Monthly Archives: August 2011

Why are you a libertarian? Reblog with your answer!




I’m a libertarian because I’m white, male and I hate minorities and the poor.

I’m a libertarian because my parents won’t let me stay out after 10pm.

I’m a libertarian because I like drugs, don’t care about minorities and hate sharing. 

I’m a libertarian because I don’t like using my money to help make other people’s lives better, especially not when my money comes from my exploitation of those people in the first place.

So here’s the thing: The ‘third world’ as you like to address it with your misguided, hierarchical, oppressive labels doesn’t need the ‘first world’. Zaire didn’t need your Bibles a hundred years ago just like Somalia doesn’t need your Qur’ans now. Rwanda didn’t need your ‘superior’ standards of life that tore the country apart nor did South America need your ‘free trade’ and ‘democracy’ that crippled the continent. Africa doesn’t need your bags of rice nor your pretentious, ‘first world’ smug attitude that comes with helping the ‘poor natives’. Aboriginals didn’t need saving from their ‘savagery’ nor did the Native Americans. I’ll tell you what they need; they need your humanity. They don’t need your Jesus or your Allah; if they want to find God? You can rest assured that they will damn well find God. The ‘first world’ has crippled the rest of the world; you rape and you pillage a nation and then extend scraps to those very nations out of your ‘good conscience’. Well, fuck off. If the ‘developing world’ was, indeed, allowed to ‘develop’ they would far exceed the ‘developed world’s’ achievements. Don’t give them bags of wheat, give them books to learn how to sow on their own land. Don’t give them vaccines, give them books to learn how to become doctors. Don’t send your rich-arsed-fresh-out-of-Uni-holier-than-thou graduates on ‘volunteering’ sprees for £4000 a piece, not even a fraction of that money actually benefitting the community these so called volunteers are meant to be building a monkey sancturary in. If the ‘first world’ wanted to truly help, UN wouldn’t be begging for £billions in aid every other day. 2% of the world’s population owns 98% of the world’s wealth. That 2% sure as hell not living in shanty towns and mud huts and on train tracks and refugee camps.


(via wordssuperfluous)

And while we’re at at can people please stop using the phrase “first world problems”!

In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

Karl Marx, ‘The Communist Manifesto’ (1848)

Thou shalt give equal worth to tragedies that occur in non-English speaking countries as to those that occur in English speaking countries.

Scroobius Pip (via from24c)



Unless you suffer from some form of subjective blindness, the entire last paragraph was dedicated to addressing your point.

We’ll try one last time shall we?  Do you have anything to say regarding this stance on the meaning of rape culture, or are you going to avoid it completely?

You’ve got to admit from my side of the fence, this is fairly humorous as you’ve resorted to technicalities to try and belittle me.

I’ve got to admit you’ve got a complete inability to respond to anything coherently, instead you seem much more interested in petting your own ego.  If you feel belittled then because I’m not acquiescing to that then you have my greatest sympathy.

I “implied” nothing. I said, directly, that your personal digs entirely deduct from your argument and the result of course is not only do you appear facetious, but also unfathomably irritating. 

I am Jack’s bottomless remorse.

Stop being such a literalist and take the point. The entire point of that was to explicitly show to you that there is little cohesion and objectivity on the side of the feminists on this website and thus your argument about me calling them “lunatic feminists” (though ironically enough i’ve not once used that term in relation to real feminists) is completely baseless.

  • You, complaining about people being a literalist, is delightfully ironic.
  • Objectivity doesn’t exist.  Deal with people’s points directly or avoid them, but don’t pretend you’re drawing some moral highpoint from it.

I’ve lost faith in humanity. I’m sorry, what? Hah, you can’t just imagine things then accuse me of them. Life does not work like that, my dear friend.

“when the feminists of tumblr say that i don’t know what i’m on about because i’ve never been raped, you have to sort of just sit and laugh.”

Arguing the politicaldove way: laugh at people who are debating rape, claim you’re not turning rape into a laughing matter.

Though, essentially, this is just rehashed nonsense…

take some time to familiarise yourself with the actual definition and then do ask yourself whether i actually fit into the criteria for a misogynist (though if your reasoning is going to remain the same, i imagine you’ll accuse me nonetheless). 

Well done, you’ve bought a dictionary.  Now realise that in the context of such discussions, the term misogyny is used to refer to the oppression of females caused by patriarchal society and such limited descriptions do not encompass the broader social factors that apply (namely, you’re expressing a stance that reinforces the oppression of women rather than working to further liberation).  But no, I’m the person who takes things too literally?

Political Dove: Freeing Politics: la-vie-est-politiques: Political Dove: Freeing Politics:…



You sir, are a funny old character. Prematurely jumping to conclusions to suit the mindset you’ve transcribed yourself to in a bid to further the cause of something you’ve placed very little thought into. There’s been several times where you’ve reblogged my posts regarding ‘rape culture’ and I’ve kept quiet, as i say very often I don’t believe in having a personal dig at people. Debates are debates and should remain as such. This isn’t an arena to go at my jugular to make yourself appear on some sort of pedestal, so how about a little objectivity as opposed to naively remarking “grow up” and calling me “childish” when the sad truth remains you’re the only who is making themselves appear a fool.

Now, to the topic at hand – I am incredibly aware of what words I use and where I use them, therefore when I say “most tumblr feminists”, believe it or not, it’s what I actually mean. Feminists from Friedrich Engels to Christabel Pankhurst would be turning in their graves at some of the words that have flowed out of the fingers of some of the so-called feminsts on this site. Now my expectations for mass intellectualism aren’t through the roof, but a little critical thinking never went amiss. For instance, and this doesn’t just apply to me, but when the feminists of tumblr say that i don’t know what i’m on about because i’ve never been raped, you have to sort of just sit and laugh. My dear, beloved girlfriend went through one of the most traumatic experiences of her life when her high school teacher sexually forced himself on her, and she herself laughs at this notion that we must experience something to be fully engaged with it. Am i a palestinian? No, but i engage with it. Am i the president of the united states of america? No, but i will happily criticise foreign policy. Am I someone who has encountered sexual attacks? No, but i will look and pry in to every nook and cranny of the topic in a bid to discard illogical, nonsensical remarks which cause hysteria and not constructive dialogue.

Oh and by the way, I must say, I do genuinely find it hilarious (I apologise for this, but allow me to indulge a little), that you called me a “misogynistic hypocrite” right after my post about the knee-jerk response from so-called feminists and social justice bloggers. It is a little funny, it must be said.

Congratulations.  You have:

  • Again failed to engage with the arguments.
  • Stated that I’ve blogged in response to your rape culture comments on several occasions.  To my knowledge, I have not.  To my knowledge, I have done so once.  Here.
  • Implied that you didn’t respond because you don’t get into personal digs, that previous post had no personal digs in it.
  • Said that the arguments on the matter were wrong.  They were not my arguments.  Why do I care that you disagree with something I haven’t said, when that’s not a comment for me to defend?
  • Found it suitable to use a public forum to make rape into a laughing matter.
  • Fallen back on the chestnut of decrying people who disagree with you as being misandrists (whether or not you used the term) rather than engaging with the argument.  Well done, that’s misogyny.

But, no, continue being smug and condescending because if you carry on commenting on how whimsical you find me, people might not notice that you’re not actually saying anything of value.

Political Dove: Freeing Politics: la-vie-est-politiques: Political Dove: Freeing Politics: it’s…


The Codes of Gender offers a really interesting analysis regarding the binary, patriarchal gender representations that we see in advertising.  The approach of the analysis isn’t to make claims of what advertising compels us to think but instead what advertising reflects of our perceptions of gender roles.

It’s definitely worth a watch.

Codes of Gender



it’s hilarious ‘debating’ with most tumblr feminists, as when you remark something fairly logical and coherent – ie: your reasoning is based on your ability to tell the future, which i’m pretty sure is fairly weak or rape culture cannot be said to be solely driven by the acceptance of male aggression. the response therein is always: you are the fuel in this vicious war against rape culture. you sir are exactly the reason we’re here today. you are a misogynistic bastard! how dare you?

i wonder if these supposed feminists have ever considered the ironic notion that the “blame culture” within “rape culture” is ever so slightly contradictory. what’s more, as opposed to accusing people who are merely rejecting the idea of rape culture through constructive criticism and willing to replace it with a more suitable, universal term would it not make more sense to actually attempt to level with the male (i say male because 99% of the debates are tumblr feminists/social justice bloggers who tear the testes from men for remarking against their theories and conjecture) in order to forward, believe it or not, what is a very noble cause at a grassroots level.

So other than embarking on a pseudo-intellectual pissing contest do you actually have a point that you’re trying to prove or an end that you’re trying to achieve?  You seem perfectly happy to paint any feminist as the crazed, rusty spoon wielding brand that misogyny tends to enjoy promoting to debase the movement.  You seem perfectly happy in relishing the fact that you live in a male dominated society and lampshading that fact to reinforce this notion of “lunatic feminists”.

So other than looking like a childish, misogynistic hypocrite what exactly is your point?

Your complaint about rape culture is semantic and only has value if you decontextualise the phrase from it’s usage.  Did you ever have anything to say about my perception of rape culture, or were you only happy debating with people you intended to goad into an argument?

Grow up.  At the very best what this post proves is that you’re happy to engage in childish points scoring, at the very worst you’re showing your colours as a smug misogynist who puts no value in the necessity of feminism.  I’m not sure what you planned to achieve with it other than making yourself look a fool.

Political Dove: Freeing Politics: it’s hilarious ‘debating’ with most tumblr feminists, as when you…

I haven’t been blogging actively this last couple of days.  Partly because I’ve been having a life, but also partly because I’ve been in the process of fixing something that’s been annoying me for a while, which is that my tumblr didn’t have a consistency in it’s use of tags.  So in aid of making old posts more accessible and connectable I’ve been correcting that.  Currently I’m about a fifth of the way through.

The most important thing I wanted to do, and have done, is to make it more accessible to catch up with old posts that I’ve spent a bit more time writing a deeper, more cohesive argument in.  They’ve been on a few issues but tend to talk about political philosophy such as a stance on nationalism, an interpretation of human rights, the relationship between society and the individual.  These are now tagged as philosophical notions and are all collected here.  Just incase anyone gets nosy and wants to have a read.

I’ve also been recommended the book Marxism and Literature, written by Raymond Williams, which deals quite well with hegemony (a particularly favourite subject of mine).  So expect to see me prattling on about him every now and then as well.

A lived hegemony is always a process. It is not, except analytically, a system or a structure. It is a realised complex of experiences, relationships, and activities, with specific and changing pressures and limits.

Raymond Williams – Marxism and Literature.

So many people live within unhappy circumstances and yet will not take the initiative to change their situation because they are conditioned to a life of security, comformity, and conservatism, all of which may appear to give one peace of mind, but in reality nothing is more damaging to the adventurous spirit within a man than a secure future. The very basic core of a man’s living spirit is his passion for adventure. The joy of life comes from our encounters with new experiences, and hence there is no greater joy than to have an endlessly changing horizon, for each day to have a new and different sun.





I can see how it could misguide one to govern in a bellicose and amoral way, if mistakenly interpreted, but, hey, it was not meant to be a guidance manual for rulers. It’s merely a treatise of political science and philosophy. It completely reflects reality and one can even apply it to modern politics. I now understand that the use of the word “machiavellian” is utterly wrong most of the time.

If this sounded like a 10th grader’s review on it, it’s because I actually AM a stupid 10th grader, so yeah, sorry for taking your time, but I was excited, because it was pretty cool and everyone should read it, even for pleasure, like I did 😉

Something to keep in mind about The Prince.

Recent scholarship suggests it was written as farce, basically the 16th century equivalent of version of a Stephen Colbert monologue. Even if that theory isn’t true, the Prince Machiavelli was writing to had exiled him, so Machiavelli had no interest in telling the Prince anything but what he wanted to hear.

Machiavelli really gets bump rap, and he had a lot to do with Europe moving away from absolutely monarchies and towards republicanism and constitutionalism.

I’ve never liked pushing the notion of The Prince as satire, I also think the idea that he was just saying what wanted to be heard is somewhat problematic and misunderstands what I see as Machiavelli’s motivations and influences in writing. I do agree that he gets a bum rap though.

Seeing The Prince as satire is largely irrelevant because that’s not how it has been used.  In this instance (and arguably all instances), while there’s value in interpreting what the author meant by a statement, the greatest value of the work is expressed in how it’s functionally interpreted and how people functionally use the work.  The reality of the piece comes from how it’s realised, not necessarily how it was intended.

For me the most important aspect of Machiavelli’s works comes from their foundation of perhaps not an ethical nihilism but certainly an understanding of politics as an expression of power.  People may interpret Machiavelli’s work as indicating that politicians should be aggressive, scheming, bellicose as littlescarletbegonia puts it.  However, in his phrasing in Discourses, Machiavelli places priority on creating the most productivity.  That is the reason he expresses for a justification for the republic, not out of an ethical notion of equality nor natural rights. In this sense I have to disagree with the OP in saying it’s misguided to see Machiavelli as amoral: amorality is one of his strongest features.

It seems to me concurrent that this is why Machiavelli wrote The Prince for d’Medici.  His prioritisation of function, productivity and unity led him to believing that at that particular moment in time the best thing to do would be to strengthen d’Medici’s power and in doing so bring prosperity.  I don’t think Machiavelli is so easily simplified into this notion of writing satire nor writing to win favour but from his very evident sense of civic duty.  Gramsci states, I think quite eloquently and succinctly, what I largely see to be the source for the distinction between Discourses and The Prince:

He [Machiavelli] was unable to detach himself from the republic, but he understood that only an absolute monarchy could resolve the problems of the time. 

He is able to separate between personal, ethical quandaries versus a functional approach to achieving necessary ends.  The quote which has been floating around of his the last couple of days, “politics have no relation to morals” (if anyone has a source for where that quote comes from I’d appreciate it), is perhaps something people don’t like to agree with but is absolutely true.  Politics is about power: who has it, who wants it and how that power will be used.  What does it matter how morally superior a person considers themselves to be if they’re not in a position to put that morality into substantive action?  Take, for example, veganism: what does it matter if one person or a small group refuse to eat animal products, when that in itself has no substantive effect on the use of animals?  All the good intention and moral superiority will not alone be able to have a substantive effect nor cause any real change.

That, to me, is the meta-lesson of Machiavelli’s writings.  The specifics (whether or not to use mercenaries versus having a standing army, and a plethora of other pieces of knowledge) are really very secondary to the wisdom it encourages.  That is to say what Machiavelli is really teaching us isn’t neither satire, an appeasement, nor an imperative as to how you should organise a republic or princedom.  What he teaches us is how to understand fully the mechanics of politics.  Rhetoric used to outwardly justify an action, in all instances rather than simply the most outwardly obvious, is an obfuscation of the reality that there is a conflict of power relations at play.

Congratulations to littlescarletbegonia on reading what is possibly one of the drier political philosophy texts that I’ve head the pleasure of reading 🙂

I just finished reading Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince.



The popular origins of “superman”: One finds it in the late romanticism of the serial novel; in Dumas pere: The Count of Monte-Cristo, Athos, Joseph Balsamo, for example. So then: many self-proclaimed Nietzscheans are nothing other than … Dumasians who, after dabbling in Nietzsche, “justified” the mood generated by the reading of The Count of Monte-Cristo.

Antonio Gramsci.

Food for though Nietzscheans, food for thought.

I’m not saying I’ve read the Nietzsche necessary to say I agree with this but hey, stir the hornets nest 😉

One day a policeman was kicking me, and to stop him from kicking me more, I grabbed his leg. I looked down at the boot, and I wondered… who’s paying for this boot? That’s where I learnt my politics… living on the front line.

Benjamin Zephaniah, 2011, Brixton, London. (via kieho)




Want to know what’s happening in Gaza, right now?

This cartoon is the best description.

I love this picture because of its simplicity. It defines, perfectly, what is happening between Israel and Palestine. It’s something that’s been happening for decades and is currently occuring.






submitted by rethinksocialism

Okay, come on then. When did they work?

…oh yeah, that’s right.

You want an example of socialism working.


Your point is invalid.

Socialism has worked.

Whenever some says this, I begin with the Paris Commune, then move to Leninist Russia and Trotsky, I then talk about Cuba and then Sweden and Norway, then I tell them about their public schools and their public hospitals, and how socialism isn’t so bad now is it?

Totalitarianism failed. Stalinism failed. Socialism is Democracy. Communism has never even been attempted (as it is a hypothetical zero point in the distant future, which is created by the institution of Socialism).