Political Ideologies.

Goodreads Review.

Loaned to me by my atheist god-mother.

Passion of Mr. Mussolini, the nameless hope of the New Left, a proud inheritance of the Conservative tradition, Mr. Kropotkin’s respect for the dignity of man, holism of an American Indian and so on so forth.

Expect an eclectic collection of essays on the subject of politics. Edited well, without any over-bearing interference from those who assembled this collection of essays. The original authors speak for themselves, unadulterated proof being when CAPITALISATION OF LETTERS IS ABUSED. Censorship would have been as simple as providing an initial definition of politics, and pruning as apt.

Food for thought, the Nazi Party wanted all War Debt to be forgiven, would this clash with the Black Panther demand of slavery reparations? (Trivial Tidbit on German Nazi’s; Africans-Germans were never targeted for systemic extermination, Slavs [root word of slave], Jews, and Romani people were. [of course, an interracial marriage would have been an obscene affront in that time & place.]) Perhaps the leader of the American Nazi party, who has an essay in this book, discussed that very possibility with the militant blacks whom he met.
Really though, is it enough to know that that genocide of peoples was more complex than “Kill the Jew, Kill the Jew, all we want to do is Kill the Jew”?

Mr. Gandhi’s literal foray into international war has only whet my appetite, which now hungers for development of Satyagraha in relation to the passionate intensity of a sublimed blood-thirst or vengeful hatred.

After reading the finale essay, which asserts that ubiquity & lack of friction indicate an ideology has lost traction in the world, one’s mind may layer it back onto the Technocracy essay. Without a debate, an ideology lacks expression, and so Technocracy is a modern Sisyphus, but forever rolling downhill… Or is it just me?


Quotations of Mr. Kropotkin.

Made without permission from the publishing house or whatever, in tribute to the Anarchist tradition, as an internet pirate, I feel guiltless.

“Socialists know what is meant by protection of property. Laws on property are not made to guarantee either to the individual or to society the enjoyment of the produce of their own labor[sic]. On the contrary, they are made to rob the producer of a part of what he has created, and to secure to certain other people that portion of the produce which they have stolen either from the produce which they have stolen either from the producer or from society as a whole. When, for example, the law establishes Mr. So-and-So’s right to a house, it is not establishing his right to a cottage he has built for himself, or to a house he has erected with the help of some of his friends. In that case no one would have disputed his right. On the contrary, the law is establishing his right to a house which is not the product of his labor[sic]; first of all because he has had it built for him by others to whom he has not paid the full value of their work, and next because that house represents a social value which he could not have produced for himself. The law is establishing his right to what belong to everybody in general and to nobody in particular. The same house built in the midst of Siberia would not have the value it possesses in a large town, and, as we know, that value arises from the labor[sic] of something like fifty generations of men who have built the town, beautified it, supplied it with water and gas, fine promenades, colleges, theatres, shops, railways and roads leading in all directions. Thus by recognizing[sic] the right of Mr. So-and-So to a particular house in Paris, London or Rouen, the law is unjustly appropriating to him a certain portion of the produce of the labor[sic] of mankind in general. And it is precisely because this appropriation and all other forms of property bearing the same character are a crying injustice, that a whole arsenal of laws and a whole army of soldiers, policemen and judges are needed to maintain it against the good sense and just feeling inherent in humanity.”

Gawker, of all the news outlets, has a well sourced article here which details the community authority (Home Owners Association generally), acting contrary to common decency and simple common sense.


“Yet there is one fact concerning this head which at the present time is thoroughly established; the severity of punishment does not diminish the amount of crime. Hang, and, if you like, quarter murderers, and the number of murders will not decrease by one. On the other hand, abolish the penalty of death, and there will not be one murder more; there will be fewer. Statistics prove it. But if the harvest is good, and bread cheap, and the weather fine, the number of murders immediately decreases. This again is proved by statistics. The amount of crime always augments and diminishes in proportion to the price of provisions and the state of the weather. Not that all murders are actuated by hunger. That is not the case. But when the harvest is good, and provisions are at an obtainable price, and when the sun shines, men, lighter-hearted and less miserable than usual, do not give way to gloomy passions, do not from trivial motives plunge a knife into the bosom of a fellow creature.”

System of a Down treats this subject here. Although the lyrics lack a melodic quality they are honest words. Study after study has shown that drug treatment is more effective than more police.
Alternatively, one can research how much food is thrown away by their local supermarket chain, tonnages being the common answer. I have no easy solution and admit this protects the consumer from food poisoning.
However, how hungry are the poor in Syria?
In your nearest hobo hotel?
The law dictates and protects the smooth functioning of business. Please follow me as I construct a hypothetical situation; in the week of expiry all food products are freely distributed to the 2 lowest classes of society (prisoners and work-fit unemployed). Subsequently, private profit would be reduced, taxation would be reduced, food poisoning would increase and the citizens of Hypothetical Land would be climb up Maslow’s Hierarchy.
Who doubts that homeless men, women & children would happily sign a waiver voiding their right to sue if the food was contaminated? Assuming it wasn’t deliberate.

Newes from Scotland – declaring the damnable life and death of Doctor Fian, a notable sorcerer.

Freely available online, which is to be respected. It is what you would expect after reading the Wikipedia page & no better or worse, and hence, 3-stars.

A gruesome & grotty dose of horrible history. I have no doubt that a great many of the contemporaries of this debacle were naive. Naive enough to believe the women and sorcerer would only confess if it was true and had no other reason for the confession except it was The Truth.

Let us now dive into some gruesome & grotty details. Who knows what pelliwinkes are? Would you be surprised to learn about moonlit orgies? What if I told you that devotion to the Devil requires you to physically kiss his butt-cheeks? Or that the King, in a fit of ignorance, demanded to hear the music of the Devil played on a Jew Harp? & for the pedants, when did the letter ‘v’ replace the letter ‘u’? ‘s’ & ‘f’ stopped being interchangeable?

Read on…

In the Penal Colony.

Goodreads Review.


Short enough to quickly read on the train, the narrative flows linearly. A simple twist at the end, one I failed to anticipate, despite ruminating on it during the train change. Mr. Kafka anticipates & predates the Saw film franchise, the Hostel film franchise.

The author, & this work particularly, seem to have acquired some respect, although precisely how this impression came to me, I do not know. However others attach metaphors, whatever it demonstrates about absolute commitment to justice, it is torture porn in literature format.

A Call For Violence, or, Mercy Killing.

A Call For Violence, or, Mercy Killing.
True justice being an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, cruelty is more and mercy is less.

Mr. Sepp Blatter accepted a bribe, and because of that choice between yes / no, people (Bangladeshis & Pakistanis) have died. His own death, being singular, would be merciful.

His wealth, and the bribes more specifically, should be distributed between the wage-slaves he created. Without his ‘yes’, they wouldn’t be building the FIFA stadium in Qatar. Don’t get me started on the Qataris who funded the offer or corrupt officials who enabled the crooked process.

Slavery is an apt description, the Pakistani & Bangladeshi labourers do not have freedom of movement, some are beaten, some are killed. The wage they are paid is reduced by their overseers, without freedom of movement they must buy food at inflated costs, like how the Tuckshop used to be in Scottish Highlands.

If Mr. Blatter had said, ‘no’, they total suffering in Qatar would be lesser. His single death would be merciful, because his ‘yes’ lead to much more than one death.

All this leads should lead the Pakistani’s and Bangladeshi’s quite reasonable to resentment or hatred for ‘The West’.

Do you consent or dissent to this call?

P.S. Yes I do realise this is some years late.

Banana Republics & the CIA, or Why Communism Made Sense.

The phrase Banana Republic comes from a time and place (Latin America late 1800’s – mid 1900’s) where the banana company (United Fruit Company) was more powerful than the government.
The United Fruit Company board of directors included the head of the USA CIA. UFC tried to pay $2 500 000 to the president of Honduras, this corruption was exposed by a section of the US government separate from the CIA (when the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing the little man wins, isn’t big government nice?)
Other powers of the UFC included;
running the Costa Rican postal service,
preventing specific national governments (Guatemala) from distributing banana plantations to peasants to share in the lucrative international banana trade,
building an entire nations railway network and then destroying it when ceasing operations in the nation (Guatemala again),
inducing government to kill 100’s, perhaps more, of striking workers (Colombia).
This is why communism makes sense. To be honest, it is also why certain laissez-faire capitalism makes sense (assuming it fragments monopolisation). The truck system of early English capitalism (from the Franch troquer, perhaps linguistic origin of tucker and tuckshop) illustrates a similar communal-structural failing to that above, but on an entirely different scale.

To relate this to the contemporary ‘centre of the world’, Mr. Trump may reduce ties with the international business community, primarily by reneging on the preliminaries of the TIPP and other major trade deals. This will allow time for mundane individuals and organisations to scrutinise, to plan and to propose meaningful alternatives & developments. It seems unlikely that Mr. Trump will pursue significant actions against the major accounting firms which are the major players in the Panama Paper crimes.

What may also occur is world leaders, specifically Mr. Putin, outwitting Mr. Trump. I anticipate that within his presidency of the United States of America, a serious symbolic diplomatic accord with Russia is reached, but one which materially benefits Russia more than the USA. This is due to the greater cooperation between big business and government in Russia,see: Gazprom, although this is not entirely restricted to Russia as shown above or shown here. This accord could be the renegotiation of trade law or infrastructure across the Bering Straits.

Community Supports Cash.

*The quote above is precisely my impression of Ayn Rand’s approach to economics, that wealth is to be torn from the context, the community, which generated it and proper context would refute calls for generic free-market reforms from that school of thought.
Money works because the society it exists within guarantees the practically worthless banknote is figuratively valued. This community guarantee entails an expectation of community circulation, mainly but not exclusively in the form of taxation. Since the earliest times, when farmhands were paid in tokens representing a share in the final harvest, an trade-able tokens of abstract value have been consistently produced in various epochs and areas.

Theoretical economic systems understate the role of the community in the creation, circulation and valuation of currency. Ayn Randism, or Objectivism, as well as other schools of thought, reject an obligation between a currency and the community in which it circulates. Sweat off the brow is represented by the value token, and any coercive attempt at seizure is unjust. A fairer approach than that taken by Russian communism, where everything belongs to the community but nothing belongs to the individual, or an aristocracy, where everything is a gift from the Divine via the royalty. Nonetheless, there has got to be a better way.

Monopolies naturally occur, and laissez-faire economics do not address the problems monopolies cause, such as unfair prices and unequal competition. The Objectivist conception of the heroic person pursuing their own productive, noble agenda under the auspice of reason is better fulfilled by a system which lessens difficulties of competition. Putting aside serious discussion of how to correctly dispense taxation, I reckon that the Objectivist conception of the meaning of life is better supported by a State with purview beyond the prevention of coercion.

This is my current perspective on the economic system, founded on the concept of an abstract, trade-able value token or object. Communal recognition of the token is an essential feature. Precisely what is then entailed is in constant flux as theory and reality shift with time. Community is an essential aspect of currency.

Wages Contained.

This has been written about before, very succinctly with more technical data, and no doubt will again. But I do hope I do a better job than the wiki.

Laissez-faire capitalism has no link between people. Communism has no distinction between people. To apply the Buddhist principle of the middle path, the best economic system will not regard all people as identical nor as infinitely different in value. By the logic outlined above, I found an economic perspective.

Job droughts, mechanisation, computerisation, distribution of responsibility or wealth hidden by international organisations and other factors are of great concern to anyone with both a social conscience and an economic interest. These processes tend to percolate profit to the peak of the company. If a job can be automated or outsourced cheaply, it is done, then the profit is pocketed by those able to do so. It’s financially sensible, and it produces inequality in the global & domestic communities. Some discussion of this dynamic tends to reductio ad absurdum (no that’s not a spell from Hogwarts), the dynamic it is real and it does matter.

Global industry is the new norm, the cotton to garment production line is illustrative here. Perhaps picked in the land between the Middle East, Asia, Russia & Europe (Turkmenistan / Uzbekistan), shipped to Bangladesh for processing into garments, from there sent to the sale point, before finally being purchased by a consumer, who’s payment is the ultimate justification of the whole process. The fundamental underpinning of the global production & distribution process is the almighty dollary-doo (in various national representations), which shows the truth the old adage, ‘money makes the world go round’.

Upper management of the cotton industry is not united in organisation of the process, but it is the upper management who link the meta-process together. They do contribute value by this organisation. However, if one imagines removing various classes of worker from the cotton industry; picker, weaver, shipper, sales, CEO, etcetera, the removal of the uppermost management would see the organisation stagnate and make no changes, and many companies would ultimately fail, although would McDonalds fail without a CEO? The removal of other roles from the industry, from sewing or sales, would see no cotton clothing produced and no final sale. By this logic it is unreasonable that the profits are focussed upwards when considered from a perspective of functional worth.

A link between the wages of each class of worker in a single organisation, industry or nation, would act to restrict this dynamic. A CEO and the board of executives, in search of higher wages for themselves, couldn’t vote on it, but would be forced to improve the business as a whole. Large corporations naturally produce greater wage inequality than small business, and so this economic policy is an impediment to the powers of mega-bucks and a small boon to entrepreneurs. The same restriction across an industry would mean each purchase could be made with confidence about the quality of life of the people in the supply chain, by so doing universally distribute the moral value commercialised in such forms as Fair Trade Coffee. CEO & executive board pay should be limited by the dollar a day workers.

Finally the national limit, which is outside the linear processes outlined previously. Necessities come before luxuries, surely those who provide our vaccines, lunch and plumbing are more valuable to, and more relied upon by, the community. So if each dollar represents one value token to be honoured by any sale within that community, then with a national pay limit, the community will know those who provide the bare necessities will earn will even if others earn more despite less socially worthy work. Also, a national limit would see greater consistency in earnings, which in turn immediately leads to the Tax Office seeing a slim increase from each worker, enabling easier budgets and in turn, social projects. It must be stated clearly, that without global change, a nation which pursues this alone also encourages job flight to nations without such measures, and creation of shell companies to secrete any wage paid in excess of the limit. That’s only financial sense after all.

Punitive Bare Necessities.

Imagine a community with a prison system. Should the community guarantee the bare necessities of life within that prison system?

If the community does, it recognises a need for whatever these bare necessities may be. Should they be supplied at a cost (labour, dollars, good behaviour) to the convicted prisoner?

If they are not given freely, it could result in a state of affairs where-by a prison sentence is a death sentence as the convict by choice or circumstance is unable to pay the cost required for the bare necessities. Therefore, one at risk of a prison sentence (not only the guilty), who is unable to pay the cost, can reasonably perceive arrest as the first stage of a slow execution.

A novel method of manipulating the bare necessities for good behaviour arises from the USA. Some prisons supply a certain type of  food (grue) for misbehaviour. Nevertheless, convicts are fed.

However, if a prison system does supply the bare necessities without cost, a macro-perspective requires that the same standard be supplied outside of the prison system. A person who cannot earn, or otherwise receive, the bare necessities as a freeman will be aware that the prison system supplies them.

Alternatively, one may perceive this persons thought thusly; I can be fed for the rest of my life by the worth of a single, sufficiently criminal, act if, I accept the restrictions of the prison system (visitation, goods, services, etc).

Should any society exist so that a day of murder guarantees the bare necessities of life for longer, and more consistently, than a day of labour?

Sexual Equality & Restriction.

Sex in public, train stations or popular parks is crime. It is so because sex triggers strong opinion, most salient of which is morality. Even sexuality which is consistent with the witnesses own, may still lead to rage, disgust, discomfort or other negative emotion. It is a crime, public sex, because it may imprint upon a youths developing sexuality in a way which is unacceptable to the youth-in-questions family, friends and moral guardians. It is a a crime because it is unhygienic.

Above is an example of legal restriction of sexual expression. Other common restrictions of sexuality include sex as work, paedophilia and homosexuality. These are centres of intense emotion, debate and of arbitrary limitation, such as 18 being consistently appropriate for coming-of-age to adulthood. Public space should be mostly neutral for co-existence between chafing diversities. Sexuality of private individuals & communities are allowed a much greater freedom of sexuality & restriction.

Sexuality has legal boundaries of which transgression incurs penalty. The most basic of these boundaries are held to be universal, and additional boundaries are only relevant to the public space. Restriction of sexuality, should burden all legitimate forms of sexuality equally. Criminalising public sexual intercourse inhibits hetero- & homo- sexual public sex equally. A mild counter example may be a homosexual couple kissing in public who hear pedestrians cast insult, which a heterosexual couple do not. Verbal expression of internal emotional states is valid, however, this hypothetical example demonstrates a move against public equality as a moral ideal.

Value systems which draw their scheme from a belief in a Divine Being, or which otherwise de-value equality are a deeper discussion, which leads into what should be the universal restrictions of sexuality. Hopefully it is agreeable to you that public spaces should be neutral, and to that end you recognise equality as a great boon. Does proper management of public space mean orienting it to suggest movement towards the ideal of the manager – should the government restrict sexuality to suit its own purposes (more families –> more people –> more tax –> greater financial power)?