Parallelograms

From a familiar, external, conscious world the song Parallelograms by Linda Perhacs plummets the listener into an intuitive, Finnegans Wake, collective unconscious, dream world.

It speaks of the language and syntax of reality, explicitly through mention of geometry and biology and implicitly through its audial transition from a melodious, familiar dimension to a discordant, unfamiliar dimension.

The hidden dimension this song addresses may be described as the structural matrix and bedrock of reality. In the same way that we create two-dimensional images and fictional realities it can be said that a higher dimensional reality creates us and our three-dimensional world.

As a musical genre psychedelic folk is an apt way to express such insight. The folk element evokes old, rural, communal and spiritual tradtions and does so in a mysterious and beautiful way. The psychedelic element updates the folk aspect, employing electronic sounds and musical experimentation and embedding it in the historical and cultural context in which it was made. There is thus a melding of ancient and modern, tradition and revolution, continuity and change.

That Parallelograms, the song and the album of the same name, was largely ignored when first released in 1970 is testament to the overall commercialism and vapidity of the music industry and the ignorance of a society unable to perceive raw artistry and deep insight into the nature of existence.

The Least Among us

"We are led by the least among us" 

                                     - Terence McKenna

I've grown tired of arguing against the Conservatives. Is it not abundantly clear that their fundamental policies have always maintained or increased an extreme rich-poor divide and fuelled perpetual war and hatred? The Conservatives show no signs whatsoever of changing their fundamental policies, so clearly they show no signs of ending poverty, war and hatred.

One of the main arguments of the Conservatives is that they are the only party who can deliver a "strong economy". What is meant by "strong economy"? I rarely here this phrase explained in a reasonable, intelligent way. From a non-technical standpoint and judging simply by the hard evidence of many years of Conservative rule, including New Labour, it seems that the Conservatives' "strong economy" invariably equates to a staggering divide between the rich and poor. So in what sense do they mean "strong"? The Conservatives champion and preside over an economic system that allows one individual to be worth £9.5 billion and, simultaneously, for homelessness to rise. Is this not enough to make the population understand? It doesn't take an intellectual to understand that there is something inherently wrong with a political party and system that allows this to happen.

Even if economic efficiency was defined in terms of cold, abstract logic, the Conservatives do not deliver. Neoliberalism, the Conservatives' ruling ideology and economic system, their sine ne qua non, led to the 2008 financial crash. In other words it collapsed. Neoliberalism was started by Margaret Thatcher, the ultimate Conservative, the Conservatives' idol, and was continued by Tony Blair and New Labour. Blair and New Labour were, according to Thatcher, her greatest achievements. So even in cold, ruthless terms the Conservatives aren't worth voting for.

Humane political parties do exist. They won't solve every problem and they may have to operate in a toxic global climate for a while but who knows, maybe they'll set an example? Maybe they'll show people another way? Societal change has to start somewhere.

Why Might Momentum be an Object of Criticism?

I don't usually think in terms of left-wing or right-wing. I prefer more concrete terms; fair, unfair, sensitive, insensitive, empathetic, unempathetic. These terms carry more weight and meaning for me.

Alan Johnson has recently argued that Momentum is a "hard-left" group infiltrating the Labour party, drawing comparisons with the 1980s group Militant. But, as I constantly find in the popular press, this view isn't backed up. Johnson doesn't provide any circumstances or situations to show that Momentum is an extreme or militant group. His view is thus invalid.

Johnson also doesn't consider his view from different sides. Perhaps Momentum is around to combat the high levels of class injustice and inequality in our society and the waging of perpetual war, which is rife and which we aren't properly informed about it. In this sense his argument isn't remotely intelligent or sensitive.

Similarly Tom Watson and Neil Kinnock talk of "Trotskyists" infiltrating the Labour party without adequate explanation or exploration of what a "Trotskyist" is. I thus get the impression that this phrase is a scare tactic, like "hard-left", and when one delves into it one finds that it doesn't have any meaning. The popular press is full of such empty phrases and scare tactics. Much of the world-population thus end up living their lives based on a vapid and abstract political rhetoric perpetuated by self-serving individuals and a biased media. 

I wonder if Kinnock and Watson spoke out against Tony Blair in the same way they have with Momentum? Or even Ed Miliband who aimed to continue with austerity? One has to assume that Kinnock and Watson are promoters and members of the British establishment. The establishment, for the record, does not have the will or desire of the wider population at heart.

What does infiltrate even mean? Are any of our Labour MPs militant Trotskyists? Are militant Trotskyists going to take over UK government? I think it's far more relevant and beneficial to discuss and criticise Blairites and New Labour MPs who for many years had an overwhelming stranglehold on the Labour party, and probably still do to a minor extent, and whose record, such as the Iraq war and the promotion and practise of neoliberalism, is shameful.

Even if "hard-left" groups did exist and did have negative intentions, as it currently stands we have far more pressing problems that need to be addressed. We have the destruction of coral reefs, rising greenhouse gases, livestock emissions, the swift disappearance of many animal species, class inequality, mistreatment of disabled people and perpetual war, all resulting from insensitive and neoliberal, one might say right-wing, governments. In light of these catastrophes, that are occurring right now as a result of Western governments that have been in power continuously for many years, "hard-left" groups are not something I'm worried about.

It is funny when people talk of "hard-left" groups, as Americans do with Communists, when all we've had in Britain and the U.S for many years are right-wing governments. When you look at the records of such right-wing governments - ongoing wars in the Middle East, rising class inequality, nurses using food banks in the UK, private healthcare in the U.S, the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the U.S, the Vietnam war by the U.S, ongoing environmental devastation - you realise that an alternative form of government is needed.

As far as I'm concerned our society is fundamentally skewed and oppressive and when genuine beneficial change presents itself most of our politicians and media-outlets instinctively try to obliterate it.

Establishment Media with Reference to UK Politics

Before commenting on politics it's important to bear in mind that popular and establishment media create an image of reality that is often highly inaccurate. Many people, understandably, think and make decisions largely based on this inaccurate image. 

Honesty, accuracy, evidence and fairness are thus regularly absent from establishment media. The reasons for this are very complex and have much to do with maintaining a divide between the rich and poor. 

These points are tied up with spin and political rhetoric, which is about fooling people into liking and voting for you. Spin and political rhetoric is often about creating an inaccurate, abstract, negative and unfounded image of an opponent and is often about evading honesty, transparency and directness.

I feel that not only the wider population but many of our politicians buy into the political rhetoric they use and the abstract, unfounded notions of society that they promulgate. For example, I do think that most Conservatives feel that they are "working in the national interest" or that "living within our means" is a fair thing to say. But these phrases are part of an abstract political rhetoric that isn't tied to reality. I would describe believing in political rhetoric and distorted veneers of reality as some kind of mass delusion fed and sustained by a powerful, biased and reality-reversing media.

One of Friedrich Nietzsche's primary insights is that many of humanity's cherished ideas and views are motivated by shadowy instincts, drives and desires. The Conservatives' ideas and views, for example, are motivated by greed and insecurity. Such ideas and views are dressed up in a palatable way, "living within our means" kind of seems reasonable on the surface, but their essential meaning is bound up with greed and fear. In a more accurate rendition, living within our means is actually saying that "we aren't going to address the deep power and class imbalance of society but are going to steal money from those who need it most". 

When ideas and views are bound up with insecure self-serving drives you can expect volatile reactions. For example, David Cameron erupted in PMQs on the issue of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, shouting "It might be in my party’s interest for him to sit there. It’s not in the national interest... for heaven's sake man, go!" This reaction occurred because Corbyn represents a threat to the societal maintenance and dominance of the rich-elite, which is based on their self-serving insecure drives. When the rich-elite are faced with a character like Corbyn they thus lash out in an irrational way. This also explains Alan Sugar's, Richard Branson's and Rupert Murdoch's hatred of Corbyn.

The abstraction of reality that occurs with the application of political rhetoric and inaccuracy in the popular media also leads to desensitisation and depersonalisation. We are presented with a thin distorted layer of reality and aren't able to adequately connect with actual reality. In my view this occurs to an extent with any media, as media or language slides between people and the rawness of reality and can end up disconnecting us from the truth of our inner and outer worlds.

Rhetoric, inaccuracy and spin encourage increased detachment or desensitisation as they aren't about exploring and revealing truths. They are about manipulating people, distorting events, scaremongering, ignoring happenings and/or presenting situations in a one-dimensional way. The result is that we aren't able to properly connect with many events occurring in the world. This, I think, is partly why we have a PM who holds a first strike nuclear policy.

I don't think Theresa May emotionally understands the consequences of using nuclear weapons. Similarly Micheal Fallon, the Conservative Defence Secretary, holds an insensitive attitude towards military action. Fallon offers complete support for future military action in Syria to a government responsible for this. He must not remotely empathise with the many civilians that have died in the Middle East as a consequence of our foreign policy and he must not realise that our approach is fuelling perpetual war, hatred and extremism. If May was present for the atom bombing of Hiroshima and had family who died there and if Fallon had witnessed and had family who died in a military attack in Yemen they would, I'm sure, think differently about nuclear weaponry and military intervention.

Violence and death, then, have been depersonalised and we have been emotionally desensitised to horrific issues. This is why it is refreshing and inspiring, for me, that Corbyn is so reluctant to use military action. Presumably Corbyn is sensitive and empathetic to issues of violence and sees military action as a last resort. He genuinely prioritises diplomacy and dialogue. As far as I'm concerned he is a responsible and humane politician, seemingly a rare phenomenon.

In order to develop and flower as a society enough people need to understand the bias of establishment media and enough people need to be able to separate bullshit from accuracy, honesty from lies, substance from vapidity, spin from sincerity.

Concrete Issues with Reference to Jeremy Corbyn

I'm not left-wing, right-wing, feminist or marxist. I'm not trying to sell you an ideology. I'm not part of an institution. I'm an individual intuitively responding to perceived injustice and corruption.

When it comes to commenting on societal matters I think it's vital not to segregate yourself in a convoluted, academic, drawn-out and abstract verbal bubble.

It's also important to take control of knowledge where possible and to have the confidence to talk about matters without necessarily having a university degree in them. This is where the internet can be so brilliant and inspiring.

When it comes to Jeremy Corbyn I think the important things to remember are that he and his party want to reinvigorate the NHS, are anti-austerity, anti-privatisation of public services and have a thoroughly empathetic, sensitive, caring and forward-looking approach to foreign policy.

There are obviously a lot of complexities involved but honestly, at this point in time, the latter points are the things that matter. They are policies and attitudes that actually want to alleviate concrete issues happening right now.

It's easy for a commentator who isn't affected by disability work assessments, who doesn't have to go to a food bank, who isn't a Syrian whose family has been killed by US airstrikes or a Yemeni mother whose children have been killed by UK weapons to criticise Corbyn for pointless, abstract or trivial matters.

The elite and their vicious media chums have really done a number on the world population. They seem to have taken away an ability to empathise, emotionally connect and think freely about the world. In this sense, in the sense of how our minds work, we are caged and imprisoned.

8 Cases of Recent Conservative Hypocrisy

The cases are getting to be so many now... The following are 8 cases of Conservative hypocrisy that have occurred in the last couple of months.

1 - After all her posturing and vapid platitudes Theresa May's oh so strong and stable government is looking, even in the popular press, to be intensely weak and unstable. They've scrapped most of their election promises, are clinging to power with a backward political party, are having the manifestations of austerity publicly flung into their faces and didn't nearly achieve what they set out to in the general election. Jeremy Corbyn and Labour's stability, consistency and resilience, however, are becoming harder and harder to dispute.

2 - In an interview with Andrew Neil May accused Corbyn of scare-mongering in order to "sneak into number 10". Thus in the same breath as accusing Corbyn of scaremongering May herself was scaremongering, saying that Corbyn aims, like some deceitful unworthy villain, to become PM. For May and the Conservatives to accuse Corbyn and Labour of scaremongering and to imply that they were underhanded and deceitful in their election campaign is shockingly hypocritical, seeing as though the Conservative campaign was particularly vicious, dishonest and dirty and overwhelmingly based on fear and hate. Contrariwise, Labour's campaign was overwhelmingly based on hope, optimism and positivity and did not resort to personal attacks or relentless character assassinations.

3 - Boris Johnson, along with May and Michael Fallon, vehemently disagreed with Corbyn when he made a speech connecting our foreign policy to terrorism. Corbyn's speech, however, is an iteration of what Johnson himself said the past.

4 - The Conservatives accused Corbyn of being a terrorist sympathiser with reference to the IRA and are now getting into bed with a Northern Ireland political party, the DUP, associated with terrorism. Whats more, Corbyn was accused of sympathising with the IRA because he was involved in peace negotiations with Northern Ireland during "The Troubles". These negotiations led to the Good Friday Agreement and Theresa May's deal with the DUP puts this very agreement, meaning peace between Britain and Northern Ireland, in jeopardy (see links below). The Conservatives in their election campaign went so far as distorting footage of Corbyn so that it seemed like he didn't condemn the IRA.

5 - May and her government claimed Corbyn was a terrorist sympathiser with Hamas and Hezbollah too, even though May and the Conservatives sell arms to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia are bombing Yemen, practising and promoting extremist ideologies and funded IS. Also as Home Secretary May allowed the alleged Manchester attacker Salman Abedi to travel across Europe and not be monitored, even though the FBI warned MI5 about him. The hypocrisy here is staggering. There is a connection between the Conservative government and the Manchester and London Bridge terror attacks. May has defended our ties with Saudi Arabia and has not promised to stop selling them arms. Corbyn, on the other hand, has said we should halt arms sales to them.

6 - May and her party used the word "magic money tree" many, many times during their election campaign to disparage the Labour party's spending in their (fully costed) manifesto, but now the Conservatives have somehow found £1.5 billion to strike a deal with the DUP. In spite of austerity continuing unabated the Conservatives can always conveniently locate money for their self-serving activities.

7 - Conservative MPs and May praised the fire-service and police for their brave efforts in Grenfell Tower and the recent UK terror attacks but, in spite of Labour's amendment, have decided to continue with cuts to these services and the pay cap on public sector workers. This ties in with the last example too. There is no magic money tree when it comes to paying our brave service people a decent wage but there is when it comes to striking a deal with a backward political party. To stand there and praise our public service people, scoring political points, and not genuinely take any action to improve their lives (when you have the money to) is disgraceful. Corbyn and his party, for the record, genuinely want to take action to help our service people, including nurses, the police, the armed forces and our fire services.

8 - May and her government warned frequently of a coalition of chaos during their election campaign with reference to Labour and other parties and have now struck a deal with a political party who have connections with terrorism, who don't believe women have the right to abortion, who don't believe in LGBT rights and whose previous environment minister denied climate change.

As far as I'm concerned, in light of these points one has to concede that the Conservatives are deceitful, manipulative, self-serving and particularly hypocritical.

Links

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/jun/15/theresa-may-northern-ireland-talks-dup-deal-delayed-politics-live

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-2017-john-major-theresa-may-conservatives-dup-deal-violence-northern-ireland-a7787681.html

The Conservatives Rely on Hate, Fear and Vapid Slogans

With their powerful establishment-media the Conservatives have made many, many shameful attempts to assassinate the characters of Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott and John McDonnell. They have incited fear in the public that these people are terrorist sympathisers. They have distorted footage of Corbyn, lied about Abbott and painted all these figures as evil hateful villains who couldn't possibly run our country. These are sick, regressive and shameful tactics. The accusation that these figures are terrorist sympathisers is ironic, funny and infuriating because it is Theresa May and her government that arms, supports and does deals with terrorists.

The amount of times the Conservatives attacked Corbyn in their 2017 election campaign was pretty shocking. Repeating statements like "can you imagine Jeremy Corbyn running our country?" "Jeremy Corbyn would wreck our economy" "Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser." Here they feed and rely on an inaccurate and distorted media-impression of Corbyn that sees him as incompetent, unrealistic and dangerous. There is no evidence to back this impression up.

The Conservatives' vapid slogans are pretty hilarious and various (but also kind of scary) and deserve a whole article or essay devoted to them alone. Such slogans are cooked up by Lynton Crosby and other Conservative PR people and are probably required to be used a certain number of times in debates and interviews. To keep it brief, let's look at "magic money tree". Magic money tree was used to belittle Labour and the spending in their manifesto. It is passed off as an economic insight when really it has no meaning. It is used because it is easy for many people to absorb and repeat. It is funny that Labour's manifesto was fully costed, unlike the Conservatives'. It is also funny that the Conservatives don't seem to care about tax avoidance with the mega-rich and can always find money when it comes to military intervention and renewing Trident. The most recent example of extreme hypocrisy in this case is that the Conservatives have conveniently located their magic money tree, finding £1.5 billion to do a deal with a bigoted Northern Ireland party associated with terrorism.

There are a number of reasons why the Conservatives rely on hate, fear and vapid slogans.

One is that, as a party, they have few positive policies themselves. Many of the core policies from their 2017 manifesto have been abandoned, in terms of the triple lock on pensions, dementia tax, fox hunting, school meals and grammar schools.

Two is that they are too incompetent and insensitive to appeal to the wider population in a meaningful and positive way.  Thus, in order to garner votes, they must ruthlessly attack a person's character and deceive and manipulate the public.

Three is that, by inciting fear, they make people scared of meaningful change or transformation. Corbyn and his party symbolise meaningful change in a number of areas. The Conservatives exploited this, saying that he will destroy our country or wreak havoc on the economy.

Four is that they infantilise and destabilise the population so that they can manipulate them with vapid slogans. By inciting fear and hate the Conservatives encourage people to be very single-minded and insecure. When a person is scared or insecure they don't think intelligently or rationally and are thus susceptible to vapid slogans.

Five is that when a vapid slogan is repeated enough times in the popular press, like a mantra, it gains validity in people's minds.

Though I believe their effect is waning, we can't ignore that 13.6 million voted Conservative in the general election. We need to keep sharing our views as much as possible. We can't forget what the Conservatives have done and we can't neglect what they continue to do.

Conservatives and Nigel Farage Accuse BBC of Bias.. for Corbyn!

The BBC has been accused of left-wing bias and hero worshipping or promoting Jeremy Corbyn because they covered him doing a speech at Glastonbury... Hahaha!

So, the leader of the opposition and one of the most politically relevant figures in the UK does a speech at one of the biggest festivals in the world and this isn't worth covering? Whereas the latest sports results or the Royal Family's toilet habits are?

Tory MP Philip Hollobone said: “The BBC is riddled with Left-wing bias from the Today programme downwards. They will seize any opportunity to get Theresa May out. Jeremy Corbyn at Glastonbury is a typical example of their behaviour… the BBC is out of control"

Andrew Bridgen, another Tory MP, added: “The BBC will do everything they can to get their hero Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street"

Farage, too, has argued that the BBC is promoting Corbyn. 

I do not com-com-compute. It is almost unfathomable to me that the BBC is being accused of left-wing bias, let alone of being pro-Corbyn (see links below for explorations of BBC bias against Corbyn).

The BBC largely mirrors and enforces our society's ingrained, pervasive, unquestioned neoliberal agenda. This isn't restricted to the BBC, most popular news-outlets do this. The Conservatives, being perfect embodiments of neoliberalism, are thus by and large bolstered by the BBC's coverage, and are to this day.

The BBC, for example, did nothing to interrogate the completely unfounded view that Corbyn was a weak or incompetent leader. By this very act of ignorance they legitimised this view. Similarly, they did nothing to interrogate the completely unfounded view that May was a strong or powerful leader. For a long time I would have desperately appreciated an exploration of what a strong or powerful leader is and why, exactly, were May and Corbyn perceived in their respective ways. Corbyn's rise and the mainstream media's treatment of him have undoubtedly highlighted media incompetence and bias and the workings of our society. I really hope this point is visible to the wider population.

We can't underestimate the power and effect that media has on us. We can't make excuses and we have to be aware. It isn't about everyone blindly agreeing with each other, it is about being fair and properly interrogating our society's injustice and corruption.

The BBC's attempts at interrogating and challenging are found in their Panorama series. Even these, in the case of Corbyn, have mostly enforced unfounded assumptions and opinions and contributed to the toxic climate that surrounded Corbyn for so long (see open democracy links below).

It is vital that we understand that our popular news-outlets come at situations from a biased angle. From the very start they misrepresent and distort phenomena. This is because they operate within a pervasive environment, composed of specific values and norms, that is largely unquestioned and unchallenged. In our case this environment is one of neoliberalism. 

Neoliberalism is our overarching ideology, championed by Margaret Thatcher, and is pretty much a heightened form of capitalism. Neoliberalism is characterised by a privatisation of public services and financial or economic deregulation. It is a system that has become normalised. It's values and norms have seeped into the fabric of society. It is thus, in a sense, understandable that our popular news-outlets mirror and enforce it. Some of it's values and norms are those of individualism, competition, lack of empathy and a deep distrust of anything opposed to it.

You don't generally get sustained balanced arguments from Conservatives. I have mostly found unfounded and vicious claims (Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser, the BBC hero worship Corbyn, etc.), uninspiring and vapid platitudes (we must live within our means, strong and stable leadership, working in the national interest), and also a reversal of many policies and principles. This latter point is, I assume, because Conservatives simply aren't principled and only want to garner votes. There are various examples to back this up. One, they have scrapped most of their half-baked 2017 election manifesto (which is pretty shocking). Two, many of them considered stealing Labour's anti-austerity agenda simply because they thought that's largely why Labour did so well. Three, they have no qualms about lying and being vicious in their election campaigning, going so far as attempting to incite deep fear in the electorate by making a video about Corbyn suggesting he is some kind of evil terrorist sympathiser. Their campaign, it is indisputable, was based on hate and fear. In light of these points I don't see why any vaguely intelligent and kind person would support or want to be a Conservative. It greatly baffles me that 13.6 million people voted for them. I'm not saying this simply because I have other political views. I'm saying this based on the examples I've just given and the consequent fact that the Conservatives are unprincipled and deeply untrustworthy.

The way I see it is that Corbyn wants to transform mainstream UK politics for the better. He is, believe it or not, a caring, sensitive and principled politician. This is shining through in many ways that not even the mainstream media can hide any longer; in his interviews during the election campaign, in his handling of the Grenfell tower incident, in his large passionate rallies, in his Glastonbury speech. It is the opposite with May. Her true colours and those of many Conservatives are being revealed more and more. I just hope this is apparent to the wider electorate.

The Tories need to understand that Corbyn and his movement can't be silenced, can't be ignored and will be heard. 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/…/media-attacks-on-corbyn-sho…

https://www.opendemocracy.net/…/panorama-corbyn-surge-and-p…

http://www.mediareform.org.uk/…/…/2016/07/Corbynresearch.pdf

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/i…/voice-from-america/677-remember

How are the Conservatives still in Government?

The effects Theresa May is rending on British society are detrimental and undeniably shameful. She is leading a rabid government that needs to be put down. But the Conservatives are still pretty much calling the shots. They are representing and deciding for Britain in the Brexit negotiations for instance! I do not relish that thought. To understand this situation better it is handy to take a step back.

In 2010 David Cameron officially starts austerity...

In 2011 Cameron and his government militarily intervene in Libya. Only 13 MPs voted not to invade Libya, 557 voted the opposite. You'd think that it would be the other way around considering previous, recent cases of military intervention - Afghanistan and Iraq - which indisputably worsened situations and contributed to great death, destruction and extremism. Hmm, are our politicians getting less principled? Less sensitive? Less intelligent? All of the above? For the record Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell were among the 13 who voted against.

All the while austerity is tearing the poorest levels of our country apart. Homelessness rises. Police force is drastically cut. NHS is cut. UN report states that the UK government severely violated the rights of disabled people due to welfare reforms from 2010-2015; the Conservative government dismisses this report. Nurses go to food banks. And the rich get richer.

In May 2015 Cameron and his government are re-elected. In September the same year Corbyn is elected leader of the Labour party by a landslide. It is also in this year that Cameron and his government launch air-strikes on IS in Syria.

Cameron calls referendum in 2016 and in June resigns after unwanted "Brexit" result. May takes Cameron's place, without having to be elected, thus with no mandate. In the same year Corbyn is re-elected as Labour party leader, by more of a landslide than last time, thus increasing his mandate.

With the media overwhelmingly on her side, legitimising her vapid platitudes, not interrogating them in any way, May does historically well in the polls. Corbyn however is overwhelmingly disparaged and misrepresented by popular media, who seem unable to accept or comprehend his principled caring character, thus doing historically unwell in the polls.

Austerity continues unabated as May and her government ignore it's warnings and evidence. Her popularity remains because mainstream media are shamefully ignorant and pathetic.

In January 2016 an amendment to the government's housing bill, put forward by Corbyn and Labour, to make British homes "fit for human habitation", is voted against by 72 Conservative MPs, many of whom are landlords.

April 2017 May calls a snap election for June 8, arrogantly thinking she'll gain a large majority and exert more control over Britain. Corbyn and his party stop May and her government from gaining any majority at all.

This one is good. On June 9, the day of the general election result, May, in order to gain a majority, decides to "prop her government up" with… wait for it… the DUP. A bigoted Northern Ireland party associated with terrorism. In doing so May, as John Major and Gerry Adams confirm, jeopardises the Good Friday Agreement. Thus in order to cling to power May jeopardises peace with Northern Ireland, essentially dismissing and trivialising all the death that occurred during "The Troubles".

June 14 2017, a horrific tragedy occurs. In London North Kensington, Grenfell Tower, a block of flats housing 600 people, catches fire, which spreads unusually easily. There was no sprinkler system, flammable cladding was used because it was cheaper and according to a number of residents no fire-alarms were operating. Though there is no conclusive verdict, there are undoubtedly connections here with austerity, private ownership of what should be council/state property and consequent cost-cutting in poorer areas, all caused and exacerbated by an incompetent Tory government and it's ruling ideology, neoliberalism.

The Conservatives will go down in history as the rich property-owner party who took (or maybe stole or scrounged) desperately-needed money from the most vulnerable members of society and continued with this program for at least 7 years, with devastating results. National interest? With New Labour they will also be known as the great war-mongering party, whose members seem to possess no empathy, sensitivity or intelligence when it comes to the deaths of foreign civilians and the causes of perpetual war, hatred and extremism. 

Sensitivity, compassion and intelligence are desperately needed in British government. With Corbyn the Labour party possesses such traits.

Perceptions, Corbyn and the Evolution of a Leader

The bias and ignorance of our popular media has been shockingly outlined and emphasised in it's treatment of Jeremy Corbyn coupled, interestingly, with the recent, historic blunders of the Conservative party.

Corbyn symbolises sincere beneficial societal change. When he was elected leader of the Labour party he was thrown into an intensely toxic climate. He was overwhelmingly rejected by New Labour, the popular press, the rich-elite and the Conservatives. In other terms he was overwhelmingly rejected by the establishment and neoliberalism - neoliberalism is unfettered, ultra capitalism. Two seemingly unassailable forces.

As a relative outsider to the political landscape I thought Corbyn's intensely unfair and biased treatment was simultaneously shocking, fascinating and infuriating.

Ideas and assumptions were drilled into the minds of the public. Corbyn is weak, incompetent, unelectable, universally unliked, economically illiterate. Pretty much all news and entertainment outlets, often including the Guardian and regularly including the BBC, saw him as unelectable and unpopular. In a shameful display of journalistic and editorial negligence and ignorance our omniscient media outlets failed to interrogate such opinions, engendering a harmful climate of abstractions or unrealities. This, also, is a clear example of how media and people reverse reality. Corbyn is unelectable and unpopular even though he, uhh, won two landslide elections??

Can you imagine what this kind of treatment would do to a lot of people? When you've genuinely dedicated your life to helping those in need. When you've been a committed and caring MP for over 30 years. When you've been a prominent active member of the CND. When you have a long record of activism to demonstrate your commitment to anti-inequality and anti-war causes. When you were voted in as leader of your party by a landslide, twice! Can you imagine what it's like to be told by many sources, seemingly determined to tarnish your public image, that you are an unlikeable, unelectable force destroying the Labour party? And to have so much of the country believe this?

As a politician the difference with Corbyn is that he is wholly principled and honest, coupled with the fact that he is sensitive to those in need. His rejection and attempted expulsion by and from the establishment and mainstream politics has emphatically shown that integrity, sensitivity and honesty are VERY rare traits in high-profile politicians.

The establishment and the many media organisations that enforce establishment norms felt an instinctive and all-consuming urge to expel Corbyn from mainstream politics. But they failed in their attempts and, against tremendous odds, Corbyn and his loyal associates/supporters have largely overturned public opinion, an impressive feat. Corbyn and his party have interrogated and challenged the basic values of Britain's ultra-capitalist society, which are (were?) so pervasive, all-consuming and ingrained in the minds of the population. They have transformed mainstream UK politics. We have various specific factors to thank for this. One important one is Corbyn's deeply commendable resilience. He is, all the evidence shows, THE strong and stable politician.

Another point demonstrating media bias intimately woven to "the Corbyn situation" is the transformation of how the public perceive Theresa May.

Because May gave off an unfounded facade of strength and stability and because popular media did very little to interrogate this facade, many people previously assumed that this was how she actually was. It was the reverse with Corbyn. He may not immediately come across as strong or powerful, but a good look at his past shows you he is. Thus the media enforced the unfounded view that May was strong and similarly/conversely enforced the unfounded view that Corbyn was weak. The election and it's aftermath, though, have come a long way in realigning wider public perception. May's true colours are being further revealed with each day, as are Corbyn's. But the battle isn't over.

Pervasive popular media outlets by and large enforce neoliberal values, as opposed to interrogate them. Whether this is an unconscious process it is hard to say. In greatly influencing public opinion our media organisations are thus highly complicit in our society's injustice and corruption. In the UK it has taken the determination of one unassuming admirable politician and his equally admirable supporters and associates to properly challenge the media and properly challenge, on a mainstream, high-profile level, the inequality of our society. Corbyn has transformed the Labour party into an inspiration.

3 Points Demonstrating Conservative Insensitivity and Ignorance

1 - Austerity takes money from essential public services that poorer people heavily rely on. Britain however is one of the world's wealthiest countries. Britain's wealth is simply concentrated in the hands of the few.

That the Conservatives started and have maintained austerity for 7 years, repeating vapid statements like "we must live within our means" and "we must be capable of making difficult decisions", overwhelmingly shows they don't have a clue what austerity has actually done to people and are thus utterly out of touch with the British public and "the national interest". Either this or they don't care.

Jeremy Corbyn and his party are anti-austerity. They want to take a little more money from the wealthiest people and corporations and spread it more evenly.

2 - Theresa May has consistently voted for foreign military intervention regardless of the fact that it has invariably worsened situations.

The ignorance here is mind-boggling. It is the sign of a regressive person to feel that, after the atrocities of Afghanistan and Iraq, militarily intervening in other countries, like Libya, is a good idea. An intelligent and sensitive person would have known that this was wrong in the first place - cough, Corbyn, cough cough.

3 - May holds a first strike nuclear policy.

To hold a first strike nuclear policy, as opposed to being involved with the CND for many years, suggests that May hasn't genuinely thought about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It suggests a fundamental ignorance and inability to properly reflect on history or simply a lack of caring.

The difference between a first strike nuclear policy and having it as a deterrent is that first strike means using nuclear weaponry as an attack. Does May understand the consequences of this approach? Trident is estimated to be 8 times more powerful than what was dropped on Hiroshima. There would be a massive obliteration of life including children, women, civilians. The opposing country may well have their own nuclear weapons too. So most British civilians may well be killed also. 

In a nuclear stand-off government officials and the elite, including May, would be in safe houses. I'm sure it is easier for someone to make such a decision in the knowledge that they and their family are protected.

Ending Remarks

Many people born into rich privileged backgrounds are often highly insensitive to important issues. They lack empathy and emotional intelligence, only viewing things from their rich bubbles, and thus don't have a clue how to care for those in need. It scares and shocks me that "the free world" is largely run by such people.

Others such as Corbyn are different. They are intelligent. They are sensitive to the people of their country and foreign civilians. They are sensitive to human life. They know what needs to be done in order to alleviate suffering and war. They care.

Insensitivity and ignorance is tearing our world apart. It has to stop.

Neoliberalism with Reference to the UK and Jeremy Corbyn

In order to understand a situation, such as Jeremy Corbyn's rise and treatment, it is beneficial to see it in context.

Neoliberalism means unregulated capitalism and the privatisation of public services.

With neoliberalism individuals can accumulate more and more money because the state or government doesn’t have restrictions in place to evenly distribute a nation’s wealth. For example, billionaires can avoid paying tax easier under neoliberalism and public services are sold off to the wealthiest among us, who can then financially benefit from them.

Richard Branson, Alan Sugar, Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump are examples of business-men who have benefited from neoliberalism, as they have been able to amass obscene amounts of money with few restrictions and have financially benefited from the privatisation of public services. Branson, for example, has made a lot of money from the privatisation of Britain's railways and healthcare system.

There is a clear reason why figures like Branson, Murdoch and Sugar are so vehemently opposed to Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM.

Corbyn and his party want to distribute wealth a little more evenly and are against the privatisation, the selling off, of public services.

Corbyn genuinely cares for the many and disagrees with high concentrations of wealth.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, were originated by and for the elite and (in spite of lies, rhetoric and spin) still are for the elite. This is why they have the backing of Murdoch and the billionaire-owned press. This point is abundantly, face-punchingly clear in the fact that David Cameron’s Conservative government started austerity.

Austerity takes desperately-needed money from our public services - healthcare, welfare, social care, education, police, armed forces - yet allows the rich to increasingly amass excessive amounts of money.

Corbyn wants corporations and the wealthiest 5% to pay a little more tax, wants to clamp down on tax avoidance and supports the Leveson report investigating corruption in the media. These are probably the main practical reasons that Murdoch and the billionaire-owned press despise Corbyn.

Neoliberalism hasn’t worked. It led to the financial crash of 2008, has heightened class inequality (more poverty and a higher concentration of wealth) and, because it is inherently individualistic, has engendered an unhappier, lonelier society.

7 Points we can't Afford to Forget Regarding the General Election and it's Aftermath

1 - Theresa May is doing a deal with the DUP
The slaps, kicks and punches to the face of the British public are ceaseless.
Throughout their election campaign the Conservatives and their establishment media accused Jeremy Corbyn of sympathising with the IRA. Now May is doing a deal with the DUP! A bigoted, backward Irish party associated with terrorism. I am genuinely finding it hard to process and comprehend this level of hypocrisy.
Perhaps the worst thing, though, is that peace in Northern Ireland is being risked. Even John Major, the Conservative PM during the Northern Ireland peace process in the 1990s, has agreed with this point, saying May's choice is a mistake.
Thus we have 3 obvious, highly detrimental elements of May's deal with the DUP.
- Overwhelming, all-consuming, mind-numbing hypocrisy.
- An association with backward, bigoted views that undo and tarnish many of Britain's developments in equality. Regardless of whether the DUP's views/policies are applied or not, it’s the principle. It's what the DUP represent.
- A risk to the peace process in Northern Ireland. May's deal dismisses and trivialises in one fell swoop all the horrendous death and terrorism that occurred in Northern Ireland and Britain during "The Troubles".
That this deal is even being considered is abhorrent and should destroy the reputation of the Conservative party.
2 - Austerity
May and her party don't care about people suffering under austerity. This is why they started it in the first place. They didn't need to start it because our country had and still has sufficient wealth. Such wealth is just concentrated in the hands of the few.
Austerity takes money from essential public services that poorer people heavily rely on. Social care, education, healthcare, the police and armed forces.
If things were looked at clearly by the whole country then everyone would see that Corbyn is different, this is why he is such a unique and admirable politician. He is sensitive to issues of war, poverty and inequality . He is in touch with these issues. He really understands them and knows what needs to be done about them.
In the run up to the general election May didn't give any proper indication that she and her party wanted to reduce austerity. Their tune afterwards, however, has changed. They saw that Labour did better than expected and have surmised that this was largely because Labour promoted an anti-austerity agenda. Thus, purely in order to gain more votes, not for "the national interest" or for working people (if it was for these things they would have alleviated austerity by now), the Conservatives are now brazenly considering stealing Labour's anti-austerity agenda. They are even stealing Labour's slogans.
One gets the impression that everything is a game to the Conservatives. Tories are by and large very rich individuals out of touch with ordinary people, playing vicious manipulative games and living in a neoliberal social environment that overwhelmingly favours their individualistic, uncaring, skewed ethos and policies.
3 - May and the Conservatives edited footage to promulgate a lie about Corbyn
The Conservatives know that Corbyn isn't a terrorist sympathiser. They simply used fear and exploited the recent terror attacks, lying about a man who has dedicated his life to anti-war causes, to manipulate the public. A humane party worth voting for would never, ever have done this.
4 - May made an arrogant assumption about the electorate
In calling a general election May and the Conservatives, instead of focusing on "the national interest" and Brexit negotiations, arrogantly assumed they would win by a landslide, hoping they could exert more control over Britain.
5 - May wouldn't debate her opposition
In a further act of arrogance and another blatant slap in the face to the British public, our "strong and stable" PM wouldn't even discuss her policies with her opposition. It's as though she wanted the public to just blindly vote for her.
6 - The Conservatives paid off Google and YouTube to spread their fear and hate-filled campaign messages
The Conservatives paid Google so that if you searched for, say, the Labour Party, the first result would be a link to a vicious page on their website which takes quotes of Corbyn out of context to form a lie about him.
The Conservatives paid off YouTube to have their edited footage of Corbyn (as addressed in point 3) precede any song as an advert.
7 - May holds a first strike nuclear policy
May's stance means using nuclear weapons as an attack and she was not questioned about this during the election.
If May did decide to attack a country with a nuclear weapon this would likely encourage them to retaliate with their own nukes. It's not like Hiroshima and Nagasaki anymore; a number of countries have nuclear weapons now too.
Nuclear weapons, as was seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wipe out vast swathes of life, probably including hundreds and thousands of civilians, and would destroy or toxify future life too.
May's approach would either kill hundreds of thousands of the opposing country's civilians AND our civilians or would simply kill the opposing country's civilians. The non-civilians, bearing in mind, would be in safe houses; this point must surely make the average person realise why there is such an easy willingness to commit this act on May's part? We, the masses, would bear the brunt of her actions.
If you think about it, May has called it wrong on foreign policy throughout her life, Iraq and Libya being the main examples and, so it seems, will continue to mindlessly do so, never learning from her mistakes. Don't you want a PM genuinely committed to achieving diplomatic solutions to international conflicts?
Ending Remarks
Although at times I might come across as passionate and use emotive words to emphasise my points, what I am saying has happened and, I believe, is by and large indisputably accurate.
I'm not lying, like the Conservatives did about Corbyn. I'm not trying to smear anyone. I am simply stating what I've observed in a passionate way.
What is essential is that the popular press - the BBC, national newspapers and popular TV and radio shows - actually addresses and interrogates these issues. They don't have to address them exactly as I have, but at least address them.
The wider British public must be informed and educated.

Breaking News - Establishment Media is Manipulative!

The establishment media, which encompasses the BBC as well as the billionaire-owned rags, decides what we talk and think about and what's important.

Today or this week or this month you are all going to talk about Diane Abbott. We will make you believe that she is utterly incompetent for getting a figure wrong, because this is what the Conservatives have told us to do. We will have normally intelligent people actually disliking this inspiring woman for a minor human mistake.

For the next year and a half we are going to tell you that Jeremy Corbyn is weak, over and over and over and over. We are going to shamelessly pummel this into your mind. We are going to use emotive language and will manipulate anything we can to fit into this unfounded, inaccurate picture, because this is what neoliberalism dictates.

This year you'll think that Theresa May is a strong leader who will save our economy even though all the evidence contradicts such views.

Also we are going to make you think being a strong or weak leader is all-important and we will completely ignore other pressing issues in doing so. You see, we decide what's important.

For the next two months you'll think Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser. This issue will dominate all the debates and interviews in the run-up to the election, when its not even remotely worth talking about.

In the run up to the election we will omit or place barely any emphasis on the British government's and May's connections with Saudi Arabia and the plight of Yemen who Saudi Arabia is bombing.

In the run up to this election we won't explore May's connection, as Home Secretary, with Salman Abedi, the alleged Manchester-attack perpetrator.

We won't place nearly enough emphasis on the sickening state of the NHS and the upsetting living conditions of disabled people under austerity and how this is a result of the Conservatives. Instead we'll talk about Brexit until we start foaming at the mouth and falling over backwards.

We won't properly address civilian deaths in foreign countries and we won't explore the links between extremism and our foreign policy.

We will interrogate Corbyn for not being willing to commit genocide via Trident and we won't interrogate May for being willing to do so.

We will discourage you from thinking outside the box.

We create the box as we decide the terms of debate... Not you!

Go back to bed Britain, you are in safe hands.

Jeremy Corbyn is a Resilient Politician and Highly Competent Leader

Corbyn won 2 leadership elections by a landslide. He was voted in by the hundreds of thousands who believed in him and yet the parliamentary labour party, with their coup, stabbed him and their own members in the back. I wonder what they are thinking now? 

Thus Corbyn triumphantly survived 2 elections, an attempted mutiny and, not to forget, a relentless shameful onslaught by the billionaire-owned and establishment press that continues to this day. 

With the weight of the billionaire and establishment press, the elite, the Conservatives, the foundations of neoliberalism and, previously, his own party against him, Corbyn, in reducing the Conservative's majority, has done phenomenally well. His political resilience, some might say strength, is unparalleled.

General Election 2017 - Hope for Britain

After the 2017 general election tension remains.

I can feel the tide turning when it comes to the general public’s perception of Corbyn and his views. I can see the veil lifting from the eyes of Corbyn’s many detractors and sceptics.

The Conservatives are going to find it very hard to recover from their ultimate recent blunder and with the rise of social media and alternative news websites it is getting increasingly hard to manipulate and brainwash the public.

In the past 30 years or so, with neoliberalism, perpetual war and austerity, many people were and are at (or beyond) breaking point. Then Corbyn, an honest politician and stalwart activist, wholly committed to anti-war and anti-inequality causes throughout his life, becomes leader of the opposition.

On the one hand you had the overwhelming response from Corbyn’s real supporters, who from the start saw that he was an honest principled man steadfastly devoted to social justice. On the other hand you had the Conservatives, the weight of the billionaire press and the careerist new-labour MPs opposed to him.

The billionaire-owned and establishment press have indisputably and systematically attacked Corbyn since he became leader of the Labour party. He's been called unelectable, a weak leader, hard-left, shabby, unrealistic, a terrorist sympathiser, a threat to national security, economically illiterate, dithering. Those who saw clearly from the beginning knew that this was unfounded media bias that reverses reality, but millions were taken in. Now, I believe, this election, it's result and Theresa May's choices have brought these accusations into accurate and appropriate relief for the wider population.

Corbyn was thought of as weak; now May is weak.

Corbyn was thought of as dithering; now May is dithering.

Corbyn was thought of as an apologist for terror; now May is an apologist for terror.

Corbyn was thought of as a threat to national security; now May is a threat to national security.

There is uneasiness, regret and worry in the Conservative party and the establishment, which is fun to watch. Against all previous odds, against the weight of the billionaires, the Conservatives, new-Labour and, most impressive, against the ideological foundations of our prevailing social system (neoliberalism) Corbyn and his party fought remarkably well and stopped the Conservatives from achieving a majority. An impressive, admirable feat. The pride I feel as a Corbyn supporter and member of the Labour party is great.

Thus on one side it has become hard to deny that Corbyn is a uniquely honest, likeable and resilient leader. On the other side it has become hard to deny that May is an inconsistent, dishonest, weak and very desperate leader. I can see a crack forming in the Conservative party, an initial sign of disintegration.

The billionaire-owned rags have also suffered a great defeat. They stooped to sickening lows in this election, accusing principled people of being terrorist sympathisers and exploiting the raw, fresh violence of the London and Manchester attacks for completely selfish political ends. They have essentially failed in their vicious attempts.

I can see a wave in the distance; a more informed and fed-up general public who have glimpsed the corruption and lies at the heart of our establishment.

Thus, coupled with the admirable presence and increasing rise of independent online news sites and social media, I am hoping it has taken this election to reveal the true colours of the Conservatives and likewise the true colours of Jeremy Corbyn and his transformed inspirational Labour party to the wider public.

This is just the beginning and I am hopeful.