Saudi Brutality And Tory Laughter

Crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed Bin Salman, is enjoying a visit to Britain this week and a variety of right-wing politicians, arms dealers, royals and London-based property developers are lining up to kiss his backside. 

He and his family are very wealthy due to the abundance of fossil fuels beneath the ground in Saudi Arabia.  The Saudis ensure their unearned wealth stays in the family by governing as an extremely brutal feudal dictatorship. 

  • The people who do the actual work in the country are very lowly paid – some unpaid as slaves – and they work in unsafe, unregulated environments
  • The right to vote is only for a privileged few and the power resides with the unelected Saudi family
  • There is no political freedom of speech and no journalistic freedom of speech
  • Political activists are jailed, tortured and murdered by the state, brutally and publicly
  • Rights and freedom for women are severely restricted
  • Homosexuality is illegal
  • The Saudi military is destroying homes, school and hospitals in Yemen, killing thousands of innocent people and backing this slaughter by blockading vital food and medical supplies at sea, leading to the spread of fatal (but treatable) diseases in Yemen

None of these facets of the extreme nature of the Saudi government are a problem for the Tory government.  The Tories, as always, have just one objective: How much money can be made for the financial gangsters?  Arms manufacturers and dealers, property developers and the security industry, all of whom donate generously to the Tories and who employ them during and after their tenures as MPs, are key suppliers for the Saudi family and their associates.  The Tories are delighted to act as brokers and facilitators and they couldn’t care less about thousands of slaughtered Yemeni civilians (killed by British-made armaments) or brutal assaults on Saudi civilians (by British-trained police) or thousands of empty apartments in London (“owned” by absentee Saudi investors) while homeless Londoners die in the streets.

Tories in HoC today laughing at Saudi government’s treatment of women

For the Tories, the money is all that matters and everything else is just a joke.

Yemen, after British-trained Saudi pilots have used British-made armaments




Saudi Brutality And Tory Laughter

FA CEO Martin Glenn And Political Symbols

The Football Association has displayed its stupidity and ignorance many times.  Recently, the decades-long failure to tackle child abuse by football coaches and the inept response to racism in the women’s game have shown how unprepared and unwilling the FA is to act as an effective governing body.  Its incompetence is a consequence of the limited intellect and blinkered worldview of its main protagonists.  Chairman Greg Clark, CEO Martin Glenn and unelected president Prince William are a trio whose respective ignorance is matched by their respective slow-moving wits.

Political symbols
Yesterday, Martin Glenn added to the catalogue of FA gormlessness at a jolly in Zurich.  Despite Glenn having previously admitted that he is “not a football person,” he had wrangled a speaking slot at the International Football Association Board gathering.  There, he said the following:

Things like a poppy are OK but things that are going to be highly divisive are not.  That could be strong religious symbols, it could be the Star of David, it could the hammer and sickle, it could be a swastika, anything like Robert Mugabe on your shirt – these are the things we don’t want.”

So, for clarity, the CEO of the FA equated the Star Of David with the Swastika.  Later, he issued one of those non-apology apologies: “I would like to apologise for any offence caused.”  Such a non-apology is designed to focus on people who are offended by the comments rather than highlight the offender.


Poppies and ribbons
The reason that Martin Glenn spoke about ‘political symbols’ was a reaction to Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola’s small yellow ribbon he wears to show support for jailed Catalunya politicians.  The FA have ‘charged’ Guardiola for wearing a ‘political symbol.’  Political symbols are normally prohibited by all football administrations.

The hypocrisy of the FA’s stance on the yellow ribbon is neon-lit: Every November the FA insists that clubs and players in England indulge in a poppyfest.  The FA had to fight UEFA and FIFA to be allowed to include the poppy on England shirts in international games because the poppy was described as a ‘political symbol’ by those international football associations.  So, The FA’s aggressive attitude toward the yellow ribbon may be the result of not wanting to have further conflict with UEFA and FIFA.

Guardiola’s commendable decision to support the jailed politicians is meant as support for freedom and for democracy.  Meanwhile, a few weeks ago, FA mandarins visited Qatar to sign a memorandum of collaboration with the Qatar Football Association; no-one knows what that means.  


Unfit for office
The problem with the FA isn’t its structure, the problem is the people in power.  Clark is an arrogant professional administrator who thinks he is utterly unaccountable to anyone, the so-called prince is as dim as a five Watt bulb but has a non-job for life as president of the FA and Glenn is out of his depth, grotesquely ignorant of how to behave in a public visible position and should be sacked.

FA CEO Martin Glenn And Political Symbols

Treason and Patriotism In Capitalist Democracies


Treason and patriotism are inventions.  Neither patriotism nor treason has any intellectual meaning.  Philosophical alignment with a manufactured country and accompanying otherness of people from a different country are both anti-human afflictions.  

Treason and patriotism are used descriptively as tools of distraction, division and control by those in power in order to create false competition between people.  Right-wing politicians are the most likely to advocate patriotism as a state of mind but they are usually assisted by the hapless centrists.  Intelligent socialists need to refute and deny patriotism as a concept; it needs to always be exposed as a spurious construct that is designed to divide humanity to enrich a few.  In capitalist democracies, treason is entirely inapplicable to everyone apart from small elites in power in each country and their financial beneficiaries.  They can trick each other, lie to and con each other, spy on each other and steal each other secrets.  For them it is a game.  But, for everyone else, treason means absolutely nothing.  It is not the role of the public in any country to protect one gang of exploiters from another similar gang.

During wartime patriotism is a mass killer.  Planned and enacted by competing financial elites, capitalist wars feed on patriotism.  Without induced patriotism, wars would never generate popular support.  To undermine imposed conflict, people from competing countries at war should work together constantly to crush patriotism.  Rather than accept that the elite (politicians, their financial donors, royals, senior army officers, etc.) need protection from their financial competitors in other countries, the people in the countries at war should engage in relentless simultaneous treason.

Patriotism is an enemy of humanity.

Treason can be a useful tool.


Treason and Patriotism In Capitalist Democracies

Leo Varadkar Tries To Coerce Sinn Fein Into Taking UK MPs’ Oath.

The Brexit-inspired jockeying for parliamentary majorities and associated shenanigans attained a new level of stupidity this week when unprincipled (and unelected) Taoiseach Leo Varadkar asked that the seven elected Sinn Féin representatives in Northern Ireland proclaim an oath to the British monarchy and take their seats in the Westminster parliament.  Varadkar’s suggestion mocks centuries of Irish battles for freedom and he is spitting in the faces of Irish revolutionaries.  

Post Office, Dublin, 1916

It is not just Brexit numbers in the British parliament that interests Varadkar.  He is keen to discredit Sinn Féin because the concocted government he leads at the Dáil knows that Sinn Féin are the strongest challengers to be the next Irish government: In Varadkar in The Times he claimed that Sinn Féin’s presence in the House Of Commons would “make things better for Ireland.”  Clearly, he said this to deliberately imply that their absence would have the opposite effect.  It is a cheap shot of a politician without principles.  Varadkar is a clown. 

Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau and Leo Varadkar


Leo Varadkar Tries To Coerce Sinn Fein Into Taking UK MPs’ Oath.

The Tory Social Media Army Is On The March!

Tory party chairman Brandon Lewis, a man who has developed relentless lying into an art form, announced that a Tory social media army will be unleashed.

Strong and stable! Strong and stable!

Taking inspiration from Russian bot farms and from the MAGA mob, a mix of nasty young brats and bitter old gits will regurgitate Tory lies and misdirections.  Smirk-filled provocation, personal abuse and melodramatic fake reactions will be the tone of their online engagement.  

Clearly, the main purpose of the Tory social media army is to distract people away from intelligent debate.  The Tories cannot compete on facts or on clarity of political vision.  They have nothing but the same lies repeated over and over accompanied by petulance.  The Tory social media strategy is the industrialisation of the dead cat tactic.

Some of the members of this army of insincere voices will be paid for their work.  

Bribery and corruption (sterling)

How to deal with the Tory social media army
Given how comfortable Brandon Lewis feels about lying, it is possible that the social media army won’t exist at all; perhaps, they have just cloned ridiculous troll James Cleverly.  New initiatives that claim to seek to spark Tory support are declared every week and inevitable flaccidity ensues.  However, just in case some hapless prats are engaged in online combat on behalf of the Tories, the (obvious) response to their operations is to

  • Ignore deliberate childish provocation that seeks an angry response
  • Don’t be distracted into circular and stupid non-debates
  • Make a note of lies and libellous comments for possible future use

The Tories, hampered by the growing negative consequences of their policies and by the continuing farce of their non-existent Brexit plans, have only mindless wacky wavy inflatable arm-flailing tubeman tactics to offer led by the trio of clowns Brandon Lewis, James Cleverly and Ben Bradley.  Their cluelessness is very welcome.

Tory trolls assemble

Related blogs
Tory Bratboys in Parliament
Tory Reshuffle: Internal party appointments emphasise its weaknesses
Respect a Tory MP? No thanks

The Tory Social Media Army Is On The March!

Centrism is a con-trick

Since 12th September 2015, professional centrists in British politics have pretended to support the need for a new centrist party.  These plaintive cries have claimed to be voices of despair worried about the future of civilisation in Britain.  The result of the EU referendum gave the wailers something to grasp onto as a convenient aim – to stop Brexit – but still their cries sounded empty and false.

Is there a need for a new “centrist” party?
No, of course not.  The Labour Party occupies the political spectrum spanning the middle-point and slightly leftward with a few outliers on the right in Progress, the SNP claims to be squeezed into a centre and, apparently, the Liberal Democrats still exist.  There is not a large group of people who avoid voting until some magical centre party emerges like James Corden with an unnecessary bit part in a Hollywood movie.  Simply, there is no public demand or interest in a new centrist party.

Has the centre succeeded in elections since September 2015?
No, it has not.  In the 2015 general election the SNP lost several seats (to both Labour and Tory), the Liberal Democrats remained a minor presence and a Corbyn-led Labour took seats from the Tories.  In Northern Ireland the seats were divided in a binary way between DUP and Sinn Fein.  So, no gains, only losses, for anyone claiming to be in the centre.  Why vote for something that defines itself by what it isn’t?

Where or what is the centre?
The centre of mass of two planets – for example, Earth and Mars – is an untethered point in the vacuum of space between the planets.  A point has no mass or volume and it isn’t anywhere.  It is defined by where it isn’t not where it is and by what it isn’t not by what it is. 

Analogously, the centre of politics is equidistant between the two sides of the political spectrum: Socialism on the left and capitalism on the right; it is defined (mathematically) but consists of emptiness like the aforesaid point in space.  It isn’t anywhere and it is defined by what it isn’t not by what it is.  The centrist activists describe their anti-ideology as not the blatantly corrupt exploitation of the Tories and not Jeremy Corbyn’s tendency toward socialism.  That is, they describe a null location.

Is centrism a con?
Yes, of course it is.  Visibly, it consists of nothing, but it does have a distinct purpose.  Its purpose is to pretend to be the opposition to right-wing exploitative politics in order to distract attention from genuine opposition.  Centrists want to prevent an effective challenge to the ideological conservative destruction of society because they do not disagree with such destruction.  Centrists are useful tools for the conservatives: They occupy opposition time in parliament and in the media where they indulge in distraction pseudo-debates to reduce time available for real analysis and for dissection of conservative destruction and, at elections, the centrists steal votes for their false opposition.  The doors for conservatism and centrism lead to the same pit.

Spot the difference?

Who are the centrists’ heroes?
There are no examples of centrists in power anywhere in the world because the centrists’ depiction of centrism doesn’t exist.  However, as part of the intrinsic con, some politicians are described as centrist successes. 

Thatcherite French president Emmanuel Macron conned his way to power via the invention of a “new” political party, En Marche – Onward.  He has enacted policies that favour the financial elite including many attacks on workers’ rights and he has used racism as a tool of division – Macron on ‘civilisation’.  Macron is this century’s Norman Tebbit.  (N.B. At time of writing Norman Tebbit has yet to die – updates when necessary.)

Enfourchez votre vélo et chercher du travail

Despite the clarity of Macron’s political position prior to his election and despite the subsequent screaming demonstrations of his intent as a puppet of the financial exploitative elite, the professional centrists have pretended to acclaim him as a centrist icon who must be emulated.  The proponents of centrism have supported Macron because he is unambiguously a bog standard conservative and because he has concocted a fraudulent image of newness.  He is an example of the politics the centrists support and an example of the confidence trickery they wish to use.

Case Study

Professional sleight of hand squirrel pointer Chris Deerin of the New Statesman magazine has clumsily presented the centrist strategy of deception.  In Deerin on Macronisationism he regurgitated a list of lies and misdirections about the centre and about Macron.

With a gaping hole in the centre-ground of British politics, why not fill it?” asked Deerin.  Yes, there is a gaping hole in the centre of politics as there always has been because the centre is not a thing.  Some charlatans have taken dumps in the hole and claimed they can then see Eldorado but it remains a null location.  An unfillable hole.

Macron deliberately sought to unite centre-left and centre-right by going after the populists directly. By focusing on the hard-right Marine Le Pen and the hard-left Jean-Luc Mélenchon as his enemies, he opened up a large space in the centre which only he appeared able to fill. The En Marche!” Deerin exclaimed excitedly.  Macron is firmly positioned as a right-wing Thatcherite conservative but Deerin restated the falsehood that Macron is in some imaginary centre.  Deerin further exaggerated his blatantly dishonest depiction of the democratic political spectrum by describing a soft-left politician (Mélenchon) and an far-right extremist (Le Pen) as at similar distances from a false centre; that is, he repeated the dual con that a traditional left-of-centre socialist tendency is “far-left” and that the middle of the political spectrum is in the vicinity of Margaret Thatcher.  There are obvious candidates [for a new party] with profile on the centre-right: Anna Soubry, Nicky Morgan, Justine Greening and others.”  So, according to Deerin, a few Tory MPs are in his imaginary centre.

Deerin listed what was intended as a sequence of facts supporting a need for a new centrist party.  It was a list of embarrassing comments.

  • There are several untested arguments for a new party” is blatantly false.  The pointlessness of a non-party standing for nothing has been made clear often and the con trick of so-called centre parties has exposed itself often, most recently with the Liberal Democrats wilful enabling of Tory destruction from 2010 to 2015.
  • Nature abhors a vacuum, and the centre must, one way or another, be represented.”  Represent what, exactly?  It is representative of nothing.  It is the opposite of having a political opinion.
  • For all the votes cast last year for Labour and the Tories, voters may not behave in the same way if presented with different options.”  Labour does now have a different option and that is something the likes of Deerin are vehemently opposed to.  

To add hilarity to the stupidity Deerin concludes his justification for a new party in the vacuum of the centre by applauding the SDP: “And then there’s the SDP’s success, rather than its failure.”  Apparently, the SDP’s success is that “New Labour emerged in its intellectual wake.”  That deduction is sheer fantasy.  The SDP’s aim was to scupper Labour’s challenge to Thatcher’s Tories and to discourage Labour from moving leftward.  The only political success that the SDP can claim is that it played a willing part in maintaining the destructive Tory government.

Deerin knows that Macron is a typical pit-dwelling conservative and that is precisely the politics that Deerin wants to see prevail. 

The unfillable hole
The professional marketing team for a new centrist party in Britain have a single objective: They want to prevent a left-wing party from being elected as a government.  To achieve this aim, the charlatans describe conservatives as non-conservatives and they lie about the necessity of a political party that occupies a null position on the political spectrum.  

The centre of the political spectrum is an unfillable hole because it has null dimensions; it has no width and it has no depth.  To even describe it as having zero volume is an insult to Brahmagupta’s legacy.

Centrism is a con-trick

Brexit: Boris Johnson’s speech at Policy Exchange

Trained at wealth terrorists’ finishing school Eton, Boris Johnson is bereft of any concept of membership of society.  He has been taught that vehement adherence to selfishness is the only oath to take in life.  Equally, he was inculcated to be ignorant of any difference between truth and lies.  His entire political life has focussed on enabling his acquirement of unearned wealth and assisting the financial gangsterism of like-minded enemies of humanity.  

Prior to the respective campaigns to retain EU membership and to leave, Boris hawked his support to the highest bidder; the financial backers of Leave won.  His support for exiting the EU is based solely on that higher offer for his vocal and political support.  Principles are anathema to Johnson.

A question that is periodically posed about Johnson asks if his apparent stupidity and woeful lack of knowledge is an act or a true representation of his vacancy.  The latter option is true but it doesn’t matter if his buffoonery is an act or else an attempt to hide his ignorance because it achieves its aim of distraction and avoidance; the Johnson persona is a product of his training.

Today, Boris Johnson expelled flatus at a small gathering of titterers at right-wing think-tank Policy Exchange.  The speech lacked any content because Johnson has no insight to offer, he is incapable of understanding analysis and he knows that there are no cohesive or truthful arguments to support his stance.  Cod patriotism mixed with barely disguised snide comments at political opponents, within and without the Tory party, were delivered to a small fanclub.  Empty soundbites jostled with pathetic nods to a fantasy of Britain trading successfully with the whole world after the EU exit. 

He was deliberately anti-intellectual.  Of course, he is incapable of being intellectual but his postured emphasis on blissful simplicity was an appeal to anywhere but the brain.  Johnson’s strategy, honed at the aforesaid school, was to denigrate the natural human capacity to seek to learn, be informed and, thus, make good decisions in life; like all enablers of elite control, Johnson was taught that knowledge and analytical thought should be discouraged in the masses.  

He performed as a club comic.  If there existed a balanced media, Johnson’s speech would receive the ridicule and dismissal it deserved in a footnote at the end of a news bulletin or on page fifteen of a newspaper.  


Brexit: Boris Johnson’s speech at Policy Exchange