#average terrorist sympathiser | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

aviv-kasyanenko · 3 years

Text

NEW YEAR’S EVE 2020 [1 of 3?]:

You’re going to think I enjoyed writing this, but please know that I didn’t.

Date: December 31st, 2020. About 11:30pm. Warnings: Idk, mob stuff. I don’t want to spoil it but if this is too much for you then why are you even here reading Russian shit rn lbr.

Well, he had to hand it to them: they could sure carry on a party in the face of just about anything.

Though Vorya had been plunged into darkness—not unlike the rest of the city, if stories recounted by drunken tongues were to be believed—the Russians had point-blank refused to allow their New Year’s Eve celebrations to be interrupted. The alcohol continued to flow as freely as one would expect from them, and even those who weren’t affiliated with the Vorshevsky family in some way had decided to stick around and ride out whatever was going on. It seemed unlikely there would be a better time to be found anywhere else.

Naturally, his immediate reaction to the blackout had been to blame the weather.

When hushed whispers started to circulate a rumour there’d been an explosion on the other side of the river, however, his mind wandered into uncomfortable territory only another glass of vodka could put to ease. The anxieties he’d been trying to avoid since he’d landed in the shit hole he now called home were only compounded by the text from their boss; evidence in itself that the man wasn’t worried about whatever this was.

Bombs were hardly the style of the French, and the Rutherfords had no reason to make such an ugly scar on the face of a city they were still battling desperately to keep under their control.

So if there had been an explosion the three main culprits weren’t responsible for, it really only left two options:

Either Arkady gave even fewer fucks about London than he’d initially thought, and would jump on just about any tragedy that he thought could be of benefit, or a not so unfamiliar enemy was rearing its ugly fucking head on a country it’d already spent years tormenting, and the old man already knew it was coming.

Aviv’s relationship with the HCA was well understood to be a complicated one. Whilst he couldn’t begrudge the Russian mob doing business with them—money was fucking money, and at the end of the day, that was all that mattered—that didn’t mean he hadn’t made his aversion to their goals abundantly clear. Those who affiliated with the Vorshevskys varied in their opinions; some of the Russians sympathised with the group’s goals, where others thought they were fucking insane. For those who’d originated from the former USSR countries the terrorist organization once again sought to control, however, it was a little more personal.

The Ukrainians, in particular, had been dealt a shitty hand by those cunts. Maybe the Kurylenkos had been in Launceston so long it didn’t matter to them.

Aviv didn’t much feel like looking past it, though.

Though he’d been sat at the bar in relative silence, enjoying a moment’s calm from what he was sure would be a party that carried on until the sun was all the light they needed to get home, it was interrupted just as he was about to request another refill.

“Aviv, can you help me with something?”

The Israeli had turned to the Kurylenko loyalist with a glare that said: No.

Even in the dimly lit room, it didn’t take long for him to realise that the expression he wore carried more anxiety than any of the inner turmoil he’d been fighting. All it took was a second for his gut to sink. The expectation had loomed heavy over all of their heads after the shit show that had been last year’s celebration, but now, as he looked back at a man visibly sweating, he was sure that their night was finally set to unravel. Something was very wrong.

Deciding the spare the others any concern until he was absolutely sure it was necessary, the fighter got to his feet and followed the green-as-grass security kid out to the back room.

The scene he was met with was not what he’d been expecting.

A second Kurylenko loyalist was stood in front of them, shining a torch downward to illuminate a pristinely wrapped Christmas gift; gold ribbon holding it together like it was the most innocent thing in the fucking world.

Were they joking?

“Bit fucking late for Chanukah, boys,” he mocked.

The man with the torch said nothing.

It was then Aviv noticed that his hands were red.

“We didn’t open it, but—”

Words seemed to fail Artyom, the man who had come to find him at the bar, at that point, and instead he gestured toward the box as if to say ‘take a look.’ It was rare that Aviv ever found himself feeling apprehensive, but as he realised the same red on the hands of the man opposite had since pooled around the bottom of the gift, it was impossible to ignore.

It looked like blood.

Hesitant to touch, he reached out just enough to tilt the label into view.

It read simply: ‘Joyeux Noël.’

“Who delivered this?” Aviv snapped, looking to each of them in turn. “Where’d you find it?”

“Some guy in a suit left it on the doorstep.”

“French?”

“I don’t know, he sounded American. I—”

With each word, Aviv could feel the blood in his veins begin to boil.

“What did he look like?”

“Uh, I don’t know. It was dark, he—” Artyom stuttered.

“Average height. Beard,” the other began in an attempt to save his friend from getting his head slammed into the fucking wall, “expensive looking suit.”

Didn’t narrow it down in the fucking slightest, but who else but a French piece of shit would’ve left such an obvious ‘fuck you’ right at the height of their party?

After a moment’s hesitation he usually wouldn’t have allowed himself, he finally untied the ribbon and removed the lid of the box. The smell hit so fucking fast he was surprised that the container had managed to hold it until now. Unmistakeable every time, pungent and assaulting, the kind that could make anyone sick to their stomach: it smelled like death.

As he looked down into the depths of the box, the view of whatever it was holding was obscured by plastic wrap; bloodied, and obviously not fit for fucking purpose given the swamp it was now sat in. Aviv never had a weak stomach for these things. His time working with the Vorshevskys had desensitised him to the most violent depths of a man’s imagination and the havoc it wrought. It wasn’t the idea of what he was going to find that bothered him, but more so who. The French had taken a lot of hits lately and he’d been glad for every single minute of their suffering. But it seemed unlikely that however they chose to finally get back at their biggest enemies would be anything short of personal.

It’d started with Svetlana, and would end with this.

Peeling back the barrier, the first thing he noted was the hair; beautiful blonde, eerily reminiscent of his dead girlfriend, albeit matted with so much blood it was hard to discern.

A fucking head.

Now that was absolutely a French fucking MO.

“Jesus fucking Christ…” Artyom muttered.

“Watch your mouth,” Aviv countered quietly, though unwilling to look up from the hair in his hand.

He almost didn’t want to touch her. But they needed to know.

“Who is it?”

As he eventually pushed back the hair to reveal the face of the victim, he realised that even the worst case scenarios his brain had been cycling through hadn’t been close. All at once, the striking pain of loss returned with unimaginable force and it felt like his chest was being fucking crushed. All the air in his lungs left him. Even if he’d wanted to answer their pig-ignorant question, he wasn’t sure he could’ve found the words to curse them to fucking hell.

Did they not know the place in which they stood?

Aviv wouldn’t pretend to not understand why their enemies had done this, but for what possible reason could they have chosen her beyond pettiness?

“Go and get Maksim,” he finally said. The sound of his own voice seemed foreign to him. “Andrei, too.”

If anyone was going to break it to the family, it should’ve been them.

Maksim could soften the blow for the Kurylenkos, and Andrei was almost certainly better suited than him to tell Mikhail that another one of his sister’s was dead.

“Aviv…who?”

The man didn’t even have it in him to be angry at the persistence.

Aviv had already lived through the pain of losing family once.

Not nearly as much as they had, though…

As he finally tore his eyes away from the decapitated head of Katarina Vorshevsky, he had only three words left to give:

“That’s my sister.”

#self para #event: NYE2020 #sorry kara #MobNYEdrop

12 notes · View notes

generalchelseamayhem · 4 years

Quote

Exit poll 386 Tory 191 Labour Tory majority of 81 So fuck it, I'm gonna risk this rant... it's been brewing for a while... Fuck off, Jeremy Corbyn, you hopeless old tatterdemalion, and take your useless fucking coterie with you. You've wasted years, lost everything you've tried, and are the single biggest cause of the Tory win. Should've gone 3 years ago. Go now. People will say "I bet you want Blair". No. Blair might be the opposite of Corbyn, but he's not the only alternative to him. The mistake Labour made is thinking a bad person being good at politics means everybody good at politics is bad. People will say "the media is biased". Yes. But that's the environment Labour leaders always operate in. Complaining about it is like trawler captains complaining the sea is wet. Yep. Learn to thrive in those conditions, or get off the boat. People will say "they treated him worse than any previous leader". They did. Cos he was shit at working the press, had a history of opinions that could be easily made to look awful, was inept on antisemitism, shifty on Brexit and cantankerous on TV. People will say "no way is he racist". Perhaps. But if people accused me of antisemitism, I'd be able to clearly defend myself, demonstrate my credentials, and put in place a strategy to stop accusations. He couldn't. If he's not antisemitic, he's inept. People will say "voters love him in person". I'm sure. But we've been in the age of broadcasting for 80 years. What the hell use is being warm and cuddly to 600 people in a field, when you come over badly to 60 million people on TV? People will say "he grew the party". He did. But he lost elections. People will say "members love him". They do. But members aren't all voters. People will say "his manifesto is great". Maybe. But the more radical your are, the better salesman you need to be. And he's crap. People will say "who would have done better?" Literally every other Leader of the Opposition EVER. Specifically Jess Phillips, Kier Starmer, David Lammy, Angela Rayner, Laura Piddock, Yvette Cooper, or Tom Watson before you drove him and a dozen more out. People will say "you're a centrist, just join LibDems". Yes I am, vaguely, and no I won't. I'd happily vote for Corbyn's agenda if it was led by someone competent and appealing. People will say "Brexit broke traditional parties". True. But Leave all voted Tory. Why didn't Remain all vote Labour? Cos our leader is divisive, inept, shambolic, uninspiring, and too easy to besmirch as an antisemite, terrorist sympathiser, and Leave voter. People will say "his Brexit plan made sense". Maybe. But he had to be dragged to it over the course of 3 years, resisting every step, giving mixed messages and looking woozy and lost; by the time he had a plan, nobody trusted him. People will say "Tories told thousands of lies". Yep. If only somebody had seen this happen before and put together a Rapid Response Unit to kill lies in seconds. Oh yeah, Blair did that and won. Corbyn didn't and lost. Just cos Blair did it, doesn't make it bad. People will say "the PLP mutinied against him". They did. They aren't idiots. They could see within weeks Corbyn was a disaster, cos they'd met him. 172 wanted him to go. 40 wanted him to stay. Pretty much the ratio of voters who wanted him to stay / go. MPs were right. People will say "we had to let him try". We did let him try. For years. He lost the referendum in 2016. He lost the election in 2017. He lost the EU elections in 2019. He's lost again. The only thing he's won was "most unpopular Leader of Opposition in history". People will say "the soft left didn't help him". We did. We proposed him as leader. We elected him leader. We voted for him in elections, even though we knew he was shite. What didn't help him was the hard left telling us to go and join LibDems every day. People will say "he was democratically elected". Yes. But members are fanatical, by definition. They don't think like average voters. Letting a fan club manage a band is a stupid idea. They'll book Wembley for 4 nights for Steve Brookstein, cos they don't realise he's shit. And I'm sure people will say rude things to me. They'll pick apart every word and quibble every sentiment. They'll demand I "prove it", or send me links showing how wrong I am. Sick of that shit. We lost, millions will suffer, and you're still defending the primary cause. Jeremy Corbyn has been, from the moment he was elected leader, the Tory party's wet dream. Unless you drink a LOT of Kool Aid, you could predict this fiasco years ago. If he couldn't see it coming, he's a moron. If he could, he's a selfish prick for not quitting. Time to go now. Hand over to whatever MPs are left after this car-crash, get to your allotment, and let some bloody professionals try to save what they can from the Tory disaster you've bequeathed upon an undeserving nation.

@RussInCheshire on Twitter

#Brexit #politics #UK general election #The UK is dooooooooooomed

2 notes · View notes

raygoodwinmajournal · 3 years

Photo

Industrial Society and its Future - Theodore Kaczynski’s Manifesto

Theodore Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomer is a convicted domestic terrorist, anarchist and mathematician. Ted is renown for his actions, which constituted of himself living in a shack in the Montana wilderness, creating and sending postal bombs to various universities and airlines (un = universities & a = airlines, creating unabomb). Ted is an incredibly intelligent man, with an IQ of 167 making him a certified genius, with Ted also attending Harvard at 16 and obtaining a PhD in Mathematics at 25. But, how can a man this smart with an intense intellect become one of the America’s most renown terrorists?

Ted was a particularly tormented individual, with multiple rejections and estrangements from an early age. Whilst at Harvard, it is said that Ted fell into the grips of physiological experiments ran by Henry A. Murray, with those experiments performed on 22 other students within Harvard. These experiments targeted the unwitting students to a torment of stress and attacks on their very ego and beliefs, making them crumble under great stress and distress. These sessions were filmed and then played back to the students to further break them down. Ted was humiliated over three years, with these experiments potentially being linked to the Project MKUltra experiments, which was the CIA’s research into mind control.

After years of torment, embarrassment and torture, he finally resided into a wooden cabin that he and his brother built in rural Montana. Ted would live a secluded and isolated life, living off of the land and sometimes venturing to the local town to volunteer at the library. Ted became angry about the society he was placed and the technology it created, which caused him to start sending postal bombs to various addresses, which he made in his shack. A quick side note, I do not condone what Ted undertook, with the crimes he committed being completely heinous and twisted. Yet, I feel ones actions shouldn’t mar their ideas and thoughts. Ted may have acted wrongly, and the people he injured and killed are sadly a victim of a damaged individual. But, Ted’s ideas of our modern society - for the most part - are correct within my opinion.

Industrial Society and Its Future is Ted’s manifesto, with himself being referred to as We and F.C (Freedom Club). F.C was also inscribed onto pieces of metal within the shipped postal bombs. What Ted’s manifesto outlines is where society went wrong and the implications of it. We have lost touch with nature and the real problems of it, instead creating problems for ourselves within society that we aren’t equipped to figure out, creating stress and psychological issues. We undertake surrogate activities - activities that feature an arbitrary goal with little to no meaning, which includes sports, bodybuilding, mountain biking and the like. Within our society, we have become so detached from our origins that our lives are controlled not by ourselves, but by the society itself. What is good for society, must be good for it’s citizens. We are controlled by every facet of life - if it isn’t the stop signs or traffic lights telling you when to go or stop, it is the select few people at the very top telling the population what is acceptable. What Ted is saying here, is that we are subjugated as a whole within society. We aren’t able to do what we want to do as it has to be socially acceptable to do so. And if we do something that we think is of free thought, it probably isn’t because of our susceptibility of advertisements and propaganda. Our lives are ran on rails which society has laid down for us, and there is no way of derailing that unless we do what Ted does, and live completely remotely and isolated from society, which most people aren’t equipped to do as they’re so ingrained and subjugated by the industrial society with little to no knowledge of how to escape it.

What this manifesto really says is the dangers of modern society, and how it has twisted and skewed how humans live, and how they have adapted - or not - to cope with technology. It is clear to see that Ted is an incredibly alienated and estranged man, even from his own family as well as society. And from my point of view is an extreme case of what can happen with someone is estranged from modernity and angry because of what has happened to them because of our society. The end of paragraph 18 “Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly”, which in context speaks about how leftists view someone who is inferior blames society rather than one’s lack of ability or skill. In contrast “heavy pressure is put on children to excel in these fields (science, engineering & mathematics). It isn’t natural for an adolescent human being to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study” on paragraph 115. This reflects on Ted’s own upbringing, using his intellect to skip grades and attend Harvard whilst being grossly emotionally underprepared. Ted was brought up normally in a normal American household, but because of society has strayed and caused a trail of destruction, but certainly not being seen as inferior.

Ted also mentions that leftism has something to do with it too, referring to the neoliberal policies being brought in since the 1950′s, and becoming more apparent in the 1980′s with Reaganomics and Thatcherism, with “almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society”, which is true but somewhat subjective, as some might not even think about how we live as a whole, yet Ted attributes this to leftism - the politically correct types who are usually university professors with secure employment, comfortable salaries and mainly being white, middle aged heterosexual upper middle class men who are usually within the stronghold of being P.C, instead of the usually oppressed minorities such as African Americans or Asians. Ted also calls the politically correct types as “feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the likes”, paragraph 7. The two phycological tendencies that Ted outlines is feelings of inferiority and over socialisation, with feelings of inferiority being “low self esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self hatred, etc. And over socialisation being, “avoid feelings of guilt...have to deceive themselves about their own motives...find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a nonmoral origin”, paragraph 25. This again is reiterated at the end of the manifesto: “Anyone why strongly sympathises with ALL of these movements is almost certainly a leftist”, paragraph 229. That being said, even Ted says it hard to underlie what really is a leftist, showing that he doesn’t have all of the answers, sometimes being vague and admitting that his knowledge on a particular subject isn’t up to par, and can’t comment.

An interesting note that Ted brings up is how technology has subordinated us, making us compliant and subjugated. Technology is at first, completely optional. We don’t have to drive a car to get around, we can get to destinations just fine by walking. Yet, as it is more accessible to us, it becomes harder and harder to get around until we have to get a license and a car. The car is seen as a sign of freedom as we can go where we like, but in order to do that we have to own a license and drive where we are permitted to drive, with most cities being designed around the car or motorised transport. Soon enough, all technology becomes forced upon us until we cannot live without it. Another example - which is more contemporary - is the mobile phone. Back in 1995, we could get away with not having a mobile phone, as we either had a landline or even a pager. Since then, the mobile phone has evolved into a pocket computer, with it become a ‘smartphone’, where it can do everything and anything. Now, we cannot live without it as it is so deeply ingrained within our society, and trying to get along without one would be an uphill struggle. This can also be said for the internet, as in 1995 it was still in its relative infancy in terms of the general population using it. But, now it is incredibly hard to get by without even using the internet on our mobile phones, let alone having it at home where it is seen as a necessity: “When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.”, paragraph 127. What Ted is saying is, that we have no choice but to give in and use certain technologies forced upon us by the society, whether that is by advertisements or eventual progression: “The average American should be portrayed as a victim of the advertising and marketing industry, which has suckered him into buying a lot of junk that he doesn’t need and that is very poor compensation for his lost freedom...It is merely a matter of attitude whether you blame the advertising industry for manipulating the public or blame the public for allowing itself to be manipulated”. paragraph 190.

This brings up an interesting point. Are we to blame for allowing us to be led along by flashy adverts, or blaming the advertising industry for the flashy adverts and making us into victims? What Ted is bringing up here is the issue of control, and where that lies. There is no doubt that these conglomerates control the population in such a way in which they have to buy that certain thing. Because we most certainly are controlled by higher ranking people such a politicians, business executives, bureaucrats and the like, as we live in a society which subordinates and controls every aspect of our lives: “You need a licence for everything and with the license comes rules and regulations. The individual has only those technological powers with which the system chooses to provide him”, paragraph 197. Just because we are told we can drive a car, doesn’t mean we can do what we like. We have to stop when the light says stop, go in that direction, follow this road until the next until we stop again when told to do so. It is no wonder we are so depersonalised driving home from office jobs where we are reduced to slaves working for someone with a higher wage just to do the same thing tomorrow 9am to 5pm. Yet that can be fixed with the magic of anti-depressants, which are just a way to modify a person’s behaviour to “enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable”, paragraph 145. This is another example of how we have created more problems than a society can deal with and overcome. The need for such a drug only came about because of the rise in depression within the industrial society, because the conditions that it breeds just aren’t healthy for us. How can it be acceptable that we live our lives working jobs that we hate and have to take a drug everyday to make us happy again? And this won’t go away until the society that we know completely collapses and we have to start again, which probably won’t happen as historically, we have only progressed as a species and technologically. The only way this could happen is a revolution against technology and with all of us collectively acting against it.

Ted mentions that this could happen similarly to the French and Russian revolutions respectively, with the people overpowering, and overthrowing the controlling governmental powers, but in the case against the industrial society: “The two main tasks for the present are to promote social stress and instability in the industrial society and to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system”, paragraph 181. This would be massive undertaking and as the vast majority of the Western World is so connected and ingrained within technology, would be impossible to do. Imagine asking people now to go against what they have ever known, overthrow the society that subjugates them and go back to a hunter/gatherer mentality. All of the mod cons that we have grown up with simply wouldn’t exist. Ted uses the refrigerator as an example of this with the two main types of technology: “smallscale and organisational”, paragraph 208, with smallscale used by small communities without outside assistance, and organisational depending on large-scale social organisation. “Without factory-made parts or the facilities of a postindustrial machine shop it would be virtually impossible for a handful of local craftsmen to build a refrigerator...imagine trying to make that wire without modern machinery. And where would they get a gas suitable for refrigeration?”, paragraph 209. In a sense, this revolution against technology would send society back to the dark ages, but can you imagine the waste that would fill up the land if this happened? Ted already mentions the damage that we have done to the planet, yet suppose this revolution happened. Where would all of this technology go? We have already harmed the planet with enough pollution since the industrial revolution. Imagine the mess that would ensue of we completely disregarded all of the technology that currently resides on Earth? Our planet would be a wasteland of trash and junk, whilst we live off the land being polluted by more of our rubbish. As much as I admire Ted’s philosophy on revolting against society, it simply couldn’t happen.

A coda. It feels rather odd reading a manifesto written by a domestic terrorist, and much caution has been taken to not come across as if I have been radicalised by Ted’s writing and ideas. If anything, I share a lot of these ideas and philosophies with Ted, but unlike Ted writing: “In order to get our message across before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we’ve had to kill people”, paragraph 96, I think going as far as mailing homemade explosives is extreme. Yet I don’t think that Ted should be judged on the brash and extreme measures he undertook to make people see his views. He is obviously an incredibly intelligent and well read individual with actions put aside, has written a well articulated and easily readable summary of our modern condition. I can also see how Ted came to these conclusions, and strangely admire him going against the society and living in a secluded cabin in rurality. I do agree with Ted on most of his points, with society making is sick, subordinate, subjugated and obedient, this is clear to see when you look at society as a whole and realise the truth of it. This is why I found Ted so alluring, as it is someone else who is obviously alienated from society but also an extreme case of what can happen when one is estranged from a society and angry towards what it does. I think it is a shame that he did what he did, which is completely heinous and abhorrent, because without those actions, I think he could have been one of today’s great thinkers and philosophers. Industrial Society and its Future is a well rounded summary of our modern world, detailing how it controls us and how it could be changed. I would recommend this text to anyone who is critical of how we live today compared to how we lived before the industrial revolution. Ted’s manifesto is a key piece of writing for this project and underpins how modernity can make one feel alienated from modernity, late capitalism and the industrial society.

Bibliography

Richard Barnes (no date). [Online]. Available at http://www.richardbarnes.net/projects#/unabomber-1/. [Accessed on 17/02/2021]

Kaczynski, T. J., (1995). The Unabomber Manifesto: Industrial Society and Its Future. Jolly Roger Press.

#101

0 notes

baoanhwin · 4 years

Text

If You’re in a Glasshouse …..

During Corbyn’s leadership, Labour was relentlessly attacked by the Tories, their supporters and cheerleaders in the press for the many failings which, they said, made Labour unfit to run the country. Worth dwelling on the accusations for what they tell us about today’s Tories.

A sympathiser with IRA terrorism: well-worn, repeated on every possible occasion and, combined with his associations with various dubious Palestinian groups and past statements about the causes of Islamist terrorism, the Tories happily painted a picture of a man who seemed, well, ambivalent about the use of terror against civilians, if it was in support of a cause he supported. A man who, a week after the Brighton bombing, invited the convicted IRA volunteers, Linda Quigley and Gerry MacLochlainn, to the Commons, to the disgust of many in his own party – let alone the Tories. 35 years later Johnson was still berating Corbyn about it.

Anti–semitism: little more to be said on this, at least until the EHRC report comes out. The damage was caused at least as much by who Corbyn had associated with (those Holocaust deniers would keep on popping up at events where Corbyn was present) as by his own actions. The Tories enthusiastically adopted the maxim that you can judge a man by the company he keeps.

An unwillingness to stand up to Russia: Corbyn’s response to the Salisbury poisonings was used to show a man who did not take the Russian threat seriously, whether because of ideological sympathy by him or his advisors (Seamus Milne being particularly helpful in this regard) or simple naivety about Russia’s intentions.

An automatic anti-Western bias: all too easy to present Corbyn’s approach to foreign policy as little more than “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Any country or cause which criticised the West, no matter how awful themselves, found favour: Iran, the Serbs during Yugoslavia’s bloody civil war, Venezuela. It sometimes seemed that concern for human rights was less about those deprived of them and more about how to use the concept to beat up whoever Corbyn disliked most.

An obsession with identity politics: as if all politics is not at some level about “identity” (the Brexit campaign waves hello). Still, the accusation went, Labour was unwilling to speak up for white working-class girls in its heartlands for fear of confronting other client groups and/or being accused of racism. It betrayed those suffering from child abuse on the altar of political correctness. Tom Watson’s parti pris accusations against senior Tories must have infuriated those thinking child abuse too vile a crime to be used for political advantage.

Nepotism and cronyism: Corbyn’s son working for McDonnell, Andrew Murray’s daughter appointed to a plum Labour Party role, McCluskey’s old squeeze to another. All very cosy and incestuous.

So you’d think, wouldn’t you, that the Tories would not fall into the same traps, that they would take care about who they associate with, who they promote, who they praise and elevate? Apparently not, if those nominated by the government to be peers is anything to go by. Deemed suitable to be a member of our legislature are:-

A woman who has consistently denied the war crimes carried out by the Bosnian Serbs against Bosnian Muslims, who – as publisher (of Living Marxism) – was found by a court to have libelled two ITV journalists who reported the facts about what was happening, who dismissed the court’s decision, after the verdict likening the two journalists to David Irving because they had both brought litigation – ignoring the critical difference between them. (Perhaps the differences between telling the truth and inventing facts might be a worthy topic for a future Moral Maze programme.) Certainly, disregard for facts and dismissal of court rulings is now very a la mode. Ms Fox was simply ahead of her time. If you want an example of the intellectually dishonest reasoning of the founder of The Academy of Ideas on this topic, read here. The inability to understand the difference between the denial of established facts and shutting down unpopular opinions would disgrace an averagely bright A-level student. As Deborah Lipstadt, a woman who knows a thing or two about genocide denial, has put it: everyone is free to have their own opinions; they are not free to invent their own facts.

Ms Fox did not have much regard then for freedom of speech though, strangely, when it came to child abuse and jihadist videos, her concern was all for freedom of speech including, apparently, the freedom to disseminate films of criminal offences, though she apparently knows (how?) that most child abuse videos are “simulated”. Nor – more grotesquely – has she ever resiled from or apologised for her pro-IRA views and their campaign of violence before 1998, a campaign which killed and injured, not just thousands of innocents in Ireland and Britain, but 3 Tory MPs, their wives and tried to assassinate a PM.

What a forgiving party the current Tory party now is! Poor Jeremy must be wondering why no forgiveness was extended to him. Perhaps it might have been, had he been pro-Brexit. After all, that’s why she has been elevated, isn’t it, pro-Brexit views being the British equivalent of medieval Catholic indulgences wiping away all other sins? But if the quota for pro-Brexit media loudmouths simply had to be filled, couldn’t Daniel Hannan be prevailed upon? Or Ann Widdecombe, in extremis?

A former editor of the Evening Standard (previously deputy editor of the Daily Telegraph, when Johnson was a columnist there) who strongly supported the PM in his first election for London Mayor 12 years ago. A 2018 CBE for services to the arts since did not suffice apparently.

The current owner of the Evening Standard, who together with his father, a former KGB agent until 1992, has made oodles of money which he has used to buy his way into the higher echelons of London society, much as described in the ISC’s recent report on Russia (pp.15-17). Look who’s being naïve now.

The PM’s brother, an MP for 9 years, a junior Minister for 3, mainly known for having resigned twice as a Minister, the second time from his brother’s government, over Brexit. He then chose not to stand again as an MP. However worthy, it’s not exactly a lifetime of public service.

Ambivalence towards violence, naivety about Britain’s enemies, associating with undesirables, cronyism, nepotism, revolting views. We have them all. Johnson has not just adopted Labour’s public spending but their less desirable “values” as well. And added some Grade A hypocrisy into the mix, so that we can enjoy the spectacle of those railing against unelected European bureaucrats appointing unelected legislators that the people can never get rid of or hold accountable.

What have we missed in the meanwhile? Well, the setting up of a panel to come up with curbs on judicial review, led by a QC and former Minister, who in February wrote that the government should limit the courts’ power (impartial tribunals are so passé). Edward Faulks’ other claim to fame was being advisor to Chris Grayling when he was Lord Chancellor and enacted reforms to Legal Aid which have pretty much destroyed it and, in consequence, the ability of anyone other than the wealthy to access justice.

The panel’s terms of reference are here, clause 4(b) being the important one, seeking to remove or limit the “duty of candour” by the government to the court and other parties. In short, if the government does not have to be honest in its explanations (and remember, this was a government which could find no-one willing to swear on oath what the reasons for proroguing Parliament last year were), how can it be effectively scrutinised or challenged? Why should the people know? They exist just to be venerated when it suits the government politically, not to be treated as adults and trusted with information so that they can hold the government properly accountable. Once again, the government gives the impression that its attitude to law is as described by Anarchasis: “Written laws are like spiders’ webs; they catch the weak and poor but are torn in pieces by the rich and powerful.”

There is one thing to be grateful for. We need never again be troubled by Tories railing about Labour’s attitude to terrorist violence or child abuse or fondness for unelected elites or being too pro-Russian or having dodgy friends or being run by cronies. We know now – if we did not before – that such concern is so much cant, useful only as a political weapon. And if they try, we can point at Johnson’s very own “Lavender List”, perfumed with the stink of hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism, and laugh. Small mercies, these days.

Cyclefree

from politicalbetting.com https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/08/04/if-youre-in-a-glasshouse/ https://dangky.ric.win/

#nhacai #one88 #danhbaidoithuong #ricwin #choibaidoithuong #gamedanhbaidoithuong #choigamedoit

0 notes

nikolinaboldero · 5 years

Text

London College of Fashion, exhibition Comme des Marxists.

Friday 9th November study visit to London College of Fashion, exhibition Comme des Marxists.

The exhibition featured the work by New York-based artist Rainer Ganahl, ‘exploring connections between the industrial revolution, the on-going struggles, tragedies such as Rana Plaza clothing factories in Bangladesh in 2013, the production and consumption of luxury goods’.

‘I make these artworks not only out of my inherently ludic nature, but also because of my unceasing belief in the fundamental democratic assumption that all people should be treated as equals’. – Rainer Ganahl.

‘Using a playful, humorous, yet thought- provoking approach, the artist draws inspiration from sources as diverse as artists Kazmir Malevich’.

· An estimated 250 million children aged between 5 and 14 are forced to work in sweatshops in developing countries.

· In 2000, more than 11,000 sweatshops in the US violated the minimum wage and overtime laws.

· In Bangladesh, the average worker’s hourly wage is just US$0.13, which is the lowest in the world.

· The average worker’s hourly wage in Vietnam: $0.26.

· Only 4 out of the top 10 nations that have the highest number of suspected sweatshops have an hourly wage that exceeds $1 per hour.

The issue with the modern sweatshop is that many people are unware that they currently exit. There are so many tragic stories on the news, issues to do with violence, terrorist attacks, that social injustice in this form (sweatshops) is barely mentioned. Capitalism refers to ‘an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by state’. The kind of impact that capitalism has on your life depends on whether you are a worker or a boss. For someone who owns a company and employs other people to work, the more profits you bring in for your company the more economic success the employer will experience. However, with globalization; opening of trade barriers, New international division of labour, American and European companies have started to open factories in the lower skilled and labour-intensive manufacturing companies in developing countries. Materials (cotton, agricultural farms) in the collection are from a variety of places around the world, indicating this idea of division of labour. In these developing countries the wages are lower, therefore the European and American companies can earn more money, benefiting them, whilst exploiting those in the developing countries.

In Bangladesh, 3.5 million workers in 4,825 garment factories produce goods for export to the global market, principally Europe and North America. In these sweatshops in Bangladesh, workers are forced to do 14-16 hours a day seven days a week, on top of this workers have to face very unsafe cramped and hazardous conditions. Since 1990 more than 400 workers have died and several thousand have been seriously injured. Sexual harassment is widespread and many women workers have not been able to go on maternity leave. Factory management also take steps to prevent the formation of trade unions, a right protected under the Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining ILO Conventions, which Bangladesh ratified in 1972. The exhibition includes all these secret messages which relate back to the poor conditions experienced by workers in these sweatshops. For example, there was this blue box dress which had a bubble text reading ‘as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases’. The writing is slightly messy which suggests it is by a younger person working in the sweatshop, this makes the message even more meaningful because there is an ability for the reader to sympathise and connect to them (relationship between consumerism and creativity). In the collection, there were also some pieces of clothing which had on them the writing ‘working class’. The garments are made out of leather and the colours are very dark, slightly depressing, possibly reflecting on the lives of those working in the sweatshops.

- Consumerism is a social and economic order that encourages the acquisition of goods and services in ever-increasing amounts. Today, people just buy so much clothing which often they end up throwing out anyway. An average American throw approximately 80 pounds of used clothing per person. People believe that to be ‘in fashion’ they have to keep on updating their wardrobes with the newest trends, therefore it creates this culture of continuous buying. This increased demand places strain on those producing the garments, they have to work these long hours, under dangerous conditions, just to meet our needs. What relationships between consumerism and creativity are highlighted by the exhibition?

‘I played with the brand’s logo and started to make drawings for a collection that also employed felt’ Soon I became interested in proposing my own designs, playing extensively with Soviet symbols of stars, hammer and sickle’.

Relationship between consumerism and creativity- subtle meanings behind these symbols all relating back to the working class, ‘hammer and sickle’ representative of the industrial worker and the peasant used as the emblem of the former Soviet Union and of international communism. Soviet Union- socialist state

‘Modernity is the experience of constant transformation, of things not staying the same, of endless invocations of the new and the different, all in the service of renewing capital’. Mizoeff 2009: 113.

Modernity, the self-definition of a generation about its own technological innovation, governance and socioeconomics. Stella McCartney says it is impossible to send out a collection based on a single look, because each woman has many facets. Modernity has allowed for ‘people’s choice’ to be achieved. All these technological advances have meant that the way in which we made textiles Is more varied. However, because of modernity I believe we have seen a growth in ‘sameness’ within the population. Walking around in London you will pass 4 people wearing the same piece of clothing or similar print within 10 minutes. It has in many respects reduced diversity. Behind the scenes, one of the main issues with modernity is that it promotes social inequality and retards development. It is the people in the developing countries who have to make the clothing, with constant increasing consumer demand their work becomes even harder.

Engel’s description of working conditions for young girls in 1840s in dressmaking establishments ‘during the fashionable season, which lasts some four months, working hours, even in the best establishments are fifteen, and in very pressing cases, eighteen a day; but in most shops work goes on at these times without any set regulation… The only limit to their work is the absolute physical inability to hold the needle another minute’. ‘In many cases the eyes suffer so severely that incurably blindness follows, consumption usually soon ends the sad life of these milliners and dressmakers.

Fashion production.

· Constant adaptation.

· Innovation- advancements in technology.

· Increasing consumer demand.

· Mass production- clothes produced more quickly and for cheaper prices.

· Stayed the same- those producing clothing goods (developing countries, sweatshops).

Despite the fashion production line constantly changing, there is a lack of change and improvements being made for those working in these sweatshops. Consumer demand has increased significantly, company owners are putting huge strain on those in the developing countries to meet this demand and produce the garments they want. This expresses the importance of switching from fast fashion to slow fashion, we need to produce clothing more sustainably. As explained by Rainer Ganahl sustainability, ‘it’s often used as the new good-consciousness fix for dirty industries, dirty commerce, dirty transportation, dirty desires and dirty everything else’.

‘Fast fashion has reduced many articles of clothing to one-time excitements that re scarcely worn before being written off or thrown away’.

In the exhibition, there are key relationships between the ideas of Engel and Rainer Ganahl. In the exhibition there are quite a lot of garments, possibly suggesting this idea of fast fashion, however behind each garment there is a subtle message which relates you back to the origin of the garment, who made it? What conditions were they under when they did make it? Examples of this in the collection are the speech bubbles and then the bold text.

0 notes

gloss80 · 7 years

Text

General Election 2017 - Man Like Corbz done good!

I am certain when the Exit Poll dropped on Thursday night shortly after polling stations closed there was a collective amount of jaw dropping across the nation and I can imagine several near heart attacks across CCHQ! I know Labour HQ were quietly jubilant but wanted to wait to see how the night transpired. No one saw this coming…. It was seriously a “where were you when you heard..” moment!! I stared at my TV screen thinking “Please, please, please let this Exit Poll be correct!” Why? Because it predicted a Hung Parliament and showed a brilliant Labour surge in the vote against all the odds. Many political commentators were urging caution whilst some remained steadfast in their belief that May would win the majority she needed to carry forth her mandate into the Brexit negotiations. I could feel something brewing in the air. Big crowds would turn out to see Corbyn at events across the country. He even packed out a football stadium with the crowd shouting: “Oooooh Jeremy Corbyn!” People wherever I went were talking about Corbyn and Labour’s Manifesto. On Thursday afternoon I was walking out of Wembley Park Tube Station and a group of School girls ran up to me and stopped me. They said “please vote Labour!” I answered “already done!” They cheered “Team Jezza! Bun the Tories!” and we all high-fived! That really warmed my heart! Young people engaged in politics and realising how politics impacts on every single facet of their life. I honestly felt like their proud Aunty! Anyway I digress….back to election night…. I could not sleep…optimism in my heart had me glued to my TV screen for the entire night. Was this really happening??? The results started to roll in and it was becoming clearly evident that the Exit Poll was indeed correct! Yes, I punched the air a few times as Labour Gains across the country materialised including Scotland where we took seats from the SNP. Canterbury went red after being Conservative since 1918! The Tory MP Jane Ellison was ousted in Battersea by Labour’s Marsha de Cordova! It was a stunning 10% swing from the Tories to Labour. The Tories dreadful manifesto author Ben Gummer gone! Nick Clegg gone! Amber Rudd was onto her 5th recount and almost had people rummaging through the bins for votes when it became clear that this was shaping up to be an extraordinary night for Corbyn and Labour! Long standing Labour activist Eleanor Smith made history by becoming the West Midlands’ first African Caribbean MP in a seat that used to be held by the racist Tory MP Enoch Powell! He of “Rivers of Blood” infamy. Kensington and Chelsea where the average house prices are 1.4 million now has the red flag flying high! The same constituency where Dacre’s Daily Mail HQ aka The Daily Heil sits in now has a Labour MP! Oh the irony…. Labour’s success saw it almost completely wipe out the Tories in London and more than double majorities in seats that were previously considered marginal. Remember that Theresa Mayhem had promised again and again that if she lost six seats, Jeremy Corbyn would be walking into number 10! On election night the U-turn Queen lost more than that yet is still desperately clinging on to power! Blaming everyone but herself for taking a reckless and arrogant gamble in calling a General Election that no one wanted. She has also lost the mandate for a hard Brexit and solidified just how weak and unstable a leader she actually is. British politics has suffered a Youthquake! Corbyn offered a real vision and hope to a younger generation who had often felt marginalised by politics. He connected with their aspirations and they mobilised and came out in force! Big up the #Grime4Corbyn campaign and all the Grime artists and rappers who helped inspire young people to go out and vote. This is just the start! Let’s build on what we have achieved! I am so proud to see the young voices rise up and just want to send heartfelt thanks to all the young people up and down the land who came out to vote. I am an actor and a movie geek so here is what I think: Corbyn in many ways epitomises Obi-Wan’s classic line in Star Wars - A New Hope: “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.” I’m serious. Why do I make this correlation? Well Corbyn has survived strike after strike! He has survived constant attacks and challenges from within the Labour Party as well as vicious, poisonous and relentless assaults from the Tories and their right wing media cheerleaders and he has always comes back stronger than before and with a bigger mandate than before to boot! It is clear in this election that the more people saw of Corbyn the more they liked what they saw. Calm, compassionate, dignified, principled and always on the right side of history. Also the Labour Manifesto with the vision “For the Many Not The Few” successfully resonated with so many across the country. Hope, a feeling last seen in British politics in 1997 is on the rise again. In contrast Maybot decided to base her election campaign around herself under the “Strong and Stable” robotic mantra. She ducked away from the TV debates like a coward, tried as much as she could to avoid the public and trotted out soundbite after soundbite to the point that she sounded like a Dalek. It was either “Strong and Stable” or “Nothing has changed.” Repeat!! She relied on the tabloid press to sing her praises and was in desperate need of reboot but it never happened. The more the public saw of Maybot the more they did not like what they saw and the more they realised how distant, insincere and indecisive she was. The Conservative Manifesto was a disaster and the U turns kept coming soon after. It was clear you could not trust a word uttered. So here we are. People will say “but the Tories won! They got the most seats.” The reality is Mayhem was humiliated! She called this election with a 24 point lead over Labour and was so arrogantly complacent that Tories would win a landslide and Labour would be demolished at the ballot box. Mayhem did not get the majority she needed so she went with her begging bowl to the hard-right, racist, sexist, homophobic, terrorist linked and thoroughly unpleasant DUP to ask them to prop up her tory government. This in itself reeks of desperation and is doomed to fail. It also highlights her blatant hypocrisy. Jeremy Corbyn is a ‘terrorist sympathiser’ we’ve heard the right wing tabloids and their sheep shriek. So what now do you call Theresa Mayhem getting into bed with the DUP??? This is a regressive alliance with potentially far reaching implications for Northern Ireland and progressive politics in general. Instead of clinging on for dear life it would be far better if she resigned with what little dignity she has left. I have my popcorn out watching this mess unfold! Recriminations, resignations and Tory civil war no doubt! No matter which way you look at it this is the beginning of the end for Mayhem. She is toast! Anyway I am very encouraged by Labour’s election result. My support for Corbyn has never wavered and for the first time in ages I feel optimistic about what politics can achieve. First phase for Labour was winning UKIP votes back, attacking Tory seats/votes and galvanising young people which has worked brilliantly for us as we out performed expectations at this Election. The next phase now is securing a Labour victory at the next General Election which may well be sooner than you think….. Time for unity within Labour, this is our time. We must continue to organise and be a strong opposition! We must be the powerful voice for the many that this country so desperately needs. @gloss80

#Corbyn #Labour #GE2017 #JC4PM #Grime4Corbyn

1 note · View note

fuck-hamas-go-israel · 1 month

Text

No matter what, don’t lose your humanity.

I see this rhetoric very often, that if you call for the release of the hostages and condemn Hamas terrorism and the atrocities they’ve committed, then you automatically “must support the death of Palestinian civilians”.

Conversely, those who claim to care about the Palestinian civilians don’t seem to call for the release of hostages, never acknowledge the rape, torture, and murder of civilians on Oct 7. In fact, they seem to celebrate death of who they perceive as “Zionist”.

I saw this play out before my eyes on TikTok. A singer named Cat Janice was dying from cancer, and she asked her audience to use her song in their videos as she had willed the proceeds to her young son who is not more than 7 or 8 years old. People labelled her a Zionist because she apparently was following an Israeli account on Instagram.

It was a very tragic story and her family was going through a hard time dealing with the aggressive cancer that was slowly weakening her body.

But as we’ve seen:

They don’t care about people who are suffering from terminal illnesses and will harass them anyway.

In her videos of her giving updates on her situation and pleading with people for empathy for her young son, they flooded her comment section with spam:

Unfortunately, Cat Janice passed away, BDE. But that didn’t stop the harassment. In fact, some celebrated her death and even lauded it as a good thing as there is “one less Zionist” now.

Yes, there are people like this out there. This shouldn’t come as a surprise as they’ve been violent, they’ve been sending death threats, they’ve been chanting for violent “resistance” and “intifada” and the death of Jews and Israelis, as well as their allies. They celebrate violence in the most disgusting and dehumanising way possible.

Just look at the comments in this video of a Jewish creator saying that in Berlin, a Jewish student was attacked:

Meanwhile, we chant “Am Yisrael Chai”. We call for life, we focus on saving all lives, no matter who.

As the leaders of Hamas said in an interview, “The Israelis are known to love life. We, on the other hand, sacrifice ourselves. We consider our dead to be martyrs.”

Every innocent death is a tragedy, Israeli and Palestinian. Death IS a tragedy. The killing of Hamas terrorists, albeit deserved, is a tragedy because of the terroristic path they chose in life and what horrific crimes they had committed in order to warrant death as a means of justice.

As much as I wish that one day, those people who have spewed those vile, antisemitic, inhuman things will feel guilty for what they have said, I doubt they will. The perceived safety and anonymity of social media coupled with their complete absence of humanity, compassion, and empathy evaporates any drop of guilty conscience they may have. All we can wish is that fair and just consequences for their actions will be meted out to them one day.

But my fellow Jews, my fellow zionists, my fellow allies, please never, NEVER stoop to that level. It goes against everything we are about.

Once we lose our humanity, we’ll become dulled to the suffering of others. That’s not what we want, and it directly goes against the spirit of Judaism and Israel.

Continue to mourn the death of innocents, continue to get angry and weep for tragedy and injustice, continue to celebrate new life and lives saved. Continue to feel like a human being. Don’t be like them.

Don’t. Lose. Your. Humanity.

#i stand with israel #israel #am yisrael chai #pro israel #average terrorist sympathiser #average palestine supporter #stop hamas #hamas #jewish #judaism #your antisemitism is on display #end antisemitism #antisemitism awareness #stop antisemitism #palestine

189 notes · View notes

phillhall · 7 years

Photo

An unhealthy dose of realism...

Below/above is a 'left wing meme' portraying Theresa May as the 'terrorist' the right wing media claim Jeremy Corbyn to be. The sad truth about this meme and many like them is quite simply the majority of people - whoever they vote for - don't believe it.Nurses and doctors will tell you the NHS is being screwed over and we'll all be having private health care by 2020. The average person does not believe this; to them this is fake news. Even if it wasn't 'fake news' at any given time a large percentage of the voting public won't actually need the NHS. It is an 'out of sight out of mind' issue.Teachers and support workers will tell you that schools and education is being screwed over with funding cuts, but the government are thinking of bringing back grammar schools. The average member of the general public will equate the bringing back of grammar schools as an indication that education is working, not failing. People complaining about schools are obviously left wing scaremongers. Lots of people no longer have school age children, it is not a problem that bothers them; it is an 'out of sight out of mind' issue.When the government say its going to 'rip up the Human Rights Act' to protect the citizens of this country, people believe it will be done for the best, because people are scared of extremism (because they have been told to) and want safe streets. When someone from the left side of politics starts harping on about the bad things that could happen to us if our rights were altered, they are also scaremongering. Most people genuinely believe 'if I have nothing to fear, I have nothing to hide' and that is true. Most people won't need their rights, human or otherwise, until they need them. Rights is an 'out of sight out of mind' issue.When people say the Tories are bad for jobs, bad for the economy and only look after the rich, most people can't remember it not being like this and many people have been indoctrinated to believe that it can only get worse if someone else was in charge. The percentage of people not earning, on zero hours contracts and in unprotected work is far outstripped by those who do not fall into this category. Therefore this is very much an 'out of sight out of mind' issue.When people tell you that the Tories will destroy social care, the public services and treat the disenfranchised like rubbish, most people are all cared out. They are not in this particular demographic therefore it really is an 'out of sight out of mind' issue. People, unless they are friends or relatives of a disenfranchised person, really do not give a good god damn about anyone worse off than themselves. Yes, there are lots of people, good people out there, doing good work on limited resources; but the majority of the population will view them as 'pinko liberals' 'do-gooders' and there so the rest of us don't have to care. It sounds callous and accusatory, but for everyone who wants to help a homeless person, there are ten people who want to intern Muslims or simply let the poor and disabled die, because they contribute nothing to society. You only have to read the comments sections on any national issue to see that we're a lot less 'human' than we were.So, my socialist, Labour, anarchistic, independent minded free-thinking friends. You need to understand; while we think (some truly believe) we have the moral high ground; we don't. Not any more. Years and years of press and media manipulation, of highlighting fear over optimism, of smearing people because they can, has led to a country that no longer knows what it wants, but is pretty sure what it doesn't want.We have to prepare for a world on Friday that will not meet our standards, but will be acceptable to 40% of those who voted. As a Tottenham Hotspur fan of 55 years I can honestly say, 'It is the hope that kills you.' We kind of have to abandon hope at the door and just survive. For many people the next five years lay ahead like a nightmare and the sad thing is a huge swathe of the population really don't care at all and they will continue to not care until something starts to blight their life and even then they are easily swayed to believe that being a turkey and voting for Christmas is the best way forward.The other problem in 2017 is because of social media people do not like to be proved wrong; this is why experts are now shunned and gut feelings rule. I've done my usual amount of meme publishing and promotion, but I don't think I personally have been responsible for changing one single person's mind about voting intention and neither have many of my friends. We preach to the converted in bubbles of like-mindedness and feel a range of negative emotions when we see someone call Corbyn 'a twat' or 'a danger' or 'a terrorist sympathiser'; but all that is doing is proving the media has won. The majority of people want to believe Corbyn is dangerous and that May is the saviour; it is something we lefties cannot fathom, but we have no idea what motivates all of those people, who live behind all of those doors, that we have no way of knowing what their lives are like at all.I expect the Conservatives will win between 360 and 375 seats tomorrow. Labour will win a few as well, some in unusual places and by the end of the day only three parties will have more than single figures of MPs (The SNP will retain Scotland with a smaller majority). But there will be no effective opposition and a host of things that didn't affect people today will affect them in the coming years; but it will be too late to moan, for now.Young voters were badly let down by Brexit; they need to be motivated to vote - because they're going to inherit whatever is left. Old people need to have the dementia tax replayed to them constantly over the next 24 hours and the people who say they don't bother voting should be harangued for more than just their apathy. I'm not suggesting it will change anything, but it's a start.Whatever happens tomorrow, however hopeless you might feel, or angry with your fellow humans, you have to remember that everything is stacked against us from the physical to the existential and we're not all going to die, just yet. Remind people in a week, a month or a year, that people voted for this mess we're in, so they have no one but to blame but themselves for falling for it. If you can do any campaigning between now and 6am tomorrow, remember the only way to make people think is by giving them something that affects them to think about. Thatcher's legacy has been achieved, most people don't care a fig about their neighbours or those worse off than us; our job for the next five years is to make people see there is a better way forward than the one we're going to choose.

#general election #ge2017 #hopenothate

0 notes

christusleeft · 7 years

Text

New Post has been published on In de hemel is wél bier !

New Post has been published on http://bit.ly/2np4jGD

Keeping Singapore's coastline secure amid changing threats

Not only have efforts to enter Singapore illegally by sea have become more organised, the nature of threats has also changed.

SINGAPORE: Ninety-four people were arrested for trying to breach Singapore’s coastline in 2015 – a five-year high, and an average of one person every four days.

As efforts to enter Singapore illegally by sea become more organised, with perpetrators using faster boats, decoys and camouflage to evade detection, the Police Coast Guard is likewise stepping up surveillance with new technology, including panoramic electro-optics sensors along Singapore’s borders, as well as tethered unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, that will be deployed from coastal patrol craft by 2019.

Singapore’s coastline is also guarded by floating sea barriers, land fences and sea fences. It is estimated that by 2030, 75 per cent of Singapore’s coastline will be barricaded in one way or another.

The nature of threats to Singapore has also changed.

“In the past, (we saw threats like) piracy, sea robbery, smuggling,” Comprehensive Maritime Awareness Group commander Senior Lieutenant Colonel (SLTC) Nicholas Lim told Channel NewsAsia.

“We always thought that these were the concerns of other countries. But in the last few years, these threats changed. It’s become more transboundary. For example, we are aware of Islamic State (IS). Now they have followers, sympathisers in different parts of the world and they conduct (activities) on behalf of their leaders,” he said. “Terrorists are planning and plotting so we always have to be on the lookout.” Read more

0 notes

ericfruits · 6 years

Text

A new approach to Somali pirates frees more hostages

NO ONE seized by pirates can be considered lucky. But many of the seamen taken hostage by Somali pirates have at least been set free fast, once fat ransoms have been paid. At the height of the piracy scourge off the coast of Somalia almost a decade ago, the average ransom to free a crew and vessel was, by one tally, $3.5m.

Some seamen, however, have languished in captivity for months or even years because their companies balked at coughing up—often because their ship was uninsured, or had run aground, or had been disabled by fire, or had sunk. Crew taken from them were sometimes tortured. “Hard as it may sound, these guys, they don’t have any value,” says John Steed, a former UN man in Mogadishu, Somalia’s capital.

Get our daily newsletter

Upgrade your inbox and get our Daily Dispatch and Editor's Picks.

Pirates are still loth to cut their losses by freeing such hostages without payment. Of the few Somali pirates who have given up in this way, most were soon killed, Mr Steed notes, since they could not repay the financiers who underwrote the attacks and the hostages’ upkeep. The resulting trap for such failing pirates and their “forgotten” hostages seemed inescapable.

Yet 54 hostages, held on land by various groups of Somali pirates, have been freed in the last several years. This was because of a new approach, say those who negotiated the deals. Rather than try to convince unscrupulous vessel owners to fork up big ransoms, the negotiators, mostly working for nothing, first estimated the pirates’ costs—often $100,000-$200,000 for renting a boat and getting weapons and kit; expenses for fuel and food; and payoffs to stop government officials, warlords and village elders from interfering. If that amount or a bit more could be raised from charities and sympathisers, pirates would often accept the deal, once convinced that it was their only hope of satisfying their creditors.

It is easier to raise money for “expenses reimbursement” than for the actual ransom, not just because the former is much less. “You can argue that you’re not enriching these people,” says David Snelson, the boss of Pbi2, a security firm in Mogadishu that has helped free some of the hostages. Even so, covering pirates’ expenses proved unpalatable to the UN bureaucracy, so Mr Steed quit in 2013 to continue his efforts from Nairobi, the capital of neighbouring Kenya, through an American charity called Oceans Beyond Piracy. He has cajoled Somali villagers into renouncing pay owed by pirates for food, transport and guard services. (Many villagers did not like the attention that hostages attracted.)

Though negotiators have generally adopted the expenses approach, it is not a magic wand. Eight seamen are still held in Somalia, all of them Iranian fishermen seized in 2015. Negotiators must still convince governments that paying the pirates’ expenses will not benefit people with links to terrorist groups. Negotiators must also contend with pirates fearful of being double-crossed by a rival in their group. Such suspicion is sometimes justified, says Leslie Edwards of Compass Risk Management. His London firm has reluctantly negotiated releases whereby a pirate leader gets a secret extra payment that he will not share with his colleagues.

Somalia’s pirates have seized few hostages of late, thanks largely to more use of armed guards on ships. But iJET, a risk-management firm based in Maryland that uses “a facilitation fee” to secure releases, foresees trouble. It reckons that attacks on easier-to-capture fishing boats will pick up as more Somali fishermen turn to piracy as a protest against overfishing by foreign commercial firms. Anger is rising again, as officials in Somalia’s semi-independent Puntland region cash in by selling licences to foreign boats for catches that are depleting the fish stocks that have hitherto sustained Somali fishermen—without their having to resort to piracy.

This article appeared in the Middle East and Africa section of the print edition under the headline "A knave’s ransom"

https://ift.tt/2yTw2Zo

#IFTTT #Feedly

0 notes