewhere to the right of Genghis Thatcher.  I look at him and his festering, oozing, putrid loathing.  I see him chumming up to that Prince of Darkness Tony Blair and I immediately think what would drive any normal, non-psychopath to vote for anything associated with him?

In a similar way to how most of us could not slaughter an animal ourselves but we’re happy to buy a sanitized lump of meat from the supermarket, we move through life using psychopathic politicians and establishment leaders to either do our thinking for us (“I always vote Labour”) or do our dirty work.  Whether it is deporting asylum seekers, cutting benefits to the poorest people, denying climate change or renewing a doomsday weapon system, you’ll find a useful psychopath to do the nasty work for you, leaving you with your basest instincts semi-satisfied.

Posted in Ethics, Philosophy, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

How to be an MP, part 42. CV Cover Letter

How to be an MP, part 42. Writing a good CV cover letter.


Dear Sir / Madam,

I would like to propose myself as being the best choice for the ——- Party candidate at the forthcoming ——- election.  My experience and track record marks me out clearly as a natural choice.  Indeed testing at the Department of Psychiatry at University of Oxbridge has verified that I am a certifiable psychopath (see enclosed certificate) and hence  my callousness and lack of conscience is completely natural and hard wired, unlike the less reliable sociopath in which these traits are considered learned and not intrinsic.

Leadership and ingenuity came early to me.  My father was Master Baiter on the Maudwick Estate in rural Bampotshire.  In addition to organizing the annual seal clubbing hunt on the estate (I was responsible for the import of baby seals), we would also organize the popular peasant shoot, an event that our esteemed party leader regularly attends.  When pleb protests threatened the event we quickly mitigated this by disseminating WMDs (weapons of mass distraction): opening the gates to the plebs, singling out foreigners, questioning the legitimacy of those on benefit, providing cheap beer, Sky Sports on the jumbo screen, before finally releasing the hounds at the end of the day.

At university I was captain of the baiting team, played rugger and swam the English Channel.  I wrote my dissertation on Mechanisms for Phlebotomy of Igneous Rock and Social Media as a Tool of Subjugation.  As a summer posting I worked at the Home Office as a Gentleman’s Fluffer.  I also undertook a degree in Theology, my thesis entitled: How to accept Jesus even if he was a socialist hippy rebel.  This work explored techniques for absolution of guilt for loving the son of God while secretly hoping he delays his second coming until after one’s death.

After my stint in politics I intend to exit via the rotating port towards the City, finance being another industry to which my skills and characteristics would be ideally suited.

Blah, blah, blah…

Posted in Business, Politics, United Kingdom | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The DIY Austerity Experiment You Can Do!

Destination_DIY_logoDuring economic recession should a country increase spending or impose austerity?  So who is right in all this?  Economists have been fighting over this for centuries and still we have no answer.  Surely it must be simple?  Do we get out of a recession by cutting spending or increasing spending?  In the post war years Keynes led the way with massive investment programs and there followed the greatest improvement in the lives of working people since mankind was capable of judging such matters.  Friedman and his jolly cohorts then made inroads in the 1970s and Thatcher and Reagan implemented his demented thinking.  The fall of communism in 1990 removed any remaining need for restraint on the part of right-wing zealots and it has been a slippery slide for the 99% ever since.

The Nobel Prize for Economics is not one of the original prizes

The Nobel Prize for Economics is not one of the original prizes

austerityIf economists decorated with Nobel prizes and adept at advanced mathematics have failed to figure this out, then you may think you have no chance of doing so.  But I beg to differ. Get ready to make a difference to the history of mankind!  This is what you need to do:


  1. Next time you lose your job (say tomorrow) then just go home and stay there.
  2. Instruct the rest of your family to do the same.
  3. While sitting at home don’t do anything other that eat enough crap to survive and follow the instructions below.
  4. Get the Monopoly game box that’s been lying in the attic since cable TV, ADHD and Smart Phones were invented.
  5. Remove all the Monopoly money and discard the box.
  6. Decide that you could use this Monopoly money for splitting up household tasks equally among family members.
  7. Read about Milton Friedman and change your mind.
  8. Do not cook, clean, decorate, wash, or care for your elderly parents or handicapped kid – all this costs money.
  9. If forced by the Job Centre to go for a job interview do not repair or wash your clothes before attending aforesaid interview
  10. If you need food or need transport to travel to an interview that would require real money then borrow this money from the IMF or World or European Bank or other loan shark.
  11. Promise aforementioned banks or loan sharks that you will cut even further back on the use of Monopoly money at home in order to pay them back at some time in the future with the great riches you are sure to reap from your austerity plan.
  12. If great riches are not materializing, cut back further, remove food from aged parents and handicapped kid (they can’t fight back). Tell them we’re all in it together. Rinse and repeat.
  13. Bonus feature: Why not use any excess money you may be lumbered with to start a fight with a random neighbour on the other side of town?  Preferably one with an oil well in his garden.
Posted in Economics, Ethics, Poverty, United Kingdom | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment