A macro observation of mental health: A micro piece

Being organic, social species gifts us reason, consciousness, the innate ability to learn languages, signs and symbols. But certain things are congenital to this gift also: That is a propensity for illness and ailment. I refrain, personally, from using the word “mental-illness” because it only seems to apply, as any psychiatrist will admit, to those who cannot continue ‘functioning properly or to their full potential’. For instance, a neurotic patient is not considered “ill” until neurosis hinders certain facets of their life: Agoraphobia is not an illness if you are constantly around large numbers of people. So the all-encompassing “mental-health” is felicitous. For the suffering of those who can hide should be acknowledged.

Our societies are rife with rising uncertainty. People fear how the other views them, amplified by the unremitting projection of life in a public arena. Models perform around us all the time; successful people flaunt their heights and promise those that “working hard” will foist them above the rest. However, reality is not that symbol and far more chaotic. And, so, unreached goals, shattered dreams or a particular version of it, triggers anxiety in many; the chaos, instability, within the web that is reality, turns an uncertain, anxious mind into an erratic box of loops. To stabilise reality, we find one loop to project the whole onto: Only if “so and so was so, life would improve for me”. Psychoanalysis christened this phenomenon “the object of desire” or “the object cause of desire”. And thus, neurosis is born. However, the anxiety a-prior is sufficed to inoculate ideas that hinder better mental-health, and so the person reaches to tether him/herself to psychiatrists, counsellors and psychologists etc.

Mental ailments can lurk in the lives across the strata of society: we saw many famous people – Truman Capote, Ernest Hemmingway, Sylvia Plath, Robin Williams – reach the point of suicide or alcoholism, ending their magical lives, at least it was told to us. It is certainly true, and always the case, that each individual mental instability should be examined within the context of the particular social group, partially shackled to state of things beyond their immediate circle. However, poverty brings forth a deeper propensity for mental-health issues, particularly depression and anxiety.

The mental health foundation published a study in 2016 outlining the strong links between poverty and mental health: “Poverty increases the risk of mental health problems and can be both a causal factor and a consequence of mental ill health.” The study then goes onto unravel the  process of certain links and its future ramifications, even after the person(s) have been lifted themselves out of poverty in later life.

Childhood experiences and certain learned anxieties can persist, often sub-consciously, manifests in ways seemingly different to the original source of problem: For instance, the anxiety and low self-esteem a poor child feels in a supermarket can later in life manifest as a neurotic urge to save money, going to extremes that occupies the majority of one’s time.

Mental health is not stabilised with a mere “cheer-up” or “kind words” aimed to lift the esteem of the suffer. It is a serious and important facet of human-life that radiates in our current epoch more than ever. We need a better – more open attitude to discourse about mental health, as organic beings who can communicate through language, signs and symbols.


Peak Liberal Harry-potter abstraction

I resent Harry Potter not only for the horrendous way in which it is written: The ideological basis for this novel series, enjoyed by a multitude, a category I cannot be a party to, has garnished the cosmopolitan, feigned intellectual mind.

His beard tickles her crossed legs: They both nod to calls for equal pay. She fell for his “feminist” slant politics, denoted on the “I am a male feminist” sticker plastered over that apple laptop, bought for him by his mother, who also presented this child with the Harry Potter set during Christmas – half the apple sign yielded to the sticker. On the hills of middle – level power, the Nazis torch brightens their night. “The left is as bad as them,” they say. The ostracized working-class person is diseased into the ranks that boast a white-supremacy; the “left” toil to carve up a new imagination, another state of being, distant from the cries of racist idiocy: Yet, “they are the same.”

It is the Hitler Salute that keeps the boat afloat. Pretentious glasses stained by chai latte, his only worry; crushed avocado falls post five minutes, her only poverty. Harry’s magic wand ordains the lords; the gods, these decrepit lords, pet them, feed their ego: The gentrified town floods her blog. “A new burger joint that no New Yorker knows makes the best fries,” she says. Five months in, once squalid, extortionately priced apartment has inferred them the rank of “New-Yorker”; the 20 year resident is no longer, who enjoys the fries in that place, that joint, full perpetually by those that boast 10, 30, 50 years in years: He is no longer a real “New-Yorker”. They must “cooperate with the Nazis”; as the boat rocks from the ocean of folk, the underclass, lower-class, poor black and white folk, resisting the tides of fascism, the liberal is consternated: His chai latte spills; the waitress is late to ready her crushed avocado. But the supremacist has a right to his opinion, for he keeps the waitress and the barista in their place, away from the immediate insult: The life the lower-class lives. And thus the salute keeps the liberal afloat.

The ocean’s surface, mild to us, too veneered to absorb reality, is the liberal’s crust. In abstraction thus they swim, on the surface, rejecting the shark’s existence.

What is wrong with accusing right-wingers with being detached from reality

A new pet-peeve penetrates my heart again: “tories are detached from reality”. The reality, of course, they are exponents of. Neo-liberalism and Toryism fashioned this contrived reality, for the brazen oligarchy of today. They are not detached. We all can see council buildings are imbued in safety issues; Tories prognosticated the exact ramifications their policies will manifest; they jog passed homeless people, too, as we do – but we drop a few coins – this does not privelege us with reality, deprive them: And, indeed, the poor rammage for a snicker inside food-banks, young women brood on street corners: Let’s not give feigned ignorance the pleasure of excuse: This is class-war, not detachment. This reality is their curation!

The referendum is an ornament to AKP and Erdogan’s demise; not a consolidation

Another ‘vote’ marred with lies, cheating and injustice. The sultan, a reality only in his mind, is ice-cold, his people hate him – he knows it. The elated party capers, but they – we all know a gloom fuels it, something else is hidden inside – Turkey hates its leader: The people refuse to endure him, his lies, ego, fraud and polarisation; Black sea’s grandma broods leaning on the only tree standing – its brethrens massacred for a gratuitous Autobann. Resorting to stealing votes, on a scale unmatched in Turkey’s history, forms new loops in his mind. He knows he cannot win without fraudulence and a clandestine ambience perpetuating itself for his interests. He is over.

The media, the vestiges steal resisting dominance, is pouring out a deluge of scandals surrounding the referendum. Post vote, we were informed, and Turkey’s electoral committee/department, YSK, admitted, 2.5 million unsealed ballots were accepted – illegally – and (surprise!) all turned out to be yes! votes. Anadolu News agency, an Erdogan lacky, reported a 60% lead within an hour of the vote’s cessation; our social media news feeds cascaded with disconcerting videos of AKP exponents – idiots – stamping the ‘yes’ option on unsealed ballots; ping! injects adrenaline into my nervous system… I reach for my I-phone: “100.000 votes are reported to be ‘dogdy'”.

A pang untangles my jarring nerves. It is they who should be worried, angry and perturbed. States resources, all of it, poured into a ‘yes campaign,’ against – yes, against! – a public so misinformed, yet only direct electoral fraud saved them; fixing numbers, falsifying post-referendum figures, information, solidifies a fleeting power grasp; his claws are fraying. Erdogan climbs a precipice riveted in to a sinkhole. Each injustice, married to a lie, forces him further down; he has reached the plateau once resting with clouds, but now he can see the bottom, in focus – he sinks.

Links to the facts of this referendum and conspicuous fraud (Note: Sorry it is in Turkish… but  all those who can follow, or any who have friends from Turkey, understand Turkish, I recommend following this new-site, unrelenting courage and bravery permeates):







Good-bye, Turkey.

A Kurd, Alevi (Alewi): I am, by nature, suicidal in Turkey. Nothing is loathed more than a Kurdish Alevi, who happens to espouse leftist ideas. I am a terrorist, thief, black-market advocate, flag burner – and Turkey’s all time hit – a CIA agent.

A nation so paranoid, psychotic; a people enveloped in platitudes… As I paint this word-pic, blue and red dominates the screen behind my laptop – fuzzy from a reluctance to use my spectacles and face, in hd, a perdition of a nation; a cacophony – jarring opinions synthesise and radiate the familiar sound: Utter disavowal. A media so feeble and fickle, contemptible, capricious, posses the nerve to covet, identifiable from their allusive remarks, a result opposed to a reality they’ve constructed.

53.2% Yes and 46.8% say no. Erdogan is on his way to total domination

The Gezi movement gifted us with a possibility: Revolt, attached to a fragrant brotherhood permeating the air that pierced through the gas clouds. Stones were thrown to puncture the years of silence represented by the dark curtain of cops. The party ended within two months, emotions refined and opinions shifted; the generation so ferocious in a foray against the cops, the system, retreated to instagram likes over mid-tier cafe verandas.

We have watched a movie since: Voice recordings implicating Erdogan in fraudulent activities; lies exposed; Kurdish towns flattened; a coup de’ tat – a joke; silence!

‘You are responsible for what you do to yourself’

Je suis Fatiquee! We are all tired and annoyed – hopeless, betrayed. This, the referendum, was our final opportunity to strangle Erdogan (figuratively) with his own whip, send him into depression during his dying days. But fear possessed all. The police state, though ambitious in its aims, overachieved, tamed the critical tongue. Thousands gazed at their desks being cleared without a pretext (you might be a Gulenist, at best); mothers warned children away from protests destined to ensue a ferocious police attack, occasionally live bullets were used; and the rest found nihilism, in-difference.

As the most loathed, and thus having a good reason to fear, I, among others, tried – we did: Carrying life with an arduous attempt to convince folk away from the deplorable reality the AKP and Erdogan has bestowed on Turkey; others located the impetus to dive right in and take political action. Some are in prison – the multitude surrendered and retreated back to normal life. But the Erdogan stench, no matter the flowers, burning incense, blood or fervour, remains dominant.

Good-bye, Turkey, enjoy your senescence, while inebriate with Erdoganism, nationalism and absolute stupidity. I prefer the sap of red wine.

Elle protecting the belly: A milestone for body-positivism, in the form of Candice Huffine.

A skinny array of models stream the runway like a river, some even exhibiting signs of undernourishment: naturally, the mind tethers the epitome of appearance with an unhealthy obsession over self-image transverse in all strata of society. The average citizen and ‘higher echelons’ share this, sometimes creeping and hidden, often limpid, issue. Weight loss products strew our computers and cellphones; our recently accumulated flabs are our first point of contact with friends, family and, even, the local shop-keeper, following a greeting:

“Hello! How you been? You have put on weight,” is orated before our lips move to answer.

The conspicuous aside; erudition is not pre-requisite to observe a hidden ingress of ‘body-image’ obsession. All diet programs and – I hate to admit this –  even exponents of veganism, a movement galvanised supposedly by hypersensitivity for animal welfare, markets their ideas on this basis. Before and after photos are preliminary to “our diet will do this” – and so on; or elaborate and intricate arguments cement advocacy of certain diets.

The issue is not in existence with impunity and neither is it free of criticism. In fact, a recent foray by the fashion industry, primarily Elle, a hot, highbrow fashion magazine, has precipitated a gradual – effective re-traction from skinny models and unrealistic body imagery, which induce myopic, impossible attempts to refine one’s body to match photo-shopped, filtered snaps of models.

Candice Huffine lure potential customers of Elle, April addition: On the shelf, she weill be the only model that considered ‘plus-sized’, without the intrusion of the word ‘plus-sized’ or ‘curved’ over her face, or visible among the tumultuous background.


Attached to an Instagram post, she wrote: “For as long as I can remember, I dreamt of being a model,” Huffine wrote. “So my body type wasn’t ideal measurements, minor detail.

“I refused to be told I couldn’t become what I had always imagined and committed myself to working tirelessly for the day when my size wouldn’t dictate my possibility.”

A multitude of issues remain, of course. One-off inclusions, or only particular examples reached to, will never suffice to solve the discriminatory, and damn right! Insulting, arbitrary inculcation and inoculation of particular, chosen “pinnacle” image examples.

Consistency is required; generic models included;  POC people properly portrayed, or interpretations embroidered to an accusation will manifest and infest: “it is a marketing gimmick” or some other atrocious idea, rendering the venture a ‘dalliance’.

Punching Nazis: Fuck-off, liberals

A spectre is haunting the world: The spectre of battered Nazis. For the brooding liberal, of course. Contemporary liberals make one swoon over idiocies spewed from every orifice: “Beating down a Nazi makes you a Nazi.” The pathetic liberal foray into politics is a venture best averted: It is of no use to the prudent mind to dwell in the morass liberal understanding of reality.

It must be easy; mind opaque with obtuse thoughts, while attention is limited to merely accepting as your reality, experience, as the objective reality of all, side-lining the suffering of others: Blacks, first nations, the poor, conscious women and the rest of us: The Nazi does not pose a threat for the white liberal; he/she is not their end game.

Of course “violence” that interrupts their “safe” cinnamon latte parlours (Starbucks) and “organic beef” burger embed convocations, is an “inconvenience” for them. Surely, the election of a war-mongering swine – a prospect any sane person would prefer over Mr.Orange – would suffice to quell any dissenting beat in the liberals heart – assuming they have one or two. Insofar the liberal can feel save pretending to be the culmination of “progressive thinking”, in their pretentious amenities, via the election of a liberal plated moderate Republican, Clinton, the liberal is fine: In fact, I claim, the Liberal is merely upset that Trump is now emblematic of his nation; his foreign liberal buds may vilify yankee-ism, which may perturb him; blemish his vanity.

The Nazi will be punched: FDR sent the whole army to bomb the Nazis into oblivion  – the man who symbolises the best of the Liberal democrats; yet, your own nation, embedded with ignorance a kind never seen, dictated by crypto and Neo-Nazis, and you, the liberal, are concerned for the welfare of the likes of Richard Spencer, who was punched and others who will be punched? Please, don’t make use vomit sideways.

Violence is the only skill worth sharpening to combat and quell Nazism; the whole ideology is war; as its core it radiates with notions of ethnic cleansing, prudery, dictatorship, war and genocide.

Ergo, liberal, fuck-you.

The question of Islam as the religion of peace or violence: The inate racism and cognitive dissonance.

“We are so good and Islam is actually peaceful. So stop being racist people. We are so nice.” This liberal twist is more racist, as it places blame on a particular, imagined social group of Muslims: Is the question really about Islam being peaceful or not ? Is it not the conditions that cause people to engage in terrorism ? “Proving” Islam is a religion of peace or is a peaceful religion, is nothing above cognitive dissonance against engaging in critique with the crimes of their own: Imperialism, war crimes, support for armed extremists, arming extremists and oppression at home.

“Islam is a religion of peace, just few baddies make it look bad”. Nah. It is not that simple. Check yourself before you dissonance your cognition (sigh).
Islam could be the most violent discipline (it is not) and would not change the reality of things, the objective process that going into the inter-subjective reality, the constitutent elements that cause the form: A terrorist.

Extremists, people who the West funded, supported, eradicated their enemies, will use instances of violence in Islam to boil up justified dis-content, anger into an un-justified set of actions. This is what prolonged violence, oppression and humiliation leads to: violence, wether secular or religious. The un-heard voices of despair become objects of terror, the perpetrators of violence.In the context of the world we live in, the elements and particulars of this particular realm of conflicts, Islam and the west (which is a pathetic and ridiculous attempt at dichotomy and formation of mainstream conflict discourse), “Islam” is not even a footnote subject.

If Islam is a religion of peace, which, in my opinion, is neither a religion of peace or violence, what does this change ? Conversely, how would a violent religion of the oppressed have to do with the violence that caused it to become prominent in the collective or individual reaction to this violence ?Ask yourself: Even if it is a violent religion, what caused it to justify the enemy and the imagined futility of the enemies’ life ?

A lion can be incredibly violent: But do you need to get close to him with a camera during one of your safari trips and piss him off, make him feel a sense of danger against him or his family ? You know, like how we reacted to the Blitzkrieg !


The PLO’s auxiliary group (many deny the groups were inter-linked) was responsible for the Munich terrorist attack: 17 people were killed after Black September members took Israeli Olympic team hostage, demanding the release of political prisoners held by Israel. The group christened the operation after two Palestinian   Christian   villages that were forced-out by the IDF in 1948: Igrit and Biram.

The PLO, Fatah and Black September predominately revolve around its muslim members, though secular. Palestine is a pre-dominantly Muslim geography. Considering that Palestine is considered party to ‘Islamic extremist terrorism’, Hamas, what is the secular, plural Black September party to and which book forced them, as if spontaneously, to commit acts of aggression ? The oppression and violence against Palestinians has not been eradicated; therefore, reaction, justified or un-justified, has not changed, whether through Islamic or secular Arab identities.

How ridiculous is it to ask this question by the considering the element of Palestine in the “terrorism” discourse ? Hammas probably has not committed a quarter of the acts of violence of other, secular counter-parts. Yet, Palestine, in-relation to Hamas, is part of, in our discourse, this Islamic terrorist unity, which Muslims are forced to constantly voice their condemnation of – and has become a play-thing of liberals who play the spectrum tightening part of our discourses. Perhaps this inclusion of Palestine explains why Israel supported Hamas during its early years… but that is a separate question.

The Nazi-esq enemy: ISIS. The reprehensible, violent, in-humane acts of ISIS are easy to condemn by both Liberals (“they do not represent Islam”) and Muslims (they do not represent us)- and others; though is Islam really the significant factor to the causation of the rise of this brutal monastery of violence in motion  ?

Former lieutenant Colonel of the Australian Army and “Chief Strategist in the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism” during the Iraq war, David Kilcullen, pointed to the Iraq invasion as the main cause that gave rise to ISIS:“The environment that we find ourselves in now is almost undeniably worse than it was at the beginning of the war on terror in 2001…[…]…There undeniably would be no Isis if we had not invaded Iraq,” he told channel 4. (1) Thus, the pathetic interpretations of Islamic extracts is a mere catalyst to it, a burial of “clandestine” reality.

To go further: An associate press investigation showed that many ISIS recruits had very little knowledge about the religion (2). How can this incredibly weak discourse, easily demisable on grounds of ‘causation’ (object processes) and its subjective manifestation still permissible space in all mediums ? The cause of terrorism is not islam; its subject, the terrorist, has little knowledge of Islam.

The decent intentions of those who want to resist the racism of their own citizens in the West can be understood. But only candid explanations and arguments can eradicate both oppression and racism. Yes, the importance of portraying Muslims and Islam in honest and positive interpretations is significant: Though it does not demolish the “victim of” complex the citizens of imperialist nations posses, which seeded the birth of the question: Is Islam violent or is it just a few monsters that make it look bad ?! The notion that the discussion of Islam’s peacefulness and/or violence should remain our centre of discussion solves nothing, but allows the liberal to refrain from anti-lazy criticisms of their own, fades the distinction between discussing racism at home, and war, conflicts, injustice in its entirety. I will tell idiots how Muslims are like others and how “not all muslims are liked that”, right after I lecture them on the crimes of their own that caused the “baddies”. Liberal racist interest in defining a group according to their mis-calculated view on conflicts is of no interest to the responsible mind.

Rise of nationalism in Europe, the world too.

What are we without the inferiority of the other ? A man takes pride in ‘male’ accomplishments; the ideas (interests) ruling the earth’s spin around the sun: The big star represents our higher purpose. A woman is, therefore, inferior – nevertheless part of the ‘big ideals’, as she is not the maker of the world but important tool to the makers – the man: “ha, you throw like a girl, dude”.

The man drains his complexes in the ideas of ‘other men’, like draining pasta in a sieve. Though the man himself formed not one original idea of his own. But at least he is no woman… (Simone De Beauvoir, the second sex)

The working-class, everyday, European citizen walks the earth with less worth than a pair of snake skin shoes. He/she is nothing in itself; decent ideas of self-improvement only encourage the thunderstorm: The capitalist doctrine. They find refuge in ‘individual’, finance projects – buying a home, becoming rich, making ‘something’ out of their lives. So how does a specie so ready to commit suicide than build patience while figuring out the complexities of the world, which it has so prolonged to begin, fill his time while stalling future conquest of itself, predominately petty anxieties ? They, indeed, aim to financially ‘make something of themselves’. Not one conscience mind can find redemption, accept-ion or mere existence in self economics; indeed, the ‘anquish’ remains with the propagandised mind that yearns for the belief in riches equalling a ‘better self’. But there is more to it, for their identity rests on the other.

Racism is never natural. The US policy included ‘making concessions for poor whites’ – freedom to bare arms, vote, own some petty land and have enough to ‘get by’ and pretend a future is possible. The distinction degraded the white person, who previously ran away with slaves to escape their shared ‘fate’ and design a more humane destiny, to a reflexive racist. They placed new value on their existence. They believed they shared the same destiny as their masters by being white, revolving around the same ‘sun’, in “fraternity under command” – (Howard Zinn, people’s history of the United States). “we are part of the ‘American idea, the city on a hill, the perfect union”. The blacks, following the so called ‘abolishment of slavery’, find their existence behind bars as new age of ‘slaves’; but, now, solidarity has declined and the space for ‘revolt’ is hindered by prison.

Seldom any ideas of their own blessed through their existence; whites devolve into pride in ‘us’ – the European, white race being ‘superior’; of course, this is believed despite the horrible ‘Western-imperialist’ evils never observed by other clans, ethnic groups or religions. But they are above the rest, for the “indigenous and blacks were given civilisation by the white man,” a group they are now part of, for they have the concessions.

“The good black man” faces the racist, condesending end of fingers. He is not like ‘other’ blacks; a love for America possess his thoughts and he follows the rules, accepting his inferiority, just a ‘good-woman’ is one that is persuaded to continue her honourable work as a house wife. A small protest triggers the awaited response: “Woman, I pay the bills here, I break, age my body for you and the children and you, my wife”. This ‘honourable housewife position’ proves inferior, dis-honurable in the face of male superiority; for the man asserts his economic superiority and superiority of the male, as soon a gesture of protest takes physical form, just like a black protest.

“He [Brandon Marshall] makes his money from America, but disrespects our flag,” they say. A short moment in solidarity with his oppressed sharers of identity, lights the fuse of a possessed racist. Morgan Freeman says, “[we should] stop talking about racism,” and he is the “good black-man”, no protest in his tongue. White racism is now re-asserted; the deathening silence, a swim in apathy bio-degrades into the world of ‘us’, the sun, that we all are ‘one’ with ‘american’ ideas (Freedom and guns; freedom only means guns and beer, because ‘all lives matter’, but somehow, ‘blue lives’ seem to matter on its own, in itself to the same double-thinking, racist impulse…)

The liberal vacuums votes by pointing his dirty nail at poor, “white racists”, people it has been neglecting in meetings with the ruling-class, ruling superamacy: White supermacist capitalism, imperialism included in its package. He, like his predecessors, prefers under-the-rug racism; they are in bed with the tyrants, and compulsively purchase parrots to apologise for them. These parrots, the liberal media, panic, becomes apapolectic when real change becomes possible. “We thought you would like situations that may demolish racism and in-equality,” we all think; the anti-Corbyn nonsense in the media is one example. But how are these cop-outs any different than their ancestrial dynasty… can one detect the difference between the two impulses, so wide apart in age ? A liberal was silent a good part of post-slavery slavery and racism. He prefered, just as he does now, to shiver off his sweaty guilt onto the dirty, smelly ground: The poor southern whites. He is now superior to them, less racist in his personal life, for he is intellectual and cool, as they have been telling us constantly. Now the southern, the racist, the mid-western is in-tune with an anti-intellectual belief. How is this human existence going to be expected to think intellectually, form ideas when the very process is represented by the “enemies” that are very much like themselves, but may have smoked weed, worn dreads or eat only vegan ? Process of inference and inductions, monopolised by the liberal, is now a un-patriotic instance in criticism of self and ideas.

The white poor believes that the ‘liberals’ are destroying ‘our country’ and ideals – the sun: Freedom, the constitution, scandly-clad women and Starbucks, over-priced coffee. He is superior to the liberal – and to the blacks, “the criminals (because the made-up statistics that prove that they are)”.

“Western values” says the embarrassed, ignorant white working-class European. “What are they,” you ask and a referral to the great ideas of men, in possession of notions the ignorant reject and deem as un-patriotic, emerges: “Freedom and equality”.

The European citizen asserts his/her own superiority through the ideas of others; Interests of the rulers are the ‘ideals’ of the poor. The man of self-interest, money, power, professes allegiance with the flow of Martin Luther king, for instance; but, we shall ask, doesn’t this man idolise the notions, ideas, views which MLK opposed, the people that opposed racial and economic equality ?

The money man, in times of trouble, brewing dis-content, latches to modes that assimilate the disease with the patient. Cancer is believed to be cured with more cancer — claiming we need to be me even more extreme in our views: The right-wing grasp the idolised past, romanticise ‘the never existed’ portrayals of certain ‘our values’, and co-opt the idea that the problems lay with the inferior: The out-of-hand woman; the war refugee from Syria; the liberal who claims the existence of over a million genders, immersed in the belief pronouns establish equality; the benefit scrounger. And, to pierce the last breath of reality, they claim an enemy unified with them all: the ‘liberal’, immigrant, benefit scrounger – a transexual, women’s abortion rights in Poland, for instance. Of course, the empty mind requires a feeling of being part of something expressed through the defined inferiority of others, defined by the oppressor, of course.

They become the makers of ‘the world’, claiming to represent the course of history, by attempting to go backwards, believing a new megabyte on a product proves their forward motion.

So, ‘we need to go back’. Any voice opposing this is the voice of the ‘guilty liberal’ and is therefore detrimental to ‘us’ and our superiority. But, of course, nobody should mention the interests of masters, and how the interests shape society, the existential reality of many minds un-hindered by matured thoughts.

“Don’t you see how they treat their women, forcing niqabs and Burkas?,” they ask, sincerely, as if their own are treated properly, as though ‘femininity’ is never scrutinised, as if a woman’s sexualised body does not sell the useless product. Like the asserted usefulness of the product through the woman’s body, their own individual usefulness is, once again, asserted; for they are advanced enough to ‘treat their women as naked objects of sex’. Whereas, the otherside, the right-wing muslim, or another group, treats the woman as a sex object by covering: Both products, like buying packaged or open display tomatos.

One should not assume the other-side is better: The conservative Muslim finds refuge, ‘usefulness’ and a sense of belonging: superiority to the decadent, ‘open’ West; porno and sex freaks. As if belly dancing is a produce that Muslims empires did not display in their cultural repository; as if the French romantics opened the first Harems in the Ottoman empire and forced sultans to drink an abundance of wine; as if homosexuality and sexual eroticism was not even more open in the Muslims during the days of the ‘dark and backward Christian world’, as it was so referred to in the Muslim world.

It is their masters who propose this other, the master who builds Hilton hotels that a rich man can access in the hopes to look down on the kabbah, the Islamic holy sight, from above, almost like god himself; it is, of course, what the prophet, the man among the poor, the man who fiercely even opposed the notion of financial ‘savings’, had in mind: A so called religious man in a gold plated Mercedes, in Hilton Hotel conference rooms, telling others of the decadence of the ‘western person’. And, of course, Jesus, the American white man – sigh – favoured racism and richness over compassion and sharing.

All anxieties and existential worries are now set aside, thankfully for the rulers who’s system caused most of it. Hail the ‘good-leaders’ and ‘their people’.

Now, out all racism, bigotry, which are systematic, not individual, can be referred to one cardinal sin: The oppression of women, displayed so obviously, expressed in reference to decadence and freedom by two supposedly opposing sides. The oppression of the black person ‘happened’: slavery, Jim-Crow, racist Britain, the ghettos of Paris, continuing today; the working-class person’s oppression is part of the historical process; A woman’s oppression is neither: She  always has, from the ancients till now, with exception, been the inferior ‘other’. It did not happen; it always was.

The mothers that we love more than anything become the people we hate when they bypass all societal mythologies and become a woman. A man, born of a woman, can easily despise femininity: “Girly, weak, emotional, i-rational”.

We can only be existentially free when we cut out the inferiority of the other, mostly bestowed on us by the wrong-doings of those we believe we share a destiny with, but only feed off scraps, while blinded by the sun and barring all the pain from all its consequences. This ‘cut-off’ must begin with the assertion of femininity as equal, not as an idolised, nevertheless inferior other; neither is the romanticised ‘other’ a notion that rids us of hierachy, patriachy. The one deemed ‘inferior’ is, like the one deeming himself/herself superior, capable of wrong-doings, stupidity and holds the capacity to reflect the pyshopathy of their oppressors: Thus, our cardinal sin, the romanticised oppression of women, is our cut off point; the representation of our impulse to form the other to form our own identity. The oppression of women, is our original problem and it is where we must start. Or, in this unruly world, all oppression will remain, anxieties will persist and grow, and only the egotistical, invisible, calm mind can choose the path to free themselves and assert their existence, free of societal views, all in the midst of chaos. In this world, this invisible person will choose anarchy over chaos, justified notions over false beliefs of idolised representations of ‘our sun’ and can only achieve this with in-difference to all suffering, creating themselves through themselves and not from asserting an inferiority that justifies, in a narrow mind, the superiority of themselves. Such a world is only destined for its own self-destruction. One cannot sweep evil under the unknown other forever.




Veganism and ethics

I have seen many who claim, it is ok for the Vegan movement to include fascists, alt-right, racists, homophobes or other un-desirables, for, they claim, “it is for the animals and we should not confuse it with human ‘issues’, as it ‘divides’ the movement.” This view is wrong on so many levels.
Firstly, veganism is not an ethical value in itself; it is a movement born out of perspective ethics: Killing, torturing, owning a sentient being is wrong, unnecessary. If we hold any view opposing the very fundament of veganism (the ethical basis), we then have no argument and will be, rightfully, labelled ‘hypocrites’.
We speak for animals because they are not moral agents. Nobody can ask anyone to speak for humans lacking in moral agency – the mentally ill, physically disabled ect – or are not privileged enough to posses the space to act as a moral agent – refugees, the starving poor; but tolerating – and sometimes entertaining – views that oppose basic ethics and the basis of our ‘movement’ will diminish our legitimacy as moral agents, for we will be accepting the oppression for those, one way or another, unable to speak for themselves.
Moreover, the vegan movement, like all moves to better society, is not, never will be ‘unified’. So, the argument in favour of ‘unification’ by abolishing ethical principles is, not only wrong, but an old mindset, destined for nothing but failure and dis-honest: It abandons the fundamental nature of the ‘good’ that is supposedly intentioned for a fantasy that can never be fulfilled; of course, the ethical scaffolding has disappeared.
Furthermore, the context in which the vegan movement currently breaths life, is within a capitalist, militarist, racist time and space. A movement cannot fight a specific symptom without attacking the viruses that cause the terrible pain of animal torture. The system is responsible for the ecological disaster and torture of animals; but not just this: It is also the lawyer – defender of those who engage in all this. It is the cops who beat you down when you protest against it all; the secret service go undercover to destroy and expose the inner-workings of an ecological movement; Some vegan activists in America, for instance, have been diagnosed with the obscure illness: Terrorist. The state is the power centre of all capitalist institutions and industries – things are not ‘separate’ and as distinct as most assume. Speciesm is wrong because racism is wrong; racism is wrong because speciesm is wrong: They are both wrong because, ethically, discrimination against a sentient being is wrong. A racist system is the same one that causes and/or defends the speciest one. So, we cannot accept the suffering of one over the other – and must, as much as we can, reference the route cause of what our movement wants to eliminate, namely capitalism. Therefore, having those who defend a particular aspect, institution or value that resembles approaches that oppose our ethical stance – the meat industry, anti-vegan activism – in our movement will be damaging.
Now, we are not individual “amnesty internationals,” we cannot attend to everyone – or every-things need. Our minds cannot absorb all misery. But we can keep those who wish misery – and intend – on other beings, especially ones we share DNA with, away from our ‘movement(s)’: We must keep our ethical consistency, and virtues of compassions and empathy – and the intelligence to understand the connection shared by all suffering.