Lab To Become The New Lib?

Nobody held a gun to Nick Clegg’s head and forced him to enter into a coalition that was, to many, a walking oxymoron. At least no one did so in the pseudo-physical, extortionate or even figurative sense. However, that doesn’t completely dispel the notion that a merge onto the side of the Conservative party was chiefly an escape route, or move for survival, just as parasites would sooner choose a new host to feed on than waste away alone. Abysmal election results and a growing roar of hilarity from the media dogs surrounding Clegg’s press office would no doubt have fuelled the hatred from within the party itself, and who knows if Clegg would have been forced to stand down after such a chaotic, unstable and ultimately futile act of rebellion against traditional party politics? The heretic, it seemed, could either be burnt at the stake or make a prompt conversion and enter the fold. And the latter, according to politicians and journalists across the spectrum, is exactly what he did.

 

So Clegg married Cameron to keep a legacy for himself. Any mindless walking penis would probably do the same out of sheer desperation. Yet the strange pseudo-conservative policies and ideals being peddles by the Liberals in their slice of the pie, and a strangely docile opposition to Tory policy itself as only served to stoke up once again the fuels of heresy and discontent in the Lib Dem party. This, presumably, is why a large number of high profile Liberal bénévoles famously defected over to working class ‘saviours’ Labour in a desperate bid to recoup some of their fundamental values. By the same token, rumours are spreading across London this very second which suggest that Charles Kennedy, once leader of the Lib Dem party, is now also planning to defect. He may have half-heartedly denied the claims in a hastily scrawled press release, but if this isn’t a love letter to the Labour party then...well....what is?

 

So why are these head honchos and grass roots rioters alike all deciding to flock elsewhere to get off on centre-left policies (sort of the soft porn of British politics, if you will). The political field seems to undergoing a great deal of reshuffling, with the Liberal Party drawing closer and closer to the dreaded political purgatory of The Centre and, who knows, might precariously wobble there for months before finally taking a chaotic plunge into the murky world of old world elitism and class-consciousness. An unpleasant place to be indeed. Meanwhile, the Labour party, grotesquely loaded with faux-liberal, young new faces and the golden Milliband Brothers, is making appeals to the jaded Liberals of the left, namely those who were once part of the renegade SDP. Ed Milliband’s speech earlier this week was a thinly concealed appeal to those frustrated and disillusioned with their bizarrely draconian post-9/11 policies:

 

"I believe the argument is being won that on issues like ID cards and stop-and-search we became too casual about the liberties of individuals. And I believe the argument is being conclusively won that we must recognize the profound mistake of the Iraq war. I want to take my party on a journey to a different identity for the future: social democratic on economic policy, standing for redistribution and tackling inequality, liberal in our respect for individual rights." (Guardian)

 

Yes, that was me dicking around with the italics, not the Guardian, which is a respectable and established paper, as opposed to a moron with a digital screen. Anyway, the repetition of words such as ‘casual’ and ‘individuals’ and of course ‘liberal’ would make any young cynic of the decontracté variety sit up and listen. Whoever wrote this speech – probably not Milliband himself but I suppose there’s always hope – clearly wants to open the floodgates for the so-called ‘true Lib Dems,’ or rather those repulsed by the coalition. As long as the Liberal party stays joined at the hip to the Tories, no one’s going to look to them for entertaining the more radical liberal policies – so why shouldn’t they try their luck with what could quickly the become the new Liberal Left?

I Want To Dig Up A Certain Metaphysical Poet And Chop Him To Messes

I’ve got the shovel, the lantern, the battered copy of the Necronomicon and, to put it bluntly, I’m about the walk out the door and act out of my vindictive rage-fuelled fantasy on a certain metaphysical poet, who has been the epicentre of much stress and pain in my insignificant and ancillary existence, being a box of worm seed, salvatory of green mummy and slab of fantastical puff paste, over the last year.
 Yep, it looks like I’m through the hysterical stage and now I’m just gonna march over to the poet’s corner, pretend I’ve come to renovate, or paint, or something, and then I’m going to dig in, dig out, and tear up a few bright bracelets of hair around bones and if I get the time, an outward soul.

Goddamnit, I am sick of the motherfucking conceits in those motherfucking poems – I can hardly take it anymore. I don’t care if that subtle wreath of hair which crowns his arm will keep his limbs her provinces from dissolution and all that other happy go lucky orthodox crap. If it wasn’t for John Webster’s casual and refreshing nihilism, elegantly reminding of us of what a shadow, or deep pit of darkness doth, fearful and womanish mankind live, then I probably would have ran screaming from my educational institution by now.
 I guess it’s time of evening, although I should not harm nor question much that – goddamnit. I’ll have to leave it, just in case it breeds idolatry. Goddamnit. Donne must be turning in his grave.

Just Married: Fear and Politics

    It’s a damn shame that every Tory newspaper hates Nick Clegg’s guts, because it seems that he’s just about the only one of those jittery, nervous, randomly smiling freak shows to stand his grounds on any of policies- even the ones that throw the navel gazing middle class into a semi-passionate furore.

   This Liberal Leader has become the subject of nasty, insane, down and dirty newspaper abuse as of recently, nodding in particular to the lower classy-wannabe the Daily Mail, which recently published the somewhat hilarious title: Nick Clegg Makes Nazi Slur! What exactly was this nasty slur, I wonder? The Daily Mail didn’t seem to know – they simple ran his rather pedestrian and harmless quote on the front page and then waffled on about the loss of lives and so on in the second world war, spurting out half baked globs of patriotism all over its dirt cheap paper. Thank you, Daily Mail, for a once again inspiring, astute and totally accurate piece of journalism. Truly top drawer.

   Elsewhere, the Torygraph has been trying and failing to spread some out of date rumours and a couple of half hearted smear campaigns about Nick Clegg but, alas, no one really seems to be taking the bait. (Except of course the morons that actually buy these papers, but these poor fools are unlikely to get round to voting in the first place anyway)

   The low, low level to which these Tory papers will stoop in order to garner a handful of fearful votes from their trembling and anxious readers is almost as depressing as the sheer ease at which Clegg has essentially captured the hearts of the population. Everyone loves him to bits. Of course, one can easily see why he would have endured fifteen minutes of fame after those two rather sterling political debates on TV, especially as he actually bothered to look into the camera, i.e. at the country, but surely this doesn’t merit exalting him as the new Winston Churchill? This damn election seems to have turned into a rat race for the spin doctors – the first to link their figurehead to a man of charisma and characters from the last century or so wins. Just think of that ghastly idea the Conservatives had, trying to make subtle links between Barack Obama and David Cameron, the horror. Vote for Change? More like plagiarism.

   Nonetheless, it looks like the more that Brown and Cameron tear wildly at Clegg’s coat tails as he ascends up into never before explored areas of British politics, like the moral high ground, that it’s more and more likely he’ll be dragged back down into petty squabbling, false promises, and perhaps even the odd expense scandal. After all, this country really does love a good expense scandal now and then.

David Cameron Can't Believe You've Done This (Ah, Fuck)

  


   So...uh basically, what he was thinking of was uh, introducing a spate of outrageous new policies which not only tempt disbelief from the most ardent of Tories but also seems to fall woefully to bits after scrutiny- that of course is before he makes the equally bizarre promise of providing ‘Change’ in the ‘New (What the dickens??!) Conservative Party,’ which needless to say strikes most people as something of a colossal oxymoron , unless of course you do happen to be one of the poor, blind weasels out there who truly believe that Gordon Bear managed to single-handedly tear down the foundations of the Global economy, in addition to ruining Britain’s identity in the European market through ‘too much’ investment in public services and the of course the small matter of opening wide those hairy Scottish thighs and giving birth to Broken Britain. Did I mention that we can’t go on like this?



     But just don’t mention the 80s –or Thatcher, or the war, for that matter, and you ought to do just fine. After all, despite having absolutely no experience in managing national finances whatsoever he is, like, sooo much better equipped to drag us out of the economy than Gordon Brown and despite being spawned by a party known for its class consciousness and violating the working class from behind with their giant throbbing private sector members, he is like, sooo much better equipped to address the widening gap between the rich and the poor than Nick Clegg. Duh. So, basically what he was thinking was, uh....wait a second? You didn't vote Tory - you Swine!


(Cameron punched square in the face from off-screen)


‘‘Ah, fuck...I can’t believe you’ve done this!’’


Oh, if you don't know what the hell I'm talking about, check this out:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X6VoFBCE9k

Tories Branded As Class-Conscious Homophobes. Again.

Hmm. There seems to be a pattern forming here. Not only have a number of MEPs been revealed to have voted against legislation in favour of gay rights in the very recent past, but it’s now also arisen that Home Secretary Chris Grayling, defender of everyone’s human rights, and general nice guy, foolishly stood up for Catholic rights instead of Gay rights during a conference. In other words, when asked if he agreed that Christian B&B owners should accept homosexual couples to sleep together in their homes, he replied in the negative, and then went off on some rather tedious tangent about human rights, and some other details that would undermine the political gender of this Blog – so, let’s move on.

David Millaband put it surprisingly well on Question Time the other evening, also a nice chap by the way – did I mention that all politicians are nice people? He made some sweeping and rather majestic metaphorical speech about the David Cameron wrapper starting to peel off the bar, and we’d all recoil in the horror when the old, monstrous, class consciousness and general ‘let’s bugger the lower class,’ mentality was revealed in all its putrescent hideousness. Well said, David, well said – so well said, in fact, that he was treated to a roar of applause from the audience. Nothing like a session of clapping from the noble British Publick to lighten a politic sprit- oh yes, sir.


However, regardless of eloquent verbosity and Tory spin, a disturbing question- particular disturbing if you’re gay, or black, and god help you if you’re gay and black – was raised about the Tory position on Homosexuals. Are they homophobes? Well, their manifesto stipulates fairly clearly that they’re not. So does David Cameron actually, as he’s been out slapping an impressive amount of wrists ever since this rather concerning revelation was, well, revealed. Grayling has apologized profusely for any way in which his comment might have been interpreted (nice man, that Grayling) and so maybe those who were leaning towards the Tory party, having eaten up that ‘we’ve changed for the best’ crap, will stick a cross in Cameron’s box this May.


Anyone not sitting on a large inheritance they desperately need to protect, or anyone with the base line of intelligence for that matter, ought to have their suspicions raised- maybe there are a number of old school Tory values, i.e homophobia, bubbling under the surface of Cameron’s admittedly highly charming persona and clean cut, new age visage. Nice people, those politicians, did I mention that yet? Of course then again, if you are a massive homophobe, you probably should vote Tory anyway because you’re small and discriminatory brain will be appeased in so many different facets that it will, like, blow your mind.

Fly, My Pretties!

Brace yourselves, ladies and gentleman, for a gruelling six weeks or so of rolled up sleeves, dishevelled ties, hollow promises and unrivalled sycophancy: the 2010 election has reared its filthy head. For the class- conscious and unintelligent, this will of course be a wonderful time to peddle the wheelbarrow of lies known commonly as a ‘Tory Manifesto', which, although devoid of policies, is bound to delight the pants off the fat cats, as they wobble precariously on large piles of cartoon gold.



Alternatively, you could of course vote with your feet and give Father Bear another five years in office, although this too is not without its setbacks. He might be fully qualified to handle the financial crisis, or whatever the fear- mongers are calling it these days, but –good heavens – imagine the mudslinging and libel that would fill the Tory newspapers – as if staring the Daily Mail in the face each time you walk into a shop isn’t bad enough as it is. Oh, the gurgling putrescent horror.


Of course, if one is more partial to sitting on the fence and perhaps even stimulating that elusive G-spot in the process (which scientists, by the way tell us, doesn’t exist) one may find oneself putting a cross in the Lib Dem box – this is a wonderful idea if their promises to legalize drugs, stop taxing the poor and cease violating the lowest earners from behind rings true – but as I’m sure we’re all aware, the Lib Dem party is a little bit like an Indy kid – he’s pleasant to look and, he’s like sooo alternative, but other than that he’s basically nothing more than a fucking ornament.


In fact, just for the lulz, why not vote in the BNP? It doesn’t seem to have occurred to them yet that their policies neither make logical sense nor take into account pesky human rights legislation, who could deny that should they win a majority, excellent comedy will ensue? But of course, you must vote- really you must! Don’t go missing out on your slice of democracy, young lady/old chap, this is an opportunity to sit on.


They might be a bunch of bespectacled, top buttoned lunatics but these old fools are all going to do us a rather large favour – or so we’re told. Oh, and they’re all soooo different from each you know, just completely like, homogeneous and stuff. Oh, bollocks. Freudian Slip.

Is Modern Britain a Satanic Nation?

David Cameron’s affirmation that we’re the miserable and oppressed denizens of a ‘broken Britain’ has managed to ruffle all the right feathers. Cameron, of course, wants us to think that Britain is crawling with moral fissures so that he can leap in and save us all, probably by taxing the crap out of us and closing down all our asylums, but it was a fascinating campaign move nonetheless. It’s a completely ridiculous assertion to make, rather like most things that politicians have been saying lately, but it does raise a bizarre question in the back of the mind: What if we really are a bunch of Satanists?



Satanism, despite its numerous shortcomings, has to be one of the most fascinating and startlingly coherent religions of the last millennium. It’s also frightfully misunderstood- there’s no doubt of that in anyone’s mind- but one can assert with a reasonable level of assurance that the majority of prejudice towards this ‘religion’ is fuelled by ignorance, and most probably the deep seated dogmatic values that Britons are forced to imbibe every single day. Indeed, journalists, grasping desperately for a succinct phrase to discuss bizarre crimes such as the mutilation of goats on Dartmoor (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23367793-sheep-slaughtered-in-satanic-ritual.do), fall prey to labelling them as the aftermath of satanic rituals. The same goes for most cultural forms that exist on the very fringes of society. Baudelaire’s poetry, Marilyn Mansons’ music or even cult films such as The Wicker Man have all been accused at some point of having a ‘satanic agenda.’ The reality is quite the opposite. In fact, one could argue that almost a third of the British population actually conform to Satanic values – without even knowing it. Western Society, on the whole, is a Satanic culture, but this is not necessarily a bad thing.


But what the hell is Satanism? The vast majority of the middle class- especially those frightful weasels with Daily Mail subscriptions- would probably brand it with wonderfully vibrant adjectives such as ‘monstrous,’ ‘evil,’ ‘depraved’ and, if they’ve done a splinter of research, ‘elitist.’ (Intriguingly, many of those attributes can also be traced to the Conservative party but that, alas, is for another article.) Such people quite rightly label the movement this manner- but they do so for all the wrong reasons. Satanism is Evil and monstrous, in the Judeo-Christian sense of those words, but that certainly does not equate it with child molestation, sexual violence or bank robbery; No, Satanism is quite something else altogether.


The Church of Satan, founded by an ex-carnival performer named Anton LaVey, is considered by the majority of those interested in the movement as orthodox – orthodox in the sense that it contains doctrines, such as rituals, bibles, ceremonies etc. - but, crucially, it is orthodox in the sense that any ‘satanic’ act that does not comply with the values of The Church of Satan is by default non-satanic. Therefore, all the goat murders, child rapes and other crazy deviant crimes of the last fifty years are not under any circumstances rooted in Satanism – quite the opposite, in fact. They’re just the offhand product of a bunch of crazy acid-heads whose attention span happened to short out in a field full of farm animals.


The focal point of The Church of Satanism – the form which this article obviously refers to, rather than the loose adjective used to define mutilating sheep’s genitals – is, as many are aware, LaVey’s Satanic Bible. With its sexy black sheen and intricate pentagram sketched onto the cover, one can hardly be surprised to learn that the book is something of a household item. Not dissimilar to Thus Spoke Zarathustra or La Nausée then, in the sense that the majority of those who adorn their bookshelves with it are ignorant to its ideas or content. Despite its enormous pall of controversy, the Satanic Bible can be obtained effortlessly from most bookstores at a generous discount and, in the egotistic spirit of its founder, customers from Amazon are treated to an edition that displays LaVey’s closely shaven head on the blurb.


Essentially, when one peels away the layers of majestic prose in LaVey’s Bible, saturated with adjectives and some rather interesting send-ups of Christianity, the visible centre of gravity in Satanism is individualism – do not accept blindly the established values of your society, the Satanic Bible implores you, but instead create them for yourself. Satanists do not believe in any form of paternal God or intelligent being and therefore the concept of an intrinsic morality is completely dismissed. If there is no God, then there can be no intrinsic, concrete force which creates right and wrong and it’s for this reason that Satanism advocates its own values.


Another fundamental component is the subversion of a good number of Christian doctrines – quite unsurprisingly, the ones that we as humans breach on a daily basis anyway. Self-indulgence, for example, is by no means sinful or something to be condemned. You like cake, go ahead and eat all the cake you want, unless of course this will infringe on your enjoyment of other indulgences, such as pride in your body image. Satanists have no moral gripes about preening ourselves in front of the mirror, and in a culture as image conscious as ours, this surely would be met by many with a sigh of relief. It’s the exaltation of the ‘me’ culture. It plucks God out of the centre of all existence, and encourages you to put yourself there instead. For these reasons, some have drawn comparisons between Satanism and Epicureanism, and on the whole this a fair match.


It’s also a movement that isn’t afraid to promote selfishness. After all, our civilization was not developed to this stage through mutual respect and kindness, but rather through the harsh natural selection of evolution. Our culture as it stands now seems to hold selfishness very close it its chest, whether we like to admit it or not, and numerous examples such as the reckless investments in the financial sector and the fear mongering of airbrushed adverts can testify to this. Other religions are quite right to condemn vanity as satanic, but they are in many ways wrong to brand it as a fault of human beings when it comes so naturally to each and every one of us. Vanity, self-centeredness and an obsession with our outward appearance are the foundations of western capitalist culture- so why condemn them when they appear under the name of ‘Satanism?’


But Satanism is not without its flaws, and even though LaVey’s bible conveys a number of very interesting philosophical ideas, most of them are simply watered-down fragments of Nietzsche. Individualism and pride are simply counterparts of the Uebermensch theory, and most of LaVey’s points regarding the flaws of Christian morality were deconstructed far more effectively in Beyond Good and Evil, and even some of Dawkins’ works. It’s also disappointing to learn that most of the impressive feats and anecdotes surrounding its charismatic founder are actually hugely exaggerated or in many cases, simply completely untrue. It’s somewhat fitting that the poster-boy of Satanism is something of a poster boy himself.


In spite of the flaws, the argument that modern Britain is indeed a part of satanic culture has an alarmingly broad range of evidence, mainly due to the fundamental fact that capitalism and Satanism are almost exactly the same thing: Money is God, the body has replaced the soul, and the earthly pleasures are all we’re ever going to get, so we must devour them hungrily. No doubt, such an affirmation could rile even the most liberal thinking of Britons... but one has to consider the possibility that a superficial and hedonistic society isn’t quite the Tartaraus that hardnosed Conservatives would have us believe.