Tag Archive: coalition


1936: Lebensraum (help·info) (German for “habitat” or literally “living space“) was one of the major genocidal political ideas of Adolf Hitler, and an important component of Nazi ideology. It served as the motivation for the expansionist policies of Nazi Germany, aiming to provide extra space for the growth of the German population, for a Greater Germany. In Hitler’s book Mein Kampf, he detailed his belief that the German people needed Lebensraum (“living space”, i.e. land and raw materials), and that it should be found in Eastern Europe. It was the stated policy of the Nazis to kill, deport, or enslave the Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and other Slavic populations, whom they considered inferior, and to repopulate the land with Germanic people. The entire urban population was to be exterminated by starvation, thus creating an agricultural surplus to feed Germany and allowing their replacement by a German upper class.

2012: Imposing policies which effectively force single people, small families, divorced, bereaved or mentally/physically disabled from larger Council/Housing Association houses: ie, forcing anyone receiving Benefits from their homes by changing Housing Benefit Rules in order to impose a burden of payment for unoccupied rooms – is, in effect, identical to the effect of disempowering, dispossessing and removing any right of freedom.

 

1936: Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.[1] Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation. Historically, slavery was institutionally recognized by many societies; in more recent times slavery has been outlawed in most societies but continues through the practices of debt bondage, indentured servitude, serfdom, domestic servants kept in captivity, certain adoptions in which children are forced to work as slaves, child soldiers, and forced marriage.[2]

2012: The core issue to identify slavery or slave-labour in this situation is that: – Slaves can be held against their will. Slaves can be deprived of the right to refuse work or to leave without penalty. This Government has imposed a de-facto state of ‘debt-bondage‘ upon all those who are unable to work through impairment, disability or simple unemployment. That is Slavery!

The debt-bondage is held by the Government and is enforced in the form of “sanctions” – these ‘sanctions’ deprive a citizen of part or all of their benefits for a supposed infraction or breaking of imposed rigidly-applied ‘rules.’  Alongside this, it is made plain (though the threat is somewhat ambiguously stated publicly) that refusal to do ‘x’ or ‘y’ will result in sanctions being applied. This is State Indenture and another ‘de-facto’ form of enslavement. The final form of enslavement is much more insidious, for it calls upon the citizen to ‘volunteer’ to their own enslavement. There is no definitively explicit ‘punishment’ for not Volunteering, but it is ‘suggested’ that sanctions may be applied for some other supposed infringement. This too is a de-facto form of enslavement popularized in Third World Dictatorships –  because through the threat of  some ‘other’ punishment other than death (rather by threat of mutilation or amputation) , young boys and men were pressed into becoming pro-dictatorship ‘guerillas.’ The example may seem exaggerated, but its effect is the same – even in non-lethal circumstances.

1936:  The expression comes from the title of a novel by German philologist Lorenz Diefenbach, Arbeit macht frei: Erzählung von Lorenz Diefenbach (1873), in which gamblers and fraudsters find the path to virtue through labour.[2] The phrase was also used in French (“le travail rend libre!”) by Auguste Forel, a Swiss ant scientist, neuroanatomist and psychiatrist, in his “Fourmis de la Suisse” [“Ants of Switzerland”] (1920).[3] In 1922, the Deutsche Schulverein of Vienna, an ethnic nationalist “protective” organization of Germans within the Austrian empire, printed membership stamps with the phrase Arbeit macht frei. It was adopted in 1928 by the Weimar government as a slogan extolling the effects of their desired policy of large-scale public works programmes to end unemployment. This use of the phrase was continued by the Nazi Partywhen it came to power in 1933.

Raised over the entrance to Auschwitz I where, according to BBC historian Laurence Rees in his “Auschwitz: a New History”, the sign was erected by order of commandant Rudolf Höss.

The slogan “Arbeit macht frei” was placed at the entrances to a number of Nazi concentration camps. The slogan’s use in this instance was ordered by SS General Theodor Eicke, inspector of concentration camps and second commandant of Dachau Concentration Camp.

At Buchenwald, “Jedem das Seine” (literally, “to each his own”, but idiomatically “everyone gets what he deserves”) was used.

In The Kingdom of Auschwitz, Otto Friedrich wrote regarding Höss:

He seems not to have intended it as a mockery, nor even to have intended it literally, as a false promise that those who worked to exhaustion would eventually be released, but rather as a kind of mystical declaration that self-sacrifice in the form of endless labour does in itself bring a kind of spiritual freedom.[8]

2012: Minister for Work And Pensions Ian Duncan-Smith uses the phrase “Work makes you free..” (Ger. Arbeit Macht frei..) during a BBC Radio Four interview.. protesting that what he ‘means’ is that “any kind of work makes you feel freer, more empowered, more a part of society..” However, in the light of policies Ian Duncan-Smith imposed upon those in receipt of all manner of State Benefits (and in particular those who have had their ‘disabilities’ or ‘sicknesses’ assessed under outsourcing to ATOS (a private medical company based in France) through the Work Capability Assessment, the   suggestion has been made that IDS meant his  ‘Work makes Freedom’ comment in the ‘literary’ sense, and that the Minister for Work & Pensions was actually alluding to the notion that he was suggesting that  most unemployed, disabled and sick people were/are “gamblers and fraudsters” who “require to find the path to virtue through labour!”Probably the most scurrilous allusion any Minister has ever suggested under the mask of a supposedly “compassionate nature.”

If such historical remarks, references, comments, political policies and social policies are to be continually invoked by this Coalition – I have only one question?

Just how much of ‘Meine Kampf’ has this Government decided to ‘borrow’ from?

 

Advertisements

There was a time when the Conservative Party were dead set against anything like a ‘nanny state.’ A Government of constant meddling and interference in things which had little or nothing to do with Government, but everything to do with Individuals and their “choices.” Yet here in 2012, we are seeing the emergence of something far more prurient and far worse than just hands-on, nosey-parker-type ‘nannying..’ We are on the verge of a Government lead and Ministerially ‘supervised’ “Nappy – State!”  It is bad enough that every single aspect of British Life now seems to carry all manner of penalties: whether people are smokers, drinkers, obese and over-eaters or just  unfit couch-potatoes, the Government now has its ‘nannies’ to run after and pursuade everyone that their life is not the ‘right’ life to lead and that the State, ie “Nanny” knows best!

All the Government’s ‘helpful’ advice about everything from “quitting smoking” or “reducing drinking”  is supposedly aimed at reducing the burden of costs on the NHS, who ultimately have to take care of us all when we fall ill. It is said that those who smoke, drink, eat or take drugs are more likely to fall ill, due to long-term damage to their bodies and the complications that arise from that long-term damage.

One can’t help but ask: What (exactly) happened to individual freedom and choice?

Wasn’t that always the battle-cry of the Tories: wasn’t it their core complaint about ever having a Labour Government in power?

There was a time I was a Party-Animal myself, and though I may not have drank to excess over the whole of my life-time, I certainly made up the short-fall in my teens and twenties. What I could not drink by volume, I made up for in percentage proof! I even ended up in hospital a couple of times needing emergency treatment for alcohol poisoning.Yes, I was very grateful to the NHS then!

In fact, in later months I became aware that (for me) getting continually wasted and the increasingly disgusting task thereafter of ‘sobering up’ was becoming tedious. I became bored with drinking. I also became bored with listening to my friends telling me what ‘great times’ they had while they were drunk (as if I hadn’t heard the same tales every single weekend for five years?)

It was only when I met the ‘love of my life’ that a Sea-change transformed my world. I never expected to meet someone so young who just captured my heart. We have all had someone similar: some of you will be married to the person you fell for, others may have entered into a committed relationship with him/her (though, as yet perhaps,  un-marked by Civil or Church ceremony.) After the birth of my first child (a boy) I felt it was time to make some profound changes to my life. I had no desire to ‘pollute’ my young Son’s world with my smoking.

Smoking was endemic in my family. My Mother smoked: my Father smoked. Under pressure from my peer-group I began smoking a little before my fourteenth birthday – (it was around the same time as I started to play Guitar, discover Girls and become hormonally and emotionally ‘volatile.’) My friends Andre Walters and Ian Hall were perhaps the most vocal about the ‘joys’ and ‘cool’ of smoking. I resisted as long as I could, but one Autumn afternoon in late October 1977 I bought Ten Embassy Number Six and took up a ‘family’ and ‘social’ habit that would last until I was a young man of 24 years.

It only took one alcohol fuelled argument and a sudden, catastrophic loss of self-control to convince me that, should I continue to drink at all, there would be the most unfortunate and tragic results. As I tended to smoke more when I drank alcohol, I decided to try to quit both simultaneously. It was not easy, and my friends and family didn’t make it any easier either! For a while I reduced the number of cigarettes to the bare minimum, or, I would change their nature – by smoking only Menthol cigarettes I thought I would break the habit, but it was futile. The only thing I could do was to quit drinking and smoking altogether!

So that is exactly what I did!

I never smoked again. However, it would be disingenuous to say that I never got drunk again, but in over twenty years I was drunk only twice. The rest of the time I was, by definition, ‘tee-total..’ In fact, there were a number of relationships which broke down and disintegrated because I no longer drank, even to be ‘sociable.’ Instead I took to Diet soft-drinks  and bottled waters. Over time I became much fitter and more enthusiastic about life, music and all the spheres of interest I was engaged in. It has to be said that being neither a smoker nor drinker did contradictory things to my love-life. Sex was a much more energetic and exciting experience, but the number of short-term girlfriends seemed to decrease because I was no longer going to bars or clubs or taking part in former activities.

But all of the above was my choice. I was not co-erced into giving those things up and I have few regrets about doing so. The advantages of becoming more physically fit and being able to breathe properly made an enormous difference to my ability to sing. It even affected my guitar-playing, as pacing one’s breathing is necessary in executing difficult or complex musical phrases: in short, I played a lot faster than before and with an accuracy that came from being able to concentrate without need for any ‘props.’

Yet, if I had decided to continue smoking and drinking, I would hope it would be equally seen to be my choice, and not the interfering, busy-body choice of Government. In any Democracy, what people do or do not do in their leisure time should be their own responsibility, and ultimately, any consequences should also be theirs. After all, it is Government and its subsequent legislation which has, all-too-often, actually given rise to social ‘problems’ in the first place. Government used to ‘sponsor’ the manufacture of Cigarettes in the UK and most of Europe. British American Tobacco was one of the most powerful Companies in Britain and had the largest, most powerful lobbying group. In the nineteen-eighties British American Tobacco were accused of trying to create a more addictive form of Tobacco: something that would ensure their revenues (and therefore Government Taxes) were both maintained and increased with a new generation of smokers. It is quite possible that this New Smoking Material found its way into markets in Africa, India and South-East Asia. Tobacco Companies were Advertisers in popular sports – particularily Football, Motor Racing and Horse Racing. In 1998, under Tony Blair’s Labour Government, the first of a series of bans came into force: smoking was no longer to be advertised during prime time television (ie. before the ‘watershed’ of 9pm, this was increased to a general ban on Tobacco Advertising on Television and in Cinemas. Eventually, a full smoking ban in both Public Places and At Work came into force – Clubs and Pubs were included, forcing smokers outside in all weathers.

The present Coalition have taken this idea of having a ‘general ban’ on the activities and pleasures of others, a step further. They have been mooting the possibility of enforcing a ‘minimum price’ for alcohol. (Of course, that does not extend to the kind of alcohols quaffed at Westminster or in the Home Counties) Their main aims seem to be targeted at the ordinary worker and teenagers of drinking-age. This is not the first time a minimum price has been put on alcohol, and it is not the first time the Conservatives have been in the vanguard of ‘Temperance’ initiatives. It is, however, the first time a Conservative/Coalition Government have acted according to principles they previously ruled out. Their dread of the introduction of a ‘Nanny State’ under the aegis of a Labour Administration has become the horror of a “Nappy State” being introduced to kerb (so-called) ‘binge-drinking,’ ‘obesity’ and even being ‘physically unfit.’ Every single adult in Britain is being treated, not merely as a child, but as an ‘infant’ – presumably, an ungrateful infant who doesn’t know what is best for them?

Yes Mr Cameron. We do. And none of it is any of your business. Unless you would like us all to hound the topers, drug-addicts and miscreants in your own Government?

Perhaps it is time you just stopped trying to ‘Nanny’ us all.. or better still, change your own nappy!

Government agrees to drop Benefit Sanctions in Workfare.. really?

I have to say that – this Government are not beyond using sanctions for the SAME/IDENTICAL purpose they intended in the first place! (ie to punish DWP ‘Clients’ for not going onto Workfare) but for other infringements (dress code, shoes not polished, listening to an iPod while ‘working’ etc. etc etc..) or by more circuitous means. For example not filling out their weekly  ‘job history’ while working for x,y or z..

Make NO mistake.

IMHO. Cameron is a nightmare, in so far as He is likely to be found to be – and the evidence of his wilfully ignorant and dismissive behaviour towards ALL those who oppose him and his Government,bears this thought out – a ‘Malignant Narcissist‘. In many ways He is perhaps the most institutionally dangerous PM we have ever had – because no-one voted ‘for’ him as such, yet He has destructively and unapologetically ploughed into every single aspect of the infrastructure of the Country.  The Coalition is headed by TWO malicious personalities. Nick Clegg is the archetypal ‘appeaser’ – the “good Cop” persona – but He too is Narcissistic – the difference is that He is also arguably, charismatic. Between the pair, they complete one intensely egotistical and fanatical “two-headed Dog..” Nick Clegg is so enamoured with the ‘power’ he has (literally) been “afforded” through the Coalition, that He will say anything and do anything to keep it. David Cameron on the other hand “knoweth He hath, but a short time..” and – because He is riddled with Class bigotry and certain ‘types’ of Racism – He is determined and obstinate enough to ensure it is HIS Government who finally bring down the ‘edifice’ (as He and his Inner Court perceive it) of Socialism: breaking apart forever the foundation stones of that which “The Working Class” depends for its security. ie. The Welfare State and National Health Service. If you want to see a vision of the future under this tawdry little man and his cronies – look to wretched America. A land now filled with invisible, stateless and vagabond people – all of whom have simply been abandoned without any kind of support. THAT my friends IS the lynchpin of “Thatcherism” in all its undiluted fury: and, until the bitch that bore the epithet “There is no such thing as Society” is six feet under, these Political and Ideological grotesques will continue to uproot innumerable British families and their impoverished children in the name of ‘Austerity.’ How strange that the ONLY ones who seem safe from this cull of Services and Civil Support Organisations (apart from the City of London and The Royal Family/Civil List) are those who presently inhabit Parliament- on ALL sides of The House? Yet THEY have NOT taken a single CUT in salary or expenses: yet they still protest, “We are ALL in this TOGETHER?”

Perhaps it is time the Government themselves showed some REAL austerity.. and cut their own throats!  Just my opinion of course!