Wednesday 14th of November 2018



Before trying to understand then condemn Lawrence for this old crap, we need to know that Lawrence did not mind if the workers fucked the aristocracy. Fucked was the word he used :


“We fucked a flame into being.”

― D.H. Lawrence, Lady Chatterley's Lover


Here, this was a bit the reverse of what Barnaby did in lust…  But this is beside the point in regard to the structure of proper government, should we need one.:




Whilst conceding that the Average Person does represent what all men and women may need 'physically, functionally, materially and socially', Lawrence is adamant that there is no genuine equality 'save by the arbitrary determination of some ridiculous human Ideal'.3 Further, whilst he is happy to see the basic needs of all people living together within society met (that is to say, the social provision of food, clothing, housing etc. according to common necessity as determined by the Law of the Average), he insists that everything outside or beyond material need and common necessity depends on the individual man or woman and that he or she should be left alone accordingly to freely develop their own uniqueness and determine their own status within what Nietzsche would call an 'order of rank' (Rangordnung).


For Lawrence, then, the modern state exists only to guarantee the basic material means of existence: nothing more. It has no vital meaning or purpose beyond this and our political leaders should be regarded as no more than functionaries. The last vestiges of 'ideal drapery' should be stripped away from the State and from politics. For Lawrence, a kind of tolerant contempt for those in government is a sign of social evolution and political maturity. Not only is it absurd to think of politics in ideal terms but, Lawrence argues, it is ultimately genocidal too; for only ideal concerns wage war 'and slaughter indiscriminately with a feeling of exalted righteousness'.4


So would the Lawrence idea that the aristocracy is full of wisdom and that a ruler shall rule is an ideal solution to the stupid vagaries of democracy?  


It’s your call, but in my book, we can remove the aristocracy and the ruler who both are no wiser than gnats in a jar, from the equation of social constructs. So far the aristocracy and the rulers have shown to be really mediocre and intellectually deficient, though real good at amassing the loot — mostly stolen from you. The aristocracy is full of self-importance shit and the Kaiser is no more than a non-evolved kid (brat) with a beard, leading troops from behind into useless wars, whether their names are Bush, Obama or Trump...


The main problem with his book Lady Chatterley's Lover is not the hot sex, but in the demeaning of the extended relationship between a gamekeeper and his owner (employer) — which for all intent and purposes was far from being about democracy — but just about lust.


So democracy can improve the system, by making sure most of the “owners” (us) of democracy are actually intelligent from the base and control the "upper echelons". But of course, the present morons of the ruling class, especially those idiots with a (fictitious) god as leader of their superior existence, will do everything to destroy “public" education, in order to minimise the intelligence of the "base".


Hence we need a republic, even if the royal kids are “nice” and well-behaved. These nice kids represent the enemy of enlightened democracy. Lawrence was either wrong or stirring the pot on their behalf.


Never before did I get so close to Nature; never before did she come so close to me… Nature was naked, and I was also… Sweet, sane, still Nakedness in Nature! – ah if poor, sick, prurient humanity in cities might really know you once more! Is not nakedness indecent? No, not inherently. It is your thought, your sophistication, your fear, your respectability, that is indecent. There come moods when these clothes of ours are not only too irksome to wear, but are themselves indecent.

democracy needs eyes on the ball...

In major US cities in the late 19th century, dairy producers looking to cut costs would dilute milk using pond water.

The resulting greyish tinge would be corrected with a dose of plaster dust, and some yellow lead to give a golden hue.

Replacing the cream, which had been skimmed off, was nothing less than pureed calf brains.

Once the manufacturer was satisfied with the aesthetic of the product, the toxic chemical formaldehyde could be added to give the so-called "embalmed milk" a longer shelf life.

Milk was only one of a long list of commonly adulterated foods that included lead in cheese, brick dust in cinnamon, sawdust in ground coffee, and brown sugar spiked with crushed insects.

In the zenith of industrial capitalism, poor workers migrating to urban centres became golden geese for profit-hungry food manufacturers.

That was until a preacher's son, Harvey Washington Wiley, dedicated his life to taming the seemingly untameable industry.

Wiley — with his 'poison squad' and a very peculiar experiment — gained international recognition for his role in the creation of legal food standards.

The 'unregulated Wild West' of food production

As the industrial revolution was applied to food processing, manufacturers rushed to embrace the rise of industrial chemistry and were knowingly selling harmful products.


Read more:


G: the food barons, the profiteers, the industrialists — these modern aristocrats of the Wild West, need to be remove from the social constructs, especially when they dictate the agenda and rules to the Kaiser(s)... Have we learn anything much from this above food tampering episode in history? Not much. A great proportion of us, deliberately now indulge too often in addictive substances... Not much difference of damage between some of the old poisons and the new drugs. We now take these separately for fun. The choice is ours, including our rejection of genetically modified foods, but it's a hard one, without specific labelling. 


democracy by numbers...

Ultimately, the biggest challenge for genuine social democrats is not persuading the electorate of the failures of neoliberalism and economic globalisation. That job is done. Mrs Thatcher's ideological successor was Labour's discredited Tony Blair, not the Tory Theresa May, who wants an explicitly communitarian not individualist Britain after Brexit. The biggest challenge for the left is immigration, as Michael Bröning of the left-wing Friedrich Ebert Institute in Berlin writes in a 2017 report for the Institute.

There is nothing inherently left-wing about open borders that allow the wealthiest countries to poach the brightest talent of the poorest countries, having already plundered their resources. There is nothing intrinsically progressive about luring the professional and middle classes away from their own countries, leaving them prey to corruption and demagoguery. There is nothing social democratic about starting wars that shatter a fragile stability in the Middle East, or trading weapons in Africa, with the resulting refugee crisis.

And, in the end, there is nothing illiberal about working-class communities that have struggled for generations to achieve a living wage, a national health system, a workplace with rights and tax system that asks the rich to pay their way wanting to draw a line under the globalisation that threatens the fruits of that struggle. When this dawns on today's social democrats, the democratic revival will begin.


Read more:


Who does democracy belongs to? Left or right? This is the crux of the matter. It belongs to a diverse group, often called a country, in which various traditions, comforts and external (international, other countries, US empire, immigration) forces exert influences.

Are the ideas of the "social democrats" about immigration the only valid democratic views? Is being anti-immigration being racist? No. It's not. Democracy is about NUMBERS. You could have the brightest ideas about democracy, if you do not have the numbers, your ideas are worth squat. "Your" concepts of democracy could be topsy-turvied by immigrants with different ideas about democracy. What you thought were correct majority values, now become minority — correct or not. Could migrants learn about "your" democratic ways? Good luck to you under the circumstances of migration "en masse". Experience has shown that imported traditions do not like progress and that adaptation is rather slow, unless secularity is promoted, if not enforced. 


And despite the paragraphs below in Andrew West's article, Russia is not less democratic than the USA:

But Russia – which looms in the Western mind as the Svengali behind the recent anti-democratic retrenchment – had no democratic tradition to being with. Its supposedly free elections in the 1990s were manipulated by the United States. The former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski even boasted that post-Soviet Russia was "passing into de facto Western receivership." Perhaps one should listen to the current US complaints about Russian interference in the 2016 elections, and reflect on the 117 times that America intervened in foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, as Dov H. Levin of Carnegie Mellon University detailed in his 2016 paper, Partisan Electoral Interventions by the Great Powers ― and then, as the saying goes, "Cry me a river!"

Still, there is as much cause for vigilance as there is for irony. Could it be time to stop speaking of "liberal democracy" because it has become a loaded, even misleading phrase? In conservative countries, such as Poland and Hungary, "liberal" democracy is perceived as permissive or libertine. Poles and Hungarians believe they have a right to protect cultures that are religiously inclined, if not especially observant, and supportive of traditional families and values. It is far better to speak of "constitutional" and "pluralist" democracy ― and realise it is these values that are most at risk.


The latest "democratic" elections in Russia were far more democratic than the election of a Donald Trump in the USA...

... partisan gerrymandering — the practice of drawing electoral boundaries that favour one party over another — could be an ace up the Republican sleeve in next Tuesday's elections.

Stacking the deck

Elections for Australia's federal parliament are administered by the Australian Electoral Commission, a non-partisan, professional agency, charged with maintaining the electoral roll, the conduct of elections and conducting electoral redistributions, dividing states and territories into seats for Australia's House of Representatives.

In recent decades, the determination of electoral boundaries appears to be free of partisan interference and manipulation.

The situation is different in the US, where state and local governments have responsibility for the administration of elections, including electoral redistricting. The US Constitution provides that every 10 years a census shall be conducted to determine the apportionment of the House of Representatives seats (Congressional districts) across the 50 states, in proportion to the population of those states.


Read more:


In Australia, the complex system of "preferences" got independent Kerryn Phelps across the line ahead of the government representative. At this level, political party scrutineers have to have their wits about to make sure that primary and preference votes do not go to the wrong candidate "by accident"...wink wink... ... If my memory is correct, a newspaper reported that there were about 700 votes allocated to Sharma that should have gone to Phelps... This was picked up by a "recount" of a couple of (Conservative) voting booths, where greenhorn scrutineers for Phelps might have been mesmerised by the more professional Liberal scrutineers. Unfortunately for Sharma, the postal votes did not go "exclusively" his way. Here I believe that a strong anti-liberal advocacy by former Liberal leader, John Hewson, would have had some impact on the postal votes, more than Phelps seriously steady personality.


Kerryn Phelps has been officially declared the winner.

where's christopher when you don't need him?...

Politics is so toxic right now, why not just opt out completely? When Stephen Fry proposed this approach to Sydney’s packed Town Hall on Saturday night, he was greeted with a wave of sympathy.

“A grand canyon has opened up in our world,” Fry said. On one side is the new right, promoting a bizarre mixture of Christianity and libertarianism; on the other, the “illiberal liberals”, obsessed with identity politics and complaining about things like cultural appropriation. These tiny factions war above, while the rest of us watch, aghast, from the chasm below.

“Is this what is meant by the fine art of disagreement?” Fry asked. “A plague on both their houses.”

The actor, writer and comedian was giving the inaugural Hitch address at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas (FODI), named for his old friend, the late Christopher Hitchens: journalist, polemicist, controversialist, and the man who gave the opening keynote, titled Religion Poisons Everything, at the very first FODI in 2009.

Fry opened with an affectionate potted history of the divisive Hitchens’ life, career, and ideas. Hitchens’ direct, combative style was forged in the fire of Trotskyism, hard journalism and foreign correspondence; Fry, by contrast, characterised his own tendency to give opinions in a more “handwringing, cardigan-y kind of way”. What would Hitchens – whose support of George W Bush’s war on terror made him a political pariah to many of his old friends – have made of Trump, infinitely more careless, arguably stupider, who casts his Republican predecessor in such a flattering light that even the liberals who once parodied him are now afflicted by misguided nostalgia for the man? And how would he have interpreted the current political status quo? Now, more than ever, Fry said, we need Hitchens’ forthright perspective.

There would have undoubtedly been those in the audience who baulked at the idea that what we really need in contemporary politics is more of Christopher Hitchens, but Fry wasn’t alone in his characterisation of the political moment. This year’s FODI was marked by an analysis of the division between a new kind of right and left locked in conflict that appears to have very little in common with what has come before, and by a general sense of foreboding about where that conflict might lead.

One might be forgiven for thinking that there’s nothing less dangerous in modern Australia than an arts festival, but it could have been otherwise. FODI split last year from its founding partner, the Sydney Opera House, and relocated to Cockatoo Island’s industrial precinct. The Opera House ran its own ideas festival, Antidote, in September, with a program that had a distinctly (implicit, if not explicit) progressive flavour. FODI, by contrast, is known for courting controversy, from Hitchens’ inaugural keynote to reports in July that the festival was trying to secure former head of Breitbart, former Trump advisor and one-time mentor to Milo Yiannopoulos, Steve Bannon, to speak. The program was eventually launched Bannon-free – perhaps to FODI’s benefit, given the (in this correspondent’s view, legitimate) criticisms of the ABC’s approach when giving the man a platform earlier this year.

Bannon aside, there’s always a certain amount of what feels like trolling in a program that is doing its best to be edgy. If one hadn’t had their fill of evangelical proto-capitalism listening to Scott “have a go to get a go” Morrison, one could, for instance, head along to hear a discussion between pundits like Nick Cater and Judith Sloan about the supposed benefits of economic inequality. Similarly, if one were not already aware of what headline magnet Germaine Greer thinks about anything, one could attend her festival panel, titled Too Dangerous, presumably to hear her speak about how she’s “too dangerous” to be allowed to speak at festivals.


Read more:


read from top.


G: not enough revolution and too many speakers... Actually, we need a quiet revolution: people pouring in the streets with no shouting, no placards, no tools like pitchforks and just silence as their unified protest against the stupid governments that have not understood anything about this planet. Actually, the only signs allowed should be of the kind "love the planet" "save the earth" "protect diversity" "animal rights" "stop deforestation" "stop clear-felling" 'global warming is real", etc... 3 million people marching in Australia, 15 million people in the USA. Quietly, silently, no shouting, no conversation... Plenty of time to prepare...

And the date: Wednesday, 5 June World Environment Day 2019

Or tomorrow... It's actually urgent...

the war against the monuments...

"Politics should be nothing more than applied history. Now it is nothing more than negation of history and nothing less than its distortion."

The aphorism by Russian prominent historian Vasily Klyuchevsky sounds simple only at first glance. In fact, there is a huge meaning hidden inside it. Indeed, our understanding and knowledge of history determines a lot in our thoughts and actions, as well as in our attitude to the world around us.

The war on monuments that has broken out in the world, from the Taliban movement and the ISIL* terrorist group to Poland, the Baltic States and the USA, gives a lot of food for thought. 

One is led to believe that the war on monuments comes as a well-designed and well-organised campaign, the goal of which is obvious: someone very powerful and influential wants nations to forget their past and accept the life as it is just because this powerful being, who lives at the expense of others and brainwashes them, wants that to happen. 

This backstage game has affected Russia at a great extent too. This can be clearly seen in the current discussions on the centenary of the Great October Socialist Revolution.

See more at