Archive for the Politics Tirades Category

A NOT SO AMBIGUOUS SYMBOLISM – Wen Jiabao at the NPC 2012

Posted in Politics Tirades with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 3, 2012 by helenparker1212

Something very interesting happened in China last week. It brought to mind my essay on ambiguous symbolism and future uncertainty, because it was one of the most unusual and unexpected cases of great power positive signalling I’ve ever witnessed (I was only a toddler during Perestroika, so it doesn’t count).  During the international news conference following his farewell speech to the National Party Conference in Beijing, retiring Premier Wen Jiaboa suddenly began telling the foreign press about his country’s need for political and economic reform, and stating that he believed the international march towards democracy could not be held back ‘by any force.’

Wowzer.

It is not often that we hear the leader of a totalitarian regime personally apologising for his country’s shortcomings. Even more unexpected is the sight of that statesman becoming what can only be described as ‘visibly emotional’.  What will John Mearsheimer be thinking right now?

Politicians cannot read each others’ minds, and so every political and military manoeuver must automatically be interpreted as suspicious until proven otherwise, for the sake of sovereign security, even if it means forsaking global security. Mearsheimer has posited this for the past thirty years, especially concerning China. Is he just going to chalk this episode up to a bad day for Wen? That the actions of one statesman, no matter how influential, cannot be considered as indicative of the whole state?

I believe that Wen Jiaboa cannot be merely dismissed as an overemotional politician on the way out, and therefore irrelevant. I believe that his speech was a barely coded message to the Western world that China is gearing itself up for change, not for hegemonic conquest. Therefore any move of provocation on the West’s part now will merely serve as a shot in the foot, sending China back into the autocratic dark, instead of encouraging it out into the democratic light.

In the great blame game that is realpolitik it is the ‘other minds’ problem (identified by Hertz, Hollis and Smith, explored by Booth and Wheeler) which most diplomatic and undiplomatic activity revolves around. Robin Jervis warns us that we have to be able to interpret positive and negative signalling between states and recognise which of his four ‘world model’ security dynamics we are in. Failure to do so and behaving inappropriately as a result can prove catastrophic in international relations.

If we are to believe that the men at the centre of power in China are in fact men and not robots, then we have to believe that Wen is representative of these men. And if we do that, then we don’t have to read his mind, he is telling us. China is ready to come in from the cold.

North Korea, on the other hand, is not.

North Korea is in big trouble. Whereas some of it’s older caste military brass might have once been ready – worn down finally by age and experience – to dip a toe into the waters of international relations, its newly anointed leader is not. In true Stalinesqe style, Kim Jong un has overseen a brutal purge of military generals he suspected of disloyalty, even having one blown up with a mortar. This activity, coupled with his pursuance of the nuclear missile launch in defiance of the nuclear security summit and despite recommendations from his Chinese backers, proves to the international community that he has little to no regard for the rules even of realpolitik, let alone diplomacy.

The little pie boy is following his father’s time honoured tradition of scaring the international community into giving him food by launching nuclear missiles. Not exactly forward thinking. Theoretics around international politics are premised on the notion that foremost, a statesman is concerned with the health and protection of his own sovereign state. What happens to the theories then, when state leaders appear to be concerned with no such things. When their infrastructures are crumbling, their people are starving and their international activities are suicidally provocative?

Or maybe we should all be relieved we can finally stop worrying about China and concentrate on the real nuclear maniacs.

Tories, poor people and why we’re all about to get shafted.

Posted in Politics Tirades with tags , , on October 2, 2010 by helenparker1212

“The greatest good you can do for another is not just to share your riches, but to reveal to him his own.”

– Benjamin Disraeli

“No one would remember the Good Samaritain if he’d only had good intentions; he had money as well.”

– Margret Thatcher

At the end of the 1970s this country did a very stupid thing.

Three times.

We elected a Conservative government.

During these governments we witnessed (and to a degree participated in) the most extraordinary and reckless ‘fire-sale’ of domestic infrastructure ever known in our country’s history. Maggy, after a romance with Reagan, sold off the family silver at bargain bin prices, and a lot of people (from both middle and lower classes) became very, VERY rich. A new middle-class was born; swollen at their white collars, these neuve riche swanned about the cities of this country with mobile phones glued permanently to their faces as they bought, sold, undermined, and basically raped and pillaged their way through the fundamental fiscal stability of their own country. And they made LOADS ‘A MONEY! The city of London began to grow taller as the towers of industry began to soar into the very clouds.

Even some of the working classes got thrown a bone and were allowed to buy their council houses. Unfortunately this meant that anyone who needed a council house ended up in a very different kind of tower block.

Of course, there were some other little hiccups during this time of plenty. The government decided to enforce a Poll Tax on its people the likes of which hadn’t been seen since the 14th Century, and the results of which were also remarkably similar.

Yes, learning lessons from the past has never been a British strong point. Which brings me neatly to the present day. Yes everybody’s whinging about the cuts and the deficit and the ConLib pact, but really, we only have ourselves to blame for the shitstorm that’s about to hit us. You see we broke the number one rule. We got all caught up in talk of hung parliaments and LibDem revitalisation and Gordon Brown being a dull bastard and Cameron being a sympathetic character that we forgot the NUMBER ONE RULE of voting for people who earn below £20, 000 a year (the majority of the population by the way), which is NEVER NEVER EVER VOTE ANYTHING BUT LABOUR NO MATTER WHAT.

You see, the clue is in the name – ‘Conservatives’. And we have to go back about a hundred years (not that long ago in the grand scheme of things) to a time when the upper classes were in the minority, the lower classes were the majority, and the middle class was a curious little bastard of economic hybrids. These were the days when most of our ancestors worked either in factories or in domestic service. When school was restricted to the few, and malnourishment was commonplace. In fact, the general working population was in such ill health that, when called upon to fight in the South African war, most recruits were deemed too unfit to fight. Thus, the upper classes were faced with an issue. How to get more healthy soldiers to fight in their foreign imperialist wars. Soldiers to help the rich remain rich and get even richer. The answer was suprisingly simple.

A national health service was born. And from it’s roots our very own NHS would grow.

The perfect soldier-making machine.

Within a generation the working classes were elevated to a level of health which meant that when the Great War came, an entire generation of fit and nourished British men were sent over to France by an over-confident upper class, and summarily obliterated.

It was only after this almost overt disregard for the lives of the common soldiers that the working class began to suspect their social superiors were in fact not all they were cracked up to be. Some have argued that this was the point where the class system in Britain began to finally disintegrate, with the poorer classes abandoning all traditional respect for their supposed betters.

Skill, not inherited wealth, became the medal of social standing, and a new middle class was born, of self-made men working for themselves and overtaking draconian imperial trade with pioneering industry for the masses. The middle class became the dominant class.

But it was here that we made the fatal error which we are still suffering from today.

We forgot what it was like to be ruled by the upper classes.

We even forgot who the upper classes were, and what they stood for.

The Conservation of the old way.

The retention of political and economic power by the historically powerful minority, and the supression of the aspiration and advancement of the lower classes in order to maintain a stable workforce and a reserve of effective soldiers.

In other words, slavery.

The upper classes do not want us to be educated. This is why they support private education while the state system rots and our children fall by the wayside. Nor do they want us to be politically empowered. This is why they dominate every office of power in this country. They do not want us to be socially liberated. This is why they have imposed checks on all modes of public activity and congregation, including policing the right to protest.

Today we can be physically assaulted by the police if we protest.

We think the class system is dead.

We’re dead wrong.

And we’re all about to get shafted.

ON WAR – and the unfailing fallibility of soldiers

Posted in Politics Tirades with tags , , , , , , , , , on April 8, 2010 by helenparker1212

First off, watch this…

I think it was Thomas Aquinas who said that soldiers are murderers, but if the war is just then it’s ok and they won’t burn in eternal damnation, so long as they don’t kill too many civilians. Ok, those weren’t his exact words, but that is the most basic gist of the just war theory posited by, well, theorists, for centuries. It’s all very interesting and complicated and you really have to study it yourself to get to grips with the entire gamut of the justifications for atrocities in war, but really, at the core, it all boils down to one very simple, commonly accepted truth:

That soldiers are sent by the people and parliament, into warzones, and whatever activities ensue thereafter, are not the responsibility of the soldiers, but of the command, and the command are answerable to the parliament and therefore the people. The soldiers therefore become bystanders to their own actions, exempt. If the soldier behaves badly, say, wantonly killing and torturing and molesting, it is because he is untrained, thus the fault is on the commanders, who are answerable to the parliament who are answerable to the people.

Get it?

Basically it’s our fault if our soldiers behave like animals.

Ok, so you’re probably recovering right now and thinking things like, ‘wow that really reminded me of that level in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare’, or ‘yeah, the camera looked like an RPG from that angle’, except that you don’t know what an RPG even looks like until you google it and realise it’s fuckin HUGE and looks nothing like a fuckin camera and that a simple pair of binoculars could have identified those men as noncombatants!

They were in the vicinity of a firefight?? Well, given that the majority of the population of central Iraq is in the vicinity of a war zone – in that they are in the middle of a foreign invasion – I guess the solution the US have come to is to kill everyone, everywhere. “Light ’em up”.

And that means anyone carrying a gun, looking at a gun, thinking about a gun, carrying a dying man to safety who might happen to be thinking about a gun, driving a van with his children into a warzone to help dying men who might also then maybe pick up a gun that might be carried by said dying man and so on and so on until every Iraqi in Iraq is either dead, or in total fucking awe of US helicopter gunmen’s target accuracy, which they most definitely honed playing Xbox.

Thankyou Microsoft. Without you we wouldn’t be able to get them “right through the windshield” and into the stomachs of little girls. Also, it must be far healthier for our poor traumatised boys on the front line to be able to view this destruction from a distance. To be able to laugh about it. Because heaven forbid they should wind up with PTSD, which is very expensive to treat on army health care. I mean, they only go where they’re sent, right? Poor, poor, traumatised pooches.

Actually I’m not attacking US grunt ground troops here –  they have their own crimes to answer for. No, it’s the gamers in the chopper who are the real animals in this horrific sequence of cockups. When you watch the footage of the ground troops arriving on the scene, you can hear the horror and panic in the soldier’s voice as he calls for a medical evacuation for the wounded children. Imagine the scene they’ve just stumbled into: fifteen bodies blown to bits and no weapons. Two mortally wounded kiddies, and no weapons. They have been, in military terms, clusterfucked by their own comrades. And now they have to clear up the mess.

Or drive over it.

Or send it to die in a local hospital.

Before the Germans started doodlebugging us, and gassing us, warfare used to be a very personal activity for soldiers. Waiting to see the whites of their enemies’ eyes was the general reality of warfare for most of human history.

Only in the twentieth and twenty first century has warfare become a case of the further away the better. Unfortunately, along with this leap in technological warfare comes the increased likleyhood of the further away the more likely you are to fuck up and kill a whole bunch of civilians.

And I’m not referring to the Blitz, or Dresden, or Hiroshima, because those were cases where we deliberately targeted civilians. I’m talking about inexcusable ‘collateral’ damage, connived, concealed, and ultimately unpunishable. Because, remember, a soldier only fucks up because his training fails, the fault of the commanders who are answerable to the parliament who are answerable to us. And we are to blame for all of it.

The Ever Raging War Against The Toff Twats – A Response to Otis Ferry’s Interview in The Times

Posted in Politics Tirades with tags , , , , , , , , on December 28, 2009 by helenparker1212

Merry Crimbo one and all, or ‘Wintermass’ to all those with poles up their bums. I have just had the good fortune to pick up The Times 27th December issue, and stumble upon an interview with Otis Ferry, taken by one Camilla Long. I have to say it was one of the most entertaining things i’ve read in a long time. I just had to blurt a response.

Otis isn’t happy you see. He is not happy that Simon Cowell and “some bitch from Islington” are on Newsnight, he is unhappy that John Craven has not yet replied to his email citing the dictionary definition of ‘perversion’, and he is not happy he can no longer legally enter his jodhpur and chase fluffy vermin across England’s green and pleasant lands without running into a black or an Asian or a Pole or an anti-hunt protestor. Or worse, a black Asian Polish anti-hunt protestor.

Otis and his father Bryan Ferry are big hunters you see. BIG hunters. You remember his father right? The guy who thought the Nazis’ style and their rallies were “just amazing. Really beautiful.”

Yeah, that guy.

Well his son is a chip off the old block let him tell you. It seems poor Otis is very worried about dear old England. What with Simon Cowell, and the fox hunting ban, and all the blacks and Asians. No sorry, ‘immigration’. Yes, it’s immigration he’s worried about, even though he admits he doesn’t “understand how it works”, and he hates “the thought of depriving poor Mrs Punjab of her ‘right to come here’ “. But he is convinced you see, convinced that we have simply run out of room for new people in this country.

Yeah you noticed that didn’t you; “poor Mrs Punjab”. I literally began rubbing my hands with glee at this point.

Anyway, as he “focuses his shrewishly handsome features” on Camilla Long, he postulates on the “sheer shitness of our country” and then recalls the “namby-pamby” nature of his prison stint in comparison to his boarding school days. Apparently private education not only provides a better quality of education, but also a better quality of sodomy and shanking as well. Readers take note.

And inmates too, in case he ever gets banged up again; “namby pamby” he called you.

Anyway where the hell was i? Oh yes, fox hunting. Camilla Long, taking a break from fellating Otis’s ego, deigns to broach the subject of the 75% opinion poll result against fox hunting, to which Otis replies “well, if you’ve got a lot of morons following Simon Cowell”. He also suggests the best remedy for the general population’s ignorance is to “round them all up” and go to work on them in a Clock Work Orange style torture cinema. Yes, and while he’s at it, perhaps he could round up the immigrants and turn Mrs Punjab into a lamp shade to add to his father’s Nazi paraphernalia collection.

The fact is Otis appears to be suffering from the congenital scourge of the upper classes (which he so desperately aspires to be part of but never truly can because his grandfather was a pit-pony keeper). Yes, the upper class scourge of being generally fucking insane. But his racism and his ignorance is actually not what repulses me about this odious little cretin. No. What really brings the bile up in my throat is the fact that this little twat, from a working class background, has styled himself into an ersatz toff.

And not just any old toff.

A toff twat.

Otis’s betrayal of his working class family heritage leads me specifically to the bigger picture behind the fox hunting ban which he is so publically apoplectic over.

If anyone ever tells you we banned fox hunting because of cruelty to animals they are either lying outright, or woefully misguided. We didn’t ban fox hunting because we’re worried a fox might get it’s throat ripped out by a dog every now and again. In fact we do care, but only from afar.  As far as our sofas. As far as the digi-box and satellite dish signals can keep us.

The truth is we don’t give a shite about the piddling affairs of a few foxes in the shires. We have more pressing concerns. like money, and how the fuck we get it. It’s an age-old concern the majority of us share, as did our ancestors before us from time immemorial. But there are a few…a privileged few, who have no such concerns, and never have.

We do not give a shit about foxes.

What we do give a shit about, as our ancestors did before us,  is the gradual destruction of the British upper class.

Fox hunters bemoan the loss of a tradition and a way of life known in this country for hundreds of years, even the odd thousand or whatever. What they don’t realise is that we are deliberately trying to destroy them. Since the end of WW1 we have been trying to destroy them. And we still haven’t succeeded, but damn it we are getting there.

If we maintain and increase and enshrine into constitutional law the socialist ideals we have come to take for granted in this century and the last, then we will eventually, via taxation, bankrupt these cretinous moneybags of their historical inheritances which were made from the blood of slaves and serfs and our ancestors actually. If we bother to remember them. No Englishman’s wealth just fell out of the sky, even the fucking Queen is aware of that.

And yet these parasites, and spawn of parasites, seem determined that they are entitled to retain their ill-gotten gains. that they have somehow earned their inheritances.

Their wealth was not won with the power of their minds, though. certainly not. No amount of education, no matter how expensive or selective or superb, can break through a thousand years of inbred spastication. You can be well-educated and still be a retarded fuckwit, just look at the house of Lords for proof. Those wobbling, dribbling titans of social standing are so genetically degenerated that, if put to it, no professional animal breeder worth his standing would allow them to ejaculate into a sock, let alone a woman.

If we don’t succeed in bankrupting them of their financial inheritances with socialist taxes, then their own inbred genetic mutations will eventually prevent them from breeding anyway.

The only thing that could throw the final solution to the upper class menace is if people – befuddled by Cameron’s very convincing human suit – vote in the Conservatives in the upcoming general election. That would be fucking bad in every kind of fucking way.

Alright New Labour are swine, but my god at least they’re OUR swine! The expenses scandal was telling in more ways than one. They all have their snouts in the trough, we know that. But New Labour expenses claims are so reassuringly working class it hurts. Basically New Labour MPs are like teenagers who suddenly realise they can steal out of mum’s purse. So what do they go and buy??

Porn. Bathroom installations. Toilet seats. Dry cleaning.

What did the Tories (ex or otherwise) claim for?

Moats. Duck Houses. Bell Towers.

Case and point, my fellow crusaders.

Case and fucking point.

ON LIB-DEM IDEAS OF TAXING THE RICH TO BENEFIT THE POOR

Posted in Politics Tirades with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 24, 2009 by helenparker1212

Sounds like a pretty bloody simple policy, right? The new Lib-Dem ‘big idea’ is that those with houses worth over a million pounds should pay slightly more tax than every other fucker, for the simple reason that they have more money – clearly, they must have more money if they have a big house. Right? And these people with their big houses – about 1% of the population – should pay more because they have more. Trouble is, this simple moral outlook has an even simpler scupper. Why the hell should we pay more tax simply because we have worked hard to earn more? And what about those who own a million pound house but don’t actually earn all that much? If they’re retired, or inherited it, or whatever excuse they have.

poshhouse

In the economic system we have accepted to live by – and we have accepted it whether we like it or not – everybody has the opportunity to work hard and earn lots. You can go to university, get educated, and then go work in a bank and sell sub-prime mortgages and then cut and run before anyone can catch you and put a brick through your face. So why on earth should these people who have worked hard to earn well give their money arbitrarily to people who have shirked education in favour of state handouts and idleness? Why should they pay for pensioners? They have a state pension, don’t they? Well, there you go then, anyone can live on £80 a week, it’s not like pensioners need much money anyway, they don’t actually ‘do’ anything, do they? And as for these families living in council houses on the dole with eight kids. Well, they made their choices and got into that mess. Why should I, who have worked hard all my life, pay for these good-for-nothing scroungers?

addicts

Sound familiar? It’s the kind of thing people blurt out when they’ve just looked at their wage slip and seen how much has been confiscated in tax.  OK, maybe not about the pensioners, but certainly the situation in this country when it comes to social welfare is particularly fuckin galling. On the news this week were two stories which hit home to me and sent me into exhorts of vitriolic rage. The first was the Lib-Dems’ new dream of arbitrary tax for the rich, and the second was the story of women attempting to escape domestic violence being denied refuge by councils attempting to save money.

On the one hand was a stupidly idealistic idea that has absolutely no chance of coming to fruition, and on the other is a desperate case for the implementation of this stupid idea immediately. The fact is that councils are shit, and they cannot be trusted to spend the money we give them responsibly. They allocate money for road maintenance when it is needed to finance child protection services so that vulnerable children like Baby Peter can be removed from their dangerous parents before they batter them to death. Road maintenance is important after all. Otherwise people will complain about pot-holes. And as for these women fleeing their violent partners, well, an entire family on the dole with matching heroin addictions have a much fairer case for social housing than she does. There are more of them, for a start. And she was probably a nag anyway.

potholes

Baby-P_1396065c

The fact is that you cannot justify the arbitrary taxation of the rich. What are we, communists? If we are then maybe we should be debating whether or not to put dole scroungers into factories and forced labour camps rather than debating the taxation of a whole 1% of the country. We have the infrastructure to protect the less wealthy in this country, it just doesn’t work very well. It’s not about underfunding, it’s about mishandled funding. Tax doesn’t need to go up or down, it just needs to be controlled and monitored as and when it is spent, and unfortunately this power lies in the hands of the government and the councils they umbrella. And they’re all fuckwits. But this is as much the fault of the rich minority as it is of the poor majoritybristol libdems

We are all responsible for the behaviour of the people we put in power. We knew all about MPs’ expenses long before the numbers came out, but we did bugger all, and we’re still doing bugger all. They still regulate their own expenses, we have achieved nothing with our media outcry. We sit on our arses and complain but we actively do, and thus achieve, nada, zilch, NOTHING. We all know what we have to do. We have to massively increase income tax. That’s THE GOLDEN RULE NUMBER ONE on the road to equality. This raise in tax can then fund and sustain the raising of the minimum wage to a decent level, so that exploitation is eradicated and financial stability is guaranteed for the majority over the minority. Those are the first actions that need to be taken.

Those are the absolute fundamentals. Everything else can wait, we just need those two first. Then we can build. And as for the argument that “the brightest minds will leave”, then let the treacherous little swines leave, there are plenty who will gladly step into their places. No end of them in fact. Everyone wants in on this country, all over the world they want to be here. So those that want to leave may feel free to do so. We don’t want you.

Bon-Voyage,-Waving-Goodbye-at-the-Dockside-Giclee-Print-C12378178

ON THE POISONOUS NATURE OF UNIVERSITY FUNDING CUTS

Posted in Politics Tirades with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 21, 2009 by helenparker1212

OK, just watched Channel 4 news and am feeling incensed, so I thought I’d vent my spleen. Firstly on the news that the Liberal Democrats are shelving their goal of ending student tuition fees. There is a philosophy (you hear it in pubs a lot when people who work in offices and wear ill-fitting pin-striped suits get the credit cards out and start drinking sambuca) that claims people are naturally divided into those with the intellectual capacity for academic and economic brilliance, and those with the intellectual capacity to become hairdressers and bricklayers.

hairdressing_02

This philosophy attests that for a society to sustain itself these natural intellectual divides must be recognised, and that those with a low intellectual capacity should not be given hopes and aspirations above their intellectual stations. That we should not encourage or fund these people in university. Or really even in college or sixth form for that matter. Hell, maybe not even in GCSEs, unless they’re in hair-dressing and brick-laying, or leisure and tourism; those in the bad suits always need plane tickets to the Maldeves to be sold to them by someone; we can’t do it all by computer, we still have some realistic Luddite sensibilities. Still have. What was I saying? Oh yeah.

So anyway, this philosophy, it’s never quite been fully allowed to prevail, even despite the atrocious segregation of my parents’ generation between grammar schools and technical schools and no school at all, university places were funded with a grant. There were no tuition fees to speak of. Universities were supported by the state, even if they were still segregated into polytechnics etc. You could still go. The only thing holding people back was social apathy, i.e. their ignorant parents who were too busy down t’ pit or in t’ kitchen to give their children any intellectual aspiration. The fact is you could still afford to go if you wanted to.

1950s-housewife1-255x300

Coal-Miners-Day-756006

The dream ended however when my generation decided they actually mostly wanted to go to university and not t’ pit or t’ kitchen (in modern terms, retail and catering). Wow, the state said, there’s too many of them, we can’t give them all this money, we need it for the banks and for a few wars we might have. Thus, the tuition fee was born overnight, and universities changed from unifying climates of intellectual and practical social amalgamation and progression towards utopian enlightenment like what we always see in sci-fi films and stuff. You know, where they’re always wearing togas and wandering around pleasure gardens. And instead they became multi-million pound businesses interested in only one thing: MONEY. Our money. Loaned to us by the state, to be repaid by us to the state in kind over the course of our entire frikin lives. Plus interest. And if they couldn’t get enough money out of us, then they had an international market to select from. FOREIGN MONEY. They could triple fees for foreign students, and give them course places over the poorer natives. GIVE US YOUR MONEY AND WE WILL CUT YOUR TUTOR HOURS AND THEIR WAGES, BUT YOU’LL GET A NICER ARTS CENTRE. MONEY.

protest07

The labour government – the fuckers – had a saving grace in their aim of 50% of young people going into further education. Half of the young population actively encouraged to reach for the intellectual sky and fuck what anyone else said. Half of the population shoved together on campuses and forced to coexist with every different social strata imaginable – an intellectual and social UNIVERSE, shoved together and mixing in scummy student accomodation, dodgy pubs and clubs, late night trips to Spar, home-sickness, sports halls and freshers week pissups. Even with the horrifying prospect of a $20 grand debt to haunt their adult lives, 50% of young people were going to be encouraged to go for it anyway, to better themselves and to enjoy themselves and to finally break down the social barriers their parents and their parents’ parents and their parents’ parents and their parents’ parents laboured under since the dawn of frikin time.

welcome_week_talk_2009

Oh, but now we’re in a recession, suddenly universities can’t provide the places for this many young hopefuls. Suddenly the government can’t afford to loan this many of its citizens the money for intellectual and economic fulfilment. Suddenly university managers are tightening the belts and sacking tutors and reducing places and turning down local applicants in favour of foreign applicants who can provide triple the money. Now the talk is of reducing the 50% goal. To what though? Is the pin-striped sambuca drinking office philosophy going to win out over the basic fucking ideal of human endeavour??

This is not recession economics.

This is conspiracy.

This is odious, noxious stench of economic elitism seeping into our most important weapon in the economic struggle, the education system.

They will win if we allow the intellectual ambition of the majority to die.

FIGHT IT

FIGHT IT

FIGHT IT

FIGHT IT

berkleyprotest460

And if you want to go to university and the only thing you feel confident studying is hairdressing management or golf course management then you should go to university and study hairdressing management and golf course management, and no fucker should EVER make you feel like you don’t deserve to be there.

How Did Israel Achieve Victory Over The Arabs Between 1947 and 1949?

Posted in Politics Tirades with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 5, 2009 by helenparker1212

The question of how the Israelis managed such an astonishing victory over the Arab world has only recently become a contested subject within Israel itself, after the rise of the ‘new historian’ movement in the 1980s. The myths disseminated throughout Israeli history were subsequently blasted, and new causes for the success were explored, such as the disunity of the Arab states during the civil war and the invasion, also the lack of intervention of the part of the UN and the British, but most significantly, the part Israel played in the expulsion of the Palestinian population.

palestinian woman

This essay examines in six stages the key elements at play during the two wars, which assisted the Israeli victory. It will examine the military preparedness and strategies of both the Palestinians and the Zionist in the run up to, and during the civil war. Then it will assess the influence of outside forces on the shape of the war. Lastly it will discuss the importance of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

Continue reading