In this dichotomous world in which we live, in where concession is akin to weakness, and where our own beliefs are sacrosanct, it is impossible to find any meaningful debate. Yes, yes, this is a sticking point of this blog, but when the problem is this dire, it bears repeating.

Wherever I see the embers of debate begin, I usually see someone with a fire hose with a label come running in to quash any hopes of warmth.

“Lefty rubbish” they caw.

“Right wing nut job” they baw.

And then everyone gets on the back foot and defends their philosophy, as opposed to making a point. So, let’s do the moderate thing, and sit on the fence to piss everyone off:

Both left and right ideologies, if played out to their radical extreme, are equally shithouse. At least to my layman eyes. I do not process to be an expert on the subject, but this is how I view things.

Communism sounds nice by philosophy, but when played out to its extreme (as history has evidenced) results in a two-tiered caste system that starves millions and strips away incentive to excel. Also cronyism, nepotism and collusion.

Capitalism sounds nice by philosophy, but when played out to its (globalist) extreme (as evidenced by current day) results in a wealth divide, enslavement of people in distant countries, and incentivises greed. Also cronyism, nepotism and collusion.

This is not to say that either system cannot work. I just think they fall apart when taken to a radical extreme. Smaller communities might benefit from such systems, but when the goal mutates into a pursuit of utopia, then other motivations creep in that are beyond the good of the community.

So, now that I’ve pissed off everyone, like the good little moderate I am, I’ll outline that I’ve long lamented that we seem to focus on politics on national levels, rather than dealing with our immediate communities. By interacting with those closest to us, we stand to make actual tangible change that is literally closer to home.

Trump golfing a lot is an issue, sure, but I fail to see how addressing that benefits anyone at a local level.

Maybe you’ll find that change can be achieved when you’re not trying to push a radical idea across too broad an area. Better you community first and maybe you’ll see others mimicking your example.



There are few things that have rankled me recently as what it is that I am about to discuss. For a while, I have mentioned that the many engaging in political discourse these days feel that certain rules are required, yet they never consider that they themselves need to abide by them.

For instance, those who would seek to curb freedom of speech on the grounds that things said may cause offence, never seem to consider that their own words could be deemed offensive. Those people would believe that they would never run afoul of such rules, and that the systems they wish for will forever be their tool to wield to ensure that offence is not caused.

Any rules in which an individual’s feelings are a factor ignores that individuals are unique, and that which doesn’t cause offence to one, may actually cause offence to another. It’s all honky dory until someone’s subjective and personal feelings on words are interpreted in a way that could be “harmful”, and before you know it the very tools you used to silence others are now being used to silence you.

Can’t say it won’t happen. Never bring a weapon to a fight if you haven’t accounted for it to be turned on you.

Which leads onto the item that irks me to this day; that of “normalisation”. It’s the idea that there is a potential problem in “normalising” that which is perceived to be harmful. I observed this in the aftermath of Trump’s election; social media cries for not normalising him, with the most prominent example being Last Week Tonight’s episode having John Oliver pleading his audience to remind themselves “This is not normal”.

I find nothing humorous about John Oliver stamping his feet like a two-year old because a widdle ol’ election didn’t go his way. Elections don’t go the way we like all the time, but you know what an adult does? They suck it up.

What I find the most galling about this whole idea of normalisation of certain things being harmful is seemingly the blind eye that people have turned to other harmful behaviour because the person leading the behaviour was cool n’ shit.

Did you know that the vast majority of drones (ordered by a certain favoured US President) strike fatalities were innocent civilians?

Did you know that a certain favoured candidate promised their cronies billions to rebuild Haiti after their earthquake in 2010, yet that rebuilding has yet to materialise?

Did you know that a certain favoured candidate was caught being gleeful about deposing the leader of Africa’s most prosperous nation?

Did you know that a favoured President is credibly alleged to have weaponised institutions of Government against political opponents?

You want to talk about the harmfulness of making Trump the new normal? Maybe let’s rewind the fucking tape and look at what we’ve already made and accepted as “normal” before we get too carried away.

Because accepting those things above as “normal” feels a lot more harmful to me than anything I’ve witnessed of the first year of Trump’s administration.

Don’t think it’s harmful? Imagine Trump doing those things above and see if your stance changes. Because that’s the “normal” that’s been endorsed already.

Russian trolls

The special counsel into the Russia investigation has finally put in an indictment into Russian meddling in the 2016 US Election, and the first cab off the rank are 13 Russian trolls who may or may not have actually affected the election’s result. The media, of course (Washington Post in this example), report in vagaries and tenuous lines to imply that there’s still some malfeasance on part of the Trump campaign, instead of the possibility that currently both nothing or something is there.

Even when the indictment specifically indicates that these Russian Trolls attacked multiple candidates, which would suggest that their goal was to upset democracy broadly, as opposed to propping up one candidate over another. Considering the fallout of the 2016, and the very vocal split in the electorate – at least the perception of it from here – it would appear that the Russian Trolls were successful.

People can believe that international forces can meddle in elections now, and they have the indictment to back it up. Now if the results of an election are disliked by enough people, it means the claim of “international tampering” can hold some water, if not in reality, then at least in peoples’ minds.

Not like election tampering is a new thing. Let’s review an old Time Magazine cover:

However, contrast the Washington Post’s article on the other recent “bombshell”, the Nunes memo. In this article, they go to painful lengths to paint the memo as partisan, and motivated solely by protecting party lines, as opposed to the reporting of troubling actions by equally troubling actors.

Read the memo for yourself here.

The impartial path for these two stories would be to report the indictments from the Mueller case as “something that neither absolves or condemns Trump” and the Nunes memo as “troubling allegations, which should require explanation by those implicated.” Instead what we have is a publication, by appearances, that is in the tank for one side of the political divide. The reporting on the Nunes memo seemed to run with headlines that said something to the effect of “Memo doesn’t discredit Russian probe”.

When the story instead, to me at least, raised some troubling aspects relating to the justification of surveillance over the Trump campaign justified with evidence supplied by a Clinton associate. At the very least, this revelation has echoes of Watergate – the greatest political scandal of our time – and yet the media is completely disinterested in the potential drama that would whip up.

It is literally the first time I have ever seen the media completely oblivious in wanting to make a mountain from a mole hill. Since when has the media ever willingly turned a blind eye to anything which even looks like it’s potentially thinking about being a scandal? Okay, I’ll answer my rhetorical question: never.

This is what is troubling me the most about recent events. If anything, it’s suggesting to me that Watergate, all the way back in the 70’s, taught everyone nothing. Nothing, except that if you want to carry out a scandal, you need a fully and willingly complicit media complex.

Why do they do it?

In a previous post, I posited that it was the ruling class that gamed systems for their own personal benefit – often at the expense of the regular working class. Over the serf class. However, I felt it worth expanding upon, because the immediate question anyone reading that post would ask is a simple, yet very pertinent one;

“Why would they do that?”

It’s a very good question, because to think that a ruling class treads down the lower class for the simple motivation of enriching themselves and oppressing others is the dunderheaded way of doing so. Why go to all the trouble of becoming a public figure when they could simply start a business and enrich themselves from the toil of others? Why go to the bother of appealing to voters?

Forget for a moment that we’re also in an era where any position can be justified if you have a sycophantic media who can paint you as a hero, while excluding any wrongdoing on your part from their coverage.

But why? Why would these people become public figures if their intent isn’t to benefit the public? What motivates someone who is already wealthy to getting even more wealth? Surely the easiest thing for them to do is to lay back and let the interest from immense wealth flow in?

So, if you’ll allow me to play armchair-psychologist for a moment, stroking my pitiful beard and swirling a tumbler of the very cognac that very likely lead to my brain being mush, I offer you an answer based upon my qualifications from the college of Bottom Shelf VSOP.

The pursuit of an enduring legacy. They want the metaphoric immortality.

When you know that you and the DNA offspring you leave behind will experience precisely no risk of destitution, and you are free to live a life of leisure if you so wish, then I would imagine that the notion of being forgotten after a mere generation is one that would shake those narcissistic enough to even want to become a public figure. Those in the spotlight crave relevance, and the only way to maintain relevance is to leave a legacy. A legend. One that survives you and your own children, and even your grandchildren.

Becoming a legend requires bravery, tenacity and the overcoming of terrible odds. How can the powerful attain these three, considering that they face no hardship, can pay for things readily, and have the odds stacked in their favour?

Easy. By arguing with people they can smear as a threat. Even better, if they can argue with other powerful people on the pretence of defending the vulnerable. Of course, it helps if you have the media assist with the theatre of it all. I cannot escape the feeling that this is all a game to them.

This explains how Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump, reportedly with a net worth of $120 million and $3.1 billion respectively, can profess to stand up for vulnerable people while treating them like a political football. Depending on your biases, you would see either one of those people as “genuine”, however I have little faith in both of them equally. Should the political winds change, they will shift their vanes to point to the next issue du-jour.

For those who don’t need to work for the act of mere survival, Legacy motivates. Not benevolence.

This would be my hypothesis for why those wealthy and narcissistic enough to feel the need to become public figures. This is what makes them even want to dabble in matters that are very real to regular people, but are simply mere talking points for them. I have zero faith that pop stars care much for the homeless, as evidenced by their enormous (and largely empty) mansions with perimeter walls. I have zero faith that late night talk show hosts who decry the USA’s Second Amendment speak with honesty while their own personal bodyguards pack heat. I sincerely doubt singers care much for carbon emissions while they gallivant around the globe in private jets.

It’s all for the perception of the good they do in order to achieve their immortality.

Of course, this is not to suggest that it’s the wealthy alone, but rather that blend of wealth, power and almost psychopathic belief that they know what’s right for the commoners. They will play the game of those in power, not to better peoples’ lives, but because they are competing with others in that pursuit of immortality.

Immortality is worthy to the likes of Rosa Parks, Claudette Colvin, and the Tiananmen Tank Man. They stood up to actual tyrannical laws and powers and risked grievous harm and threats to their personal safety. And they weren’t wealthy people, from what I understand.

They will have what no one with actual power can.

A return, of sorts

After the fallout of what happened in Charlottesville, I noped out, considering the topic of conversation of this blog being far too chaotic and volatile to handle. I still believe this is the case, but I still cannot shake the idea that there’s a game going on, and its players are largely the media, the political establishment, and the useful idiots on the ground.

I see the people lying by omission, the bad framings of reports to skew the reader a certain way, manipulations and games, all for the pursuit of power.

It would be entertaining if the game itself didn’t adversely affect regular people. That’s the twisted tragedy of all this; people with power will play these games to improve their numbers and keep their wealth coming in, packaging up these stories in the media like a lunch box with a label, prime for the public to focus upon, ultimately distracted from the real theft occurring.

The bread and circuses have spread to the chambers of the powerful, and yet they still dictate what we can and cannot see, despite pledging transparency.

I noped out before, but I feel I can still chip in, even if my corner of the internet gets literally zero traffic. This is a fault of mine, as I am terrible at marketing. It would be arrogant of me to think my teeny ramblings on a wordpress site would be subject to the tweaking and channeling that Google et al perform to swerve eyes away from wrong-think.

All these things seem to be conservatives complaining about being shunned or unpersoned, and I find myself agreeing with them. And I’m not even a fucking conservative. I hate that discourse is now this false dichotomy of us and them. Arguments devolve into “you’re one of them” as opposed to “I don’t believe that because x…”

Disagreement is not akin to the worst of humanity.