DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF 'COLD WAR PT II', OR QUESTION THE VALIDITY?? "YOU'RE A TINFOIL HAT."

I can't take it. We're just flaming idiots.

Only in Britain in 2018 could you get called a 'tinfoil hat' and get slagged off simply for daring to urge caution, discourage mob justice by pitchfork, or suggest we should keep an open mind as to who's behind an international assassination attempt.

Indeed, you apparently require sectioning for suggesting we shouldn't unilaterally ramp up for 'Cold War: Pt II'. That is where we are right now.

I replied to this person on Twitter, pressing them for their reasoning. This was their response:

Yep. So apparently, the assumption that a group or persons are responsible for a crime is enough to merit their unequivocal condemnation. (Even when it could potentially mean us all getting nuked back to the stone age. Never mind eh.)

I sure hope that chap doesn't work for the police.

In fact, even a writer I follow and tend to agree with about most things, who I quote all the time, started referring to me as 'infantile', 'narcissistic', and 'ignorant' etc - simply for questioning his analysis. It's a horrid state of affairs. The writer then went on to call me a 'Putin apologist', suggesting that questioning Russia's responsibility was akin to questioning Jimmy Savile's guilt. Pretty shocking.

The definition of idiocy

The definition of idiocy, some say, is to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

Even ignoring the concourse of the 20th century, eg: the world wars, NATO, the EU, the fall of the Soviet Union etc, and all the history that led us to this stand-off today, we actually have a shining and unequivocal example of our western governments and media falsely manufacturing/propagating a narrative to justify going to war, in living bloody memory!!!! Erm... hello?? Iraq?? Saddam Hussein, the international bogeyman with his arsenal of WMDs?? (And look at the hornet's nest that opened up.) DO WE EVER F**KING LEARN????

I seem to recall, even back then, those who suggested all was not as it seemed with the Iraq incursion were labelled lunatics, traitors, and 'conspiracy theorists' etc. And of course, that was before social media mobilised roaming gangs with pitchforks in the way they exist today. However, similar ramping up for confrontation on the basis of as yet unsubstantiated claims, but this time against one of the world's most hostile nuclear superpowers? Madness off the bloody scale.

Cui bono? Are Russia the only country that benefited from this alleged assassination attempt? No is the answer. And actually, there are other groups that benefit from the unfolding international fallout and backlash more. That detail alone merits at very least further investigation, scrutiny, and a level of scepticism.

The saddest aspect for me, is that Remainers - eg: pretty much the only 'team' I've identified with since 2016: they seem to be the most eager and unquestioning in their demonisation of all things Russia. The very same team I'd normally have credited with greater overall intelligence and analytical skills!! The reason? They're flocking to a beam of hope that, given this period of US intransigence, fear of Russia will prevent Brexit. Their desire for that outcome is outweighing any and all sense of pragmatism and impartiality. (Such as our friend, Lord Andrew Adonis. A man I previously thought incredibly brave, and smart, is now beating a metaphoric drum for war as much as any Brexiter ever did, because it suits his cause.)

The irony of all this is, I long for nothing more than Brexit to be prevented. And Russia is the one country I've ever been where I didn't feel comfortable, welcome, and didn't generally like the people or atmosphere. I'm no 'friend' of Russia, I do fear them, and think Putin is a monster. I despise his regime's treatment of journalists, LGBT people, opposition politicians etc. I just... as usual... seem to be one of the few willing to acknowledge life is not black/white-goodies/baddies, who doesn't accept the most obvious and immediate explanation. Someone who steps back to look at a larger picture without pre-disposition, attempting to be fair and unbiased.

These days, that apparently makes me a madman.

HOW THE ABUSE OF FLO & JOAN REPRESENTS A WAR FOR WESTERN VALUES (AND WE SHOULD MAYBE CANCEL THE INTERNET)

I did it myself. I made a couple of joke/glib comments that Nationwide's Flo and Joan are actually the famous eyebrow wiggling Cadbury Dairy Milk kids grown up, after a career hiatus. Considering one of the 'wigglers' was a boy, my implied joke was obviously that one of the ditty-singing sisters had undergone a sex change. A fairly crass joke admittedly, not to all tastes, but perfectly innocent.

Because that's all it was: a joke. My sense of humour. I don't actually think either of them has had a sex change, or is remotely masculine. The actual truth is I think they seem like very sweet ladies. I quite enjoy their sibling rivalry set to music, and I also enjoy the interlude of notably organic and humble musical performances - amid all the mass over-produced bullshit and vaunted egos we see in popular music today.

Granted, I'm not sure it has much to do with banking, but hey, that's just marketing in the 21st century. Blame Nationwide, if you will. The idea of genuinely wishing these girls any harm or ill-will, I find truly appalling. I'm sure I'm not alone in having difficulty accepting we now live in a world where two girls singing ditties on TV, receive horrific online abuse.

Social media is quite literally a battlefield today: a war for the soul and heart of western values.

The Death of Observational Comedy

In fairness, there's probably an element of sensationalism for the purposes of a story. I don't think many probably really intended for their comments to be perceived as 'death threats'. If I say I'd like to "harpoon James Corden" and/or "launch him into outer space", I don't actually mean it. I wouldn't pull the trigger on the harpoon gun given the choice. (Maybe just a taser.)

Again, it's just my humour: linguistic license. Colourful language is something this country is very famous for, the most obvious example being Bill Shakespeare. I'm a fan of the bard, having studied his works for more of my school career than I'd care to admit, and I'd like to think if he was writing today, my analogy of the harpoon gun or rocket launch might be the sort of visual image he'd paint on a page too.

But here's the point: in today's environment, there's now so many people spewing those kinds of sentiments (and far baser ones) with genuine malice and intention of harm, it's often difficult to tell. And for the first time really, it occurred to me that some might even have read things I've said, and thought me malicious or somehow spiteful. I find that excruciating. The truth is I'm honestly the furthest thing from it. On the whole, I'm Snowflake Central (in fact, my very being troubled by the notion of thought unpleasant, almost certainly confirms it).

It's infuriating. Not only have moral values and decency been a casualty of this 'right-wing backlash' of recent times, but even the somewhat sacred medium of comedy is now under threat too. From do-gooders on the right, as well as just about the entire left. Somehow, I find the idea that we shouldn't laugh at jokes almost as offensive as anything else, and certainly a very dangerous progression.

'Crying Wolf'

Most people can tell the difference between a joke, gentle-ribbing or observational comedy, and bullying. Some of the funniest things in this world are ways that human beings differ, according to interests/background/geography/sex/race/ethnicity/religion etc. I don't want to live in a world where we can't acknowledge them in a lighthearted manner, for fear we'll be condemned 'oppressive'. That's going way too far. I've experienced actual bullying in my life; it's fair to say it's made me who I am. Both back at school, and more recently, in my musical career. I know how truly destructive it is, and I would never bully anyone.

However, I'd also argue that to push back verbally against those who'd bully you and/or others, is not bullying. It's the former of a 'fight or flight' mentality, and for me personally, it's the very reason I write at all.

There's a very different intention behind 'bullying' to simple observational humour; and most can usually tell them apart. Bullies just like to pretend it's 'joking'. However, considering the hatred and venom unleashed in our society in recent years, I do understand the hyper-sensitivity. The level of insentient malice now lurking out there like a turd in the bath water, needs to be addressed. The abuse of Flo and Joan might very well be the straw that breaks the camel's back. They are young girls, singing songs. They're not politicians actively hampering the lives of people around them, who deserve to be scrutinised and/or held accountable. Nor are they 'celebrities' who'd vaunt their lifestyle/opinions/wealth etc in our faces. Love 'em or loathe 'em, the kind of criticism and misogynistic abuse they've received just for singing songs with a plinky-plonk keyboard, is beyond abhorrent.

I don't know quite how we restore that balance, but by the gods, we have to try.

Right now the cries of 'abuse' for absolutely positively anything and everything - the 'crying wolf' - has had a disastrous double-edged effect. Not only did such hyper-sensitivity arguably precipitate the right-wing backlash we're experiencing, but now, a good many are so utterly fed up with all the political polarisation and bickering, they've switched off. They've had enough.

Which in turn has allowed prejudice and bigotry to run rampant unchecked, certainly on social media. It's now their turf.

People fighting for decency who've hung on, are likewise demonised as 'boring', 'too political', 'Corbynistas', 'conspiracy theorists' etc. Those who shout loudly from the left tend to end up ostracised by the very friends and people whose rights they're shouting for. Worse still, daring to speak out also has major repercussions for employment prospects nowadays (as I myself found out once, the hard way). Socialist and left-wing views are now seen as opposition to enterprise: a potential headache for employers - as if someone who simply believes in fairness might well prove a fly in the ointment later down the line.

Double-edged Sword

But speaking out really does have a purpose. The whole point is that social media HAS made politicians and businesses accountable in ways they weren't before. It's just that at the same time, the whole sphere has also become very unpleasant and noisy; often taken over by polarised morons. Swings and roundabouts.

Though Twitter (and social media generally) can be a pain, it's worth reflecting that before the Internet, #Mueller could have been sacked and the whole thing buried. That said, without Twitter & Facebook, Trump would still be a game show host ranking corporate psychopaths

— Will Black (@WillBlackWriter) 5 March 2018

Yes... social media! The bane of so soooo many lives, in so many ways. An invention that has quite literally laid waste to many aspects of our social structures; even our very existence as human beings. Some scientists argue it's irreversibly changed us as a species (I've heard the term 'Homo-Interneticus' coined to describe this change). It's made the world cold, distant, and unaccountable - hiding from behind a computer screen. Combined with massive geopolitical events like Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, eg: the normalisation of oppressive and nationalist attitudes, it's opened a Pandora's Box I think we'll struggle to get shut again now.

What am I suggesting?? For us to ditch mobile phones? Scrap the internet? Outlaw interactive social media? I don't know. But the latter idea, however draconian it might at first seem, might force human beings to be respectful to one another once again. And/or actually interact like human beings again. For the first time, I'm genuinely wondering whether perhaps social commentary should again be reserved for vocational writers, those who actually have a sense of responsibility, and/or know what they're talking about.

I don't know how the hell we'd police that without allowing huge propensity for abuse - it's quite literally how we've ended up in this mess (eg: only a handful of billionaires controlling what half the population think), but all the hatred out there is becoming intolerable.

For the sake of my daughter, and the world her generation shall inherit, I think we perhaps need to rein back in social media now. Somehow.

“DON’T WORRY FOLKS, POST-BREXIT BRITAIN WON’T BE A MAD MAX-STYLE DYSTOPIA.” (MORE LIKE ‘BLADE-RUNNER’.)

My God, there's just no end to the rabbit-hole in sight. These days I have to pinch myself, just to check I'm not imagining the unthinkable things I'm reading and hearing. Though hard to conceive, this catastrophe is actually turning out worse than expected.

I couldn't believe it when Brexiter extremists of this country turned on charities, like Oxfam. The idea that the misdemeanours of employed workers should somehow eradicate the purpose and nobility of a worldwide charity, to me, is just nuts. (But then again, they are.) Can we assume other multi-national corporations and organisations are therefore squeaky-clean, employing only Godly and moral people who never do anything wrong? Like hell we can. Let's be honest, it's really just another excuse not to give anything to those 'orrible brown and black skinned people from other countries, albeit under the guise of supposed moral superiority.

Bad enough, but this morning I saw Katie Nutkins and her assorted right-wing cronies now unbelievably attacking the school kids who only narrowly managed to avoid getting shot a few days ago in Florida. All because they're daring to challenge President Frump and the NRA. Even for her, that's a new low. On some level, the woman genuinely amazes me. There seems absolutely no end to the malice and venom seeping out of her every pore: she's a walking summary of every negative, selfish, insular and vapid trait our society has embraced. I hope one day they stuff her and put her in a museum. 

But more than anything, I genuinely cannot believe the discussions now occurring regarding Northern Ireland. That abhorrent, deplorable, downright evil politicians like Nigel Farage, Daniel Hannan and Kate Hoey etc are now gunning for the Good Friday Agreement - something that brought peace and harmony after generations of violence - simply because it stands in the way of their nationalist coup. An agreement that was treasured and valued by millions, an agreement that saved lives, with not a bad word said about it until now. An agreement the Brextremists mocked us for being concerned about when this nonsense started, along with many other issues. (At one time, we were mocked for suggesting Brexit would mean abandoning the EU single market. Ahem... Daniel Hannan.)

Daniel Hannan: “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.” https://t.co/KQlBaIwHPk

— Ian Dunt (@IanDunt) November 17, 2016

But now, according to Fuhrage, the Northern Ireland peace process is “utterly loathsome”.

The IRA bombing of Omagh Town centre only twenty years ago, in 1998.

There is quite literally nothing and no-one these politicians won't sacrifice, blame, or put on the line to ensure their elitist and feudal overlordship of Britain continues. For those of us who lived through the years of violence, when Northern Ireland was considered pretty much a war-zone and no-go area, the idea that anyone would risk flaring all that up again is just unconscionable. Beyond the f**king pail. (And if my deliberate use of an expletive offends you dear reader, but the potential breakdown of peace in Ireland doesn't, you too are arguably a complete **** with very warped priorities.)

I really do want to know now, just exactly what will it take to persuade Brexit supporters that the whole thing was a terrible idea? Categorical evidence of lies? Paper trails of financial interests? (Because newsflash, we already have those.) A complete economic breakdown, comparable to the Great Depression? Anarchy and violence? A break down of government? Erosion of civil liberties? Food shortages? Lynch-mobs? A war?

I’d of course argue we shouldn’t allow even the tiniest possibility of such things becoming plausible, but regardless of my pesky sensibilities, what would it genuinely take for Brexiters to hold their hands up and say: "you know what, Britain was more prosperous and safer as part of a united European community"?

Answers on the back of a post-card.

Or perhaps, as I fear, there’s literally nothing. That in fact, our country has become an island of fantasists and fanatics who ardently desire conflict. I can’t quite put my finger on exactly when it happened, when that balance of sanity shifted, but the proof is really in the pudding.

Nothing could sum it all up better than the words of our very own minister for Brexit, David Davis. Even if you take the incompetent/bumbling man at his word (not something generally advisable with politicians), when he glibly crows: “it won’t end in a Mad Max-style dystopia”, that hardly sells it?!? Not when this nonsense was sold as good for Britain?!?

Also not to mention, it would probably be more like Blade Runner. The weather and all.

One can’t help but feel expectations have been lowered somewhat. And that perhaps if that had been the slogan on the Brexit bus, maybe this country wouldn’t have shoved a loaded gun in its mouth.

For me personally, risking the security and peace of our brothers and sisters in Northern Ireland is a step too far. In the name of God, someone stop this madness... please.

NOW EARTHQUAKES TOO?? LET'S FACE IT, ALL BRITAIN NEEDS NOW IS A PLAGUE OF LOCUSTS.

Now a 4.2 magnitude earthquake in Britain. Felt from the southwest to the Northwest, and all throughout Wales.

I think it's clearly fair to say, as far as omens and their timings are concerned, things ain't looking so hot right now for Britain. In fact, I don't think the universe could honestly be giving us more of a wake-up call, if the sky was literally on fire with the four horseman of the apocalypse pegging across it in a transit van. Or if the sky was raining a pick'n'mix of locusts, cats, and Celebrity Love Island contestants.

I don't generally believe in that kind of crap, but honestly... you couldn't write this stuff.

In fact, perhaps the poster for Brexit should just be a picture of the British Isles going up in flames under a mushroom cloud. But at that precise moment when all flesh has been ripped from our bones: and we're standing there momentarily looking like Skeletor, before milliseconds later being reduced to ash.

And would you also look at that.

This, only a few months after the Tory government allowed fracking to begin across the UK. 

Strangely enough, I can't find much online to determine whether fracking has actually begun in the UK, but there are plenty of articles stating "fracking due to begin within weeks" dated from October of last year, and other pieces such as an article for The Guardian with this headline:

Weeks later, a 4.2 magnitude earthquake. Maybe coincidence? Maybe not. Earthquakes have occurred in the British Isles historically, to be fair.

But you know what? I sure as hell don't want to find out. We're not some massive sprawling land mass/continent with vast uninhabited areas, we're a fragile little island floating off the north coast of Europe. (A detail of relevance in various other circumstances too.)

Ergo if greedy rich bastards who care nothing for anyone or anything other than their profits somehow cave in the very ground beneath our feet, we quite literally have nowhere else to go.

And like everything else... all driven by greed. Shameful.

In the mean time, I suggest we all invest in underground bunkers with Netflix and Wifi.

THE REES-MOGG SCUFFLE: PAVING THE WAY FOR POLITICAL SHIFT IN THE UK?

It seems the whole of Britain was watching a puppet show. I fell for it myself, and feel rather stupid.

It turns out, it was a Rees-Mogg supporter who technically precipitated actual physicality/violence: quite deliberately by the look of it.

How many times do the hard-right & far-right have to watch this before grasping that a Jacob Rees-Mogg supporter, enraged by dissent, hit a young woman in the face. The ensuing scuffle was to prevent HIM from battering her again or harming other people pic.twitter.com/BMkOd87J3P

— Will Black (@WillBlackWriter) February 3, 2018

And would you look at that... it turns out a reporter named Ben Kew, employed by Rees-Mogg's new Nazi friends at Breitbart, was quite literally ready and waiting with the camera rolling.

American-owned Breitbart News, at a minor and niche UK university talk. No, nothing fishy there. 

My initial reaction, like everyone else, was to condemn the apparently violent protesters, and somewhat begrudgingly praise JRM's dealing with the situation. However, when I first saw the footage of him striding up the auditorium (as if on horseback) to reprimand the young hoodlums, standing there trying to reason with them, I did also chuckle to myself that he looked like a fish out of water. Extremely uncomfortable, to say the least. And I honestly couldn't help but wonder why he threw himself in apparent harm's way on that specific occasion.

Ah... the Breitbart reporter. That'd be it. NOW it makes sense.

And would you also look at that. This rather pathetic and virtually manufactured scuffle also seemingly made the BBC and wider press entirely forget about tens of thousands of people marching through London on behalf of the NHS yesterday. An issue of far more importance to this country, and a catastrophic failure that doesn't make the BBC's paymasters look very good.

Meanwhile, the right-wing now flounce around pretending that Corbyn, Momentum, and left-wing politics are the cause of all thuggery, dissent and violence in Britain:

Except they all conveniently seem to forget. The only ACTUAL murder and serious act of violence against a politician in this country in recent times, was the far-right fanatic who killed MP Jo Cox shortly before the EU referendum. A barbaric and heinous crime that pretty much served as the starter pistol for this whole mess.

Back then, I dared to hope that Jo's murder would assure success for the remain campaign: I thought there was no possible way the majority of Britain would want to associate with those kinds of people - or even be on the same 'team'. That maybe... just maybe a sizeable share of the UK populace would start to appreciate the insidious ideologies at the heart of all this, and what they would be enabling. I was wrong. And today, as a result, Britain is a very different place.

Leftist aggression takes place as a symbiotic reaction to unbridled far-right influence. It springs up only when oppressors overstep their bounds. It's as simple as that. Like most things, there is a cause, and a reaction. And while the reaction may be misguided or excessive, the fact it is a reaction must be considered. (Part of the reason we have a judiciary system.) A violent campaigner for human rights may be misguided, but to lump them as somehow 'the same' as a violent thug campaigning for segregation and ethnic profiling/subjugation is just warped.

Ergo we today have an elitist gang of ideologists, mostly relying on the support of thugs, trying to tell us that anyone who opposes them, are thugs. And people are lapping it up.

He bounced up there and stuck his chin out. He was hoping for a smack. You see the word is out to discredit any left wing protests. A violent reaction would be perfect. When nobody popped Mogg the second attempt was to clip the woman and get a retaliation. Done.

— Franqs1ight (@howkoolizdiss) February 3, 2018

Funny how Mogg meets Bannon. Has dinner with a Nazi then this half baked Antifa style incident happens. Looks dodgy to me

— LINDA (@lindajedwards) February 3, 2018

If all concerned were actually angling for Rees-Mogg to get a thump (which let's face it, seems unlikely, but would have been their joyous Brexit equivalent of communists supposedly burning down the Reichstag), it would certainly explain why he looked so bloody nervous - yet still put himself right in the middle of the fray.

Either way, this is media manipulation and propaganda in action, make no mistake. The footage aired by the BBC etc did not show the full story at all, eg: the bully in the white shirt smacking Andreea Dumitrache, a protesting Romanian student in the face, or mention a couple of key details. Like a Breitbart reporter sitting there earnestly waiting.

Hi @Jacob_Rees_Mogg, you know how you say you dont know #whiteShirtMan, who hit the young woman at your #UWE event? Hate to tell you this but he seems to be following you around. It's almost like he thinks he's your bodyguard and on your team. #HesBehindYou pic.twitter.com/6lH6b2DXfK

— Will Black (@WillBlackWriter) February 4, 2018

'England prevails'

The more I think about this and read about this, the more I look at the footage and consider the larger political picture, what else is going on and where; the way that so many are cooing how Laura Kuenssberg and the BBC are taking a 'tougher line' of questioning with Theresa May - but coincidentally just as Jacob Rees-Mogg is now splashed everywhere portrayed like the 21st century equivalent of Sir Lancelot... and truly, it smells bad to me. Like the way is being subliminally paved for a political shift of some sort, in the Conservative party at least.

Concurrently, we also seem to be partaking in a society-wide overreaction and crusade of piety/moral judgement, often packaged as 'feminism', against things like pretty girls who like to make a living from dressing up and looking nice, adding glitz and glam to otherwise mind-numbingly dull affairs like Motorsport. Witch-hunts that people like 'devout Christian' Jacob Ress-Mogg would no doubt be on board with, and use as a populist sideshow to bridge support bases, and distract from all the unspeakable stuff he's doing behind the scenes. A very worrying combination. Puritanism, until recently, was generally considered a bad thing.

In recent times, I've slightly gulped to acknowledge eerie similarities between Jacob Rees-Mogg and the character 'Chancellor Sutler', in V for Vendetta. (As the film itself points out, "artists use lies to tell the truth".) JRM is a bit more softly spoken and charming than John Hurt's slightly OTT depiction, but no doubt the two of them would get on very well at dinner. And now could quite feasibly be the part of the film when Sutler breaks away from the Conservative party, and starts something new. Or re-brands it as 'Norsefire'.

"England prevails." Sound familiar?

Bite-size chunks

My fear has long been that right-wing fascism and totalitarianism seem to be approaching in bite-sized palatable chunks, that the populace don't seem to notice they're swallowing. Orwell word-for-word predicted it:

"The people will not revolt. They will not look up from their screens long enough to notice what's happening."

Each time it gets just a little worse. Cameron and Osborne now seem like positive libertarians next to May and her Hammer Horror montage of cabinet members, but ramping up to a Tory party led by the likes of Rees-Mogg, Johnson and Gove? It would be yet another right shift incrementally, all over again.

It's amazing how poor, oppressed and justifiably angry people are now back to being the baddies. Those pesky sorts fed up with being marginalised, fed up with being burned alive in tower blocks, fed up with wars in their name, being priced out of homes, fed up with racism and bigotry casually defended and propagated, fed up with corporate exploitation, abuse of both human and animal rights - well, they are again the enemy. Yep, we're all ANTIFA now. How neat.

As someone who literally worked in the theatre, I can't help but feel it all has a tang of feeling slightly staged, or at least manipulated. And I do say that fully and acutely aware that even by thinking or suggesting such a thing, I immediately sound like a nutcase to some.

The suspicion lingers, regardless. And the fact I sound like a nutcase is quite unequivocally the best (and likely only) defence to discredit it.

THOUGHT BREXIT WAS BAD NEWS? IT MAY ALSO BRING WITH IT AN APOCALYPTIC TIME-BOMB...

I came across an article from The Guardian this morning that, unbelievably, still managed to make my jaw hit the deck - even amid a world regularly fringing on lunacy. You can check it out here. The rest of what I have to say will make a lot more sense if you do.

The piece by Maryn McKenna is from last year, but as I say, I've only just encountered it. Which possibly says something in itself: as everybody should probably know about this. I'm pretty sure they don't. They're likely to know Ant and Dec won best presenters at the recent National Television Awards for the seventeenth time, but not that Brexit could potentially bring with it chickens that wipe out humanity.

Holy shit. And I thought chicken was the 'healthy option'.

I didn't know any of this. Yes, I knew American food was generally bland, stodgy, and pumped full of chemicals to make it mutant-sized; I've spent a fair bit of time in the U.S, and even if we put aside the veritable horror stories that are our Yankee cousins' notion of things like bread and chocolate (I have never tasted anything as disgusting in my life as Hershey's), I also remember the first time I encountered their bizarre, warped 'puffy' fruit. I remember chowing down on an apple the size of a very large male adult fist, which somehow didn't feel particularly healthy to be eating, even to someone who generally eats crap back here at home in the UK. As for the bananas, they looked like they could possibly be used to bludgeon someone.

So much of the food I encountered in the U.S didn't 'feel right'. A problem I never really encountered in Europe, or elsewhere in the world. However, the rabbit hole goes far deeper.

The biggest threat to humankind's existence other than climate change, is antibiotic resistance. And apparently it is literally being invited through mass produced food. More specifically, in America, chicken. It's a ticking time bomb (or rather, a clucking one). And now developing nations are hopping aboard the drugged-chicken-gravy-train too.

As for the fact this is being done in America to a mass-produced food that is... how can I put this delicately... stereotyped as being quite popular with the poor and certain oppressed ethnicities? Ethnicities that America doesn't have a great history of looking after so well? However you spin it, the bottom line is that people/groups who've been overexposed to antibiotics in cheap mass produced food will be the first wiped out, if and when a super-bug arrives.

Doesn't look good, does it?

In fairness, it should probably be mentioned, some U.S companies have bowed to pressure from consumer watch groups, agreeing to stop using antibiotics in their chicken, like McDonalds. KFC and other larger fast food chains are also following suit. However, domestic food sold in supermarkets is not quite as under the microscope.

Knock-off goods

Also note the American author starts off the whole piece by comparing these U.S 'mutant' chickens to those found on a French market place.

"I had eaten chicken all my life: in my grandmother’s kitchen in Brooklyn, in my parents’ house in Houston, in a college dining hall, friends’ apartments, restaurants and fast food places, trendy bars in cities and old-school joints on back roads in the south. I thought I roasted a chicken pretty well myself. But none of them were ever like this, mineral and lush and direct."

McKenna speaks of what real, authentic, chemically un-enhanced chicken tastes like by comparison, and how she finally enjoyed flavours denied to her in her native America: land of the mass-produced. You see, the E.U do things a little differently to the U.S - they generally try to protect their citizens. They look out for them. For example, they don't unethically poison them (or risk wiping out humanity) just to increase the profits and turnover of large greedy corporations.

Ah, you've gotta love capitalism.

So basically, rich Americans are selling mostly poor Americans stuff that could eventually kill us all. And then are using the exuberant proceeds they've earned from doing so to live the life of Riley. (And, one would imagine, to buy posher food not laced with chemicals.) If it was someone selling cheap knock-off Rolexes en mass, and using the proceeds to buy proper ones for themselves, no doubt the law would intercede; but when it concerns the future of the whole human race, well... it's apparently not worth the time and effort.

Today's capitalists care nothing for the future of humanity. That seems to be the era we're in. Like they've done a deal with the devil, and simply decided: "the whole world is screwed, we're on borrowed time, so WE might as well all get as rich and fleece it while we can, fuck everyone else". And really, no group or government in any modern Western society represents that attitude as much as Trump's America, or indeed Brexit Britain under the Tories.

What a wondrous tag-team they are.

Brexit means breakfast (a really bad one)

There are so many aspects of Britain's departure from the E.U that sadden me; the list is endless. But as a man who enjoys his food, who was born and grew up in a Britain that enjoyed easy and cost effective access to fresh produce from across the European continent for nearly forty years, this aspect of what Brexit will do to our availability/price of staple foods really depresses me. And even worse, that Britain seems desperate to plug that trade gap of 40+ years with closer U.S trade. Eg: the one country in the world with lower food standards than just about anywhere, where any Martin Shkreli dip-shit can pump it full of turpentine if he's greased the right people in congress.

Britain is selling its soul for corporate greed. (Ironically, the one thing Brexit was supposedly an antidote to.) Swapping European pragmatism and cooperation to become the 51st state: under a mad orange orangutan who'd sell his own Nan to the highest bidder. It just makes no sense to me.

I've teased my American friends about their crap, bland food for many years; joked how eating too much of it might cause one to 'grow gills', or maybe just additional nipples. Well, thanks to Brexit, British families might soon get to put my theory to the test. 

ONE OF BRITAIN'S MOST INFLUENTIAL RAPPERS JUST SMASHED THE ENTIRE ANTI-CORBYN ARGUMENT IN SECONDS (2017)

(Written for Evolve Politics, May 9th 2017, going viral to near half a million people: also referenced by Buzzfeed and The Independent as example of online/left-wing news outperforming mainstream news. Since removed from the former link.)

British rapper Akala is well known for his political activism, as much so as his music and his equally famous sister, Ms Dynamite. The man affectionately dubbed ‘the black Shakespeare’ has appeared on countless debate and news-related programmes over the years, including both BBC flagship political shows, Newsnight and Question Time. Many of those speeches and discussions have gone on to become viral hits, as well as his frank analysis of racism on Frankie Boyle’s Election Autopsy in 2015. Perhaps most memorable was his much publicised verbal annihilation of EDL leader Tommy Robinson – a rare occasion when the hateful and ill-mannered man was left momentarily stopped in his tracks.

Akala could quite feasibly be described as a modern philosopher. His intelligence, his factual knowledge, and obvious powers of persuasive rhetoric leave most opponents dwarfed. There is simply no substitute, or defence, against an individual whose arguments are based on true understanding and thorough research. Which is of course exactly the reason the far-right are so persecuting of the educated, and demonise supposed ‘liberal elites’. But Akala is living proof that born wealth and ‘liberal elitism’ are nothing to do with it. And as much as educational opportunities do play a vital role in producing informed/sentient members of society, to a certain degree, it’s also the choice of any individual as to whether they educate themselves. This man certainly has.

In a post today on his Facebook page, Akala explained why – for the first time in his life – he is actively going to defy his inherent beliefs and vote for an ‘establishment’ political party:

“I will be voting in a general election for the first time on June the 8th and I will – I am shocked to be typing this myself – be voting Labour. I am not a Labour supporter; I do not share the romanticism of many that the Labour Party was ever as radical an alternative as some would like to think. Labour – despite building the welfare state/NHS – has been an imperialist party from Attlee to Wilson to Blair, thus for a ‘third world’ internationalist such as myself I have never been able to cast a vote for them.

In truth my politics are closer at present to the Green Party, of the options available. Regardless, in the years since I have been an adult, neo-liberal New Labour has basically been a Tory Party anyway, so I, by virtue of my age, missed any point in history where Labour could have even been argued to have been any sort of real political alternative.

So why will I be voting now? The answer will surprise none of you, Jeremy Corbyn.”

What I, and hopefully others too should find fairly remarkable about Akala’s post, is that it dares to be nuanced; to read between the lines. He is not bound by tribal allegiances to one faction or another, he thinks for himself, and dares to acknowledge that Corbyn is not perfect – that he has short-comings too:

 “It’s not that I am naive enough to believe that one man (who is of course powerless without the people that support him) can fundamentally alter the nature of British politics, or that I think that if he/Labour win that the UK will suddenly reflect his personal political convictions, or even that I believe that the Prime Minister actually runs the country.

I also recognise that Mr. Corbyn is a human and as such is an imperfect ‘leader’. He was abysmal during the Brexit campaign for example and this whole sense that a left wing exit from the EU was possible via a campaign led by anti-immigrant fervour is to my mind ridiculous.

It seems around this issue Corbyn was more committed to an ideology than reality and how that reality would affect real people. He is a politician, he will make more mistakes, or at least what I deem to be mistakes."

In fact, in some ways Akala seems quite sceptical of Corbyn – describing him as not having an “electric personality”. And even more sceptical of the power he’d physically wield as Prime Minister, when so many members of his party (not to mention parliament) are opposed to the fundamental re-balancing of equality in Britain Corbyn seeks. However, the rapper goes on to succinctly explain why it doesn’t matter; how there is simply far more at stake here than ‘business as usual’ party politics:

In a sense, he smashes every single anti-Corbyn and Abbott-related arithmetical smear in a matter of seconds:

“We do not need perfect politicians, because we are not perfect people ourselves. However for the first time in my adult life and perhaps for the first time in British history someone I would consider to be a fundamentally decent human being – that is, someone who does not want to kill the poor and does not routinely make a habit of rationalising the bombing and invasion of other people’s countries under the rubric of humanitarianism – has a chance of being elected."

Akala goes on at length, and points out how Jeremy Corbyn has championed equality, social justice and peaceful resolution his entire career.  He was one of only thirteen MPs who voted against the disastrous military intervention in Libya in 2011, which undeniably initiated the humanitarian crisis of refugees crossing the Mediterranean, and unleashed the new emboldened ‘war against terror’. When it comes to issues of inherent freedom and moral decency, Corbyn has always been on the right side of history, and has warned countless times where all this aggression will lead.

Akala also goes on to communicate his deep concerns regarding the current Conservative government’s war-like stance and militaristic rhetoric. Controversially, he even suggests that denying the “Trump worshipping Tories” and Theresa May the keys to Number 10 should be an easier decision than US voters faced, deciding between Trump or Clinton:

“I simply think we cannot afford, in this very particular set of circumstances, to not vote. Our brothers and sisters in America were not given an alternative, their options were one war-mongering lunatic vs. another and many of them (almost half the US electorate did not vote at all), quite understandably could not bring themselves to vote for Hilary Clinton, despite the threat of Mr. Trump. Were I an American I must confess I would have done the same. We, however, do have a chance for the first time to vote for the lesser of two evils.”

He warns with specific examples of other countries such as Jamaica and India, and how if they came up against the mighty nationalist will of the US or UK respectively, public opinion could quickly be swung to make them the enemy. Just as the Murdoch/Rothermere/Desmond press now do with EU nations. It doesn’t make for comfortable reading – but that is the point. That’s the world into which Trump and May, and other right-wing politicians are dragging us.

On the NHS

The Kentish Town born rapper also speaks of what should be the key ingredient in this General Election (sadly too often saturated by bickering, nationalistic nonsense and talk of ‘saboteurs’ etc), eg: the NHS. His words are both powerful and poignant:

“There are a great many other progressive policies that make Corbyn a genuinely different candidate from what we have seen before but another very key area – of literally life and death – is the NHS. If you want to see what privatised healthcare looks like just ask any poor American. There are countless American families mired in a lifetime of debt for basic healthcare that citizens of every other industrial country (and Cuba) receive as standard from public money. When I was five I got the measles and nearly died, if I was an American child born into a similarly poor family I would either likely be dead now or my family still paying off the bill.

When I was 10 my mum got cancer, same story. The idea and reality of an NHS is one of the most democratic ideas ever invented, it must be protected at all costs, the Tories have made their intentions in this area quite plain – as has Corbyn. If you are so busy hating those pesky ‘immigrants’ (you know the same darkies and foreign nationals that overwhelmingly staff your NHS) that you can’t see that the Trump worshipping Tories are callous enough to condemn millions of ‘their own’ people to slow and early death because they are poor and because it’s profitable, (as the Republicans just have) then you are unlikely to be reading this anyway. But if you have such people in your family (as I do) please try and talk some sense into them, for their own good.”

Everyone should hear Akala’s thoughts and reasoning on this matter. He, like many, is simply incredulous that a Conservative party so demonstrably keen to deprive its citizens of fundamental human rights can be apparently ‘sweeping to victory’. Voters are not asking themselves the right questions – they’re too caught up in the polarised issue of EU membership to notice we’re actually on the brink of losing far far more, by virtue of this new ‘Anglo-American convergence’.

"The simple fact is, if enough people vote for Corbyn/Labour they will win. In fact there are enough people that did not vote at all in the last election to tip the scales decidedly. A Britain led by the SNP and Corbyn’s Labour would be drastically different – though still far from utopian, whatever that means – to what the Tories have in mind and have clearly told us they intend."

It really is that simple. ‘To be anti-Corbyn at this precise moment in time, is to effectively stand for something far worse’.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m beginning to think Akala should perhaps run for office himself. Few politicians communicate with his clarity. But in the mean time, this remarkably talented and eloquent activist makes it only too clear where he believes votes should go on June 8th. And that is to Jeremy Corbyn.