Wednesday, 25 November 2015

curtailed words

displayed here-below is the comment i yesterday attempted to enter in reply to ms juicy biceps mp's huffington post piece entitled it's socialism jean, but not as we know it, which, at this fraught time of rapidly impending american-inspired nuclear armageddon, was completely cyber-ghosted out of existence by the cia on apparent account of a fairly mildly expressed example of the indigenous anglo-saxon vernacular appearing within a moderate proximity of the hallowed phrase 'the white house'; may i at this point officially opine that, in the blogging-world, the huffington post - ignorant and immoral neo-conservative spawn of the daily telegraph - represents, as does, in the modern world, its mother-cuntry, the united states of america, the densely dunder-headed diplodocus, whose murderous mercantile meanderings cause its high imperialness habitually to crush clumsily under-foot all lesser forms of life in its dark, domineering, global quest to root out, ravenously, the most succulent earthly vegetational varieties of privileged political preference.

the offending article reads as follows:

"what a sulky subversive whinge from someone who sadly backed the wrong strand of political sentiment for the current anti-establishment british climate.
people aren't 'offended' by your feminism, my honourable madam - they're fuming because you're a cheap cia-sell-out and neo-colonial new-labour sychophant, who, as a 'progress'-flunky, clearly must hold values as far removed from true socialism as can possibly be imagined.

"no matter what the situation you are right and being right is more important than the safety of the group. she missed out the bit that says if things don't seem to be going your way, make sure you get jobs for all your mates so your way can be had."

sorry, but the above quote describes the typical self-serving blairite almost to a tee - the sort who, on a wafer-thin humanitarian pretext, barely disguising an ultra-extremist-christian agenda, would take his country into a futile neo-colonial war, regardless of the terrible cost to others, and purely for personal and professional gain.

"in my socialism, which is steadfast and lifelong, there is no point where your own personal socialist ideals are more important than delivering a better life for people who need it."

surely the socialist ideal is absolutely founded upon helping those in need - or is your 'personal' socialism about helping another group of people altogether? you seem confused.
you're not courageously speaking out, you're joining the crowd of condescending, brow-beating, self-righteous bullies who religiously suppressed all outspoken opposition to blair and his bloody oil-wars by systematically blacklisting his critics, and then maliciously ruining their lives and careers, whether in the professional political sphere or not.
under new-labour, most people who dared stand up for their rights got a swift kick in the teeth, not a generously salaried job in the poncy palace of westminster, as you rather slyly did, so don't play the poor defenceless female victim - when actually you hold a popularly appointed position of some considerable power over us, the common pleb, and right now weigh in the balance the lives of many already degraded syrian civilians, together with our own muddled, media-brainwashed british citizens - it just doesn't suit see man.
you suggest that jeremy corbyn may be slightly posher than you - is this why he's less prone to being bought off than you, or is that simply a matter of his upbringing?

stop wasting superjezza's bloody time - he's exceptionally busy saving the world at the moment, and can't be bothered with wet-nursing your emotional femino-brummie-centric insecurities, day-bleedin'-in day-bleedin'-out.
finally, if you still believe that everyone's equal, but that brown families deserve mega-tonnage of ordnance dropped upon them, ad infinitum, to satisfy the hardly heroic whims of the whatless wanker in the white house, le petit prat pathétique in paris, or the dutiful dachshund digging himself a hole in downing street, why not ask the royal air-force, ever so nicely loik, whether you might possibly be allowed to experience just one of those lovely ethical cruise-missiles exploding in your vicinity - but more importantly, before you vote to have angry arab and asian people assassinated, or to have non-christian civilians accidentally swept under the sandy syrian carpet into the next world, in the name of whiter-than-white western democracy, please take good deliberative time to read the following enlightened articles, in order for you all the better to appreciate the naff neo-con nursery-rhymes of our three next-to-butt-naked emperors:

how the west created the islamic state

levant report:
2012 defense intelligence agency document: west will facilitate rise of islamic state "in order to isolate the syrian regime"

insurge intelligence:
pentagon report predicted west’s support for islamist rebels would create isis:
isis coalition knowingly sponsored violent extremists to 'isolate' assad, rollback 'shia expansion'

the guardian:
west training syrian rebels in jordan

open democracy:
isis wants to destroy the 'grey zone'. here's how we defend it

levant report:
former dia chief michael flynn says rise of islamic state was "a willful decision" and defends accuracy of 2012 memo

global research:
us created the islamic state (isis) for sake of israel and military industrial complex: ex-cia contractor"


ms stella greasy-pole mp - dirty democratic dancer and chancer said...

oooh i know...

...the exact same awful ethical dilemma i currently face myself:

up whose greasy-pole should one professionally climb?

big c's or little c's?

miss world-shit-stirrer adjudicator said...

@ms stella greasy-pole mp - dirty democratic dancer and chancer stella greasy-pole mp - not a social-climber, but a class-condescender - a cia-celebrity air-head, nuclear-champignon-socialist, and inherently corruptible court-dancer fashioned in the finest two-faced terror-tactile tradition of the bent barbarity-bolstering british aristocracy...

...but with respect to the historic witch-calling and stuff:

ironically, it's a commonly understood fact that it woz peter nunn's missus wot did it - by dictation - the guy himself's a true gent...

...and so took the crap...

...just like poor old president obombaklaart's gonna have to take the racially-redistributed reputation-repercussive rap, alone, for former white-arse secretary-of-state, hilly clitnot, over this business of creating, training, arming, and funding the islamic-state - or dosh, as they are colloquially known to their middle-eastern neighbours.

yeah, i hear there's gonna be one-helluva-bitch-assed-bust-up between these two deviously democratic fuckers of mother africa...

...reckon we should intervene, prime-meddler dave dachshund of downing street...?

dave "the dachshund" cameron said...

@ miss world-shit-stirrer adjudicator

well actually, i'm going to train up all syrian immigrants as brickies... that in fifty years time, when we're on the brink of getting a butchers at the beginning of the end of the islamic state reign of cia-controlled terror in syria and iraq, we will have a ready and raring supply of highly-trained cheap foreign construction-workers, who will be in a prime free-market-position to build me, at tax-payers-expense, a great big bloody bastard-size bunker, where i fully intend and hope to hide-out in handsome hierarchical heel's-grade comfort for the unknown duration of the now inevitable neo-cunt-escalated third world-war.

didn't think i could plan that far ahead, did you guys?

fun-reader said...

@miss world-shit-stirrer adjudicator

last night, whilst attending to the day's business in the house of commons bog-facility, i noticed the following piece of cia-garnered intelligence scrawled lovingly and indelibly upon the larry-loowellin-botchin-designed cubicle-wall:

"corby bangs di-bot on the potting-shed floor"

do you judge this acute sociological observation to be true, adjudicator sir?

miss world-shit-stirrer of the year adjudicator said...


i honestly do not know or care, frankly, fun-reader...

...but what i certainly do recognize is that:

a) this criminally corrupt conservative government has insidiously degraded our country's public and government services, across the board, in order to divert the considerable funds thus saved into militarily enhancing the islamic state.

b) if we, in the united kingdom disrespect internationally agreed borders, in the same way as the islamic state, and bomb syria without the consent of the syrian government, then we british would be as immoral and fundamentally lawless as the islamic state, and, furthermore, would not be in possession of the long-term strategic moral high-ground required to defeat the extremist ideology of the islamic state, particularly amongst the islamic state's international diaspora of disgruntled cia-radicalized recruits in such places as britain and france.

c) if british armed-forces invade syria - illegally, as it stands - to attack the islamic state, whether by air, land or sea, then we can fully expect regional islamic-state-supporters, such as the turkish military, to retaliate viciously against british troops, marines, or airmen, just as they now have done against russian service-men who have been engaged in targeting the islamic state.

d) if shadow foreign secretary for a few days more, herr hilary bent, were to sport a colonel-klink-style eye-glass, he would look the perfect image of nasty nazi-kommandant.

desperate dave lammy said...

dear karl marx


renounced the radical all-corrupting new-labour evil of extremely bad blairism...

made atonement for my abominably anti-social and anti-african sins before my lord and lefty-spiritual-leader, jeremy corbyn...

and been totally immersed - for quite some considerable length of time actually - beneath the cool christening chrysopraze waters of the lea navigation canal...

i am delighted to announce...

that i am now a spanking sparkly-new little-red-book-bashing born-again socialist.

hallelujah praise das kapital

'making britain safe' by making britain enemies - part one said...


when did britain start 'making britain safe' by making britain enemies?


probably under conservative prime minister john major, when in 1990 the uk government became involved in the gulf war alongside the united states administration of george bush senior, and uk armed-forces invaded, then bombed iraq, killing muslim civilians; the gulf war erupted when iraq's president, saddam hussain - a cia-asset, who had been put in power by the west, backed by the west , and armed with weapons of mass-destruction by the west - was tacitly encouraged by the cia to attack kuwait - which was a tool of the cia and, as such, had initiated economic warfare against iraq - and took control of kuwaiti oil-fields.

definitely under prime minister tony blair, when in 2003 his labour government followed united states president george w bush into the illegal iraq war, during which over one hundred thousand iraqi civilians are believed to have been killed by bombing, military ground action, and cia-precipitated sectarian in-fighting; even before the iraq war, it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of iraqis died from the effects of united nations imposed sanctions; the iraq war was initiated by the united states and british governments who claimed, based upon false intelligence from the cia and mi6, that saddam hussein's régime was harbouring weapons of mass-destruction and al qaeda-terrorist elements.

definitely under conservative prime minister david cameron, who in 2011, together with president obama of the united states and nicolas sarkozy, president of france, supported al qaeda islamists in the cia-orchestrated overthrow of president gaddafi of libya, and subsequently bombed libyan government forces engaged in the ensuing libyan civil-war, simultaneously killing civilians, when the libyan dictator threatened to destroy benghazi, the rebel-stronghold.

definitely under conservative prime minister david cameron, who in 2011, together with president obama of the united states and françois hollande, president of france, supported al qaeda islamists in the cia-orchestrated overthrow of president assad of syria, and subsequently aggravated and escalated the ensuing syrian civil-war, at the cost of tens of thousands of civilian muslim lives, by deliberately and directly facilitating the rise of the islamic state, the forces of which western intelligence agencies, including the cia, mi5 and mi6, have covertly recruited, trained, armed and financed with the regional assistance of the governments of saudi arabia, israel, turkey, qatar and jordan - indeed, it can even be hypothesized that it is the uk government's effective backing of the islamic state, and intrinsic cia-control of the islamic state, which has, ironically, prevented the islamic state thus far from successfully executing a terrorist atrocity upon british soil.

(continued in part two below)

'making britain safe' by making britain enemies - part two said...

(continued from part one above)

definitely under conservative prime minister david cameron, who in 2014 ordered air-strikes on the islamic state in iraq, where an alliance of uk and american air-forces has been carrying out a bombing-campaign which has killed iraqi civilians.

definitely under british prime ministers tony blair, gordon brown, and david cameron, who, since 2001, each authorized uk military intervention, co-ordinated with united states armed-forces, in the war in afghanistan, which directly cost the lives of tens of thousands of civilians, many as a result of bombing; the war in afghanistan occurred as a consequence of the afghan taliban government's complicity in sheltering twin-towers-topping terrorist osama bin laden and his fellow al qaeda jihadists, yet suspiciously the united states president george w bush did not commit sufficient troops to capture bin laden, and allowed him to escape to pakistan, where in 2006 he was placed under secret house arrest by the pakistani intelligence services until his death, in 2011, following a covert assassination-operation by united states special-forces; one of the prime publicly stated reasons for invading afghanistan was supposedly the capture or assassination of osama bin laden, yet the war in afghanistan continued unabated against the taliban resistance until 2014, long after president george w bush officially gave up pursuing bin laden in 2005, and long after bin laden was apprehended by pakistani intelligence officers in 2006 - with the full knowledge of the saudi government, who supported him financially, and with the inconceivable ignorance therefore of cia-officials at the highest rank.

(continued in part three below)

'making britain safe' by making britain enemies - part three said...

(continued from part two above)

reasons for the united kingdom not to bomb syria:

successive uk governments and armed-forces have proved that they cannot understand the vital and moral difference between 'making britain safe' and making britain enemies.

simply because the repressive, authoritarian uk government - which treats especially harshly its black, asian and muslim citizens - has, throughout recent political history, been inciting and prosecuting illegal wars, bombing civilians, and intimately colluding with, and supporting, the islamic state and al qaeda in iraq and syria, it does not therefore follow ethically that we, as a country, should now be entering a dodgy military alliance with other immoral and repressive states which also regularly engage in such atrocities against humanity - these other rogue-states include:

russia - a repressive, authoritarian state, especially against muslims, which is bombing civilians in syria and supports the repressive and authoritarian syrian government.

syria - a repressive, authoritarian state, which is bombing its own civilian citizens.

turkey - a repressive, authoritarian state, especially against the kurds, which is intimately colluding with, and supporting, the islamic state and al qaeda in iraq and syria, killing its own civilian kurdish citizens, and bombing kurdish civilians in iraq along with the kurdish peshmerga militants, who are desperately fighting to push back the islamic state from their ethnic-kurdish territories in syria and iraq.

the united states - a repressive, authoritarian state, especially against its black, muslim and hispanic citizens, which is intimately colluding with, and supporting, the islamic state and al qaeda in iraq and syria, prosecuting an illegal war in syria, supposedly against the islamic state, and bombing civilians in syria, iraq, and afghanistan.

france - a repressive, authoritarian state, especially against its black, arab and muslim citizens, which is intimately colluding with, and supporting, the islamic state and al qaeda in iraq and syria, prosecuting an illegal war in syria, supposedly against the islamic state, and bombing civilians in syria and iraq.

australia - a repressive, authoritarian state, especially against its indigenous aboriginal and muslim citizens, which is prosecuting an illegal war in syria, supposedly against the islamic state, and bombing civilians in syria and iraq.

saudi arabia - a repressive, authoritarian state, which is intimately colluding with, and supporting, the islamic state and al qaeda in iraq and syria, and bombing civilians in iraq and yemen.

qatar - a repressive, authoritarian state, which is intimately colluding with, and supporting, the islamic state and al qaeda in iraq and syria, and bombing civilians in iraq.

jordan - a repressive, authoritarian state, which is intimately colluding with, and supporting, the islamic state and al qaeda in iraq and syria, prosecuting an illegal war in syria, supposedly against the islamic state, and bombing civilians in syria and iraq.

(continued in part four below)

'making britain safe' by making britain enemies - part four said...

(continued from part three above)

according to this opinion poll commissioned by the bbc of citizens in iraq and syria:

50% of syrians and 56% of iraqis are opposed to coalition air-strikes.

the majority in these two countries are opposed to the islamic state and believe that the islamic state is a product of foreign countries.

many living in raqqa now are happier since islamic state has taken over.

there is little evidence to suggest islamic state is losing the war.

people aren't leaving raqqa now because of islamic state - they are leaving because of the coalition air strikes.

majorities in both iraq and syria oppose the break up of their respective countries.

this review of opinion polls by uk polling report indicates that:

in poll performed by survation/mirror since david cameron made his statement on 27.11.15, those in favour of air-strikes against islamic state appears to have dropped to 48%, whilst those against appears to have risen to 30%.

of those polled by comres for the independent on sunday between 18.11.15 and 20.11.15, 46% would support airstrikes against islamic state without united nations approval, whilst 32% would not.

this uncontrolled on-line 'voodoo' opinion-poll for itv news, which opened on the evening of 27.11.15, shows that 89% of readers are against our involvement in air-strikes in syria, whilst 11% are in favour - and here's the same poll-result displayed on the polldaddy website, including comments.

(continued in part five below)

'making britain safe' by making britain enemies - part five said...

(continued from part four above)


immediately after the paris attacks on 13.11.15, david cameron sounded as though he would call an immediate vote on air-strikes against the islamic in syria and have fighter jets sweeping into the skies within a week, but then he seemed to back-track and announced that the parliamentary-vote would be 'before christmas'. next we were told that there would be a vote on monday 30.11.15, then we were informed that the vote would be set for wednesday 02.12.15, then thursday 03.12.15, and finally 'next week' - sometime between 30.11.15 and 04.11.15.

judging by mr cameron's prevarication over vote-dates and his utterly unconvincing performance in the commons last thursday, when setting out his argument for war, one truly wonders whether the prime minister actually wants to hold a vote, let alone win it.

here are a few possible grounds for david cameron wishing to delay the vote on air-strikes in syria:

a) he is afraid of losing the motion and still scrabbling around for support.

b) he has no proper evidence for the existence of these 70000 so-called moderate rebels in syria, which he purports are ready to combat the islamic state, and is still scrabbling around for credible intelligence to prove his assumption.

c) he is, rightly, worried that the whole military operation will go completely pear-shaped, because of a host of permutations - including turkey and russia going to war with one another, turkey shooting down british fighter-jets, turkey being totally untrustworthy as an ally, prior guilty knowledge that the americans want to use the action against the islamic state as a pretext for attacking assad's syrian government and starting world-war-three with the russians, or the certain knowledge that arming the islamic state and then attacking it will result in a catastophic islamic extremist backlash against britain - and therefore extremely worried that he will be crudely forced to resign from his proud position as prime minister in deep disgrace.

d) he doesn't care for a forensic parliamentary examination, by jeremy corbyn, of the criminal manner in which he, the prime minister, the british government, and the british intelligence-services willingly helped the united states administration, and the cia, to create, train, arm, finance, and even recruit jihadists for, the islamic state - leading to the greatest state-committed war-crime scandal of the century.

e) he is still frantically trying to arrange a horrendous islamic state terror attack in london so that public and parliamentary opinion will be sufficiently swayed for him to win the vote for air-strikes against the islamic state in syria.

this country has bombed its way through afghanistan, iraq, libya, iraq again, and now intends to demolish syria and its remaining people too... when will our government in the united kingdom finally comprehend that bombing just kills civilians, bombing in effect makes terrorists of the british people, and bombing also creates more radicalized terrorist enemies who will wish to violently revenge themselves upon us, the british public...

...or put in the simplest of terms: when will the british government, and the british people, finally comprehend that british foreign policy, itself, is actually the most fundamental threat to our british existence, and our british way of life?

(continued in part six below)

'making britain safe' by making britain enemies - part six said...

(continued from part five above)

further compelling arguments against britain bombing syria

global research: britain to vote on bombing syria - there are thousands of reasons not to

global research: united states-turkey edging up to syrian border. pretext to invade, establish isis "safe haven" in northern syria?

global research: syria and washington’s 'new middle east'

clutching at the political prostitution of public straw-polls said...

@'making britain safe' by making britain enemies - part five

amongst that little list of grounds for davy-boy dilly-dallying, you courteously forgot to include his signature failure to-date in decisively waging a contemptibly cruel rotten-core-principled conservative campaign of desperate dirty-tricks demeaningly designed to personally and psychologically undermine comrade jeremy corbyn, and you obligingly also omitted to mention the prime-minister's rather damp defeatist desire to wait for the optimistic grubby off-chance of a corbyn-degrading oldham bye-election-result rescuing him, david cameron, the cur-dulled cream of the ethically errant establishment's elite education system, from his too too terrible puppet-show-political fate.

contract-cleaner-in-chief to the kickback-cabinet said...

control-cleric michael al-burglary felon, a flagrantly scented figure-head of the balsamic-state of criminal indifference, is now threatening us with the chilling consequences of mr corbyn unclubbably unveiling the comfy covert terror-colluding criminality of his right-dishonourable war-lordship's co-ranked co-culpable cia-number in the corruption-and-control coffee-room in washington.

deep-quote said...

the prime-minister doth protest too much, methinks... will surely be only a short matter-of-time before some ambitious disgust-junkie espies sufficient financial traction in the suddenly degenerating crimino-political situation to reveal who is the real terrorist-sympathizer in this pathetically staged parliamentary melodrama.

why is the british public being held-to-ransom by the islamic-state-terror-supporting british government? said...

@clutching at the political prostitution of public straw-polls

whether corbyn instructs his labour members of parliament to oppose bombing syria or not, the conservatives will blame corbyn for their failure to win convincing parliamentary support for air-strikes against the islamic state in syria - and not their own piss-poor foreign policy planning.

it's a fucking democratic disgrace that michael fallon, the defence secretary, should threaten us, the british public, with islamic state terror-attacks.

if there should be a terror-attack, or terror-attacks, in britain, the conservatives will proceed to blame corbyn mercilessly for those forthcoming atrocities, despite it evidently being the conservative government who assisted in the deliberate creation, training, arming and funding of the islamic state - and possibly even the actual direct recruitment of islamic state jihadists by intelligence-assets of the cia, british intelligence agencies, and other western intelligence agencies.

home-truth: the double-headed sledge-hammer said...


yes, our prime-minister, david cameron, is definitely the international terrorist of the parliamentary piece - and chiming in close harmony, i'm very glad to notice that, in a nice little newsbiscuit news-speak pastiche, someone else has beaten me to making the all-to-obvious comment, which i will duly get 'round to setting out in the second-half of this entry, on the "you ain't no muslim bruv" street-leitmotiv:

hilary benn heckled with 'you ain’t no socialist, bruv'

indeed, as i was about to say before being pipped at the post...

...david cameron and the christian-tale-spinners in the british establishment should be extremely wary of jumping on the bumpy bruv-speak bandwagon, because the real hard-line street-aphorisms currently catching 'light over leyton-enz, each undoubtedly endorsed by the outspoken video-commentator at leytonstone tube-station, are as follows:

(regarding david cameron)

"you ain't no christian bruv"

(regarding hilary benn)

"you ain't no socialist bruv"

(regarding jeremy corbyn)

"you ain't no terrorist bruv"

for across britain, this is how the internet-informed plebiscite now views our politicians, and if the above three members of parliament were to hang about in the ticket-hall at leytonstone tube-station for just a few of their precious, all-expenses-paid minutes, they would, respectively, receive the above verbal reactions to their normally tv-screened faces - with the exception of mr cameron, of course, the in-depth socio-politico-religious analysis of whom would, in all probability, eventually be punctuated by a politely delivered punch in the gob.

the quran according to the cia said...

the leytonstone tube-station attacker is a muslim, but a mentally disturbed muslim - not surprising in the prevailing political climate of constant concentrated cia-circulated islamophobic news-content; for their pro-establishment, pro-fascist, pro-war, pro-cunt propaganda, the bbc, the british government, and the british mainstream media should be absolutely fucking ashamed of themselves.

the jihadists of the islamic state are, directly or indirectly, cia-controlled, ‑created, ‑recruited, ‑trained, ‑armed, ‑financed, and ‑brainwashed in a politically motivated attempt to discredit not only the entire muslim faith, but every muslim person and every muslim country.

the depressive season said...

so, here we are, just waiting around for the next bomb to go off.

there will probably be bomb-attacks during the office-christmas-party-season, christmas day, new year's eve, and so on and so on... pubs, clubs, churches, sports stadiums, shopping-centres, schools, colleges, government departments, and on the transport-networks...

...and all because, as the good pope of buenos aires has rightly pointed out, we are at war... know, the one we voted for...

...or at least-to-say, the one they voted for, the conservatives, and their fellow-travelling american-arse-licking fascists in the labour and liberal parties...

...but not exactly us, of course, the british people, who:

on 24.11.15 were split 59% for, to 20% against bombing syria...

on 27.11.15 were split 56% for, to 25% against bombing syria...

on 01.12.15 were split 48% for, to 31% against bombing syria...

and at the last count...

on 03.12.15 were split 44% for, to 36% against bombing syria...

...according to recent yougov opinion-polls.

yes, you got it...

...unlike the more bourgeois, establishment-addicted-and-educated aristos in the labour, liberal, and conservative parties, such as hilary benn, nick clegg, chuka umunna, and stella creasy, the hare-brained heir to harriet harman, chief-advocate for black-and-brown muslim-bombing-'n-bashing, who could not be in the slightest fucking bothered to research into the truth of this cia-contrived war-matter...

...our enemy, the islamic state, has, directly or indirectly, been deliberately recruited, trained, armed and funded by our own criminal western governments.

in short, therefore, by means of a huge international criminal conspiracy, our governments and intelligence agencies have created an enemy within from which they cannot protect us.

happy christmas

miss world-shit-stirrer of the year adjudicator said...

@miss world-shit-stirrer of the year adjudicator, 27 november 2015 at 04:50

apologies - section d) should, of course, have read:

"if shadow foreign secretary for a few days more, herr hilary bent, were to sport a colonel-klink-style eye-glass, he would look the perfect image of a nasty nazi-kommandant."

but, in the great tradition of gilbert and sullivan, section d) could perhaps have been improved thus:

"if shadow foreign secretary for a few days more, herr hilary bent, were to sport a colonel-klink-style eye-glass, he would look the very definition of a nasty nazi-kommandant."

"over the top plebs": new-labour motto - part one said...

ms stella creasy mp naïvely reckons the british government can go bomb syrian people - including many syrian civilians - without any actual consequence to our daily lives here on the streets of britain; indeed, ms stella creasy mp reckons the british government should go bomb syrian people - including many syrian civilians - yet meantime expects we british citizens to carry on with life 'as normal' back here in the united kingdom, because she says we should do.

ms stella creasy mp also naïvely reckons she can vote, in the british parliament, to bomb human-beings, in syria, without this type of deadly political action provoking any adverse reaction whatsoever amongst the human-beings in her local constituency labour party and her wider constituency electorate.

however, after more than five years' supposedly representing a multi-cultural parliamentary constituency in east-london, what ms stella creasy mp has evidently not gathered - because she neither values nor respects the opinions of those who are not white, not middle-class, and not fortunate enough to have been educated at oxford or cambridge university - is that members of non-white ethnic minorities in the uk have long been left in total disgust at the interminable white race-war being fought against their own non-white ethnic brothers and sisters in their own non-white ethnic homelands, and that real socialists, of whatever colour skin, share this deep and absolute disgust.

if ms stella creasy mp has no socialist principles, and arrogantly dismisses the views held by the vast majority of her socialist constituents, she should 'do the right thing' and leave the labour party forthwith.

ms stella creasy mp and her fellow 'new-labour' members of parliament - those that still believe in blair and, in effect, everything that this psychopathic neo-colonial christian-extremist did - are well known, habitually, ignorantly, and immaturely, to deride a commitment to principle where this commitment might somehow prevent access to political power, and thus it is that these 'new-labour' members of parliament openly display their fatally condescending attitude to their employers, the british public, whom they clearly judge to have no functioning morals.

of course, now that the british electorate is becoming increasingly supportive of labour leader jeremy corbyn's stated socialist principles - which at core comprise an anti-war, anti-nuclear, anti-corruption, pro-decency, pro-justice, pro-fairness position - the true obstacle in the labour party's path to political power is not the simply-defined set of socialist principles newly revived by corbyn, but in fact this pack of jealous, rebellious new-labour mps, who continually and viciously seek to undermine their reforming new-leader on an unprofessionally cruel and personal level, as if, it would often seem, under direct orders from the rabidly right-wing british press, or even the neo-conservative administration in the american white-house.

(continued below in part two)

"over the top plebs": new-labour motto - part two said...

(continued from above in part one)

oh aye, that's the nasty nub of the matter:

heidi alexander (lewisham east)

ian austin (dudley north)

adrian bailey (west bromwich west)

kevin barron (rother valley)

margaret beckett (derby south)

hilary benn (leeds central)

luciana berger (liverpool wavertree)

tom blenkinsop (middlesbrough south & cleveland east)

ben bradshaw (exeter)

chris bryant (rhondda)

alan campbell (tynemouth)

jenny chapman (darlington)

vernon coaker (gedling)

ann coffey (stockport)

yvette cooper (normanton, pontefract & castleford)

neil coyle (bermondsey & old southwark)

mary creagh (wakefield)

stella creasy (walthamstow)

simon danczuk (rochdale)

wayne david (caerphilly)

gloria de piero (ashfield)

stephen doughty (cardiff south & penarth)

jim dowd (lewisham west & penge)

michael dugher (barnsley east)

angela eagle (wallasey)

maria eagle (garston & halewood)

louise ellman (liverpool riverside)

frank field (birkenhead)

jim fitzpatrick (poplar & limehouse)

colleen fletcher (coventry north east)

caroline flint (don valley)

harriet harman (camberwell & peckham)

margaret hodge (barking)

george howarth (knowsley)

tristram hunt (stoke-on-trent central)

dan jarvis (barnsley central)

alan johnson (hull west & hessle)

graham jones (hyndburn)

helen jones (warrington north)

kevan jones (durham north)

susan elan jones (clwyd south)

liz kendall (leicester west)

dr peter kyle (hove)

chris leslie (nottingham east)

holly lynch (halifax)

siobhain mcdonagh (mitcham & morden)

pat mcfadden (wolverhampton south east)

conor mcginn (st helens north)

alison mcgovern (wirral south)

bridget phillipson (houghton & sunderland south)

jamie reed (copeland)

emma reynolds (wolverhampton north east)

geoffrey robinson (coventry north west)

joan ryan (enfield north)

lucy powell (manchester central)

ruth smeeth (stoke-on-trent north)

angela smith (penistone & stocksbridge)

john spellar (warley)

gisela stuart (birmingham edgbaston)

gareth thomas (harrow west)

anna turley (redcar)

chuka umunna (streatham)

keith vaz (leicester east)

tom watson (west bromwich east)

phil wilson (sedgefield)

john woodcock (barrow & furness)

...all prefer being whipped by the conservatives rather than labour - the above sordid list of mps all rank, two-timing traitors to their party, their constituency, and ultimately, to their country.

fuck off and good riddance you murdering, no good, dirty-rotten neo-conservative cunts.

(these foul-weather fascists claim that they don't stand for abuse, when rather they can't stand anyone disagreeing with them)

lucky jim mcmayonnaise said...

@"over the top plebs": new-labour motto - part two

just because you tend towards the right of the labour party on social and economic issues... doesn't mean you have to support illegal and immoral wars, does it?