Archive for May, 2015

Rob Hutton and Damien McBride, a former spin doctor and an advisor to Gordon Brown has just confirmed on Radio 4

The entire lobby of the Houses of Parliament – the Rat Pit – operates on

“Obfuscation, Diversion and lying about lying…”

I believe we have an entire generation of politicians who are utterly dishonest and it is the collusion and symbiotic relationships between mainstream media and professional

politicians that has corrupted Westmonster forever. We need and must demand change.

  • Yesterday these things happened:
  • Nigeria has had it’s first democratic handover of power since it achieved independence.
  • Podemas in Spain made dramatic gains in Spain’s regional elections.
  • Italy rescued 3000 people in the Med.
  • in Syria – Rebel coalition takes last government-controlled town of Ariha in northwestern province, monitoring group says.

Yet what have the BBC and Sky concentrated on FIFA Corruption, FIFA Election, FIFA “more of the same shit” and the weasel David Cameron racing around Europe trying to get everyone to like him and failing.

Austerity is a Scam a Hoax a Fraud!!!

Austerity is ideological the idea is move public monies into private pockets

When you begin to sit down and assess every atrocity happening right now, not just historically, RIGHT NOW, and then compare this as the Irish people use their democratic right to vote in favour of two adults of the same sex choosing to marry….

Then Read of this;
“The Pope’s right hand man has called the landslide yes vote a

‘defeat for humanity’.”

“I was deeply saddened by the result,” Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s secretary of state, said at a conference in Rome on Tuesday night. “The church must take account of this reality, but in the sense that it must strengthen its commitment to evangelisation. I think that you cannot just talk of a defeat for Christian principles, but of a defeat for humanity.”

And when you contemplate the Cardinal’s words and step back to look at the ecological and humanitarian crises he actually SHOULD be directing his comments toward, you realise what an utterly fucked up institution the catholic church and other religious institutions are.
The fact that so many Billions of the Earth’s human population lack the cognition and enlightenment to think and act for themselves and depend on these fucking charlatans makes me “deeply saddened” and see this as the greatest threat, a “defeat for humanity.”

what an incredibly stupid man Cardinal Pietro Parolin undoubtedly is.

link to the quote in The Guardian

Parolin’s remarks on the Irish vote are significant given the broader role Parolin plays in crafting the church’s message on major diplomatic and social issues.

At the time of his appointment in 2013, veteran Vatican reporter John Allen wrote in the National Catholic Reporter that Parolin had been “on the frontlines of shaping the Vatican’s response to virtually every geopolitical challenge of the past two decades”.

Among other issues, the Italian cardinal has been an outspoken advocate for action to combat global warming. In recent remarks, he denounced the “globalisation of indifference and the economy of exclusion” that has put the planet in peril.

He has also been the public face of Francis’s diplomatic efforts, including the church’s role in helping Cuba and the US restore diplomatic ties.

But on Tuesday, with his choice of words, Parolin differed from the pope in one respect: the Argentinian pontiff has also used the phrase “defeat for humanity”, but he was talking about war, not the legalisation of gay marriage.

Dave Green and Michael Sheen at the Blast Furnace Sept 2014


dave green_funeral

I have to be brutally honest that this report by Walesonline in no way does justice to our shared experience.
The funeral was a fantastic and very memorable funeral with hymns, “JAZZED UP” hymn, poetry, solo acapella from Seanna Reader, and gales of laughter and tales of of things that Dave had got up to… the story about the phone call to a Pontlottyn chapel from the British embassy in Cairo had me crying with laughter. As did Dave having blagged his way (while working as an unpaid parking attendant) to the top table of a VIP American telly-evangelist at a gathering in Dorset.




Wreaths and view East from Rhaslas Pond





Wreaths delivered on behalf of Michael Sheen


The speech by UVAG chairman Terry was heartfelt, funny and moving.
It was a cracking send off to the little man who was a larger than life character.
Walesonline report link.
It will also feature on Radio Wales between now and 6pm, ITV Wales from 6pm, BBC Wales News from 6.30pm plus other news outlets online.

I’m sad to record so much fly tipping of builder’s waste at Rhaslas pond this evening after just a short walk after placing Dave’s flowers (everything we left was organic matter, all pins, plastic, ribbon and wire removed).
People blame the Council policy of charging for vans, but it’s not the council that dumps this shit almost half a mile from the nearest proper road.

Non-Violent peaceful demonstration has it’s place, but Governments only bend to Direct Action.

the void


In February 2003 over one million people marched in opposition to the invasion of Iraq.  The mass protest, one of the largest in the UK’s history, was peaceful but determined and organised in full co-operation with the authorities.  An army of stewards prevented sit down protests on the march and ensured that the huge crowd was ushered, efficiently and without incident, into a pre-arranged rally in Hyde Park.   Here trade union bureacrats, Labour MPs and z-list celebrity left-wingers made fiery speeches promising this was just the beginning of a militant peace movement that would stop the war.

A month later US and UK forces began a series of devastating air strikes on Iraq.  The war had begun, and it would kill hundreds of thousands of people.

Marches against the Iraq war continued, organised by the Stop the War Coalition (StWC), which was now little more than a front for the…

View original post 1,109 more words

A critical review I’ve been reading.

George Orwell is often presented as a critic of any thoroughgoing attempt to change the world. Yet he was a socialist and a fighter against inequality, exploitation and oppression.

Orwell’s major writings – Homage to Catalonia, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four – all address the question of whether it is possible to build a fundamentally different society. Orwell’s politics developed and shifted during a tumultuous period in world history – an era of war and revolution. To understand his works, we have to understand the times in which he wrote them.

Orwell was born into a middle class family of colonial administrators. He attended Eton, Britain’s most exclusive private school, before joining the Indian Imperial Police, stationed in Burma (Myanmar) in the early 1920s. The experience radically shaped his world view. Orwell was exposed to the ugliest and most brutal aspects of the system. “For five years I had been part of an oppressive system, and it had left me with a bad conscience”, he wrote in The road to Wigan Pier in 1936.

“I wanted to submerge myself, to get right down among the oppressed, to be one of them and on their side against their tyrants.”

Orwell returned to Europe in 1925 and worked in low wage jobs, living, observing and recording the conditions and experiences of the working poor. Down and out in Paris and London, written in 1933, is a powerful indictment of the way the rich thrive by pushing the vast majority downwards into poverty, drudgery and unemployment.

Orwell concluded that a socialist party had to be formed in Britain and capitalism overthrown. His socialism was rooted deeply in moral outrage. But he remained uncertain about whether exploited workers had the capacity to understand the need for a new world.

“The first thing that must strike any outside observer is that socialism in its developed form is a theory confined entirely to the middle classes … so far as my experience goes, no genuine working man grasps the larger implications of Socialism”, he wrote in 1936. The question was to be settled for Orwell in the space of year. Not in London or Paris, but in Barcelona in the heat of revolution.


On 17 July, the fascist general Francisco Franco launched a military coup to put an end to a seven-year worker and peasant revolt that had challenged the running of Spanish capitalism. The Spanish workers, aware of the fate of their comrades in Germany and Italy, were not prepared to go quietly. Their rallying cry became: “Better Vienna than Berlin!” (In Berlin Nazism had triumphed without a fight, while in Vienna workers armed themselves and resisted fascism to the last.)

Immediately, Franco was halted. His army was defeated in two-thirds of Spain. With the old Republican government crippled and the army in revolt, workers were in power across sections of Spain. Orwell travelled to the country to assist in the fight against fascism. He arrived in Barcelona just after Christmas. The scenes did away with his uncertainties about the capacity of workers to transform the world.

“It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle”, he later wrote. “Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags … Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it had been collectivised; even the bootblacks had been collectivised and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal … I recognised it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for.”

Barcelona completely transformed Orwell’s understanding of socialism. At first hand he experienced the political maturity, courage and profound ability of workers to create a new society. Orwell had seen workers’ power and was not about to turn his back on it. He resolved to stay in Spain and join a working class militia.

Orwell’s sojourn in revolutionary militancy in Spain, his commitment to socialism, is an awkward fact for many of his conservative biographers. Robert Colls, for instance, decries Orwell’s role in the revolution as a flight of fancy, condescendingly stating that he “might have spent a little less time responding to his own experiences, and a little more time thinking about the art of the politically possible”.

Initially, Orwell had little understanding of or interest in the political differences between the groups fighting in Spain. But he would soon learn that the fate of the struggle hung on the debates between the working class organisations central to the resistance.

Orwell joined the POUM in early 1937. The organisation identified as Trotskyist and argued that the way to win the war against Franco was to complete the social revolution that was already under way. It would be possible to defeat fascism only if workers were aware that they were fighting for their complete liberation from all forms of exploitation.

The counter-argument came from the Stalinist Communist Party, which argued that the war needed to be won first, and that workers could make a revolution only after fascism had been defeated. Workers needed to keep Spanish capitalists on side, and this meant avoiding anything that would scare them off – such as taking control of production or arming themselves in the streets. The number one imperative for the Stalinists was therefore to put this revolutionary situation to an end as quickly as possible.

When Orwell arrived back in Barcelona from the front in May, the Communist Party was attempting to do just this. As troops tried to take back the worker-controlled Barcelona Telephone Exchange, workers rose up to defend themselves. Tragically, the other workers’ organisations, particularly the anarchist CNT and the POUM, refused to give a lead to the uprising. After days of fighting, workers began to take down the barricades, opening the way for a wave of repression. Orwell escaped across the border to France just as other members of the POUM were being rounded up by Stalinist secret police.

Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky had said that at the beginning of the revolution: “In its specific gravity in the country’s economic life, in its political and cultural level, the Spanish working class stood on the first day of the revolution not below but above the Russian workers at the beginning of 1917.” Now, a great workers’ revolution was crushed under the heel of fascism and Stalinism. A great hope vanished.

Orwell’s impassioned account of the war, Homage to Catalonia, written upon his return to Britain, was an attempt to expose the betrayals of Stalinism – this theme became a particular obsession for him in the years to come. Criticism came at a cost. The British left was dominated by Stalinism, and finding a publisher for the book proved very difficult.

Nonetheless, having witnessed a different kind of society, his determination to see socialism in Britain was intensified. Orwell planned to oppose the Second World War on internationalist grounds, and even made preparations to build an underground organisation to undertake “illegal anti-war activities”.

Based on his experience of the ease with which the Spanish capitalist class and the Republicans opened up to Franco, Orwell was convinced that the working class was the only force that would put up sustained opposition to fascism. He said in 1941:

“The feeling of all true socialists is at bottom reducible to the ‘Trotskyist’ slogan: ‘The war and the revolution are inseparable’. We cannot beat Hitler without passing through revolution, nor consolidate our revolution without beating Hitler.”

When workers’ revolution failed to materialise at the end of the war, Orwell collapsed into despair, writing in 1945:

“I wanted to think that the class distinctions and imperialist exploitation of which I was ashamed would not return.” It was in this period of disillusionment that Orwell produced his two best known works.

Animal Farm is a biting satire of the tragic defeat of the Russian revolution. It’s also a deeply humanistic text, with sympathetic characters: Old Major, the wise pig representing Marx; Snowball representing Leon Trotsky; Boxer, the sturdy farm horse standing in for the exploited Russian working class; and finally Napoleon, the representative of Stalin, who betrays the revolution, reconciles with the old rulers, and raises the slogan

“All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

The most common interpretation of Animal Farm is that it is a warning against any attempts to change the world. But rather than being a defence of the status quo, Animal Farm contains in allegorical form a damning critique of capitalist exploitation, as Old Major explains:

“We are born, we are given just so much food as will keep the breath in our bodies, and those of us who are capable are forced to work to the last atom of our strength, and the very instant that our usefulness has come to an end we are slaughtered with hideous cruelty.”

Orwell himself answered the question of whether Animal Farm was intended as an anti-revolutionary text in a letter to Dwight Macdonald, a former Trotskyist: “I did mean it to have a wider application … What I was trying to say was…

“You can’t have a revolution unless you make it for yourself; there is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship.”

Nonetheless, in some respects Animal Farm falls well short of its stated intentions. Rather than presenting a radical alternative to Stalinist dictatorship, the book offers no substantial analysis of how the revolution was defeated, leaving the reader with no answer to the devastation of Soviet betrayals.

Orwell failed to identify the material limitations faced by Russian workers as they took control of society. Economic crisis gathered as the First World War took its toll. Besieged by commercial blockade and the might of 14 foreign armies, the industrial working class that made the revolution sharply diminished in size and political enthusiasm. The Bolshevik party grew into a massive bureaucratic apparatus, compelled to stand in for a working class too defeated to wield power directly.

Nineteen Eighty-Four is Orwell’s best-known work, and the meaning of the book is fiercely contested. It was intended by Orwell as a critique of bureaucracy and totalitarianism in both Britain and the Soviet Union. Indeed, increasingly it is becoming identified not with Stalinism, but with the surveillance state in the post-9/11 world.

The novel’s protagonist is Winston Smith, who lives under the watch of Big Brother and the thought police in a totalitarian state. What gives the novel its power is Winston’s growing consciousness and rejection of the existing state of affairs, summed up by the note he scrawls in his diary:

“Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. If that is granted all else follows”.

Orwell gestures to potential resistance, with the refrain: “If there is hope, it lies with the proles.”

Yet as he quietly opens this door, he shuts it quickly. Rather than being a source of resistance, of strength, cunning and self-sacrifice, as the Spanish workers appear in Homage to Catalonia, the working class in Nineteen Eighty-Four appears purely passive. The “proles” are described by Orwell as “like the ant which can see small objects but not large ones” and “people who had never learned to think”.

The sense of futility and abject despair deepens when the resistance movement that Winston dedicates himself to turns out to be a fabrication, an invention of Big Brother. Winston is captured, is tortured into submission and recants his oppositional views, declaring his undying love for Big Brother. His defeat is absolute.

Nineteen Eighty-Four is in many respects the most profound expression of Orwell’s pessimism.

“If you want a picture of the future”, Winston’s torturer tells him at the climax of the book,

“imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever”.

By the time of his death in 1950, Orwell had abandoned any hope for revolutionary change in the near future and had accommodated to the ruling Labour government as a “lesser evil”. But he never abandoned his visceral hatred of inequality and exploitation.

How did Orwell shift from putting his life on the line for socialism in Spain, to later falling into extreme pessimism? There were a number of factors.

First, Orwell’s embrace of socialist politics coincided with a period of horrific defeat for the working class internationally. The Trotskyist opposition was in the late 1920s imprisoned or exiled from the Soviet Union, and the gains of the Russian Revolution were being erased as a brutal dictatorship was consolidated. German and Italian workers were crushed under the heel of fascism, which annihilated their organisations and left their leaders languishing in concentration camps. This period, which the writer Victor Serge referred to as “midnight in the century”, was one of despair for the left internationally.

Second, Cold War hysteria divided politics into the two equally barbarous camps of Soviet totalitarianism and Western capitalism. Orwell’s opposition to Stalinism was fuelled by the conviction that the fraudulent socialism in Russia must be exposed in order to fight for the genuine article. However, lacking faith that the working class movement in both England and Russia provided an alternative to Stalinist dictatorship and British liberal capitalism, he increasingly threw his lot in with the latter as a lesser evil.

Compounding this, the anti-Stalinist left was too small to provide Orwell with any centre of gravity. His fleeting contact with British Trotskyists, who attempted to defend genuine revolutionary Marxism against the dictatorship in Russia, was not enough to negate the demoralisation that followed such crushing defeats. Had a substantial revolutionary organisation existed at the time, Orwell might have found hope through actively involving himself in renewed resistance to capitalism.

Only a couple of years after Orwell’s death, the monolith of Stalinism was cracked open. In 1953, construction workers went on strike in East Berlin and sparked a mass revolt. In 1956 workers across Hungary occupied factories, offices, railways and power stations and ran them themselves.

The revolts kept coming. In 1968 in Czechoslovakia, the brute force of Stalinist tanks was necessary to put down a revolutionary movement demanding change. In 1980, workers in Gdansk, an industrial city in Poland, occupied their factories and issued the following proclamation:

“We are different now, above all because we are united, and therefore stronger. We are different because in 30 years we have learned that their promises are illusions. We are different because we have understood that when we hear the words ‘financial reorganisation’, this means exploitation.”

The movement spread across the country, and it took the government more than a year to wrest power back from the workers.

Had Orwell seen these uprisings and the birth of a new anti-Stalinist left that followed, perhaps he would have been reminded of his earlier experiences. If he had been around to see the Egyptian revolution of 2011, the general strikes against austerity in Greece, the Baltimore rebellion, it’s safe to say he would have been on the side of the downtrodden.

And if Orwell was shocked by the inequality and class distinction that was so clearly observable in 1936 London, what would he say about a world where the richest 69 individuals now own more wealth than the bottom 3.5 billion people?

In 1942, he recalled a moment from Spain when he shook hands and locked eyes with an Italian militiaman, who like him had travelled to fight for the working class:

“The question is very simple. Shall people like that Italian soldier be allowed to live the decent, fully human life which is now technically achievable, or shan’t they? Shall the common man be pushed back into the mud, or shall he not?”

Seventy years later, the question remains a good one. As is Orwell’s answer:

“I myself believe that the common man will win his fight sooner or later, but I want it to be sooner and not later – sometime within the next hundred years, say, and not sometime within the next ten thousand. That was the real issue of the Spanish war, and of the present war, and perhaps of other wars yet to come.”

Shared from:’s-socialism

It’s worth noting, Orwell has been co-opted by every capitalist regime on Earth. They point to 1984 as the cautionary tale of what happens if you go totalitarian, claiming that the Orwellian society is modeled on Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. But this general co-option and location of the text within a particular historical narrative is but another example of how the “Ministry of Truth” operates.

1984 seems to be accurately describing all the major regimes contemporary to Orwell, especially Britain and the USA. 

As has been pointed out by many before, 1984 is an anagram of 1948, the year that the book was published, indicating it is not a prediction of a potential future, but a veiled description of an actual present.

1984 has affected me since school, it is a cautionary tale (a blueprint?) against the total state after the warring life under capitalist states, with society swinging from one extreme to the other. It has been a cautionary tale, similar to the ‘Boy in striped Pyjamas.’ about use and abuse of power by any institution.

These institutions, once they gain power, whether they be in the name of capitalism or communism, and the form of a state, a multinational , a church, a media, a bank or anything. Too much power corrupts and total power corrupts totally. All people and all institutions need to be on their guard about the corruption, whether it be group think or just an individual. For me it was a book warning institutions to take care of their whistle blowers as they guard an institution’s health.

History is tainted by the historians of the State

For 75 years, the British state and right-wing commentators and historians like DC Watt have covered up the truth, allowing anti-Communists of every stripe to get away with the lie that the Soviets preferred a pact with Nazi Germany to one with the West.
Some of the most extreme right wingers today even use the pact to hold the Soviet Union jointly responsible for the Second World War.
Now, as the truth emerges thanks to Russian sources, it’s undeniable that it was the British and French ruling classes – as well as the reactionary Polish junta – who didn’t want a united front against facism, hoping they could appease Hitler and turn Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union.
What a catastrophic mistake, which capitalism’s intellectuals have been lying about ever since.

It’s worth noting that Blair/Orwell was criticised as an opportunist and anti-semite who assisted in the blacklisting of communists in post-war Britain.

A guy walks into a Doctor’s surgery and says; ” I want to see my Doctor now “.
The receptionist says “sorry Doctor can’t see you, you’ll have to ring at 8.30 in the morning”.
The guy pulls out a knife and slashes open his wrist “WILL HE SEE ME NOW!”

No, it’s not a joke, it’s not satire. It’s Rhymney, May 2015.

The young man that did it is the son of a friend with several mental health issues compounded by alcohol and Class A drug abuse. The poor ladies in the reception hit the panic button and emergency services and first responders attended the scene.

Not heard much else, just hope the lad is getting treatment, his father has had enough stress and bad fortune in his life to last an eternity.

It’s scandalous what has happened to mental health provision in this region. God help us all if the opencast is approved. There are many scientific, anthropological and social services studies that show a massive increase in mental illness in regions where there is opencast mining.

Rhymney, Twyn Carno ward is already one of the most economically deprived regions in Europe. and is regularly in the bottom five of most deprived wards in Wales. The future is truly frightening.

La hanine du Bourgeois est le commencemt de la vertu.

– Gustave Flaubert 1821-1880 (1871) Letter to George Sand 1804-1876.

Translation of quote is,

Hatred of the Bourgeois is the beginning of wisdom.

Anarchism is the revolutionary idea that no one is more qualified than you are to decide what your life will be.

― CrimethInc., Days of War, Nights of Love: Crimethink for Beginners

Something I found on Tumblr that is so perfectly true I had to share.


“True Decolonization Is A Constant State Of Rebellion Against Systemic Oppression of Indigenous People. Above all, decolonisation, in its purest form(s), is an act of true love for those people.

It is NOT a slogan, meme, trend, jingoism or new academic dogma.

REAL revolution starts in the heart and always appeals to the mind in order to serve collective needs of the people.

Those seeking publicity, fame or personal gain via public political & media posturing often only serve themselves and this often creates false leaders.”
-Douglas Miles

Wanna Decolonize?
Start with a few basic questions:

Whose land are you on right now?

What is the history of this land and the peoples who have occupied it since time immemorial?

What names do those peoples have for this land?

How have you come to be on this land?

What are the processes that made this land available to you?

What about the land you grew up on? or land your parents grew up on? etc.

Screen Shot 2015-05-17 at 19.50.41

A very big Thank you / Diolch yn fawr

I really appreciate the time you have taken to read my blog and view my art.

Screen Shot 2015-05-17 at 19.55.07

Even today I’ve had visitors from around the globe, thank you so much 🙂

Voltaire | Atrocities

Posted: May 17, 2015 in Philosophy

Those who can make you believe absurdities, Can make you commit atrocities.