Tuesday 5 February 2013

i, dodos - the chingford nobhead



in terms of tactical character assassination, the basic problem with this unashamedly, yet somehow endearingly enlightening, left-wing-slanted slagging site, is its phenotypical predisposition to attack the politician due to disgust at his politics, rather than attack his politics due to disgust at the politician; one could, you see, spend silly time speculating as to whether, for instance, the secretary of state for shirk and pencil-sharpening is:

a) in any conceivable way a productive member of british society

b) nobbing his sexy parliamentary assistant

c) proud to have served a cushy-tour in zimbabwe (overseeing the former british colony's transition from a whites-only paradise to a black-on-black battlefield hell) as aide-de-camp to a british major-general who was previously intimately involved in the genocidal operation against kikuyu tribesmen in kenya during the "mau mau" independence struggle

d) confident that he was, in accordance with his own sponge-crushing criteria, fully deserving of the unemployment benefit which he claimed back in the early 1980s

e) comfortable with having married into the antiquation of a wealthy aristocratic family, which effectively owns an entire buckinghamshire village, lock-stock-and-smoking-barrel, thanks to a swash-buckling naval ancestor who was baroneted for empire-and-booty-building efforts including his military contribution to maintaining jamaica as a british slave-colony

f) looking forward to a rainbow vista of full multi-cultural employment in britain - where black people will no longer be socially-suppressed and conveniently tucked away in state-subsidized inner-city ghettos, but will, conversely, be gainfully occupied licking his wellies clean of aylesbury vale mud and otherwise generally attempting to forever secure their own small corner of idyllic english heritage by breeding-up his daughters and snaring-'n-snatching his sons

however i will resist such sordid temptation and stick solely and religiously to the subject of the politics that the secretary of state espouses...

for starters, i'm bound to remark upon the pointless nature of criticizing the secretary of state's desire to decimate the benefit system, for it is, after all, a government's customary prerogative to decide where and how to spend our hard-earned tax-monies (that's why one elects the arseholes into office in the first place, is it not?) and, in any case, the compulsory charity enshrined within the welfare-state has done little to bring communities together, quite the reverse, in fact - which is why the united kingdom is so financially, physically and emotionally defunct; please remember that, although the welfare-state was originally the well-intentioned brainwave of those wishing to eradicate poverty, parliament introduced the relevant social legislation at a time when the public had grown used to leading an almost anarchic war-time existence, and when the deadly toll of taking the british population into two devastating, yet ultimately avoidable, world wars had drastically reduced confidence in the absurdly incompetent ruling elite - so as it is for many beleaguered commonwealth immigrants today, the welfare state was, for the common man of post-war britain, essentially a bung of blood-money that bought-off a brewing class-revolution; much of the normal world would ridicule our obsession with automatic entitlement to unearned security, but would nevertheless relate closely to our anger at the posh parasitic public-school pirates whose government policies deliberately discriminate against and exploit enormous sections of society, both at home and abroad, and constitute, alongside the crucial collaborating influence of social ignorance, the prime root cause of the endemic poverty which we have subsequently sought to alleviate through the benefit-system.

therefore, it's not necessarily a question of the secretary of state's precise policies that we're dealing with here, but a question of his motivation for effecting them; if the cuts to public-services are strictly ideological and 'for our own good', then why were they not made during the effluent eighties, when the yuppy champagne was being pissed down the pan, or in the 'booming' noughties, when tings could only get better? furthermore, at a time when a decreased tax-burden would be a surefire boon and boost to our flagging economy, why are public-health and social-security benefit-services being degraded without a corresponding reduction being made in taxation? i mean, how are we meant to source private health-care, private education, and private insurance when we are still paying through the nose for government services which are barely extant? lower taxes are probably the only reasonable remedy for the woes of our economy, yet apparently they're not propitious for the government slush-fund which fills the gaping gobs of our lords and masters at ministerial feeding-time.

the middle-classes used to complain about 'paying twice' when choosing to opt for private healthcare and education, but bizarrely the dire condition of state healthcare and education will now force everyone to 'go private' and to 'pay twice' - once for a service which no longer truly exists, and once for a service which has been set-up by cabinet ministers' business-boss-mates to catch the desperate deluge departing from state provision and cash-in; the conservative politician's fundamental rationale for privatization is no longer ideological, it is clearly cynically commercial; you got it - the public pay twice, the politicians get paid twice.

yes, it's all very well cutting unemployment benefits, but the british privileged classes, whatever jolly canvas they may paint, simply don't want to let darkies and other socially-disenfranchized groups get their feet anywhere near the real establishment or employment ladder - at least, not before those keen underclassed candidates have first crawled on their hands-and-knees, slurped cock, and sold both their own and their brothers' souls to the great white hegemony in the rich-man's mind's-eye - and best don't count the ('successful') likes of celebs such as diane abbott and barack obama - they're just fluke figments of their own furtive imaginations.

yes, it's all very well cutting unemployment benefits, but fossilizing red-tape and suffocating taxation make it pretty much impossible to make a legitimate go of a small business in britain today.

how then are the deliberately disenfranchized classes to afford private-sector-services?

the secretary of state favours bullying those on the jobcentre work-programme because he loves the powerful buzz it gives him, and because it drives cheap labour in the direction of his accomplices ready-and-waiting in the manipulative mercantile employment-market.

the secretary of state favours absolute immigration-control because it creates, for the benefit of unscrupulous firms, an inevitable indetectable sub-class of illegal immigrants who can be used-and-abused below the minimum-wage without legal recourse to any official employment tribunal.

what next, sir? job-seekers on work-programme treadmills generating environmentally-friendly electricity for parliament and the civil-service? perhaps, to raise production-levels, you might give your job-gerbils a free-organic-lunch from supermarket left-overs, but obviously 'the perk' would have to be deducted from weekly-benefit payments as 'grub in lieu of cash'.

to the secretary of state, the social-justice of equality, sex and race legislation, combined with the welfare-system, comprises a handy head-guard (such as worn by sparring boxers) for the less-advantaged in society - allowing him and his peers liberal licence to punch the crap out of their customers without any fear of causing actual bodily harm; it's all sinister psycho-ops, antagonism and intimidation.

does he care?

does he fuck.


10 comments:

lasnaga bolognese said...

the sub-human scandal of slavery never 'did for' the british establishment, nor have the recent prominent paedophiliac revelations, but if the pet-loving british public ever learns that sir henry hooray-horsehumper's been selling orff sweet little annabel's favourite old ponies to the knacker's yard for to feed the famished five million at tesco's...the lords will be dead dog-meat.

"doing the congo" - the confessions of a cabinet minister, published by pushbike press said...

i wouldn't be surprised in the least if a swift check of ministry of defence records shows that iain dunblane smith served under the same chief-commanding-officer in rhodesia from whom randy "the serial-sex-tourist" mitchell took his cocktail-orders whilst sunbathing in cyprus - it sure is a small world at the bottom of the cia latrine.

iain double-standard said...

oh dear me...i imagine all this ferocious flak i'm receiving from the lowest-classes is simply an unavoidable consequence of imposing the so-called "bedroom-tax" on claimants of council-tax benefit; now then, there are obviously those bolshevik poo-stirrers-and-shakers, currently busy rabble-rousing in our inner-city shanty-towns, who are convinced of the existence of some obscure form of grand hypocrisy in the way this conservative government, whilst both quashing ancient british common-law squatting-rights (which hitherto permitted the destitute to shelter in unused or unoccupied property) and whilst also forcing low-paid social-security claimants to let their spare-rooms to complete strangers, has as yet utterly and totally refrained from levying any extra taxation whatsoever on the multitude of vacant rooms which evidently abound in the vast mansions and scarcely-lived-in second-homes of the unstinkably rich and moderately-minted-classes...

...however, what these red-flag-waving revolutionary fellows have clearly and unforgivably omitted to take into account is the considerable amount of additional storage space required by ludicrously-loaded toffs like myself for securely accommodating all our crates full of untaxed cash, gold and valuables...our huge piles of expediently muffled skeletons...and last-but-not-least, our infinitely immense and ever-expanding egos.

put-up or shut-up, mr scameroom said...

oh my dear god...the conservative government likes to pretend that benefit-cuts (such as those threatening claimants with a spare-room) are ideologically-based, yet all this legislation does is either:

a) save the government money that it can then invest in bogus infrastructure projects which, in turn, will be contracted-out extremely lucratively to old-school-friends running multi-national construction businesses.

or

b) force cash-strapped existing council-tenants to move out into the private-market where they will be obliged to pay ridiculously increased rents to conservative-cozy landlords who will profit enormously from the artificially high-levels of housing benefit which the government allows.


yes, it's win-win for the conservatives and, in these austere recessive times, the whole raison d'ĂȘtre of their greedy grubby government is now completely revealed to be commercial as opposed to ideological.

i particularly pity the old and disabled who in effect will be financially evicted from properties which have been their homes for decades...

...and given that the entire over-borrowing buy-to-let housing-market would instantly collapse if housing-benefit were ideologically scrapped by our petty-minded pseudo-principled government, i dare the prime minister to stop tormenting the low-paid and unemployed with these pedantic bureaucratic law-changes and to abolish housing-benefits altogether, out of conservative conviction...

...let's see who squeal first: the ordinary working folk who will at last be able to afford to purchase homes of their own...or the heavily state-subsidized private-landlords...

...and come-to-think-of-it, why not scrap the entire welfare-state so that british people are ideologically compelled to take all the jobs currently being filled by immigrants? blimey mate, that would be one real kick-in-the-fucking-teeth to these obnoxious opportunist slum-landlords...

...so how about it hey, prime minister?

...this your poll-tax.

fuck off elsewhere (for treatment) said...

well well...i can't disagree with the current widespread diagnosis of conservative-commercialism...

...did you see skinny hunt being interviewed about the stafford nhs death-camp on channel 4 the other night...?

...he could hardly contain his private-health-shared exhilaration at seeing yet another public-hospital facing closure...

...and no doubt at the value of his family-investments in private medical-health-care going through the roof...

...the cunt's eyes were practically bursting out of his hypocritical fucking little head...if he'd got any more excited i reckon he would've ejaculated them splat-onto the studio-camera-lens.

ivor the choo-choo saboteur said...

@put-up or shut-up

i wonder...will the new hs2 railway-line take a neat little semi-circular detour-route every time it reaches one of these cunt's castles?

the archdishmop of cranberry - beliefs include the demolition of westminster abbey should oil be discovered under the crypt said...

@ivor the choo-choo saboteur

pity these politicians aren't as straight as the train-track they propose building.

the mystic monolith said...

doooooooooooooooooooooooooooh
daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh
di
duuuh

iain double-standard smith said...

?

...oh golly gosh, i suddenly feel the irresistible urge to wear a bone through my nose

why some people deserve more 'lebensraum' than others said...

@iain double-standard 8 February 2013 02:29

i honestly feel that ids is putting the political-left's case rather disingenuously here and might even have misrepresented a some material facts...

...because firstly, although the "council-tax-benefit-reduction-for-those-decadent-enough-to-have-been left-with-a-spare-room-after-the-kids-have-flown-the-hovel" looks like a tax, walks like a tax, quacks like a tax and to-all-in-intents-and-fucking-purposes fucking-well feels like a fucking tax, it is in fact, strictly speaking, not a fucking tax, it is a "benefit-cut which will affect only the unemployed, disabled, elderly and those on low-incomes who live in state-subsidized accommodation and whose outrageously high (labour?) council-tax bill is also subsidized by the state"...

...now of course, the socialists don't want to slap a retaliatory spare-bedroom-tax on valued national-treasures such as nice lefty charity-supporting self-made rags-to-riches entrepreneurs, celebs and pop-stars, who (for the benefit of public entertainment) clearly need the extra-space to generally wank around in, get into mischief and then the sunday-headlines, in that particular devolutionary order...

...no, the socialists only want to resuscitate good-old-english fair-play and to see all those with "lifestyles-subsidized-by-the-state" taxed equally...

...the as-yet-under-affected individuals coming to mind being key-workers, nurses, teachers, civil-servants, local-government-workers, members of parliament plus publicly-paid camp-followers, judges, generals, police-persons, soldiers, firefighters, bankers plus bank-employees, staff of non-profit-making organizations receiving public grants, employees plus directors of 'non-profit-making' companies, and all directors, employees and shareholders of companies profiting from government assistance, contracts or bail-outs...

...a very simple line to take really...

...and at the risk of repeating what has already been written on the internet a million-times-over, i sincerely believe that, in respect of fairness not only being exercized but being seen to be exercized, extra-special attention should be given to the spare living-space present in the state-subsidized accommodation of government ministers and members of parliament, including their dormitory arrangements for waterfowl...

...now that's what i call ideological integrity and consistency of a kind which will surely guarantee the conservative party a level-table-thumping win at the next general election...

...for let's be bluntly honest here, we're all in this luxury cruise-liner together, aren't we?