The Path and The Way

Yea unto you I say for it is The Path and The Way. The One True Dictum of the Holy Portly One, Marx, may Peace Be Upon His Name. For his Holy Word is timeless and unchanging.

Followers of THE LORD need no understanding of modern financial systems - for these are the edritch and wicked constructions of mere men. One Unchanging Philosophy to encompass all possible future eventualities is all. Since the passing of our Lord, nothing new exists under the Sun and ALL innovations and changes in social relations were predicted and anticipated by our Bearded deliverer. We have no need to change our opinions when new facts arise, for there are no new facts. OUR LORD has seen and predicted all. Everything that occurs is simply a recapitulation of his teachings.

The instrument of Satan - CAPITALISM - is everywhere and everywhen. Ill defined, vague and mysterious, it evades the gaze of OUR LORD in the hearts of men. Given shape and clear definition only when that definition suits our followers' purposes. The fact that it has many varied definitions in many varied contexts is simply a mark of its true and eternal EVIL.

Yea witness the transubstantiation of the truly pious one's ego: Verily, it is the holy mystery how one's ego can transcend the False Consciousness and Historical Materialism that afflict all who are non-believers. The pious are raised up from this substrate by their Faith. It is at once a veil for non-believers, how a faith in collectivism is combined with the holy trinity of Me, myself and I, and how I AM RIGHT. The wisdom of crowds, like CAPITALISM, is truly evil when it does not fit our preconceived notions.


Yea, the Pious may join OUR LORD in the atheist heaven, where all the calculators go when they die. Ye are commanded to turn the other cheek to naysayers who point out that parts of THE LORD's written commandments contradict one another. Scribbles in The Holy Communist Manifesto only APPEAR to contradict the Holiest of Holies, the Testament of Das Kapital, because they were written through the flawed hands of man. For OUR LORD did sacrifice himself for our sins by sitting on the dole and writing endless manuscripts, suffering so terribly as he was pampered by the very elite who are the agents of SATAN. TRUE BELIEVERS can interpret what THE LORD really communicated, though ineffable, through the power of faith and may cast down any who have not read every single tedious line after tedious line in every single endless monologue after endless monologue as unfit to speaketh ill.



Those evil men who suggest that OUR LORD stole many ideas from the consort of Satan, ADAM SMITH, should have their tongues removed. OUR FAITH guarantees our righteousness in this cause for we have never read An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. We have been told by the Acolytes of the Lord that it is worthless and meaningless and should be consigned to the Memory Hole. We KNOW what it contains without having read it, or the work of Lucifer's followers derived from its false wisdom. Rumours that some apostates have fallen from grace after reading SMITH and finding that he in fact criticises many of the things we fear are FALSE. Followers of THE LORD who have stood, open mouthed, whilst reading the passages of the evil text damning Corporatism have read words FALSELY IMPLANTED. For our one and Eternal Lord was in fact a TIME TRAVELLER, and Satan's Consort, IN FACT, stole ideas from THE LORD, twisting them and mixing them with lies.

For ALL Authoritarian measures are RIGHT and JUST when delivered in the name of OUR LORD. We believe in Collectivist thinking, however WE the pious and followers of the Holy One KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU. The superiority of our Egos over that of the chattel non-believers and less pious is another of the holy mysteries.


Our favoured methods are continual repetition of dogma - said loudly enough and often enough, the incantations of OUR LORD, can cast out even the most single minded demon, causing them to walketh out of the room. Other weapons acceptable in Our Lord's sevice are Ad hominem and argument by association. In trying times, carefully targeted use of the following unholy words can be used to discredit or, in suitably dogmatic company, even destroy enemies of THE LORD: "Tory", "Loon", "Conspiracy Theorist", "Capitalist", "Elitist".

Lo are these methods no more frequently applied than on that giant shoutbox known as the Intardnets. We have come to fear the unregulated and unfettered terror that it is. For it has come to pass that its nature is in line with our mortal enemies. Oh horrors.

We could not possibly contemplate sincere and open debate with the demons - especially in scholarly and peer reviewed journals, as good scholarship is a tool of the establishment. Instead we will produce poorly edited and researched pamphlets and manuscripts. Fear not though brothers and sisters, for we can keep OUR LORD's Orthodoxy alive and intact through only interacting with people who already agree with us on backwater bunker sites where no one dares disagree on substantive points. If persistent demons appear we can easily gather a posse comitatus to strike down the offenders using the holy methods enshrined above and if that does not work then removing their tongues comes very naturally.

In fact we have warriors amongst us who, like our LORD, sit on the dole and churn out thousands of pointless posts on insular internet forums, lecturing a small group of people who already largely agree with us. Taking succour from the state while agitating for its destruction is a terrible burden to bear and these brothers are truly saints to the cause.

When there are no other enemies to strike down we pious and Righteous are compelled to turn to one another. For the Lord dictated that, as a property of evil is that it eventually turns in upon itself, all who seek succour in the teachings of the Lord must fight one another until those who are the most RIGHTEOUS and RIGHT win and ascend to OUR LORD's knee. Others, the faithless, who engage in such internecine warfare are engaging in SOCIAL DARWINISM, those of the faithful however, who fight one another over tedious differences are carrying out the Good Lord's work. We become UNLIKE our enemies by becoming just LIKE them. It is truly cunning wisdom. And ALL of our faults can be lain at the feet of the beast of CAPITALISM, for we can take no responsibility for ourselves.


Our enemies, though they appear to regularly share the same concerns and interests as us, are naught but DECEIVERS. Those unlike us can be identified most often with seductive whispers about the greatest sin - PROPERTY. Whilst we have been cast down into the pit of sinners, all of us have original sin - wearing flesh suits, we the faithful struggle with and bear the burden. For although we must BEAR the burden of property, suffering as we do, in order to satiate those evil, hated biological mechanisms, we do so WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUE WORD OF THE LORD.

For PROPERTY is in itself evil, and when also acquired directly through the blood, sweat and tears of effort, through the hated body, is therefore EVIL SQUARED. And when exchanged for tokens of mutual value with one another, becomes EVIL CUBED. Our enemy CAPITALISM therefore prospers through the despicable mechanisms of being born into a human body, creating value with one's efforts and exchanging PROPERTY with one another with tokens which - whatever form they take - will always be the work of the devil.

Eventually the most pious and just will wear shirts made of their own hair. For we can alleviate the burden of the original sin of PROPERTY through discerning the difference between de jeur and de facto property. There are NO awkward questions, or tricky issues for the faithful in considering this evil for we simply turn the other cheek once more. There is NO slippery slope between 'de facto' and 'de jeur' because we sayeth so. If all arguments fail us we can reinvoke our faith in THE COLLECTIVE which will spontaneously produce the RIGHT answers for us in the future, so we meek and humble followers need not answer these questions now. Property is only OWNED temporarily by those who are using it. Therefore when I sleepeth I have no property. And verily there are NO thieving bastards, because all belong to the collective and it is good.

So speaketh the Prophets of the LORD. Aperson.

*('Amen' is sexist and therefore FORBIDDEN).

Step aside 'The Matrix' - welcome to 'The Matrioshka'

If you want to try something that distracts you from the thoroughly aggravating cesspit of politics, consider some philosophy instead: In this case variations and thoughts on the 'simulation argument' (also known as 'simulism'). One reason I'm glad that I gradually turned my interests away from philosophy and more towards politics is the simple reason that philosophy regularly scares me silly at the existential level....

....The simulation argument is deceptively simple. It is the position that we are highly likely to be part of a computer simulation. As in right now.

Sounds ridiculous right? You've seen the Matrix, you have all the answers, you know the score....Or do you? The simulation argument, and in this post I'll be considering a particular variant of it, which I will call 'The Matrioshka', is much more sophisticated than the simple enslavement of humans by machines. In fact I'm of the opinion, that in terms of existential angst, the 'Matrix' scenario is actually preferable to 'The Matrioshka'.

It's 'The Matrioshka' (Russian Doll) because it has n+1 levels of simulation. That is to say that, whilst you and I may be part of a simulation right now, it is entirely possible that our "creators" are themselves part of a larger simulation. Conversely, any simulations and artificial lifeforms we create now (and we are doing this in earnest now, whatever you may think of "A-Life", consisting of electrons organised into patterns - or data), would be the next 'dimension' of simulation if you like. Considering any artificial "life" that we create, doesn't bring the concept home though - games like 'The Sims' seem like laughable simulations of life. To understand this properly, we need to go into the opposite direction:

Philosophy professor, Nick Bostrum, is one of the main intellects behind the 'Simulation argument'. He considers in one of his papers the theoretical computing power that humans will be able to develop in the future, given currently known energy and physical limitations.

Humanity close to passing the Hofstadter-Turing test?
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23444/
Consider the big-bang
Consider the Christian idea that on judgement day, everyone will be resurrected.
Consider that even the 'basement level' civilisation would not know for sure if it was the basement level civilisation, and so would have to organise it's ethical behaviour accordingly, considering that some 'parent' civilisation may be simulating them.

What happens to the simulation argument if the universe is infinite?

Hacking Capitalism

I learned a new term this week - "hacker capitalist". Reading an article, via the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, by Edward Miller, 'Hackertopia and Piracy, Inc.' got me thinking on a more positive note for once.

Miller details the rise of the hacker / pirate ethic and the notion of freedom of information (including information based products of labour). He refers to the hope invested in the so-called 'Milennial' generation (of which I myself am part). There is despair on the other hand at the 'hipsters' - part of the Milennial generation - who appear to have developed serial ADD and enable cynical marketers to co-opt any new trend or idea, however anti-establishment, and sell it back to the 'youth'. I have known some activists (of various political persuasions) who have despaired at this masterstroke of the establishment - to commodify dissent, often very effectively.

However, Miller reminds us of the flipside to this, the adoption of certain technologies and lifestyle choices that fundamentally alter our relations not only with eachother, but the 'state' or establishment also. "[S]taggering amounts of time on the computer and mobile communication devices, surfing social networks and wikis, gaming, texting, filesharing, blogging, making youtube videos, and building the new participatory panopticon" has unleashed forces the state, and its snooper agents, simply will not be able to control.

My personal site, 'Upwingers', is inspired by Persian futurist F.M. Esfandiary. It's strapline is perhaps his most famous quote: "There is no government, no industrial-military complex, no economic system, no mass media that can ever reduce us to puppets and robots as thoroughly as the biological and environmental dictatorships have." I'm a big fan of working through the implications of Esfandiary's transhumanist/futurist philosopy in this regard: Many others like him and inspired by him (such as R.A. Wilson, Timothy Leary etc) pointed out systematically how centralised authorities can use basic knowledge of body and mind to trap, torture and brainwash us. What was sadly lost in the popular consciousness regarding Leary's drug focused philosophy and experiements was his claim that intelligent application of said drugs could undo any brainwashing. This was of course Leary's undoing, and probably the main motivation behind the establishment attempts to destroy him.


Leary, Wilson, Esfandiary and many others have pointed to a profound truth. Regaining control over "the biological and environmental dictatorships" might be our single best opportunity for wresting our lives back and fundamentally challenging the status quo. I recently said, in a discussion over at Anna Racoon's blog that the root of all evil is not money, or love thereof, or 'lax morals', but low self-esteem. Once you get past the most basic survival needs, (and *every* political philosophy, however noble, once reduced to talking about survival needs, becomes nothing more than lifeboat ethics and Hobbesian dilemmas*), the most crushing, most enervating, most life-destroying force is our own psychological and emotional binds. It's why the thought police are more powerful than the real police.

Back to the 'Millennials' - Miller makes a bold claim: "It is no wonder, then, why their entertainment choices include trolling, LOLcats, the Daily Show, South Park and ridulous sarcastic wikis [e.g. Encyclopedia Dramatica]. Yet, they are not nihilists. Beneath all this lies a belief in classical liberal ideals which is at least as sincere as that of previous generations, if not moreso."



I agree with Miller's assessment, even if for the large part this isn't a conscious adherence to classical liberal ideas; these values are rather embedded within the very technologies now spreading ineluctably like viruses, and in the new social relations they are forging. This also tends to be the point where I cross swords with social conservatives. The sign is often confused with the thing signified. The state is panicking in response. It can sense its impending doom, even if it is still a few generations away. People's behaviour is becoming increasingly chaotic - sometimes for the good, sometimes for ill. And while I welcome any restatement of the importance of personal responsibility, I'm suspicious of any that focus largely on the old hobbyhorses of sex, drugs and rock'n roll - sex in particular. While there is certainly an every growing, largely state supported, underclass - rightly lampooned by many social conservatives, there is also a corresponding - and in my assessment much larger - growth in increasingly aware, adaptive and responsible "youth". The curtain has started to rip and the man behind it is starting to slip into view:

For the 'Millennials', "[t]he problem is that for as long as they can remember, all the institutions which they were told to look up to have only given them reasons to be cynical. Instead of honest journalism, we have demagogues. Instead of corner grocers, we have sterile megastores. Elections aren't won, but stolen... not that it matters. Politics became a series of sex scandals. Religion too, only in a far more sinister sense. The economy is in crisis, but the Millenials are not surprised".

There is a new wave of classically liberal sentiment under the surface. The millenials are beginning to join their older fellows in rejection of the program. Look at almost every online outlet for public opinions, from the Guardians' Comment is Free through to LabourListing to Guido Fawkes' blog. Look at the failure of the MSM to adapt to the Daniel Hannan phenomenon. The consistent outpouring of sentiment is immense. The cracks are starting to show.

An idea I've frequently encountered at blogs such as Old Holborns' is that the state is increasingly seeking to put us in hock to it. The "bailout" having been its most spectacular recent success, saddling us all with an astronomical debt level (based on a completely fake economic system of valuation in the first place - the value of perception is now more important than actual supply and demand). Truly a masterstroke. Also a good reason to read the Wizard of Ozymandias if you have not done so already. The establishment is becoming increasingly brittle and vulnerable. It has to put us in hock to survive like this. And it is no coincidence that committed collectivists such as ZanuLab should be at the helm when such a bold attempt to ruin us is enacted. The "state", "society", and now "shared values" (in the horribly scary form of 'Contest 2') are bigger and more important than us individuals you see. They have a life of their own, they really do - thanks to our Lords and Masters. It's the fundamental aspect of collectivist thinking that is so inimical to human life - as Stirner put it, "because they serve Man, they cut off the heads of men."


We're starting - ineluctably - to reclaim our own spaces, bodies and minds. It is starting in the realm of information. The "cost" of information is dwindling to almost nothing. Our means of gathering and distributing it are being similarly demolished. This is where we get back to that new (or at least new to me) term -'Hacker Capitalist'. Miller refers to the likes of Mark Shuttleworth (creator of Ubuntu) and Jimmy Wales (creator of Wikipedia) as great examples of the new breed of successful capitalist - the 'Hacker Capitalist'. These gentlemen provided open source innovations that they were able to both share and profit from. This is an oxymoron to some.

Something I've always noted with amusement is the wholesale endorsement of Open Source technologies and philosophies by collectivist-leftists. I wonder what they make of the likes of Shuttleworth and Wales. I've found consistently that whenever individuals who are actual innovators in the Open Source community put pen to paper they are, almost always, of a Libertarian persuasion. And even those who are more left-leaning, tend to be in one of the groups not incompatible with libertarian or anarcho-capitalist sentiments (the mutualists for example).

The time of the authoritarian statists and the dogmatic collectivists is coming to an end - ineluctably. They will go down like mad dogs though and even if the wittering of the collectivists (especially the left-anarchists (as opposed to their innovative and steadily prospering brethren - the market or anarcho-capitalists)), seems pathetic, their ideology is still pervasive and infectious. They chomp and moan because, apart from many other things, one of their defining characteristics have been taken away from them. There were two invasions of parliament by activists in recent memory - one by Fathers for Justice and another by the Countryside Alliance. Not an anarchist in sight. And at the last Anarchist Bookfair I attended in London,(at which, incidentally, us Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists are NOT welcome) the most innovative idea they could come up with was to camp outside parliament until the Prime Minister resigns. Outstanding.

Our aims now should be to really - literally - capitalise on these opportunities and technologies. The great danger is that in their death throes they might take us with them. What they fear most is that we, individually, become more powerful, capable people. We don't need them anymore, but they need us. As Miller put it: "Now is a superb time for all you hackers, tinkerers, hobbyists, and DIYers to kick it into full gear. The political and economic cards are in our favor. Let's make the most of it!".

Indeed. There has never before been a time like this of such rapid technological change. So many new questions, dilemmas and possibilities open up before us now on a daily basis. States and collectivists are pathologically and literally unable to deal with this. Only individuals can respond and innovate in a timely fashion. It's a chaotic time, but it might yet prove to have been the best time and place to have been alive thus far. It's a time for heroes and heroines of all stripes to step forward. Get to it.

*A great shame this is not more commonly recognised. Many people - scholars among them - interpret Hobbes' nightmare scenario of the 'all against all' society as being the baseline for all political philosophy. It isn't. It is, instead its nullification. All political philosophy (except perhaps the most lunatic and misanthropic interpretations of collectivist-primitivist anarchism) is based upon some kind of surplus. As soon as a social configuration produces a surplus, multiple political philosophies are then on the table. Discussion of this surplus is what political philosophy is. Societies throughout recorded history have had a surplus, however meagre.

Sidenote: After a diasterous attempt to upgrade software, resulting in the loss of my database, I decided to rebuild my 'upwingers' site (again!) - and I think I've finally settled on a configuration to my liking, though it will take me some time to repopulate it with content (especially on my research into A.Q.Khan, Sibel Edmonds, MI5/6 etc). It's going well so far and I'm very pleased with the new collated news feeds - I'm finally making good on the site's philosophy; focusing on positive uplifting (and often - action orientated) aspects and subjects as much as negative. There's still plenty of work left to be done, however by all means, have a look.

Illuminati Clippings - #1

I'm re-reading Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminatus Triology for the third time. He never fails to both amuse and inform at the same time. He also admirably fulfils that role he often refers to in his writing: The poet as early warning radar. I thought I would share the occasional extended quote with you.

Despite (or perhaps because of) orginally being penned in the 70s, the trilogy has many passages that bear an uncanny and often disturbing resemblance to today's world.

I miss the old man terribly:

Caligula Bushman, known as the toughest judge on the Chicago bench, was trying six people who were charged with attacking a draft board, destroying all its furniture, ruining its files and dumping a wheel-barrow full of cow manure on the floor. Suddenly Busman interrupted the trial about halfway through the prosecution's presentation of its case with the announcement that he was going to hold a sanity hearing. To the bewilderment of all, he then asked State's Attorney Milo A. Flanagan a series of rather odd questions:

"What would you think of a man who not only kept an arsenal in his home, but was collecting at enormous financial sacrifice a second arsenal to protect the first one? What would you say if this man so frightened his neighbors that they in turn were collecting weapons to protect themselves from him? What if this man spent ten times as much money on his expensive weapons as he did on the education of his children? What if one of his children criticized his hobby and he called that child a traitor and a bum and disowned it? And he took another child who had obeyed him faithfully and armed that child and sent it out into the world to attack neighbors?

What would you say about a man who introduces poisons into the water he drinks and the air he breathes? What if this man not only is feuding with the people on his block but involves himself in the quarrels of others in distant parts of the city and even in the suburbs? Such a man would clearly be a paranoid schizophrenic, Mr. Flanagan, with homicidal tendencies. This is the man who should be on trial, though under our modern, enlightened system of jurisprudence we would attempt to cure and rehabilitate him rather than merely punish."

"Speaking as a judge," he continued, "I dismiss this case on several grounds. The State is clinically insane as a corporate entity and is absolutely unfit to arrest, try and incarcerate those who disagree with its policies. But I doubt that this judgment, though obvious to any man of common sense, quite fits into the rules of our American jurisprudential game. I also rule, therefore, that the right to destroy government property is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and therefore the crime with which these people are charged is not a crime under the Constitution. Government property belongs to all of the people, and the right of any f the people to express displeasure with their government by destroying government property is precious and shall not be infringed."

Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea, The Illuminatus Trilogy, 1998 (originally published 1975), Robinson publishing. pp 366-368.

Russell Brand: Weapons grade cock-end

Idiocracy: This too could be you.

In a change to my occasional schedule of angry piss-boiling commentary on politics, I wanted to write on something else briefly:

Trial by mob
I tried. I really did. I can't stand a trial by media or public opinion. I detest it. I was horrified to notice that in the wake of the Brand/Ross "scandal" that the BBC's 'Have your say' fell over during the day because of the deluge of the collective brain fart. Everyone had to have a say. I thought the pair of them had been a couple of idiots, however I was perfectly content to leave it at that and keep my opinion to myself. The incident also happened just as the extent of the global financial crisis was being realised. Whilst major dead-tree press articles on the crisis were attracting maybe 100 comments if they were lucky, in some places, 1000+ comments were being left on the Russell/Brand story. I despaired. I really did.

If I was aggrieved at anything, it was the fact that the BBC licence fee, extracted from myself and millions of others under threat of force is used to pay the pair of them - particularly Ross, with his deal of £18 million over three years. I find that simply obscene, yet I don't have a voice with regard to how the money is spent. It's most definitely taxation without representation. However, this was a position I held before they decided to carry out a live prank phone call, and still hold now.

Charlie Brooker made the point recently in his 'Screenwipe' series that a new era of TV-viewer interaction has begun. He calls it the Dawn of the Dumb. It has primarily resulted from 'reality tv' shows, where viewers have a vote. This has been transferred, in the minds of the viewers, to an overall vote on any TV programme or issue. The viewers can, be weight of enough complaints, cause changes to be made. It would be nice to think that this was a democratic achievement, even if it still results in satisfaction of the lowest common denominator. However, in the case of the BBC there are two major problems with this:

i) The opposite isn't true. That is to say, if the number of commendations outweigh the complaints, the complaints still win. We have seen this in the case of Carol Thatcher.

ii) I'm still forced to pay for this farce, simply for the privilege of having a TV set in my front room to watch DVDs on. I avoid TV programming, and the BBC in particular, like it was some horrible infectious syphilitic walking corpse. As one enterprising chap on Babylon 5 said once: "It is a cultural wasteland full of inappropriate metaphors for reality". And that's just the soap operas.

So...this Russell bloke...

I'd caught the odd clip of Brand performing. I saw 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall'. He seemed to be able to entertain competently on and off. The odd comment here and there indicated that he was considered 'edgy' and 'on the pulse'. A friend lent me his [Brand's] autobiography so I put some time aside to read it.

Now, I consider a person's autobiography to be an honest means of appraising a person. It's their own words, not taken out of context by the media, and they have the choice to put their own spin on it. On these grounds I'm willing to come to an opinion on a person, irrespective of what the media says about them.

In case you missed it, I came to the conclusion that this man is and was a weapons grade cock-end. Now to be clear, I don't like to use insults, or expletives too often, unlike some of my swearblogging friends. This isn't because I think there is anything inherently "bad" in use of such language. Far from it. Instead I think it is more powerful if used sparingly, like the occasional bit of violence (which, for all you idealistic do-gooders out there, is sometimes the 'right thing to do'). And in this case, my god, I think the only man to compare him to would be the currently self-destructing Derek Draper. And I've got expletives a plenty for that particular fleischweisen.

Commonalities

What was interesting for me was that, as I first got into his book, I began warming to the man. We appeared to have had a very similar childhood. We're about the same age, had quite a few similar experiences, and even knocked around in the same places. However, as soon as he started describing his crawl into adulthood it appeared we diverged sharply.

This is despite the fact that we still had a lot in common, even in adulthood. He has a terrible weakness for women and sex, despite the fact he is fully capable of seducing many pretty women on a regular basis. I relate directly to that. He also has long hair, likes to dress extravagantly and wear makeup to enhance his looks. Again, all things that I do. He's also not one for not putting up with people telling him what to do.

On the surface you might not see us as too dissimilar. In fact, you might wonder why we are not good drinking pals.

If someone gave a very general outline of his life and activities, and put it alongside mine the difference may not be clear at all. Yet -as the saying goes, the devil is, very literally in the details.

Women

For Russell, women appear to be primarily a self-validation mechanism. They probably are for most men in some respect. The Idiot-lantern constantly tells us that without sexual validation, we're nothing. Right?

As a teenage kid it appears Russell began to learn the art of seduction, picking up that charm, personality and a novel individual appearance (and pathos) can attract sufficient attention to bring women into your orbit. Pretty much the phase I went through too. As he careens into his kidulthood though, Russell begins to attract women through a combination of persistence, bullshit and the fame factor (though the latter was relatively late in coming). I spent my early adulthood doing my best to figure out what I actually wanted (a task that it seems a frightening number of people never actually master).

I don't think Russell figured this one out and women (and inebriation) began to perpetually fill up his ever-increasing self-esteem black hole. He appeared to blame a lot of this on his childhood. Yet the life he describes was no harder than mine, and a damn sight easier than the lives some of my best friends have had. It all comes down to that classic idea that it is how you choose to react to events and circumstances - "Circumstances do not make the man, they reveal him".

Russell's is an epic fail on this point. As he became a Kidult he became the master of his own downfall, and this was despite some incredible opportunities coming his way. He simply had to feed the self-esteem monster you see.

So - women and sex. I have tried monogomy a few times. It isn't for me. Instead I have open-relationships with my partners. And they have been, consistently, much more successful, loving and beneficial all round than my monogomous arrangements. I find many people make all sorts of assumptions about this that they simply are not justified, or equipped, to make. It's the kind of relationship that drives The Righteous nuts.

Open relationships force a kind of sincerity and honesty on you and your partners that you simply don't have in monogomy. For one thing, it absolutely forces you to not take the other(s) for granted. They have the option, just like you, to go elsewhere. If you're in sync with one another, they will always come back to you, and you to them. Contrary to many erroneous assumptions, it also brings your standards way up. I look to maximise the amount of mutually enjoyable (emotional as well as sexual) experiences I can have with as many high-quality (confident, intelligent, driven, creative, know what they want are my criteria) women as I can in life. This actually means I say 'no' more often than I say 'yes'.

You see it all comes down to self-esteem. People with low self-esteem cannot understand how such a relationship could ever work. In their heads, some kind of ownership of the 'other' has to take place in order to vouchsafe your fragile ego. I don't know how many times I, or my partner(s) have been lectured on this, that I / we have "never really been in love". Very confident, secure people however, can see how this kind of relationship can work, even if they don't wish to engage in it themselves. It's an excellent litmus test for figuring out people you have just met.

Brand's self-esteem appears to be chronically low. He has fulfilled the role of the spectacular, had his ego massaged by hacks who realised they can play off of his self-destructive ("edgy") tendencies and bully him into incredible acts of stupidity (if you liked 'Jackass', and also winced at the fact people felt these were good things to do to themselves for 'entertainment' (approval), wait till you read this biography). He blames it variously on life-circumstances and his "addictive personality". The cult of celebrity seems to produce a lot of these.

Celebration?

The term 'celebrity' originally referred to people of great skill and talent. You referred, for example to the "celebrated" playright, Shakespeare, or the "celebrated" artist, Michael Angelo. For the most part, this notion of talent appears to have shrunk horrifically to good presentation and blagging skills at best, and willing displays of incohate idiocy at worst. Brand has certainly sucked from both of these teats to build his career and create a bloated "celebrity" construction of "edgy" behaviour.

He has been placed on the throne as one of the many Kings of Idiots. Appropriately channeled through the medium of the almighty One-eyed monster. (Yes, I guess that goes for his penis, not just a synonym for the TV too).

Occasionally Brand drops in a word like 'misogyny' as some way of mild contrition. The fact is though, throughout the book he doesn't actually display one iota of actual, sincere contrition. He reminds me of these colllectivist-anarchists who say how they are "aware" of gender issues, and 'right-on', yet still have severe emotional and sexual issues with women. Poor buggers can't even get out of that one through experience though as the collectivist-anarchists attract a lot of the Righteous. The Original Sin of men will be sure to keep them in place and not allow them to admit that yes, they (like women) actually want to fuck different people, and often. The only thing worse than a right-wing conservative prude is a left-wing version.

I got half way through the book and began hating the man earnestly. I had to push through to the end though, for the same reasons I have to continue following the antics of Labour's Clown Extraordinaire, Derek Draper. The path of self-inflicted destruction is incredible to behold, and a fantastic example unto others. He often tries to spruce up his account with some literary references. He painfully fumbles quite a few of them. And with this dickhead, artistic licence just doesn't cut it as an excuse.

Russell leaves us, after describing his rollercoaster wreck of a life, at the end telling us that he is a changed man after having attended a 'sex-addicts' clinic in the U.S. It's his "addictive" personality again you see. Never mind the fact that 99% of the rest of humanity also has this problem in adulthood - it's called feeling horny you dipshit.

His memory, however, appears to be shorter than that of his adulating fuckwit fanbase - for, after ploughing through to the end, I actually remembered what he actually said in the first chapter. He said, just prior to completing the book he'd just given in again to his weakness for pointless encounters thanks to his wafer-thin willpower (and self-esteem, though he leaves that bit out). He makes a big, almost puritan, deal of the fact that he was also clean of drugs and alcohol. I'd have some sympathy and respect for the man if it weren't for the fact that he was using these as escapes from problems completely of his own making. He doesn't seem to intuit that many people drink or take drugs because they have a lot of problems that are not of their own doing.

Brand is supposed to be one of the country's best. He'd like us to believe he's that uber-confident, together bloke in 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall', perpetually on the up-side of a bi-polar disorder. He's not. Instead he personifies what is broken. No responsibility for anything (it's all paid for chaps!) and the adulation of the inert and the feeble-minded.

Gods help us all.

The Nobomba Candidate

A worrying number of people seem to have brought into the Nobomba's messianic campaign, thinking that positive change is inevitable with his inauguration. A popular myth appears to be that there is going to be leagues of difference between him and "where the fuck am I?" McCain with regard to foreign (i.e. war) policy. Nobomba has already reneged on some of his supposedly antiwar commitments, which he made prior to being voted in. What more might we have in store - and could Nobomba change anything even if he wanted to?

The middle east is the obvious focus for U.S. foreign policy. There is almost certainly going to be another major conflagration soon in the region with either Pakistan, or Israel as the main instigator. So what's the deal with these "armies with a state attached"?

Pakistan is now officially a basket-case. It should have been the primary target in the bogus "war on terror" since day one. It would have been if the pirates steering the ship of state actually gave a mad hatter's crap about dealing effectively with terrorist, and various non-state, actors. Our friends in the ISI have kept things ticking along nicely thank you very much - thanks to billions upon billions in "aid" (read: bribes) from the West. Plenty of money to go around to Al Queda, the Taliban and that pesky A.Q.Khan nuclear proliferation network. You know - the network that the West continued pretending to shut down. Despite another alleged recent crackdown on the network, Siddiqui and Griffin - two of the key British enablers - are still walking free and unharrassed.

Nobomba 2007: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." Musharraf has gone since this statement. Which means things are likely much worse now. The ISI is riddled with anti-West and pro-Taliban sentiment at the highest levels. Musharraf was the primary force holding them in check. And since Nobomba's statement of intentions, various infractions of Pakistani territory by Coalition forces have already occurred. The fact is though, in many ways it wouldn't have mattered if Nobomba was actually this mythical dove that his ardent supporters claim - the stage is set and Pakistan is already skidding into the crash.

Israel? Pfft. Forget it. Nobomba has spoken to AIPAC and he is THE MAN for defending the Great Golem. The army with a state, the permanent airstrip in the east, the holy homeland that might have actually been in Saudi Arabia (oops), the buffer zone between the West and the middle east, the West's basket case of "democracies" (keep that Arab vote out why dontchya). Yep that place.

p.s. Israel has just requested "bunker-busters" and clearance to fly over Iraqi airspace to get to Iran. Aww shucks, don't you just love a military that wants to demolish a nation on the basis of wafer thin evidence?

Iran? "As President, I will use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon…." And..."I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything." - That nuclear technology? Yeah you know the one. The technology developed by Iran with the direct assistance of the A.Q.Khan network. The network given a free pass by Anglo-American intelligence and customs.

The CIA's official estimate is that Iran stopped its nuclear programme in 2003 and hasn't made any progress since. If the mainstream media was to be believed, you would think the CIA had said the opposite. The Khan network was supposedly trounced by Western intelligence around that time when it intercepted a shipment of parts bound for Libya. This was, funnily enough, the signal event that led to Libya 'coming in from the cold'. The mainstream media also claimed, following their usual simpering line, following the intelligence PR releases and not doing their own research, that anglo-american intelligence had been responsible for this coup. They weren't responsible for it at all. It was the Libyans.

Then of course, Nobomba should know all of this. And yet he follows the line that Iran's is an independent effort. It's like that Bill Hicks sketch with the U.S. telling the about-to-be-bombed-into-the-stone-age nation of [insert name here] to pick up the gun the U.S. has just thrown at its feet....

I'm supposed to believe that a new presidential candidate really can change the course of events for the better. I don't. Just like every president before him, he'll face dug-in, fortified interests that have nothing to do with wishful notions of "democracy". Kennedy was the last president to take their hand from the tiller (pseudo-pun intended there). "What forces" you ask? Well here's one - Ehud Olmert, prime minister of Israel recently boasted how he had yanked the U.S. president "off the podium" to demand that the U.S. abstain in the UN vote on the Gaza Strip (the vote that the U.S. set up in the first place). In case you hadn't been paying attention these last few years, the Israeli amen corner and Israel itself, as been kicking America's back door in. Google "US israel espionage" for a summary.

Even if I did believe this however, let's take those arguing that this great man, this messiah of change, this lion of american politics, actually has the intention to do great things for everyone other than the invested elites. If he was good to his word, you think he might appoint like minded people, right? Well....

...Nobomba's doveish appointees? Well - here we go:

- Dennis Ross
Middle East adviser. Promotes Israeli interests over U.S. Has worked both "sides" of the aisle. Big name in Neocon circles.

- Robert Gates
Defense Secretary. Wait - he has exactly the same name as the last guy!

- (General) James Jones
National Security Adviser. A close friend of John McCain. This appointment also means continuing the policy of using NATO as an instrument of U.S. aggression.

- Hilary Clinton
Secretary of State. Warmongering fucktard. Clinton represents the pro-war wing of the Democratic Party.

- Rahm Emmanuel
Chief of staff. Rabidly pro-israel and an active opponent of the antiwar movement.

E.J. Dionne on Obama and the antiwar movement: "Obama made clear six years ago that while he was with them on Iraq, he was not one of them"
Since Dionne made that comment, Nobomba has also reneged on his commitments re: Iraq.

So - Obamaites - What is the substantial difference between this administration and the last one? And what is the source of your faith?

p.s. the first person who implies my criticism of Nobomba is racist gets a punch in the face. Plus you could always check what some black political activists are saying about him.

The week of WTF?

What a strange week.

DNA ruling
Let's start with some good news for a change though. In the case of two men from Sheffield (yay!), the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that the Police will have to wipe the DNA details of nearly one million innocent people from their database. No more keeping people's DNA 'just in case', without probable cause....

But wait, what's this? The government response (from Jackboots):

"The Government mounted a robust defence before the Court and I strongly believe DNA and fingerprints play an invaluable role in fighting crime and bringing people to justice.

"The existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgement."

So basically the government will ignore the ruling. NEXT......

Government spunktaps

Well they might as well be. It looks like the government is considering the "nuclear option" of printing more money. Because we didn't see that one coming.... >:-/

For those of us for whom debt is more of an issue than savings (and pensions), then the combination of inflation and low interest rates is actually a good thing, (though if you're a victim of the stagflation (inflation + recession) it isn't going to make a blind bit of difference without a fucking job. And any benefits accruing from having a job and being a debtor in this scenario assume at least a half-hearted attempt by your employers to keep your wages up with inflation.

And for those people I said to a year ago that we were going to go into stagflation and you didn't believe me: Here's another big fucking reason to suppose the government really doesn't have a clue and is criminally negligent and you shouldn't have been listening to them (and their client lackey media). (The other alternative, that they're making consciously planned decisions here is too horrible for most people to contemplate, so I'll leave that one and come back to it in another 5-10 years, with a suitable amount of schadenfreude attached).

Meanwhile, in new legislative changes it looks like the government might actually be planning to hide the spunktaps from us. In other words, we won't have a clue when they're printing more money. This is going to make predicting the direction of the economy nigh on impossible. The bastards.

The Americans were way ahead of us on this one - on 10 November 2005 the Federal Reserve announced that as of 23 March 2006, it would cease publication of M3. 'M3' is the main measure economists use to estimate the total money in circulation. UTTER UTTER BASTARDS. At least in the case of Old Blighty's "government" (stifle that laughter at the back, yes you!), hiding the fucking money supply is a reactive measure. It looks like someone at the Fed was being pro-active and had notions that something might be in the offing.....surely not?

It's not just the "nuclear option". It's also known as the "Mugabe option". Some of us call the part of government ZauLab for a damn good reason. In fact, just recently the actions of the U.S. and U.K. governments regarding their banking industry have been praised by none other than the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. Hahahahahahahahaha....oh.

Meanwhile....

....UK government in "proactive" shocker!

Yes of course, I'm referring to the arrest of Damian Green MP. It still remains very murky exactly what he is supposed to have done (other than "groomed" a source inside the Home Office to leak documents to him). The chap responsible is one Chris Galley. And for some reason I cannot fathom - he is being held in a safe house (by the Home Office!) for protection. Protection from whom????!!!

And what crucial information vital to national security did he leak?

From BBC revision number 3:

* The November 2007 revelation that the home secretary knew the Security Industry Authority had granted licences to 5,000 illegal workers, but decided not to publicise it.
* The February 2008 news that an illegal immigrant had been employed as a cleaner in the House of Commons.
* A whips' list of potential Labour rebels in the vote on plans to increase the pre-charge terror detention limit to 42 days.
* A letter from the home secretary warning that a recession could lead to a rise in crime.

* the news that an illegal immigrant had been employed as a Commons cleaner and
* a letter from the home secretary warning that a recession could lead to a rise in crime.

The resolution of this situation centres around whether or not Green and Galley can legitimately claim that the above were in the 'public interest' to leak. Let's take one that's close to my heart: The 5000 illegal SIA badges. The Home Office since admitted that this could be up to 11,000 illegal immigrants with SIA badges. YIKES! This is nothing short of an insult to all the legitimate people who's lives in security work have been adversely affected, even ruined by the SIA. An organisation which is about as useful as a one legged man in an arse-kicking contest - and about as pointless too.

In this age of paranoia regarding terrorism, where we're supposed to queue up to get our fingerprints, DNA, phone records and internet browsing habits onto an almighty government database in order to "combat terrorism", Her Majesty's government allows up to 11,000 people in through the back door to claim their SIA badges. It's beyond satire and I can't find enough expletives to express how angry it makes me.

The long and the short of it though is that it is pretty fucking clearly in the public interest to know this.

Now, Dr Richard North thinks we're all getting our knickers in a twist over this one. He thinks that politicians shouldn't be above the law and that we're missing the point. (If you want to see this put in a very snide, ZanuLab fashion, check out the MP for Mogadishu East, Kerry McCarthy's thoughts).

Au contraire Dr. North. The point is that, indeed, MPs shouldn't be above the law, however it is manifestly clear that some of them are and some of them are not. For example, apparently it is ok for the Serious Fraud Office to have it's investigation scotched. You know - that investigation into corruption between Saudi Arabia and British Aerospace, involving not a few UK public officials. It got so close to home it was stopped in a manner resembling a presidential decree. And it is, sadly, only one example amongst many others.

The arrest of Green looks very much like a political arrest. It isn't a matter of right or wrong, of legality or illegality. No. It is about which political interests are at stake. And when a senior member of the opposition party is arrested on this basis, when so many more serious violations have been perpetrated by the party in power, and they have come away unscathed, then my friends, that is very fucking serious indeed.

Airstrip One, Uzbekistan and Schillings - "the rich man's libel"

Craig Murray, our man from Uzbekistan, is in the news again, although it's a scant amount of coverage. Murray was the UK diplomat for the FCO in Uzbekistan, harassed and forced out of his job for highlighting the fact that the Uzbeks were gaining "intelligence" for the "war on terror" through using torture and doing such delightful things as boiling the families of their political opponents alive. Murray considered this rank hypocrisy on behalf of Her Majesty's Government - especially given the official line on supporting democracy, opposing terrorism and corrupt regimes and "officially" not accepting evidence from terrorism.

Murray was right.

The government tried hard to destroy him, and almost succeeded. But he persevered and effectively won his case against the FCO in 2004. Since then he has been an outspoken critic of UK policy and has gradually been revealing more about his experiences in UK "diplomacy" and espionage.

One of the characteristics that makes Murray such an appealing, and credible, dissenter is his ability to reveal his own faults and foibles. You'll find this in his personal accounts of experiences with the FCO and in Uzbekistan. It's a shrewd move too. Whistleblowers get precious little attention as it is from our biased and corporatist media, so the most innocuous ad hominem can be used to write them off. None of us are super-angels, regardless of how earnestly we may desire to be. This is crucial to consider in any "official" or media responses to people like Murray, especially if they are ex-"insiders", for they are certainly feared most by the establishment.

One of Murray's weaknesses, as he himself puts it in his memoirs, is that he has always had an eye for the ladies. I have to confess to having exactly the same fault - and Murray noticed this in me himself in August this year. While in Edinburgh I had the opportunity to see his ex-bellydancer wife, Nadira, tell her story of life in Uzbekistan at the Gilded Balloon. I was sat right at the front, in a vest top, lounging back against the chair with my legs spread out in front of me. A quick look around revealed a very middle-class, middle-aged looking audience. There was also a lot of uncomfortable guffawing, coughing and shifting in response to Nadira's story - it included plenty that was of an explicitly sexual, and sometimes violent, nature. This audience clearly wasn't used to having such things presented to them so graphically and personally.

And there was me, sat there looking pretty if I do say so myself. I already found Nadira attractive. And I was very moved by her story. She interspersed some of it however with some belly dancing. I felt my mouth go dry and my loins stir. I also felt someone's gaze on me. Not Nadira's. She was too expert at dealing with a crowd, although when her eyes did rest on me several times for a few seconds I felt my pulse quicken. No it wasn't her. It was out of my immediate line of sight. I looked up and to my right to see Craig Murray on the balcony watching me watching his wife. If there was anyone in that audience capable of charming his wife from him it was me. He knew it. I knew it.

A moment of recognition passed.

We held eachother's gaze for a few seconds and I looked away. I wanted to put him at ease; and it had to be in true primate fashion - I had to communicate that I was not after his dinner or his woman. I rubbed my head and looked pained, then looked back up at him, mustering the most friendly smile I could. He returned it. We both relaxed and both got on with both watching Nadira perform.

This was very important. And I hope at least some of you reading this will be able to understand why. A man who's weakness is women is a man I can understand and relate to very well. And it's a very particular kind of weakness too. After this experience, and following hearing Nadira's story from her own lips, I found I understood Murray very well.

Not only understood him, but related to him also as a kindred spirit. A man who can be moved by money or bullshit is not a man I trust. A man moved by women however is someone I can trust very quickly and deeply; it is as I said though a very particular kind of influence I'm referring to here; and it works on me like it works on Murray:

It's not about sex or sexual desire per se, though that is surely a component (nature's and evolution's course compels us to f**k). It's about the connection and about being rooted to the earth. Nadira's and Craig Murray's experiences in Uzbekistan, and their treatment by the establishment of Old Blighty would leave anyone weeping and with emotional scars for life. It's about the fact that in amongst all of that emotion, amongst the terror, amongst the violence, amongst the ideals that you know will compromise you and the government that will sell you out in a second, amongst all of that you find home in the eyes of another.

Solace. Peace. Earthy reunion. Connection. Trust. Home.

I now regret not having had the opportunity to meet him properly in person when he gave a one off talk at Edinburgh's book festival. In amongst all of the politics, this is something I'd like to verbalise with him. I'm quite sure the communication we had through body language was enough, and we both understood at a pre-conscious level. He might not even remember. Still. It's important because this kind of thing is used to try breaking us - those misshapers of man don't understand though. See this character assassination hit piece on Murray in the (Murdoch owned) Times - "antiquated views of women and an old-fashioned sense of honour". Damn that old fashioned sense of honour! It's such testament to the Newspeak of our time that the Times can say such things without irony. Because not getting behind torture is antiquated, apparently.

Dubya invades and occupies two countries, condemning hundreds of thousands of people to death and misery, yet remains in office, sitting pretty.

Clinton is almost taken out by a blow job.

A substantial part of the trumped up charges made by the FCO against Murray concerned carousing and womanising. Prudish pedantry is an afflication also of both "left" and "right". We're all familiar with the "moral conservatives" of the "right" I'm sure. What of the "left" though? Oh they make a fine show of being open minded and liberated, yes. F**k who you want, in (almost) whatever way you wish - as long as it's just consenting adults it's all good. Or is it? God forbid you join a radical left wing group and have an eye for the ladies......oh gods, anything but that.

The women in my life keep me sane. They bring me back to earth. In amongst the constant torrent of BS and pain and insecurity heaped upon us by the convention of genetic defectives, also known as the government and the corporatist elites. I sometimes despair that I don't meet more women obsessed with politics and philosophy in the way I am. I sometimes become easily aggravated when all I seem to hear women wittering about when they pass me by in the street, at the nightclubs, in the gym, seems so fickle and pointless. Yet this is to miss the point - it's not so much what they say to one another that is important; it's the fact that they are talking at all. It's constant bonding. And as Carol Gilligan notes so well in A Different Voice, it's something most of us men lack, most of the time. Remember those adverts with Stephen Hawking, for British Thief (BT)? It's all going to be ok if we just keep talking.....(about how we feel).

This is why someone like Tania Derveaux is able to come from Leftfield and outflank the enemy. The new wave of activism she, and her friends, represent is such a beautiful breath of fresh air. They're assaulting the fort on so many subtle levels I have to take my hat off to them and hope they keep on keeping on. Never mind strangling the last king with the guts of the last priest. It's when the last corrupt legislator is killed by apoplexy at the sight of the last hypocritical puritan's hairybobbing man-arse that we might have a fucking chance of growing up as a species. We might even end schizophrenia.

So, back to Murray. He's back in the news because his old pals, Schillings, those purveyors of the rich man's libel case, are at his throat again. This time it's about experiences he wishes to relate in his forthcoming book, The Catholic Orangemen of Togo and Other Conflicts I Have Known. One of the subjects of the book is the activities of a British mercenary, one Tim Spicer (yep, the one of Mark Thatcher (Maggie's son) fame). According to the Evening Standard, Spicer "would be caused "profound distress and anxiety" by excerpts about him in the book".

Diddums.

The Guardian article above refers to Spicer as "Britain's most notorious mercenary". And it puts me in mind of something Bill Hicks said once - "Ain't y'all nothing but a bunch of hired f**kin' killers!?". It's bad enough what our own soldiers are asked to do by government. What do you think the mercenary companies might be able to get away with? Compared to the British soldiers, they are grossly overpaid and fundamentally unaccountable. "But wait", you might say, "you have right-libertarian leanings, doesn't this mean you're in support of mercenary armies?". Indeed, my political ideology commits me to this route, with one very important proviso: Right-libertarian philosophy is pretty f**king clear about where and how and when the initiation of force is acceptable. I can guarantee that almost all of the activities that Spicer and co take part in fundamentally violate these maxims. If you want a more thorough and academic treatment of this subject, try Rothbard's War, Peace and the State.

Note also, how the Standard refers to Murray's claims as "off-message remarks". It makes the most serious allegations against government sound like a minor gaffe at a tea party ("oh ever so sorry old chap, I just broke wind"). Glad I never pursued the possibility of entering the FCO myself. I would have had plenty of choice "off-message remarks" to make, preceded by the word "f**k" and followed by a few punches into the fat faces of those corrupt bureaucrats / warlords / terrorists / handmaidens. Never mind "don't shoot the messenger", it would have been " careful you're not beaten silly by the messenger".

Unfortunately, English Libel law, and Schillings, is very good at shutting down legitimate accusations. Murray says it best himself:

"...under this country's crazy libel laws you cannot even retell things you did yourself unless you have other objective evidence that you did it. And you may not express opinions that are not mainstream, or which may upset the government or the rich and powerful."

The long and short of which is that Murray is being forced to edit out sections of his book.

"The problem is fear of the cost of defending a threatened legal action by Tim Spicer, who has made many millions from taxpayers for running mercenary operations in Iraq and can afford the rich man's suppression of free speech through libel law."

Murray was previously threatened by Schillings last year by Uzbek billionaire Alisher Usmanov. This resulted in the server hosting Murray's website being taken down. It just so happened that, now London Mayor, Boris Johnson's website was also on the same
server, resulting in an almost comical backlash from the SchoolBoy ("It's bloody ridiculous!") politician as he was unwittingly drawn into the fray.

So what can we do?

With regard to the current round of censorship, Murray is defiant. He has published the edited sections on his website and has asked specifically that "other bloggers will mirror or re-publish to help get the truth out there." So there you have it. Here's one situation where you can help. I've copied the relevant passages to my hard drive and am repeating them here, here, here and here. Shove it you censoring fucks.

Here are the nuggets that Murray picked out from the edits:

- I must refer to Sandline as a "Private Military Company" and portray their activities in Africa as supporting legitimate government against rebels
- I must portray Western action in Iraq as "peace-keeping"
- I must say Shell were involved in corruption in Nigeria "inadvertently"

I have uploaded word copies of the passages that you can download here and here (or - while his site is still up you can find them on Murray's site here (Murray's essential summation of the "libel" content that he has just posted today) and here (complete list of edits)).

Please help. Pass on Murray's passages. Save them to your hard drive. Write them on the wall. Repeat them on your websites, in your emails, on the phone.

They can't shut all of us up.

Yet.

Financial Facepalming

It would be reasonable for many people to think that the explanations and issues behind the current economic clusterfuck were as opaque and convoluted as the financial instruments that managed to hide the bad debt for so long.

The whole event, however, especially for political commentators, has been more like a mirror. And also - as usual - what is most important goes unreported.

Let's look at the mirror analogy first though. Leftists who have stated clearly that they have absolutely no idea how the current financial system works still see fit to lecture us with explanations from Marx. You know - explanations, theories and the like provided 125 years ago - and that's being generous, assuming that in his sixties, Marx hadn't already developed that "where the fuck am I?" look that we see on the face of that ubermensch of U.S. politics, McCain (backed up of course by uberwench 'I know about foreign policy because Russia is next to Alaska' Palin).

Is it an accident that right-libertarians are massively overrepresented with professional economists and that left-libertarians continually fail to understand them (and, it seems, are intent on misrepresenting right-libertarian positions into perpetuity?). It's not as if the right-libertarian camp has not, consistently, pointed out that popular references to the "free market" refer to something that is actually fundamentally unfree. Characterised as it is by corporatism, corruption, monopolies and protectionism, this monster is objected to no less strenuously by right-libertarians than it is by left. So why the continuing, and often purposeful, misrepresentation?

Cries are ringing out proclaiming the "end of capitalism" and the "end of the free market". Given that the former term (capitalism) is often used as a euphemism for "everything I don't like" and adjusts its meaning according to it's users' whims that's a fuck load of things to be ending suddenly. Be very careful in any discussion of "capitalism" that you both share the same definition first. It's a popular and dishonest debating tactic used by dogmatic leftist propagandists to hold an assumed meaning without telling you what it is. It doesn't help that a lot of them can't make a meaningful distinction between "corporatism" and "capitalism".

One of the reasons I ended up taking such a strong interest in right-libertarian thinkers was that many of them seem to have a very sophisticated and nuanced understanding of economics and it's relationship to everything else in life. The modern right-libertarians deal with the nitty-gritty questions of detail that absolutely plague left-libertarian philosophies, yet for which the latter have no answers. Not only that, but the right-libertarians appear to have a sympathetic understanding of left-libertarian positions, (see for example, this interview Murray Rothbard), yet the converse isn't true. I'm wondering if from now on I should simply refer to 'the prophet Marx, peace be upon his name'.

A major part of this problem issues from the fundamental schizophrenia in the leftist camp that isn't present in the right: (left) Anarchists and State socialists mix, and often take the same sides, quite happily without any sense of irony or contradiction. I guess I shouldn't be surprised then that in the wake of this week's events I've head anarchists demanding "more regulation" (i.e. more state interference).

It's something else again that highlights the complete inadequacy of 'left-right' line - giving as it does, a false choice between one statist ideology and another. Only the left-Anarchists don't seem to get it yet. It's why I specifically use the terms 'right libertarian' and 'left-libertarian' to distinguish two groups of people who - supposedly - have very similar goals - broadly mini-archist (minimal state) through to anarchist sentiments. It's not a problem on the 'right side'. Market Anarchists / Anarcho-Capitalists mix well with mini-archists. Yet the converse does not occur on the 'left' side. They mix, and apparently sympathise instead with statists. It's bizaare. The left-libertarians should be allied with their right-libertarian cousins. Instead though the former would rather pretend that the latter doesn't exist and stick their fingers in their ears.

I think they're afraid and feel threatened by the cogency of the right-libertarian groups and philosophies. It's worth bring up a reminder too that the last two successful invasions of parliament weren't carried out by any hard bitten left-anarchist group. No, it was Fathers for Justice and The Countryside Alliance. They're not necessarily of right-libertarian stock either, yet it's embarrassing for the schizophrenic leftists. Someone else took their ball(s).

So, back on topic. Well - More regulation. Yes more! Here's some regulation right here. Err.....

"It is popular to take low lending standards as proof that the free market has failed, that the system that is supposed to reward productive behavior and punish unproductive behavior has failed to do so. Yet this claim ignores that for years irrational lending standards have been forced on lenders by the federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and rewarded (at taxpayers' expense) by multiple government bodies.

The CRA forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be denied. But what counts as discrimination?"

(emphasis mine)

Oh dear. It's a Godzilla sized law of unintended consequences. Again. This was where the sub-prime crisis started. The State will know best as long as prophets of Marx are in charge. Oh yes.

Also bear in mind what Guido Fawkes said recently:

"The investment banking model since the 1990s was flawed not by lack of regulation, it was flawed because of poor governance. Traders and management were incentivised to take risk for reward with minimal personal downside. Bank shareholders have lost money hand over fist whilst their hired employees have been paid hundreds of millions. The complex derivative structures that underpinned sub-prime lending were opaque to the point of incomprehensibility."

The popular meme amongst the "radicals" appear to be to tar everyone involved in the industry with the same brush. The ignorance is mind boggling (check "opinion former" Urban 75 if you don't believe me).

Anyway, back to our dearest ex-chancellor. According to Gorgon, we should be blaming:
1) The U.S. (never mind that our economies are fundamentally intertwined, especially since Gorgon (or fuck knows who made the actual decision - it's not as if the media has been asking) decided to go long on U.S. Securities....
2) Short sellers.
3) The price of oil.
4) "Off balance sheet liabilities"

On 1), well I think we all know that an American economy and foreign policy without a corresponding Anglo intertwinement would be like balls without a bag.

On those securities by the way..... Securities - Treasury Bills (or 'T-Bills') are seen as a 'safe investment'. It's no surprise then that many investors are pulling money out of what were seen previously as relatively safe bets such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs and buying T-Bills instead. What is a surprise is that the UK government, having invested in hundreds of billions of dollars worth of T-Bills over the last year appeared to have foreknowledge of this more than a year ago. See my blog, 'Britain does shoeshining' here. This wasn't an accidental decision (oops, just found $200 billion down the sofa to invest). We've been bullshitted AGAIN.

Ian Hislop on Question time this week - pointed out that Gorgon has not "taken us out of Boom and Bust" (but he said he would damnit!), he's just got rid of 'Boom'. All the while he was sat next to that sketchy cow Harridan Harperson.

Gorgon says: "The US government now owns much of the US mortgage market and a large part of the world's biggest insurer." Lenin is face-palming as we speak. I'm face-palming. Everyone is face-palming.

It was Gorgon who presided over the house price and credit fuelled "boom". It was also Gorgon who presided over PFI (Private Finance Initiative - we borrow at exhorbitant cost from the future to build things now that we still won't own at the end of it. "We" being the taxpayer schumcks - you and me). And he probably knows full well that he might be saved from the consequences of PFI by becoming unelectable when, in just a couple of years, the real costs of PFI will start appearing: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/03/27/cnpfi27.xml

p.s. PFI is one of those "Off balance sheet liabilities"

More cooking the books. More bullshit.

Quelle Surprise?

That oft-overlooked point that a free market of goods and services also requires a free market of information. Short selling is an important part of this, it provides information on the state of the company. Speculation and shorting of stock can excacerbate the situation, but it isn't creating it. Its been another thing the followers of the Prophet have been jumping on without really understanding. By the way, here's the 29 stocks on the London Stock Exchange you can no longer go short on
- they're financial institutions of one sort or another. There's a big problem, however, as Guido points out:

"The banning of short sellers is a side show, it is merely populist politicking. It will make conservative hedging very difficult, it raises the cost of capital to corporates and it will not change the underlying fundamentals. It will also create liquidity problems and a whole host of technical difficulties."

But it's ok because the short-sellers are EVIL CAPITALISTS. Followers of the prophet don't understand it so it's de facto evil.

Follow the gummint bullshit and swallow it hook, line and sinker why don't you. Meanwhile, while you weren't looking (again) - The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury is about to become the most powerful person in the world. (Not that the fourth estate was looking either).

The phrase "too big to fail" with regard to these horrific corporatist entities should be replaced with an old one - "unsinkable". Every similarity in the analogy I'm alluding to there is deserved. It should also be applied to government (you know, my fellow anarchists that BIG GOVERNMENT that you claim to hate), and that rotting carcass of shite that is claimed to be representative of radical thought in the U.K.

DECKCHAIRS. TITANIC.

Oh and someone should kick Harridan Harperson's face off, because everytime that gobshite speaks, this happens I have to facepalm and my head is starting to get sore.

So folks, who's gonna get us out of this mess? Zanu Labour, Blue Labour, or The Illiberal Undemocrats. You know where I'm pinning my colours, but then what the fuck do I know?

Britain does shoeshining

Never mind that our muppet chancellor said that we're about to hit the worst economic shoals for sixty years.

Never mind that we hit Peak Oil in the North Sea in 1999 and worldwide in November 2005. Never mind that Peak Gas followed straight behind it. Never mind that no one in the cabinet appears capable of even mouthing the terms (but backbenchers do give it a mention). After, what is unspeakable is unthinkable. Never mind that the government was warned in a parliamentary briefing in 1999 in no uncertain terms. Never mind that energy still fails to equate in the government's economic calculations and predictions - something known as the Solow Residual, where "energy" turns out to be a very convincing missing link. Never mind that the U.K. doesn't have a Sovereign Fund. Never mind the fact that you never even heard of a Sovereign fund.

Never mind that the UK and EU is hopelessly dependent on gas supplies from Russia, whilst making aggressive noises regarding the situation in Georgia (and never mind that the U.S. and Israel had boots on the ground in Georgia, training their armed forces before they rolled into South Ossetia).


Never mind any of this. (And hat tip to Patrick Vessey of the UK Libertarian Party for this one.)

Mind what Darling missed out. What the media missed out. Again. Mind your opinion of the U.S. Economy. Mind your opinion of the strength of the dollar (representing as it does, USA Plc). Think the U.S. economy is running on hot air? Possibly about to fully tank in the near future? Think that UK Plc is taking a hit too? Then don't read on.

Since June last year, the U.K. has increased it's holding of U.S. Treasury securities, from $50 billion to $280 billion. Here is the raw data. This means in the space of one year, the UK has gone from the world's 8th to the world's 3rd largest holder of US debt.

Nations buy securities (debt) from other nations as good investments. Or at least that is what they should do. That's what governments who look out for the interests of their citizens might do. UK Plc has just gone and purchased a f**kload of debt from the same place that brought us subprime mortgages and the crash of Northern Crock. Bailed out by "us". The socialisation of corporate debt.

Now we're seeing something truly remarkable. At the beginning of our own, balls against the wall, economic crunch, we're now seeing what could be the socialisation of another nation's debt and it's death-spiral economy. There's nothing short of a miracle that could make these securities good investments. And where will the buck stop for paying this one? You and me. Again.

Now we know what that strange group of islands off the North-West coast of continental Europe is for. You know, that one that isn't buffered by being part of the Eurozone (p.s. speaking to some European friends recently, they don't want sterling to join the Euro, why? Too much debt.... uhh....). Now we know what it's for. It's going to be a doorstop for the crashing US economy.

Skids up kids.

Londoner stopped by bullsh*t

Watch here to see a U.K. citizen stopped and searched recently under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Hopefully, this ballsy video capture of the police in action will actually bring home the meaning of "anti-terrorism" to more people.

A less choppy version of the video can be found here if you're having trouble with the above version. It is worth looking at the first link however for the comments.

Note that he has no choice about whether he can consent to being searched and have his property rifled through (including one of the officers apparently taking note of the details on one of his credit cards). He must either comply or be arrested (and subsequently face all of the additional consequences such as having his fingerprints and DNA taken and put on the national database).

Remember, if you are stopped under Section 44, Liberty currently have a search monitoring form that you should fill in. If enough of us do this Liberty will have some kind of statistical evidence for highlighting the bullsh*t that it is.

It is also worth noting the Police's own propaganda on this issue.

While I'm at it - here is a comprehensive debunking of the "nothing to hide" 'argument'.

If your initial response to all of this is to say that the police are just 'doing their job', you might want to refamiliarise yourself with the Nuremburg defence.

Here is a link to the author's blog, where he considers his reaction to the police.

And hat tip to John Sabotta over at Samizdata for this quote:

"So passed, to all appearance, from the minds of men the strange dream and fantasy called freedom."

- G. K. Chesterton, EUGENICS AND OTHER EVILS

The "Human Nature" paradox

There are many influences on one’s choice of political philosophy. The crucial aspect however is almost always the concept of “human nature” one holds – whether apprehended in full conscious awareness or not. Many philosophers have in the past questioned the validity of even asserting a ‘human nature’ at all. Indeed, beyond recognising the human organism’s basic survival needs (and sans Maslov's hierarchy of needs), pinning down a definitive “nature” from which a program of behaviour can be definitively deduced is exceptionally difficult. Counter examples abound to break whatever pattern is set down in stone.

Yet it has been demonstrated repeatedly that the machinery of evolution weighs heavily on human freedom. From R.A.Wilson and Timothy Leary’s ‘Eight Circuit Model’ to Sartre’s description of the ‘Human Condition’ to Geoffrey Miller’s ‘Mating Mind’ it is clear that most of our decisions, conscious and pre-conscious, are dominated by physically hardwired reactions and predilections.

Despite the enormous impact of our physicality and inherited behaviours, humans have developed the capacity to choose otherwise – at least when (self)conscious awareness intervenes. And the aforementioned accounts all include this key aspect. When one moves from consideration of the typical human experience to political philosophy however, something curious often happens:

Because we are evolutionarily geared towards survival, and hence self-interest, many political philosophers have assumed that this, in some kind of bizaare application of “morality”, means that humans are inherently “bad” (or in some cases “evil” – whatever that means). The reasoning is that because we have the capacity to choose otherwise, and very often don’t (because 95%+ of the internal influences on us originate in the body), we must be flawed creatures.

Hence begins the justification for all manner of tyranny over the human being. From the authoritarian church decreeing how one should react to perfectly natural urges and inclinations to the state regulating one’s economic behaviour (and much much more once ‘function creep’ sets in). In both cases the supposition is that us bad, awful human beings, require some supra-human entity (whether church, state or baseless absolutist value) to direct us. The first part of the paradox here of course is that such supervening entities are themselves made up of human beings.

The second part of the paradox is that whether humans are fundamentally “good” or “bad” (whatever that means to you personally), the argument for a supervening entity (state or otherwise) has to fail. If humans are fundamentally “good” (as supposed by anarchists and many Libertarians) then why do we need these entities at all (except where we all gain from the benefits of mutually consenting collective activity)? If humans are fundamentally “bad” (as supposed by statists and authoritarians of all hues) then the very last thing one should be proposing is giving some humans arbitrary power over others.

Either way it’s lose-lose for the authoritarians and statists.