Unite The Useless Strikes Again

I know I'm making too much commentary, but just watching Newsnight before, yet another turd from Unite is having a wankfest over Brown, "going back to old Labour".

Clause IV is practically the crux of Old Labour; did Brown, or any other New Labour hack, for that matter, say they were going to reintroduce it? No; they sure the fuck didn't. Did Brown say he was going to lift these oh so restrictive "anti-union" laws, which Derek Simpson talks about?...

...nope

Keep shilling, Unite. Keep shilling. New Labour may give Derek and his cronies some of the donor money back, if they continue the good propaganda.

System Own Them, Babylon Control Them......

Gordon Brown's Speech: A Patchwork Of Soundbites

Really now, we never did tell Brown that you don't "try, try, try, try, try, try, try and try again", in politics, as you just end up looking mundane.

One thing though, admittedly, that I have to hand to Brown, is that he's no showman; he's fairly forthright in his persona, not coming across like some underhanded businessman, like Tony Blair, David Cameron, and even Barack Obama.

But, his actual content within his speech, was deception after deception.

He announced to us all of how ID cards for sure will not be compulsory. Oh, uhm, yeah, we already knew that before. And right after he made the announcement, the usual banal New Labour drones clapped enthusiastically; as if Brown made a revolutionary turn-over for human rights....

Oh...wait, it was New Labour who conceived of the idea. In fact, it was only until they realised that they couldn't afford this ramshackle idea, that they shelved it, to erode in the ages.

Not only that, ho ho, but the National Identity Database is still up and running; open for voluntary ID cards and foreign nationals, but still up, nonetheless, and they could retort their position within an afternoon, to get it up and running.

Next, there's his idea for free childcare for poorer families, funded by the scrapping of child benefits for richer families. All sounds nice, but who constitutes as being a rich family, unable to apply for such benefit? At what scale of income would this be? If Brown hasn't conceived of the income bracket, for this scheme, then how can anyone seriously believe he's going to propose such an idea? It's just typical New Labour spin, and nothing more.

Then there's his awfully radical vision of making an elected House Of Lords. What a spectacular idea, that, er, only the vast majority of the British population have been calling for, for years on end. Oh, how original. And a proposition to be made as soon as he WINS the next election; how genuinely felt that proposition that is! Reminds me of Tony Blair's PR vote promise that we, uhm, never got!

If this was genuinely felt, then the most apt time to bring this proposition about, was during the height of the MPs expenses debacle. Or better still, the Cash For Honours scandal.

His proposition for 16 - 17 year old Single Mums to get free housing is the most radical thing he's said, and, ideally, it would be a great idea.

A start, would be to actually build housing. The reason house prices here, are so fucking ludicrously expensive, is because of the small supply, yet huge demand for houses. If council houses are going to be built at the pathetic rate they're being built, then forget the idea. We have about three million council homes in the UK, at the moment, as an estimate. Hey, just another radical thought here, but, erm, I just got the extraordinary notion that that...isn't enough.

On a final note, I'd like to point and laugh at a recurring notion within Brown's speech: that the Labour party are the party for the "many", and the Tories are for the "privileged few".

Certainly true on the last part; the Tories are just the same old elitist hacks from the 20th Century, and, rest assured, I'll be particularly hitting hard into their shit, when it comes to their conference.

But...New Labour....party of the many? The same New Labour that has managed to be the absolute antithesis of the Labour grassroots? The same New Labour that has managed to widen the gap between rich and poor in this country? The same New Labour that has spent their entire 12 years appeasing the corporatist agenda, without peer? The same New Labour that has had the most rigid intransigence, on practically every single issue, thoroughly ignoring public opinion, when it's in utter disapproval of what New Labour have done and are doing? The party of the many, that has an unelected leader, even on the scale of internal Labour leader elections? They are the party of the many? Fuck off

I'm no Daily Mailite; New Labour have genuinely achieved some good things. Two, being the National Minimum Wage, and the fantastic advancement of LGBT rights. They're merely a star within a smog cloud, I'm afraid to say, though.

The Four Horsemen Of The Fuckupalypse

*The Four Horsemen, increasingly worried about the climate of the World, and religion's influence, have an in depth discussion...*

Richard Dawkins: Do you, you know, do you ever get the feel, like we're being viewed as, erm, you know, extreme atheists, and militant atheists? We seem to attract this, sort of, uhm, image about us, that we're, uhm, fundamentalists, almost.

Daniel Dennett: I get the accusation all the time, in my long extensive lectures about why religion should be wiped out with all human resources capable of doing so. What you have to realise, is that these damn religious Neanderthals, call everyone who they disagree with as being, "extreme". They're the extreme ones! They want to spread their beliefs globally!

Richard Dawkins: Jolly well right. But we have to portray ourselves differently, not to look like the generic pseudy, reactionary, boring old white men.

Sam Harris: Atheist rap?

Richard Dawkins: Oh no no no, dear boy. Like what I'm doing; starting an Atheist bus campaign, for which we tried to borrow some of Ken Livingstone's bendy hybrid buses, but he refused, on the basis of it being Islamophobic-

Christopher Hitchens: Arrant nonsense

Richard Dawkins: Quite, Christopher, and-

Christopher Hitchens: It's an absolute disgrace that we, I mean, you Brits have elected a theocratic, multiculturalist, raghead appeaser in as the mayor of your capital city. What next? Changing rooms for terrorists? You've had a fabulous history of defeating bloody foreigners trying to invade, and now this? THIS? AND Prince Charles, who's going to convert to Islam? No wonder us sensible, right-of thinking folk move out of there.

Richard Dawkins: That'll do, Christopher. Don't insult our traditions I-

Christopher Hitchens: I should jolly well think not. In that case, you shouldn't have elected a senile, Muslim apologist multiculturalist in as-

Richard Dawkins: Yes, yes, yes. Anyway, I say, we should have Atheist buses, Atheist churches, Atheist boy scouts, and even separate Atheist water fountains, which will, you know, reach out to people

Christopher Hitchens: I'd prefer whiskey fountains

Richard Dawkins: Yes, well, we'll resolve that one later. I don't think we should be distributing such influences, in case they have a bad effect

Sam Harris: Religion is the biggest drug of all!

Richard Dawkins: You said it, Sammy! Now, how are we going to secure the next healthy generation of young Atheists?

Daniel Dennett: Having intercouse?

Richard Dawkins: Now now, Daniel, as a scientist, I like to keep an open, sceptical mind, you know. Ah heh heh, that's how we came to Atheism, after all, but I'm not going to take on board impossible situations for the four of us. So we'll have to think up of something else.

Christopher Hitchens: I've been saying this since the very start, and if there was a start before that start, I'd be saying it then too. The Iraq War is absolutely justified, as a means to create a starting block on removing the world of religious influence, and significantly reducing the raghead population *drinks whiskey*. All the freedom that comes with dominated and imposed secularism and disbelief in God would only sought to be undermined by Islam, and, weapons of mass destruction, or not, which, Islam, in itself, is most certainly one *burp*, we should have invaded to seek control and control the country, to then downsize Muslim birthrates. Oh, you don't agree? Then try living in an Islamic theocracy. Try living in one of these repressive, third world, savage hellholes, where people are forced to be slaves, and are forced to pray five times a day, and even worse, the washing of your feet beforehand. I'll wash my own feet, when I fucking well want too, which happens to be never, for that matter, and if any theocratic shite of a Mullah tells me otherwise, then I'll write a special book, dedicating to criticising them for the bastards they are.

Richard Dawkins: Now now, Christopher, we're pondering the growth of young secularists; not the downsizing of religious populations. Daniel, you're a lecturer; what do you propose? Apart from intercourse.

Sam Harris: What about me-

Richard Dawkins: Nobody cares about you. You're too boring for inclusion into the discussion. Or flatten them cab door ears of yours, so people can actually take you seriously. Now, Daniel....

Daniel Dennett: The likelyhood of us boring old pretentious farts getting appeal of any kind is slim, Richard. Like an interfering crow, we'll just get told to fuck off if we conduct ourselves in our own manner, or else get shot.

Richard Dawkins: You really are marvellous with your crow comparisons, old chap

Next meeting with the Four Horsemen will commence, when, uhm, whenever.

Shouting, "Shouting Fire In A Crowded Theatre"

I'm absolutely sick of this line of argument of, "Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre", being used against free speech.

And the most ironic thing, is that the people who have used this phrase regularly, in the past, and in the present, have been emblems of "irresponsible" speech, in various ways.

In fact, as pointed out by Christopher Hitchens (And if it needs to be stated by him, then you know it's time to step in and refute this argument), the actual line was first used in a trial against Yiddish speaking Socialists, who were campaigning against the First World War in America (You know...the war that was undoubtedly the biggest waste of life in human history, all over paranoia and warlords getting war thirsty)

But, okay, let's refute the crux of this line.

First of all, the example isn't valid, in comparison to "Hate Speech", as you're legally bound, by either Health & Safety law, or order of the theatre staff, to leave the building if there's reason to believe a fire is occurring in the building.

Point being: it is a forced reaction. You have to react in a certain way when hearing that.

Now, let's compare that with the worst form of "Hate Speech", which would be, say, advocating the death of a person or people. Even when you hear somebody advocating such, you don't have to react, by going out and killing the aforementioned individual(s). It is NOT a forced reaction. And, well, because of that, it's ENTIRELY OPTIONAL when someone does concede with the viewpoints expressed, and goes out and kills someone. They chose to do that, and you'd have to look at the individuals' psyche to reconcile why they went out to kill someone. So, in theory, the "fire in a crowded theatre" argument doesn't compare with advocating someone's death. And, really, would saying, "Oh, well, I only killed so and so because somebody advocated it", stand up in court? Most certainly not.

And then there's another huge problem: intent of speech. What if a satirist were to jokingly advocate somebody's death, and somebody were to then take him seriously? Would that be, "Hate Speech"? And if you made a distinction, in legality, how could it be proven? How can you prove, whether someone was being satirical, at the end of it all? Or even literally, for that matter? Our language is soaked in ambiguity, after all.

But even this is taking an extreme, because often, this argument is, in fact, used against people who don't necessarily advocate the deaths of individuals, but who espouse a viewpoint that would be seen as "racist", or whatever.

What does banning these viewpoints do to help, anyway? All it does, is give them a seemingly legitimate case, by claiming the establishment has "something to hide". Hate Speech laws are petrol for the fire; they exacerbate the issue of extremists, and make their case more covered widespread.

Which would make shouting, "Fire!", in a crowded theatre an apt thing to do.

Thought Sir Menzies Campbell Was Inept? Try Nick Camer, erm, I Mean, Nick Clegg Out For Size

What have we all done in out lifetimes? Aside from breathing, sleeping, eating, blinking, and all that kind of thing. What is it we've all done at one point in our lives?

The answer, is looking at a picture or a clip of Nick Clegg and mistaking him for David Cameron; I think I've done it thrice; tell me how many times you've fallen into the trap.

But Clegg has really made a balls-up of this Lib Dem conference. First, though, let's give them credit: they're actually the only ones talking about policy; Cameron is concealing his policies like a dog, frantically burying a bone. (Just look at the "policies" on the Tory party website; so much, yet so little said)

And, well, New Labour may as well put Hazel Blears in charge of the Labour party, to ensure them coming third. Or forth.

Let's focus on them planning to scrap their long-standing policy of scrapping tuition fees; why?

New Labour's Midas Touch Of Fuckupery has managed to erode and assimilate the education system into one, pretty bleak, dismal path for many young people; that, being Primary School, to High School, to College, then to University. And oh, look; you have to PAY for the last one!

Given that we need to bring stability back into the economy, via jobs and productivity, how about the really radical idea of making tertiary education available to all, so we can increase potential for productivity, to help us get out of this financial crisis?

Or is Gordon The Moron's plan investing in trident warheads to nuke a billion individuals to make resources go around better, bwahahahahah!?!?!?

Moving on, though, one big thing being thrust against the Lib Dems, is the lack of a general party consensus; actually, that's fairly understandable, given the party's history of being a coalition, as well as not being able to put a cigarette end between both the other two parties.

But Clegg's handling of this has been dire; in his ending speech, he laughed off Evan Harris' criticisms, and acted like it was something to be forgotten...no, you douche; you've just wasted your prime chance to strike back and remove the "unelectable" perception about the Lib Dems!

Actually, I think there's a lot to be done, in that field, which Clegg just hasn't fucking done in his campaign. For instance, a serious, committed Lib Dem leader would bust the "THREE main parties" myth, when the Lib Dems haven't been anywhere near of getting a decent crack of the whip.

Instead, I see Clegg doing absurd shite, like filming him and his wife in the kitchen; the kind of shit you see David Cameron indulging in. The whole, "Meet The Camerons", and all that wank.

Incidentally, when my mother was watching that same footage, she did the mistake I mentioned before that we all make, by mistaking Clegg as Cameron.

And there we have it; I see no future for them, unless Vince Cable, a man whom I've always invested trust into, and have never been let down on that, even when putting himself up against the legend that is Paxman, becomes leader of the pretty fluid party known as the Lib Dems .

I do miss the great days of Charles Kennedy. Perhaps if Clegg were to imitate a former Lib Dem leader, instead of a Tory one, they may get somewhere? "The conman of British politics", vs "The doppelgänger of the conman of British politics" sums it up between Cameron and Clegg.

Unions In This Country Are A Shambles

I took the liberty of watching the recent ongoing conference by the TUC, about union policy, motions/amendments and initiatives, and I was dismayed at what I could justifiably call either a "conference of individuals severely out of touch with reality", or a complete wankathon.

I'll go for the latter description, thinking about it.

Credit to Bob Crowe though, whom, I disagree with strongly on most issues, actually had something sensible to say about the future of the unions, reasonably intelligent explanations on the shift to the BNP, and how to make a change.

Within this ridiculous façade of a conference, was pointless jargon about the recession, putting across which popular minority groups would be hit by this recession the most, between ethnic minority union representatives claiming ethnic minorities will be hit the most, and female representatives claiming women will be hit the most. Some, however, accepted that both will be targeted groups.

The fact is, is that EVERYONE will be hit in this recession, in dismaying circumstances, but the fact of the matter, is that there is undoubtedly ONE group who will be hit above all else: the youth. The youth, whether they're Black/White/Asian, Male/Female, disabled or not, LGBT or not, the sting of this economic crisis will be concentrated on the youth. And you can whip up all the pathetic, petty little divisions up, on "who to concentrate more on", but this recession will hit young people the worst. Most importantly though, this recession will affect EVERYONE.

Well, as well as dividing the already pitifully divided, Ed Miliband, of all New Labour hacks, was giving us his say on climate change issues, and a "green" way to get out of the recession; namely, via the mythical clean coal technology.

I know the Miliband brothers have brought the reputation upon themselves of desiring to be the British versions of Al Gore (No compliment), but for the TUC to be investing their faith in ANY issue, on a New Labour spin-merchant, shows how out of touch the TUC are with reality; particularly, that reality which is staring at them right in the face, on a day to day basis: the general nullification of Union activity, created by the Tories, yet FULLY backed by the corporatist New Labour party.

But what really cut to the bone for me, was that slimy, supine, squatt of a man, Derek Simpson, the leader of the Union, known as Unite The Union (More commonly put, as Unite The Useless), was on the conference, putting down any attempt by the TUC to shift from the New Labour party; the party that has stabbed the unions in the back since Blair took to power, and basically responded to such attempts within the TUC by repeating the mantra, "You might as well VOTE Tory!".

Fuck you, Derek.

No, really. This fucking bastard is the epitome of why the working classes are in such inequity with the richest in the country. Not because of the Conservatives, or even Gordon Brown and New Labour, but these fuckers.

Because these people COULD change something; Unite has over a million members. Given that we have a current population of 60 million, and given that around 60% of the general public vote on average, a million is a sizeable amount of the electorate.

Not even that, but a million members could create a hell of a civic movement.

And Derek talks of changing Labour from New Labour to traditional, but does he strive to do it? EVER? No, not at all. He gives EVERY excuse under the sun, from giving us the Derek Simpson dolchstoss of "not supporting Labour means an inevitable Tory victory, and that's the worst possible thing to happen ever!!!!!!!!11", to these anti-union laws, BACKED probably most staunchly by the corporatist agenda of the New Labour machine, preventing any action (Why doesn't Derek organize a protest to get rid of them, then? Starting from the bottom often has to be done, and is better than not starting at all), and then the hilarious excuse, of when bringing up the issue that his New Labour shill organization of Unite, actually FUNDS the New Labour party, he replies that he wouldn't refuse donors, as it would appear like he's "trading policies for cash".

Well, Derek, I know your vanity outweighs your convictions, on any given issue, but the fact of the matter, is that people, working people, who belong to your union, being affected by the recession in or way or another, even if it's fear of being made redundant, are PAYING to be a member of your ramshackle union, and, as both an elected member of the union by the members, and someone who's being funded out of pocket to acquire REPRESENTATION, you are nothing but obliged to represent your disenchanted members, by giving New Labour the boot, and refusing to pay money to New Labour, which is normally paid wholesomely by the struggling and pressurized working members of your union, who make up a sizeable section of the British workforce, being squeezed to death by the recession and the 12 year legacy of New Labour corporatism, and its stamping on the heads of the working classes.

You are a weasel, Derek. And the ugliest variation of one. You are weak, degenerate, supine, and your performance at the latest TUC conference was exasperating, by all accounts.

But don't feel alone; other pathetic Union leaders, whose names, I don't even know, had also expressed your sentiments of turning the back on the very people who put them there, prioritizing the appeasement of New Labour. I can see the similarities between you people and New Labour, in this regard. And watching you grovelling to support of New Labour, on the expense of the ordinary working man and woman, is bone chilling.

There's nothing on Earth worse than you people. NOTHING

It Finally Happened

Brown admits to the TUC what we already knew.

Next step is for him to tell us how much he's going to cut, percentage wise, so I can call him Mr __ Percent.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" - Joseph Goebbels

Only problem was, of course, that Brown didn't repeat it enough. Or did he?

Nick Griffin On Question Time? Perish The Thought!

BBC Question Time Directors are doing the scandalous thing of actually reaching out to all sides of the political spectrum, by inviting Nick Griffin on the panel. Time to create another faux moral outrage to get respect from the equally ridiculous "anti-fascist" clique!

....Oh, wait, never mind; Peter Hain has already filled this slot, with his pathetic attempt at boycotting Question Time.

Actually, Peter Hain, a man who I have as little respect for as I do for a slug, shouldn't be singled out; the entire traditional Labour position on the BNP, to refuse sharing any platform with them, is absurd and unrealistic.

We've gone for so long leading an immigration debate which has been nothing but speculation, 2 bit analyses on the subject, and an incoherent and mundane ramble about the past, and the perceived future. Yawn.

An example of every bleeding immigration debate I hear:

Person 1 (Reactionary shitehawk): Well, uhm, you know, immigration is a fine thing for this nation, but needs control. New Labour has opened our floodgates, let in every Tom, Dick and Abdul (Supposed to be Harry, but, hey, since it's about Johnny Foreigner, we'll include a typically ethnic name. Anyway, onto immigration being to do with nothing on race....) in. Our GREAT British Values of drinking a Chine..er, I mean India...er, ahem, 'scuse me, GREAT BRITISH beverage, known as tea, Christianity (Like that wasn't put into Britain by force!), fish and chips (Depending on where you live, fish and chip shops were spread by Irish immigrants), democracy (House Of Lords isn't exactly a beacon of that), and freedom (Too silly to comment on), is being eroded by Mass Immigration, and it needs to be controlled! Multiculturalism is the problem! Fit in or ship out, I say!

Person 2 (Faux multiculturalist dipshit): Well, I mean, back in the day, I remember the all white societies (Nothing to do with race, eh?), and it was a far less interesting place! (Since when has racial diversity meant more interesting environments?) Thanks to immigration, we now have things like plenty of Indian restaurants! (We had them before mass immigration, doh) Immigrants also do all the jobs that British people don't want to do! I welcome other cultures coming in, as opposed to when it was an all white society! And it's not like we kept within our country; we deserve these immigrants coming in, from our days of British Imperialism! (File under: non sequitur)


Even IF we manage to eradicate the issue of race in immigration, we still won't be able to hold a sensible debate on its economic or social values, or even how stringent border policy should or shouldn't be. Every debate now is just a yawnfest on the most basic of issues, and correlating unrelated things with perceived improvements or declines in society. Idiotic.

Anyway, to link the digression; the reason we have such mundane immigration debates, is exactly because of letting the BNP preach to an audience where politicians fear to tread. It's their kind of Lowest Common Denominator shit that leads to a watered down debate on immigration. And frankly, it's getting annoying. It's about time we, as in, the public, AND the politicians, confront and QUICKLY demolish the mistruths of the BNP. THEN, after they've been thoroughly refuted enough to where their kind of propaganda is dormant enough, we can move to an actual intellectual debate on immigration, with NOTHING to do with race, culture, or "British values" and all that shite.

So, uhm, yeah, let Nick Griffin go on Question Time, and make an ass of himself. My only hope about this, is that they actually have strong panellists on with Nick, unlike the usual wishy washy politicians.

Oh, by the way, any Question Time archives would be appreciated, for me to watch. Thanks :D