An Innocuous Case of Elite Power

Some key tenets that one must adjust themselves to when living in Europe is that rules and regulations apply only to some and not others; that rules apply universally, except when they don’t; and rules can be changed just as easily as they are made. The result fundamentally makes a mockery of the rule of law.

A perfect example of how European elites piss all over the rule of law is the recent call to change the International Monetary Fund bylaws to pick Kristalina Georgieva of Bulgaria as the new head. The example is rather innocuous. Who gives a fuck? – it’s just the head of the IMF. True, it’s a rather inconsequential example. But it’s a case that illustrates my point exactly.

For context, the situation is that the bylaws need to be changed so that Ms. Georgieva can be appointed because she will be 65 at the time of taking up the office where the current rules state the person must be 64 or below.

This is a classic example of how the European elite make rules, only to change them the next day. What is the point of making the rule if you are only going to change it? Do elites actually think for a second of why the rule was put there in the first place. Maybe it was to make sure that the person in charge can make it through the day without inadvertently pissing themselves. Maybe it’s so we don’t have someone with Alzheimer’s disease running the show.

The truth is that they never cared about the rule. They knew they would be able to change it as soon as it suited them. Rules and regulations serve two functions for the elite. First, laws create the illusion in the eyes of average citizen that the system is just. Second, it makes political systems complex and difficult to understand. The effect is that it excludes people who do not have the time or resources to understand the system better. Third, laws give justification for elites to exclude and reprimand those who do fundamentally challenge the system.

This situation where elites just change the rules on a whim to fit their agendas allows them to control the system for themselves whilst keeping the boot on the throat of the poor and downtrodden. A part of this is due to the elitist mindset that pervades European political circles inherited from their aristocratic ancestors. Power is, and should be, exclusively reserved for those of the right type i.e. those who look and sound the part. This is not a system based on bloodlines. In some ways it far more nefarious. It’s a system based on ideological and behavioural homogeneity.

“The peasants are to be kept apart from us.”

This elitist mindset cuts to the core of why some of the most powerful positions are not elected ones. The Presidents of the European Council, European Commission, European Parliament and European Central Bank[1] are all politically appointed by other elites. The average citizen has zero power on the outcome, and they enforce the status quo power structure.

Unfortunately, much of the elite are growing old, and so this case also shows how baby boomers can’t help themselves when it comes to entrenching their decades long power structures. This woman should be retiring along with the rest of these knuckleheads. Give the position to a younger, more vibrant, candidate who represents the vast majority of the world’s population.

Don’t give me the bullshit talking point that “we need someone with experience.” Fuck that. Experience doesn’t change anything. Trump is 73 going on 107 – the man is fucking idiot. Experience doesn’t equal to intelligence, nor does it equal performance. Most people in politically appointed positions have subpar intelligence because they were appointed by people with subpar intelligence.

Politics does not attract the demographic of society which we could describe as exceptionally gifted with intelligence (case in point: the current occupier of the White House). The best of our species are doctors, scientists, and engineers. Politics is the epicenter of mediocrity, neither cripplingly stupid, nor amazingly smart.

To be absolutely clear to those who read this, and also suffer from retardation. I am not critiquing or criticising Ms. Georgieva herself. I am pointing my finger at the power structure that is controlled by baby-boomer elites who control and manipulate power to their ends at the detriment of the rest of us.

This rather innocuous case of a political appointee to the IMF demonstrates how the European elite are willing to change rules and regulation whenever they are an inconvenience to their power. But they will insist to the ends of the earth that other rules need to be kept in place when it benefits them!

That’s why an ambitious and radical program to address climate change, for example, will never advance. It will always be ‘debated’, ‘discussed’, ‘deliberated’, ‘examined’, ‘resolved’, ‘argued’, and ‘considered’.

As Carl Schmidt describes in Political Theology “Christ or Barabbas, the liberal answers with a motion to adjourn the meeting or set up an investigative committee”.

Carl Schmitt, 1922, Political Theology, p. 78.

Governments rush to sign non-binding international agreements championing how great and magnanimous they are, but few actually follow through with tangible actions.

What is tangible is when the IMF give loans to countries on the condition that they deregulate their domestic markets, and change other public policies that ultimately entrenches economic austerity.

Elites control institutions such as the IMF. These institutions control our lives. Institutions are themselves governed formally by rules and regulations. But conveniently, elites take upon themselves to change the rules and regulations as they see fit, and for their exclusive benefit. An innocuous case of a bylaw change at the IMF is a perfect example of this thesis. For the elite rules and regulations apply only to some and not others; rules apply universally, except when they don’t; and rules can be changed just as easily as they are made. The rule of law does not apply to elite.

[1] I understand that the European Central Bank is apolitical. But who are we kidding, the choice has political implications.

[2] Carl Schmitt, 1922, Political Theology, p. 78.

Dynamic or: please kill yourself and save the rest of us from your shallowness

Dynamic is the worst fucking word in the English language because it’s being completely butchered by fuck-heads who try to sound smart – reality check you’re a fucking retard (don’t be offended, I meant to say you’re fucking stupid, that your brain doesn’t function properly i.e. you are retarded).

There is nothing worse than reading news reports, government policy papers, and academic studies that feel the need to ram down your throat how fucking dynamic something is.

Really, it’s just a word to make you (a) seem smart, when really what you’re saying is really elementary, or (b) you actually have no idea what you are saying and want to fake it, or, finally (c) you purposefully want to obfuscate from the reality of how shit you are as a person.

So what is the definition of dynamic so that we can set the record straight.

These seem like pretty standard definitions. But they have left some key aspects out, namely, that the word is meaningless because it can be applied to basically anything, for example: “Omg, such a dynamic haircut!”; “Boris Johnson is the most dynamic politician in Britain at the moment”; “I’m going dynamically pound your face into the earth with this hammer if you don’t stop saying the fucking word dynamic.”

Here is how a normal person would say those sentences: “cool haircut! But you still look like a cuck”; “Boris Johnson should be retroactively aborted”; “If you say that word again I’ll force you to watch while I fuck your wife (and she’ll enjoy it)”.

Dynamic is an abomination of a word. Stop using it. Or if you do say it make it a part of your final words to the world like, “please swing that dynamic axe so dynamically into my neck that my head rolls dynamically off the platform into the dynamic crowd who will then dynamically foist it around on a stake passing it to one another as they piss and shit all over it.

So the next time you’re considering to dynamically drop a ‘dynamic’ into a sentence just remember, every time you do, humanity loses a little bit more faith in you. And if you do decide to go ahead and do it, how about you fuck off and dynamically fist your asshole – hmm yummy.

 Dynamic. A shit word, for shit people.

Monuments of Racism – A tale of two cities

Since the founding of the European Union, and especially in the last thirty years or so, the construction of a collective sense of what it means to be European has accelerated. Thanks to the European Union, citizens of each Member State are happily also European Citizens. One feature of being European is to partake in the ritual of burying one’s head in the sand. I’m speaking of course about the millions of skeletons that Europe has in its closet that the populace continues to ignore. The skeletons are those of the millions of people who died because of European slavery, colonialism and imperialism.

It is this wilful ignorance that makes Europe a paradise for racism. While extremists like Hans Breivik shock the conscience, his existence does not result from a vacuum. Racist ideology is fomented by institutions and cultural practices. It comes in many forms such as the warped teaching of history, the representation of people outside of Europe in museums and cultural exhibitions, news reporting, public policy and a host of other mediums.

A favourite for me are museums, which Europe has in abundance. Museums have a unique function for a society. They are monuments to the cultural, scientific and social achievements of a nation. They reflect the ‘strength’ of a nation which is why they flourished so much in the 19th century when imperialism and nationalism were in their zenith. Importantly, they mirror the attitudes of the nation. Thus, when museums perpetuate colonial and racist thinking it is a natural reflection of the nation’s thinking when it comes to issues such as racism and colonialism.

Two contrasting examples illustrate the point. On a recent trip to the Netherlands, I has surprised to see that the museum I visited properly explained the context in which many of the cultural artefacts and works of art were created. A Romanticised depiction of a road construction in 19th century Dutch East Indies is captioned with the preface that thousands of local Indonesians perished building this monument of colonisation.

The Great Postal Route near Rejapolah, Auguste Antoine Joseph Payen, 1828

While it’s not a miracle, it at least acknowledges that Romanticised scenes such as this are far from the reality of what colonialism was about. But such efforts are rare in Europe. The populace by and large shows a staggering level of wilful ignorance for the actions of their ancestors. People even forget that they do not even need to go back very far. In many cases it was their grandparents who took part in national colonial projects.

By contrast a visit to the Central African Museum in Belgium is the epitome of this failure by Europe to account for its atrocities. The exhibition is controversial to say the least. The King of Belgium even refuses to visit it. It’s controversial because of Leopold II. In Belgium he is remembered as a national hero, a father of the country sort. He built magnificent buildings, created many national parks, and oversaw a flourishing of Belgian culture during the late 19th century.

Of course, such an image was built on the backs of the Congolese people whom he enslaved and butchered. Tens of millions of Congolese perished in the Congo Free State which he ruled over personally between 1885 and 1908. The reality of Leopold is that he would make good company with the likes of Hitler and Stalin.

The Central African Museum is a testament to Leopold’s legacy. Indeed, the entire museum is housed within opulent classical style buildings with large French gardens surrounding. One would think they are about to serve high tea at noon when visiting. Instead, you’re visiting a mausoleum to some of the worst crimes against humanity – lovely.

Recently the exhibition was ‘reformed’. The collection previously run by the colonial office, has since been changed to modernise the exhibition. In some limited respects it makes attempts to more accurately show what Belgium did to the Congolese people.

But based on what actually went on there, it would be like going to Auschwitz and seeing a sign that just said, “some people died here”.

But this attempt falls short because it fails to acknowledge the brutalities of King Leopold II. Here is a short list of the regime’s greatest hits. In the Congo Free State every person was required to produce a certain amount of goods for the king. If one failed to do this their hands would be cut off. If the man needed his hands for working the hands of his wife and children would be cut off.

It is estimated that in the 19th century Congo has a population of around 20 million people. By the time of the first census in 1924, that figure had dropped to 10 million. It wasn’t just hand amputations. Most of these deaths were due to mass starvation, overwork, disease (sleeping sickness, smallpox, swine influenza, and amoebic dysentery), in addition to outright mass executions of ‘rebellious’ villages.

Leopold II advertised his takeover of the Congo Free State as a civilising mission. A quintessential example of the white man’s burden. A golden statue in the central rotunda still stands of a European missionary with an African boy clutching his robes along with a plaque that reads: “Belgium bringing civilisation to Congo.”

The Central African Museum should be recommended for those who would like a class in how Europe continues to this day to perpetuate racist and colonialist ideologies. Just as the Belgian state made only cosmetic changes to the Congo Free State when they took over in 1908, so too has this museum. At its core is a message of murder and genocide. All the while you are greeted with a smile.

The Belgians were well known for setting up human zoos – the greatest irony is that they themselves have become a zoo themselves. It’s a zoo of various perverse, sick and degenerate ideologies. The hypocrisy is glaring and it’s time Europe takes its head out the sand. Oh, but they have lovely museums don’t they!

European Democracy or European Technocracy?

The European Elections took place over the course of a few days in late May 2019. Across 28 Member States, Europeans went to the ballot box to elect 751 Members of the European Parliament. But did this have any tangible outcome on who will be the President of the European Commission? If the answer is no, then does the European Union violate the fundamental principles of the Social Contact which underpins Representative Democracy?

To answer we first need to rewind slightly to explain how the European Union functions. The European Union is made up four institutions, which maps haphazardly onto our normal understanding of the three branches of government, the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. The only body to play a traditional role is the Court of Justice of the European Union, which acts as the supreme judicial authority and has the power to rule on matters of European Law.

For the other institutions though there is a weird mix of quasi executive and legislative powers that intersect with one another. For example, in the normal legislative procedure the European Commission proposes draft legislation (either regulations or directives). The Council of the European Union and the European Parliament then act as co-legislators who may propose amendments to the proposed legislation.

Yet, neither have the power to initiate legislation which is the essential role of a legislator i.e. the body which creates law. In a normal representative democracy, the legislature is easily identifiable in the form of a bicameral or unicameral parliament or house of representatives. This is not the case in the EU.

So what bearing do the European Elections have on this process. It turns out very little.

The European Parliament is made up of 751 members from across every European Member State according to a specific formula of degressive proportionality. With European Elections, the mandate of the European Commission also ends. Presidents of the European Commission, European Council, European Central Bank, and the High Representative appointed.

Unfortunately, the vote in the European Elections has zero relation to the outcome of these appointments. The most contentious of course is the role of President of the European Commission. In 2014, the European Union attempted to rectify this by proposing a Spitzenkandidaten process in which each of the political groups would nominate a candidate who would be considered by the Council for Commissioner President. The result was that Jean-Claude Juncker became the European Commission President for 2014-2019.

Following the European elections in 2019 however, the Council has completely ignored this process and nominated Ursula von der Leyen the German Minister of Defense, as President of the European Commission. This begs the question, why did European’s just go to the ballot box and vote? The result has no correlation to the result. Thus, the European Union will now be headed by someone who Europeans have never even heard of outside Germany.

The European Union claims to believe in the rule of law and democracy, but it makes a mockery of these. Liberal democracy is based on a social contract for which the Council and European elite run roughshod over. The social contract we have collectively agreed to is essentially that governments are accountable to the people.

While Europe criticizes nations like Russia for their fake elections, meanwhile the go about politics behind closed doors and in complete disregard for the election results. This is an absolute abhorrent outcome and the Council should be ashamed of itself. Many think it’s important to get out and vote. When you have outcomes like this we can see why 50 percent of people choose to stay home.

What the Council is attempting to do here is a coup d’etat against the legitimacy of the European Union and it will have negative repercussions for years to come. If there were any hope that the United Kingdom might somehow remain with the European Union, this has essentially evaporated with this nomination. The Council has essentially done the work for Brexiteers in showing the European Union to be a bureaucratic, technocratic, undemocratic behemoth.

Euroscepticism has been on the rise in Europe for the past ten years. With decisions from the Council like this, we can only expect Euroscepticism to increase. Citizens might be naïve and largely ignorant about European politics, but anyone with an ounce of reasonableness can see this for what it is, antidemocratic, which is what feeds Euroscpeticism as citizens turn away from parties and institutions which claim to be democratic and represent their interests.

If Europe had any hope of claiming the European Union is democratic, this is now as dead as the Spitzenkandidaten process. The Brexit party turned its back on the European Parliament, but now it’s time for European citizens to turn their back on the European Union. I do not mean break up the European Union, but citizens need to show that they stand for democracy not technocracy. Citizens demand that European leaders end the hypocrisy and do what is in the interests of Europe not just a group of powerful European Member States.

Boomering Boomers

Fuck old people. Baby-boomers in particular. I exclude from this critique those of the Greatest Generation (1900-1940) they killed Hitler – good work. Boomers have had custodianship over the planet for some 40-50 years now and they have done nothing but squander and fuck things up for the rest of us. It’s time for a radical redistribution of priorities. We need to be prioritizing giving these shitheads the middle finger.

Look at the state of the planet. It’s disastrous. Big thanks to the boomers on that one. We knew of climate change as far back as the 1970’s, just as the baby boomers were stepping into the halls of office and taking over the reins of control from their predecessors. With warnings as far back as the 1970’s the boomers decided to kick the can down the road for future generations, and they have continued to do so decade after decade leaving us to pick up the tab. Saying that ExxonMobil lied to you is not an excuse. Stop playing dumb. And if you are that dumb, then, well sorry, you are not fit to be in control and it’s time to move on.

Which brings me to my next point. Boomers like Joe Biden and Donald Trump. People who just won’t fuck off and retire. Guys, you are old. I bet you can’t go a day without partially pissing your pants.

Everyone gives shit to European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker for pissing himself on stage but at least he saw the writing on the wall is not seeking reelection.

It’s time for a reality check for these boomers, and a radical redistribution of priorities. In line with giving these fuckfaces the middle finger lets hit them where it hurts – pensions. Pensions have become a gigantic hole in the budget for almost every country. I propose we take these bludgers pensions and put that towards fixing the planet.

It seems only fair, I mean in practical terms they have taken ours. So fuck them, fair is fair. The intergenerational theft of wealth by the boomers is disgusting and is a problem that governments willfully ignore. It’s staring them in the face. As the boomers get older the situation is only going to get worse as well. The sooner we act the better.

Let’s take the boomers’ pensions and put it to good use – fixing and protecting the environment. This kills two birds with one stone. We distribute the wealth the boomers have stolen from younger generations, and we finally pick up the can the boomers insisted on kicking on down the road.

If boomers want to complain, they can sell one of their ten houses which they have accumulated over the years and leveraged against the futures of younger generations.

Boom, third problem caused by the boomers solved since it would also fix the housing crisis. A flood of houses released onto the market will drive down prices or at least keep them stable for a while so that first home buyers have a fighting chance.

Boomers, for all your complaining to younger generations needing to “make it themselves”, it’s time we apply this principle to you. And since you guys were handed an ideal situation by your parents, which you squandered and kept the benefits of for yourselves, it’s time for younger generations to wrest control away from the boomer class.

Have you noticed how the most climate skeptical generation are the boomers? They also the most homophobic and racist. Yikes! Not a good a good look there chief. I fucking guarantee you the recalcitrance of governments to act on climate change is due to the large boomer voting population who just don’t believe it’s real because they like the good weather at their summer vacation houses on the beach. “Oh, climate change disproportionality affects people in other regions of world? Na, fuck that, I enjoy my five bedroom holiday home too much to care.”

So, to redress the democratic imbalances I propose we rebalance the voting power of boomers by reducing the vote of boomers to 0.75. In other words, a boomer’s vote is worth only 0.75, whereas those between 30-50 are worth 1. And to be equitable to the young who have their vote suppressed, their votes shall be worth 1.25. This will reallocate the power distribution in our representative democracies so that the young get a fair voice. Politicians will finally be forced to tailor policies for the electorate of the future and not pander to the has-beens.

As young people it’s time we collectively raise the middle finger to the boomer class. These are the people that ask you how to send a WhatsApp message even though you just explained and showed them how to send a Facebook message (it’s the same fucking principle!). We don’t owe them shit, because they already took everything for themselves.

In sum, boomers as a group are like people who rip a silent but violent fart in the elevator, step out level two, and press the emergency button so that that the elevator is stuck, with the rest of us left to die in a makeshift gas-chamber they wish they could put migrants in. Talk about a bad aftertaste.

(for the record all of my grandparents have passed away, so I feel no remorse in writing this article)

Trumping Common European Policies

I recently wore a Trump “Make America Great Again” hat to a regular political gathering in the capital of the European Union. Now, for the record I am not a Trump supporter. I wore the hat specifically to be provocative, and it worked. Throughout the course of 3-4 hours I received many comments from people.

Two things horrified me. First, the amount of people who supported Trump. Some jokingly of course, thinking it’s pretty funny to wear a hat like that. Then there was the guy who was really too serious and referred to the recent ‘great’ victory in the provincial elections in the Netherlands.

The second thing that horrified me though was the response for those who were clearly against Trump. One girl was shouting at me (in a friendly bantering kind of way) to take it off and saying that Trump is a dick. Good banter – to me that’s fine. What really horrified me though were the two Irish who thought they could steal the hat and proceed to give me a lecture about how much of a piece of shit I am.

People clearly do not understand when someone is being deliberately provocative. I’m not wearing the hat at a white supremist rally against the rights of minorities. I’m not even wearing the thing to push for Trump policies.

I’m wearing that hat in the centre of the white European middle-class liberal establishment – THAT’S WHY IT’S FUNNY!

Some have opined that people do not understand humour. I am increasingly convinced of this. I’d also like to hit on the fact that I am not even American, nor in the United States. I can’t vote for the guy and I have literally zero effect on the outcome of the US presidential election.

it is clearly lost on these sanctimonious patronizing shitheads that they themselves actively support a racist liberal political establishment in the European Union.

Bold claim on my part, but my main exhibit is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), perhaps one of the most racist (and expensive) policies the European political establishment continues to perpetuate despite all of the evidence against it.

The Common Agricultural Policy was established in the post-war era of the European Community. The idea was to ensure that Europe would never again face food shortages like they had in the immediate years following World War II. The program established subsidies for farmers and measures to encourage production of foodstuffs.

Today, farm subsidies account for 38% of the EU budget and 80% of the subsidies go to just 20% of farmers via “basic payments”. Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU is set to blow a gaping hole in the EU budget, and it’s still unclear how that will be filled. Some have suggested the CAP could be on the chopping block, but we know that the farmers lobby is strong and will challenge any attempt to touch their free money.

The CAP is racist because it has perverse effects on people living in Africa, an area still recovering from years of European colonisation. First, the CAP creates distortions in global commodities prices making it impossible for African farmers to compete with European farmers, even in their home territories.

On average, 20% of the EU milk surplus travels 7000 kms in form of milk-powder to Africa. There, it replaces local dairy products in the supermarkets. In Cameroon, a local farmer can sell his for 37 cents, while a German farmer sells it for just 22 cents per litre.

The CAP is subsidising European farmers and systematically destroying local African industries.

The CAP is a policy that supports inefficient and unprofitable European farmers despite the fact that African farmers on average earn $2,989 per year against EU farmer households who earn on average €14,000 (across the EU-28).

This is combined with European trade policy which encourages African farmers to continue growing colonial-era cash crops like coffee and cocoa, and not finished or refined goods like chocolate (it would be shame if Belgian chocolate had to compete on the merits!).

To hammer home the moral superiority, the EU has the gall to throw development aid into the mix when African farmers are unable to compete with European farmers. In 2012, the European Union opened programs to construct dairy companies in West and Central Africa. Hundreds of thousands of euros were dedicated to support small dairy farms and cooperatives. But these dairy farms were constructed without ever being put into operation.

At the same time, highly subsided milk is exported to this region. When confronted to this problematic Phil Hogan (Irish), Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, argued that, apparently, the problem doesn’t lay within European agricultural policy and that therefore no action is required. Instead, he suggested to send Europeans to train local people to use the machines – a 21st century equivalent to the White Man’s burden.

Second, the CAP has devastating effects on the environment. Unfortunately, the CAP is among the most powerful drivers of environmental destruction in the world. Payments are made only for land that is in “agricultural condition,” so in order to get more free money the system creates a perverse incentive to clear wildlife habitats, even in places unsuitable for farming, Hundreds of thousands of hectares of magnificent wild places across Europe have been destroyed.

As we already know, it’s developed countries who disproportionately contribute to global greenhouse gas emissions but its developing nations who will suffer the worst effects. The EU is the third-largest greenhouse gas emitter, with agricultural making up 10% of those emissions. 94% of ammonia emissions, for example, stem from agriculture.

In closing I want to just say, fuck you to the Irish bastards who gave me a lecture on being racist, and I implore people to question who in fact the real racists are. A kid with a Trump hat, or a liberal establishment that proliferates agricultural, trade and development policies which impoverish millions of the world’s poorest people by inhibiting their nations’ ability to compete on the merits and stop their economies from developing.

Not only this, but these same policies perpetuate the disproportionate contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. And when challenged by all this, the best they can muster is, well, maybe we just need to send some white people to ‘teach’ Africans how to do things – sanctimonious, self-righteous and overall, racist!


Journey to the Centre of Life

When I started university, I picked up Karl Marx and read everything. You name it, I read it – except Capital II, I never got around to that one. I soon styled myself as a solidly left-wing kind of person. I hated the current government, I did not respect my boss at all, I voted for standard left-wing politicians. I demonstrated in the streets, the US was evil, and Lenin was just misunderstood. I didn’t go so far as to sign up for the communist party and I would not consider myself a radical, but I certainly had some sympathies.

What attracted me to this day to thinkers like Karl Marx was the answer he provides to the question of why injustice exists in the world. In an increasingly agnostic world, we can’t just use God to explain the way things are – which is a rather horrible place. Everywhere one looks there just seems to be endless suffering and injustice. Marx gives you the answer to this question – capitalism.

So, I progressed through university, reading everything I could get my hands on including a lot of books from all across the political spectrum, but I remained fairly left-wing. I saw injustices in the world and thought this was inherent to a corrupt system of exploitation and I dreamt of a world where things were just easier for myself and everyone around me.

It broke my heart once to see a group of men sleeping in the street, not because they had no job, but because they had to start work at 4.30 in the morning and this was the only way the could be on time because they had no car and public transport doesn’t run at that time. This to me was unjust, and an example of exploitative system. Now I see this as just a bunch of guys trying their best to do what they think is right.

Something that really stuck in my mind though was that things on the left just never seemed to add up. If a socialist system was superior, why were we not at least edging towards it? Surely, even the average person would be able to understand that socialism is far more attractive than exploitative capitalism? Most important of all was the question – why is the other side winning?

To answer these questions, I committed myself to read a lot more of thinkers on the right, but without my left-wing lens. In other words, I wasn’t going to read these texts any less critically, but I was going to approach them differently from what I had previously. Before they were the thinkers that justified capitalist enslavement of mankind through a corrupt political system, now I wanted to assess them for what they had originally intended their texts to be.

My first port of call was Rousseau and his Du Contrat Sociale – and boy was it an eye opener.

Rousseau’s famous line:“man is born free, yet everywhere I see him in chains”resonates with me to this day. Rousseau’s answer for the existence of justice said to me that more fundamentally that exploitation, we are held back by convention.

Then I moved onto the other heavyweights: Hobbes, Locke, Mill and Burke. The collective achievement of these writers showed me the enormous progress western philosophy has taken to lift off the shackles of superstition, deference, and servitude.

I threw in other important writers, especially those who I would describe as confused socialists, Orwell and Camus. It was important for me to understand their relationship with socialism and why they turned their backs on international communism. For me, the story of Camus particularly is the most poignant

when your ideology justifies violence against others it is broken.

I recognise now that left-wing ideology fundamentally does not work. That is not to say right-wing ideology is any better. So, I sit now in the centre. That all changed when I read Schmidt, and now I don’t sit anywhere, I’ve just left the party altogether. Basically, I’m floundering on the floor in crushing cynicism.

So, what are the lessons I have learned so far?

  1. Marx was wrong: capitalism is not coming to roaring conclusion. It’s just not going to happen.
  2. Always be sceptical: no one has the right answer, they have only an answer.
  3. I am free: my life and destiny are entirely my responsibility.
  4. Power should remain within the individual: Governments cannot be trusted – delegating power will invariably lead to worse outcomes for people.
  5. Suffering is a part of the human condition: it is what we do with it that counts.

And what I recommend for people? Two words: Marcus Aurelius.

Loosen Your Butthole This Christmas

**Strap yourself in cause this one could be… visceral**

Here is what makes me a rage this Christmas – Consumer rape. That’s the phrase I’m going with, I’m still working on a better phrase. Anyone got any suggestions? You just let me know. Consumer rape is the process of fucking every last cent of disposable income from you during the holiday season everywhere you turn.

This is nothing new, but fuck me, now that I have some proper disposable income its quite apparent how much companies are fucking you for cash. Before, you noticed it, but you were so fucking poor as a student that you couldn’t buy anything. Fuck, you get a job, you get some income, but no one told me about the rampant consumer rape – the middle class fucking sucks.

I’m sitting in an airport right now writing this and the hipster burger place opposite me is trying to charge €26 for a goddamn burger, and the sushi behind wants €18 for six pieces. That’s some expensive fucking rice. But I’m fucking hungry, I’m nursing a hangover (not my worst, but still) so I go ahead and proceed to try order. And this is where shit takes a quick turnabout.

To my great surprise companies will now offer, free of charge for your kind patronage, to shove their clenched fist up your ass. It’s a part of a new ‘visceral experience’ they are trialling. It seems to be catching on the because the queues are rather long. Studies show that consumers are reacting positively to the new service,

researchers claim that consumers prefer to have their asshole ripped when they are being price gouged.

But it doesn’t stop there. For the sentimental types, some businesses will offer to spit on their fist before insertion just to ease it on up there. Want a more ‘intimate’ experience? For an extra 50c, the service=worker will whisper “you’re special” in your ear as they reach up to grip your colon.

But honestly, I don’t even blame these companies. They are doing exactly what any other profit-driven company would do and exploit the context and situation to their advantage. Which begs the question: are these businesses just giving us what we want?

And don’t worry, these businesses are environmentally friendly. With each purchase these guys plant trees and donate to causes cleaning waterways. So don’t you worry, you love the environment, and we love selling to you shit on that basis. Now we have environmentally friendly consumer rape!

After this arduous and traumatising ordeal here I am sitting in a fucking airport having just been raped wondering where my dignity has gone and with a wrenching feeling in my stomach. Oh wait, fuck that’s right, I’m still hungry… Better pucker my asshole for another round, think I’ll need some special K to forget this experience.


Bring Back the Guillotine

France only got rid of the guillotine in 1989. That’s not even 30 years – so it’s not too late, we could still bring it back! And by god we need it. It’s not for you or I, it’s just for the politicians. Given the way things are evolving in politics these days, I reckon a Terror would go a long way to culling the ranks of asshole politicians and restoring a human element to politics. I mean if it’s one thing humans are good at, it’s killing each other. In fact, it’s probably one of the most human things we do. You look at the definition of human and I think you’ll find murderer in there somewhere.

We really need to get rid of these dicks. Have you noticed how they lord themselves above us as if they’re special, making rules that benefit themselves and fucking everyday people every chance they get. Beyond losing their ‘job’ (more on that later) they’re basically untouchable which seems unfair to me. The prospect of the guillotine would light the fire under their ass for them to do their ‘jobs’ properly. And by doing their ‘jobs’ I mean they actually implement the will of the people, instead of using that will to serve their own ends passing it off as that of society.

More practically we need term limits for politicians. Being a politician is not a vocation like being a doctor, a builder, or a butcher. They have the unique role of wielding the sovereign power of the people. No other ‘profession’ has this role, hence why it’s not a ‘job’ in the normal sense.

People who stay in power, get drunk on power – and they do anything to not give it up. Imagine Sméagol is a politician, and the one ring political power – this is what it’s like.

This leads politicians to lie, cheat and steal from the rest of us just like Sméagol. For the modern politician it’s: “thanks for the vote and taxes, now eat my shit and bask in my glory”.

What have politicians done to advance the prosperity of humanity? Did they invent some amazing medicine that cured millions? Have they constructed a road with the labour and toil of their own hands? Have they fed the needy and helped the poor? No, none of that. They claim they take decisions and set up programs to do these things, but it’s with your money. So really, it was the community that did those things, not politicians.

What’s also repugnant is the air of moral superiority politicians have when they take a decision that benefits people.

It’s like yeah, congratulations for being the bare minimum level of someone that is ethical.

But I’m no saint myself. Unlike politicians, the difference is that I don’t stand up pretending to be one. Murders, thieves, fraudsters, epithets that all describe politicians.

Now we want the best people to be going into politics, don’t we? Yes, and giving politicians money is not the way to get the best people. Not for politics. As I noted above, politics is not like a normal ‘job’, its unique because it has a unique role to play. If someone is going into politics for money they are exactly the wrong sort of people to be in that job. It’s like giving the keys of the vault to the thief. As Weber described almost a century ago, the state has the monopoly on the means of legitimate violence. The power to wield that power against the citizens is the terrifying prospect.

And this is why we need to bring back the guillotine. Politicians have had a free run for too long. We limit their terms, stop paying them so much with public (and private) money, we bring back the guillotine, and maybe then they’ll actually start to implement the will of the people. Until then, fuck politicians and their corrupt, good-for-nothing asses.

A Letter to Google

Dear Google,

When you get the time could you get around to finishing the Matrix. It seems to me that it’d be a hit with the people today. I mean, everyone just seems to want to always be elsewhere but here. I can tell, because they can’t put their fucking phones away for more than 3 minutes. Since they want to spend so much time in the digital world – let’s just give it to them.

Whether when it’s eating some food, going to a concert, or at home with their cat, people just cannot seem to be able to get themselves away from the digital world of make believe. So, the sooner you guys get the Matrix up and running the better, cause then the real world will just be left to those us who are content to just eat a meal, go to a concert, and sit at home with our cats, without having to tell everyone about it. For the record dickheads, your photos are fucking shit even with Instagram filters, and your mindless Facebook updates are as shallow as the Aral Sea.


I’ve already figured out the business model for you Google, so the whole thing will be very lucrative for you. You know, since the General Data Protection Regulation came into force, companies like you have not been having a good time. But the Matrix solves all this. You can just get their explicit consent as they enter the Matrix, and use these little consumption machines as test subject for as much advertising as you want. Ads all day, every day.

You guys will be the CNN of advertising, 24/7, vacuous, but targeted.

And as we all know, all corporations have a bad side, and the Matrix covers this too – while people are in the Matrix you can harvest their organs without them knowing. In fact, you could even team up with the pharmaceutical industry and use them as test subjects for new medicines and cosmetics. Then we won’t have to use animals anymore. That’ll keep Greenpeace happy. Boom! Killing two birds with one stone (except we won’t have to kill birds anymore)

But hey, I don’t want you to take this the wrong way. I actually love you Google, cause you are intuitive to use, and when used correctly you’re a powerful tool. And perhaps I’m roping you in with other companies unfairly. But you are the only one I could trust to create the Matrix. Please Google, you’re my only hope.

My real bone to pick is with the degenerates who can’t put their fucking phones away. I just want to be able to see my favourite bands without a ocean of cameras taking photos and videos. So please, Google, invest all your money in creating the Matrix. Do this for me, and I’ll consider paying for your Youtube premium service (seriously who is paying for that, lol)

In closing, Google, I just want to say, you’re great, and please just give these people what they want. A place where they can be everywhere but here, and they can share things as much as they want with one another. In the Matrix they won’t even need phones, they could just plug into the hive mind together.