Easy Targets

"I feel
I'm seeing so clear."

Since a commenter alleged that the last post was taking on an 'easy target,' we figured that we should follow by posting about the band Anathema. We hope they will appreciate this daring form of reader interaction.

The cover features a masked figure, and the album involves many atmospheric and 'distorted' sounds. Like the later 'alternative' genre, it takes the stirring riffs of rock and such, but twists these in a darker direction. Hence, it hangs suspended in an 'inter mundia' both familiar and unfamiliar. It can seem both present and not present - like a hidden truant. In this kind of suspension, figures like the cover's eerie masked one can become effective.

Across the record, various themes are explored, and some will be more amenable to the overall atmosphere. This song is perhaps not the clearest example of this atmosphere, but its wanton and seemingly uncertain imagery of harm, being stabbed in the gut, etc., can accentuate this. It may be compared humorously to taking a pop song, altering the lyrics slightly to be about the singer harming themselves, and then forming this into an aesthetic. Songs like 'Empty' and 'Fragile Dreams,' are more fundamental to this, while songs like this serve to aid them and create a favourable atmosphere. Nonetheless, what hence occurs is akin to a musical 'third way,' an unfamiliar use of familiar themes which can hence be difficult to categorise or portray. 'Fragile Dreams' clearly portrays this with its almost light riffs accompanying depressing themes, to the point that they no longer seem to convey what is expected. Nonetheless, while eerie, this can still be limited: although it alters them, it still opts to contain elements which are more basic. It can hence be 'appreciated' for these, although it misconstrues the record completely. It might seem like a diluted form of despair, closer to the images of contentment which are expected in more popular media: hence, as assimilating and diluting these themes of heavy metal and such genres. It might even seem like dark music accompanied with more calming music as a 'safety net' to prevent the audience from going too far - which is partially accurate, and means that it 'samples' a given pathos without necessarily taking it to the extreme but uncomfortable extents that other music might. Karl Marx can also seem familiar in some ways, with their focus on the economic and association with liberal themes, but nonetheless takes this in a peculiar and unexpected direction. This still leaves plenty of lee-way for more conventional readings.

We will touch on this slightly more elsewhere, but let us attempt to clarify matters slightly. Marx is careful to construe capital as concerned primarily with economic gain, nonetheless when people mention a 'mechanical' focus on the economy they usually mean Marxism. This helps Marxism, however, which people must treat as somewhat respectable because it can seem to resemble capital. It usually only derives its revolutionary tendencies after portraying capital and making this a focus. However, this is not dramatic enough in the modern age, where people want drama from voluntarism and fighting obstacles, and the working out of the central contradictions of a system is far less dramatic and indeed leaves the author little space for anything other than a 'dry' or undramatic account. Nonetheless, a communist author who continually talks about capital instead might seem in many ways tamer. This is possibly not the intent. However,  it also means that parts of its doctrine that might get in people's way or be disruptive to a given system are often obscured, and hence it can seem overly respectable. Its 'dryness' is often the only reminder that most readers will get of these elements, otherwise it keeps itself to itself. To engage with prolonged meditations on capital can be depressing, but Marx often goes on without any 'interest' in relenting. They often tend to prolonged discussion of the economic categories. This is especially grinding due to the promise - even in the author's name - of a more celebratory mention of 'communism.' Hence, the contrast of 'celebratory' sounding rock and depressive or dark themes is quite similar to the portrayal by Marx. Nonetheless, this also leads to a limiting tendency. To celebrate the soldier's gun being aimed at you, and also the struggle against this, is to get precisely nowhere - Marx does not do this, but later 'Marxism' has often sought to make peace with an invasive system that seeks to break it down.

Anathema's album has an eerie cover and slightly mechanical, unexplained name, and its music can often be described in 'eerie' in its superimposing of dark themes over more stirring music. Something might seem 'off' about this combination, or the distortion of one form of music into something quite different, nonetheless it remains in this condition. Hence, it all adds up into a potentially haunting piece of work, at least in its better moments. While it could be developed further, it already has a certain edge to it. Marx, likewise, wrote the book known as 'Das Kapital' named after the highest aspiration of the economic system - by contrast to which it must seem 'tiring' to many readers. It even has the temerity to criticise this. It's often dismissed by now, from 'left' to 'right.' Yet due to more offensive tendencies arising later this 'offensive' nature of the book is obscured - it is treated as simply a 'dead' thing, while of course it freely takes the society's objects of aspiration and rails at them. The fears of the West tend to concern precisely that kind of thing, from 'dystopian' literature to 'Islamophobia' and the attack on Islamic nations. Hence, Marx already contains an offensive tendency, which will be developed by later movements. 'Anathema' are also capable of taking quite celebratory music and distorting it, in a quite serious manner ultimately. I trust that our commenters will complain, 'Well, yes, but look at Anathema's hurt feelings! Being Anathema must make them fragile, but now their feelings are hurt! This is an outrage and we should rise against this kind of thing.' Well, fie on you, disheartened commenters. Fie!

A scarcity of miracles

Speaking of parodies, a journalist has a 'parody' to mention:

 "The bus to the Momentum conference in Liverpool leaves at seven on a Sunday morning in late September from Euston Station, and the whole journey feels like a parody of a neoliberal play about the failings of socialism. We depart an hour late because activists have overslept and we cannot go without them."

Given the Trot insistence on the theory of 'exploitation,' this seems rather to be a socialist parody of whatever this reporter supports. The recent 'right' in the neoliberal stalwart of the USA have seen increasing 'alt right' tendencies bemoaning the persistence of 'cultural Marxism.' No doubt this brave reporter has opted to attempt to exorcise any traces of cultural Marxism or socialism generally from British politics. Although they try to dissociate from these 'neoliberals,' it goes without saying that expecting a political tendency to consign itself to the void without resistance is expecting it to be other than it is. They are more 'neoliberal' than such playwrights, who nonetheless exult in their vulgarised presentation of a nuanced doctrine. Parodying socialism in a capitalist society is like writing a scathing play denouncing National Socialism, a trite commonplace and redundant at this point.

In any case, their derogatory tirade about Corbyn supporters being like 'drug addicts' is a mere personal attack and reduces things to a passive-aggressive rant. Donald Trump is better at angered ranting, for all of his flaws. Regardless, it is a rather out-of-place and demeaning characterisation. As a 19th Century vampire once noted, "I never called upon you and received a courteous reception, and then insulted you." What, then, are we to make of their later 'discussion' of Karl Marx? Presumably they 'talked' about Karl Marx as alcoholics stumble into passing strangers. And the Labour Party is afflicted with a weird case of 'blurred vision,' when people can pass themselves off as allies when they would have the Party and politics generally preach and work against you.

They piously mourn:

"MSM, they might call me – mainstream media. What it really means is: collaborator"

Of course, it could be that they were hoping to group together based on their political dedication, rather than to have people turn up looking to wantonly insult them in public. "I'm a journalist looking to talk about how you lot are drug addicts and generally despicable," seems like a dubious introduction. 

Of course, it's Jeremy Corbyn's supporters who are the real drug addicts in a political sphere where the main alternatives are people who declare war over WMDs that aren't there, and Conservatives. One might wait for the no doubt stringent personal attacks the journalist was planning on delivering to these people, but it does not come - somehow. Indeed, the journalist seems to have no substantial commitment to a movement opposing significant tendencies of the present society. Evidently a supporter of anything nearing radical politics, which tends to work from an unfavourable position and an inimical society, would not weigh as a con of Corbyn that he does not instead work in harmony with the ruling system and hence have an easier task. Before one undertakes a task, says Jesus, one must weigh up the 'sacrifices' that it entails and whether you wish to take all of these. Yet seemingly anything else is met with opprobrium and denigration. And no doubt they would approve of moving Momentum out of the spotlight so that the Labour Party can be dedicated to further such attack on the Corbynites and their politics. If you would prefer something else, you are for working against Corbyn's politics - which is incredibly mild and not in the least radical. Let alone when you attack them like that while disregarding the political context where many would indeed appreciate dismissing the radical left and rubbing them 'further' into the dirt.

The general position of, "I'm your ally, really, but I hope you all die and find nothing more despicable," seems only particularly good for one thing: mud-slinging, and throwing around allegations concerning things that were said, while seeming to remain credible.

The journalist's complaints reach the following crescendo:

"The maddest suggestion I hear is that all media should be state-controlled so that they won’t be rude about a future Corbyn government and any tribute colouring books."

If there is a problem with this alleged suggestion, they are not doing a good job of it.

Yet let us end on the following note:

9/11: Cultural reptilian Marxism, birds, or the Grim Reaper?

In discussing the insidious influence of cultural reptilian Marxism, few events stand out as much as 9/11. Despite rumours of government interference, it seems more likely that reptilians were involved than either the US government or rogue birds. This might seem obvious to some, but nonetheless these are the other popular explanations. The attack struck the World Trade Centre, a financial centre. "Well, alright, that seems like orthodox Marxism," you might say. However, it did this by hijacking flights and altering their direction, in order to head straight into a pair of buildings. The co-ordination necessary for all of this seems more characteristic of a reptilian socialist than occasional terrorists. In addition, the cultural influence of reptilian socialists is furthered by the stressing of their dominance over American society.

The reptilians have effectively infiltrated American society, and could easily tear down buildings which they dislike. This serves to remind Americans of their continuing power over them. Like the 'Black Nobility,' they can arbitrarily discard that which they once valued. This is a conniving decision more characteristic of the reptilian mind than the US government. In addition, attacks by aeroplanes are a powerful symbol in America - in part for historical reasons. That this would all lead to war could hence be precisely calculated by conniving reptilians. The planes, you might say, resemble birds or flying fish more than lizards. This has indeed led some to blame the attack on rogue birds. This accusation is backed up by several close observations on the flight of swallows. Indeed, it seems peculiar that an image which appears, in silhouette, as a flock of birds banging into trees or lamp-posts, could be so immediately evocative and symbolic to the American. Even in silhouette, it can be found disturbing. However, the correct conclusion to draw from this is that it is not the imagery of flying birds, but the hidden reptilian symbolism that the American consciousness finds disturbing. Hence, it must be of reptilian basis, or it would provide little of worth as imagery goes.

A prominent reptilian socialist teaching is that of 'dislodged infrastructure.' According to this, capitalist society is prone to occasionally dislodging parts of its infrastructure - whether normal infrastructure or 'human (non-reptilian) infrastructure. This must be furthered to hasten its decline and replacement by a lizard utopia. This principle is followed in their attempts at cultural encroachment in Western societies, and hence it would be no surprise if it was attempted in this occasion. According to the 'lizarduationist' school of reptilian socialists, such dents in the infrastructure of 'human' reality allow for reptilians to assert their influence in explicit ways. Hence, the perpetrators would seem to be influenced by this. It would also need little prompting to realise that given the patterns the US follows, a war perhaps involving Europe would soon follow. Hence, the reptilians were following recognised patterns, with the Hope of influencing the West generally. Nonethess, Western states could not react with the same fear if this did not evoke in each of them the sense of an immediate threat and polarity - it would not be evocative if the enemy were not in each one. However, this fear would soon be considered near-mandatory. Hence, reptilian influence would soon have to spread through and into all of these countries, until they could take part in this 'world order.' As reptilians are covert, this hence allowed their influence to spread notably.

As a result, it is clear that reptilian influence in this action should be investigated thoroughly. Others have drawn on similarities between the overall figure formed and a scythe, suggesting that it is a result of the Grim Reaper manifesting its destructive power. Hence, the USA and its towers are also a part of what disturbs about the spectacle - it is no longer a scene of contact, but of unanimous destruction by the Reaper. While this seems convincing, the Grim Reaper has few ties to the politics of the attack, which may hence be attributed to reptilian socialists. As a result, the deadly influence of cultural reptilian socialism, that a Trump administration must steadfastly combat, is clearly manifested in the North American event of 9/11.

A caustic criticism of the previous post by a Reptilian Socialist

Greetings, fellow lizardes.

This 'Zero' evidences a peculiar liking for fascist action, all this time ignoring the fundamental character of reptilian socialism. Regardless of the further results, reptilian socialism - and some might call us sectarian for this - are insistent about the reptilian nature of our cause being uncompromised. We do not advocate actions which might compromise us, such as publically listing active reptilians. The more people rush forwards, the more easily they can be manipulated by us reptilians. Although they do us a useful service in disseminating our propaganda, we must avoid elevating mere 'action' without determination - which is a chimera - into a virtue. Further, we cannot lapse into an arbitrary sophism - we must have reasons for choosing this way or that, we cannot both support sophism and then restrict the available sophisms. We cannot speak of an 'action' without abstraction until it is done. We might well then prefer to eschew such talk. We are surprised that 'Zero' can say such things in a serious manner.

Quite apart from the virtues of fascism and our moral objections to it, it diverges from the true reptilian form. It might be said that fascism is like a lizard - if you cut off its tail, it keeps on going, just as defining 'fascism' proves difficult. It might also be said that 'Zero Nowhere' does not declare themselves a Nazi or fascist in the article. They do not even declare their support for death camps, or write '88' everywhere. That is true, and you might ask why we are then spending so much time on this one element. Nonetheless, it goes without saying that fascists are not to be applauded for spreading 'fascism,' enacting genocide and so on. Nor are we to participate in public displays of mourning which are covert means of promoting bourgeois politicians. People have many intentions that we do not support, we would therefore rather avoid these. We would therefore rather demand people of beliefs that will not harm or annoy us, before we demand they enact these.

We contend that attacking people for not doing 'something' is merely a dishonest attempt at having them do something for you. All beliefs limit certain actions. It is hence not 'socialism,' but the lack of beliefs, which holds this limitation to be bad per se. Yet to type, just as to do anything else, is to act with a purpose - and often a more sophisticated one. It is only this kind of action that allows us to determine our actions or whatever else in a way which is not merely passive. Hence, we must not disparage socialists for being - socialists. If we did, one might well question our purpose. However, we are true-blue reptilian socialists, and hold dogmatically to the tenets of lizard socialism. We are not reptilian Nazis, whatever they may be called.

Hence, if you would request something of us lizard socialists, then be careful. Although reptilians might seem innocuous due to our control of pop music and favouring of it as a means of propaganda, we are actually quite ferocious. If a person or group declares themselves 'socialist,' they will first have to qualify this in several ways or they will be conflated with other things. Yet they were attempting to explain their beliefs, and must hence continue on. One would conclude that they cannot truly have a problem with such things. Our use of music has often been attacked and rebuffed, and eventually we discovered that it was - like bourgeois politics - flashing lights which encourage people to continue on in the system. Hence, we merely coquette with it - as it is more fit for prostitutes than true reptilians. Besides, despite its claims the call to 'action' as such has little clear appeal: in a political and partisan context people are 'talking,' they are not running into each other. Hence, the range of 'actions' involved is limited. We feel that all action to get 'what people want' tends to be mediated, and otherwise spills out into crime. We would rather avoid 'action' which is consequential but problematic. We make few demands, but stringent limitations. Hence, we hope that the article's author understands our reluctance about the article and what it advocates.

Genocide in action (is much better) [satire]

Despite its many flaws, fascist movements have often had the leftist virtue of action. They have murdered, declared wars and organised death camps. As leftists, we must no doubt applaud all of this. Otherwise we would not be true socialists. We would be something else - fascists, for instance. Although we object to fascism, their going ahead and killing people - which is what they believe in - is a good thing and much better than any alternative. If we are to have any criticism of 'National Socialists,' it is that they do not call themselves instead, 'Cosmic socialists,' for the indeed colossal size of their socialism.

Hipster Nazism, in point of its beliefs, is essentially correct - it doesn't believe in much, and is into Nazism for its admittedly sophisticated aesthetic. However, they ought to go further and kill people on this vague basis. As long as people kill others, what does it matter what they believe or why they do this? Blind faith is such a positive spur, that all communists should be Catholics and vice versa. Instead of asking whether we like a pet, we should commit bestiality. And possibly hope for the best. Instead of considering drugs, poisons and so on, we should do them - and then be too incapacitated to determine things anyway. Forgive us if this sounds like an advertisement for the WWE or a dicey product.

Hence, although humans often act consciously, we must follow the character in Dracula and profess a communism of sleep-walking. Then they could admittedly murder people, but in their sleeping actions they are truly communist. Although capitalism is a society centred around the 'hope' of indefinite monetary accumulation and ever-increasing acquisition, it requires as its concomitant a 'socialism' and Church that wishes piously for all of these hopes to occur. Yet some of them cannot - they are caught up in contradictions, and once enacted undermine themselves. However, communism resides where actions fail, not where they succeed. We must hence abandon communism for cheerleading - and indeed many 'socialists' would wish to be major capitalists or capitalist spokesmen 'in practice.' But they are hemmed in from this latter aim by something else, whatever you may wish to call it. Hence, it is against this other element that they have declared a Crusade. Then it need be no surprise that the Labour Party supported the Iraq War - it was enacted with a fervent lack of consideration. Some would say that it was a 'sophism' in favour of a given class or nation, which is their right; others that it was disorganised. Yet it seems then that New Labour are the true 'socialists.'

A Related Article

We'd like to bring readers' attention to this article by Matthew Turner, which is along similar lines to our last post. It is recent, dating to Monday the 6th of March. It deals with ways that Jeremy Corbyn can clarify the Party's message and consolidate the position of their politics by dispelling the prominent 'moderate' dissenters. While all of this sounds harsh, due to the risk of continually being undermined by their own Party it is merely an attempt to restore some direction to the organisation. This is especially the case where the Party can be held hostage by notable financial backers and those more reluctant who fund other Parties, who see an opposition to Corbyn that might often attempt more to placate them. While this is merely an obvious manner in which money can easily dominate 'politics,' and Parties are punished for avoiding this, it does nonetheless allow even an often scattered opposition to take on a locus of strength and act to threaten the leadership. When Hamlet fought Laertes, even if it was an even fight Laertes had only to prick him at some point to kill him. Hamlet would have a more difficult time killing Laertes, if they attacked without poison. Likewise, Corbyn's campaign can easily come up against a 'wall' of sorts - despite resisting opponents within the Party, this dissent can easily rear its head again and expects to regain control of the Party as well. Hence, their opponent can seem to simply appear 'unscathed' every time it is mown down. As such, the article's suggestion, that of preventing the opposition to Corbyn from establishing firm footholds in the Party, need not be taken as that left-field if you like.

The 'wall' that the Corbynites have encountered has played an important part in recent coverage and reception of them. Coverage of the Corbynites has continually assumed that a negative remark - say attacks on his position on Israel and the Queen - would be taken further and extrapolated into damning statements by members of his own Party. The Conservatives have generally just sat back and taunted Corbyn about the disunity and so on, hoping to encourage anti-Corbyn talking points within his Party. Outside of this they have been remarkably 'placid' around a radicalism which they should be going out of their way to denounce, suggesting that they might be too shaken by their own internal divisions to put up a serious political front. If their politics are different from Corbyn's, they don't seem to feel like mentioning it or caring. Hence, it seems necessary that these voices within the Party certainly not be given further influence, but also that they be removed from the spot-light they currently occupy. In an economic system which is hostile to such a political trend, especially as it is fragile after years of being attacked, it would hence be important to not allow for hostility to easily surround the Party leadership. From there, the task is simplified as the Party can at least present itself in a clear manner.

Turner urges the following to ensure coherence in the Party:

"For the first time during Corbyn’s tenure, Labour would have a bold, unified and coherent party message that isn’t being contradicted every other hour by figures from their own party. The harsh reality is that the only way this will be possible is by replacing the right wingers in the Labour Party."

This is supplemented by measures such as the following:

"In short, Corbyn must fight back. He needs to take control of the party before he can take control of the country, otherwise he is nothing but a sitting duck. One of the ways this can be achieved is through enabling the democratic right of CLPs to reselect and deselect their parliamentary candidates, and organising in order to ensure that young, up and coming, “fire in the belly” left wingers replace those who are actively seeking to undermine the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn."

While attempting to saturate the Party with people who will attempt to further their political strand would be worthwhile, and give them a further advantage in organisation, some of the means suggested by the article could of course be potentially double-edged. Relying on approaches which draw too much on circumstances is dangerous, as it could endanger their political trend if these alter. Nonetheless, the general policy of trying to ensure further influence through the Labour Party is by all means a decent one. In addition, the recent Labour Party election set in process things which should be continued despite the lack of such elections, such as using the Labour Party apparatus to win the rank-and-file over and hence further secure the Party. While the opposition, which we may call the 'Blair Witch Project' after two of its major participants, can be loud, ultimately Corbyn's Labour can attempt to under-cut them by presenting a picture of politics in which that known as 'Corbynism' plays an integral role. If it is hard to see a politics without them, then they gain an ability to more easily under-cut their opponent. Corbyn framing his views in terms of opposition to a 'rigged economic system' does go in this direction, however it also leads to the more troubling portrayal of a Party where other members work in harmony with this 'rigged economic system' - a treacherous position to be sure. Nonetheless, it does display the ability of Corbyn's movement to take on current political themes and use them for a more radical agenda, which suggests that they have little reason to not continue the movement.

Hence, the aim of unifying the Labour Party in Corbyn's situation is in the right direction. However, we do have a few qualms with the article. Firstly, while it claims that Corbyn has not shown strict or authoritarian trappings, their stubbornness during the resignations saga leading up to their re-election would seem to suggest otherwise. They could stand to act in a more authoritarian manner over their Party, in certain aspects, but it isn't something that they have neglected. They have often allowed others to leave or be removed if they don't comply with the direction of the leadership and movement. Further, the focus of the article is more immediate than the movement need expect: while Corbyn's movement are reviving from a highly hostile political climate, and continue to experience issues with this, their aim should hence be consolidation rather than fanfare. They must attempt to avoid further episodes of political relegation so far as they are given space to do so. Having gained time, they can certainly look to various events - but the risk of staking too many expectations on an event and then experiencing troubles is a looming danger. The Mahabharata famously involves gambling things away in a distinctly uneven context - this is something that the movement should avoid. Hence, clarifying the Party's stance is not only a question of immediate 'momentum,' but a policy that is by itself advisable by this point.

The article is hence worth reading for those interested in this issue or in Britain. Alternatively, you can turn to the Daily Mail for exciting news on Theresa May, and Prince Harry's (no relation to certain others called Harry) relationship with Meghan Markle. You would assume that whether or not Harry is indeed a bespectacled character from a novel, Meghan Markle sounds eerily similar to recent reality show drop-out Megan Marx. Does this confirm a secret Marxist plot to rule England? In any case, as in the elections, you can really figure out whom you'd rather focus on.

Labour Party: Sometimes you kick, sometimes you get kicked

The current Labour Party is compromised by what you could call an acute case of 'false friends.' While many in the Party, and especially those like the Iraq war's promoter Tony Blair, have closer ties to the Conservatives than to Jeremy Corbyn, they can still freely pretend to be 'allied' spokemen who care about the 'Labour Party.' To be frank, they would not care at all for Corbyn's Labour Party, preferring the more securely bourgeois 'adversary' in the Conservative Party. But this is the only 'Labour Party' and Labour Party authority structure that currently exists. Many in the Labour Party still support the monarchy and showing obeisance to them, for what it's worth. Hence, the attempt to portray this all as one, coherent Party is actually just to allow the Party to undermine itself 'from the inside.' And many of the Party's participants, politicians, 'celeb' backers, and sources of funding, would much prefer to avoid even the possibility of targeting the 'rigged economic system.' Nonetheless, if all of these can claim some sort of artificial unity with little political basis, it means that the Party's stance is compromised and it is subject to continual internal obstacles. When this is the case, going further to tackle other obstacles can be difficult - at least before settling down.

Corbyn's position is often acknowledged to be insecure - the Party apparatus has been heading in a different direction for a while. Hence, they increasingly find themselves having to carve out some sort of niche to secure their politics. In addition, they have unsurprisingly faced attack from their own Party and the corporate or state media, and hence taken on a slightly isolationist tendency which has kept them secure. It can be difficult to write a sentence when, during the latter half, the pen takes on a will of its own and 'like a creature by love possessed' starts spewing out attacks on what you just wrote. At the least you could reserve a paragraph for yourself, as the radical elements of the Corbyn campaign have attempted, but then the rest is left free to contextualise and attack this. At the least they can get across their message and preserve it in a hostile political climate, hence opening the door to this for more radical tendencies if they'd like.

However, by resigning their opposition have at least allowed them the chance of consolidating their political place. The opposition to Corbyn cannot simply manifest, but would need notable re-organisation due to the indiscipline of its representatives. This hence allows for the task of Corbyn's movement, along with holding fort, also to involve utilising their organised nucleus to promote their politics' continuity while other tendencies are forced to remain disorganised. This is hence an era where the emphasis should be on aggressively carving out a place in British politics, and not on hoping for success when anything near radical politics has been sermonised against for decades. Needless to say, a somewhat marginalised and subversive political view should not condone the situation of allowing every major organisation to attack it. That would be suicidal, and hence Corbyn - who associates with such ideas in part because they have become important to his setting up a siege mentality - is really under no pressure to leave. Their campaign is subject to constant adversity from even 'moderate' liberal areas, and this adversity will press radical elements to consolidate themselves. Others, such as Owen Jones, who are only pseudo-radicals and media figures, will of course turn aside in the name of 'labour' requiring yet further bourgeois illusions hampering them. That is their vocation, after all.

In the post-Trump era, then, the US left is perhaps worse placed than ever to formulate its movement. The more they express their generic outrage at Trump's election, the more they pick up unwanted allies extending even to Hillary Clinton. The more the outrage, the more they express a clear preference for the Democratic alternative - and become appendages of the avowedly moderate, liberal Democratic Party. Hence, they can easily be undermined, or are if you like held on a strict leash. As such, it will take clarity to return to a task which is not that different under Trump to recent periods of interference in the Middle East and various cuts at home. As for those who find Trump a shocking new phenomenon, but consider Blair and the Iraq War leaders to be leftist saints, we need only observe that their stance on this issue can seem cheap.

Dispatch from Reptilian Khrushchev

Greetings, humans. This is a broadcast from the secret organisation of reptilians.

We interrupt the rigged economic system to bring you the following message. Over the years, we have continued to exercise a maleficent influence over your culture, and covertly manipulated it to our reptilian and socialistic ends. We have successfully immigrated into your countries and infiltrated positions of importance with reptilians - our official statisticians say that this counts for around one of three leading figures in your nations. You can no longer trust your politicians, nor your 'grassroots' organisations which are more easily infiltrated.

We therefore consider it an apt time to announce our presence, and our status as a hidden international superpower. We shall continue to manipulate and govern your nations, despite your earnest wishes otherwise. All who wish to side with us would be advised to learn the words of this song, the Reptilian Flag. It is optimally sung alongside a collection of people who inspire fear in the West, such as terrorists, anti-Semites and reptilians. We are told that nations have as it were an 'anthem,' which we are told is like a theme song or entrance music in wrestling, so we have prepared one for ourselves. To do this we have, in the best reptilian fashion, expropriated the work of ordinary 'communists' and brought them to serve our ends. The song is as follows:

The reptile's flag is deepest blue,
It shrouded oft our lizard socialists,
And ere their blood grew stuff and cold,
Their words fell in its open folds.
   Then raise our reptilian tapestry high,
In its security we'll live and hide,
Though conspiracy theorists flinch,
While lizards sneer, we'll remain here.

This will hopefully clarify the question of socialism's covert influence, which has oft been speculated about. The reptilian Soviet Union remains both a source of scandal among the nations, and a true opposition. You cannot have token respectability by attacking the predominant mode of conduct, in a genuine manner.

Capitalistic Education

A government-sponsored curriculum for a subject called 'Capital in the Home' is already making rounds. Justine Greening has reportedly given her blessing, saying, "Of course, the government should be taken as enlightened preachers in matters of capital's esteem in the household. We believe we will give people an accurate and tolerant evaluation of capital and the capitalist system." However, the move for government guidance of the household has been decried by some, notably among the radical left. Many supporters of Jeremy Corbyn have also been stirred into an out-cry against this, with one Corbynite saying, "We can't allow the Tories this kind of liberty, nor most Labour MPs. But if the government wants to be involved in such things, it seems suspect to denounce us as overly 'radical' for increasing our scrutiny." However, Owen Jones among others seem to be enthusiastic about the decision, saying, "It's about time the Tories started to focus on the younger generation of conservatives, hence guaranteeing further MPs for both Labour and Conservative Parties. It really is awfully generous of them, and an impressive bipartisan decision."

Aspects of the curriculum which have been criticised include tasks such as posters listing the virtues of a given capitalist and set-pieces where students have to act as a family and organise their homes in order to best accord with their high respect for capital. One activist has snidely remarked, "These portrayals are like pornography of capital." Another has said that the government seem to be attempting to respond to pressures against capitalism by normalising it in the conduct of children. Corbyn has not yet given feed-back, but is expected to say on PMQs, "We cannot attempt to make the rigged economic system a part of children's education. It is clear, hypocritical government subterfuge. This is how we will be remembered."

Meanwhile in Scotland, Trumpeon has not commented much on the issue, but has at least stated on his controversial Twitter feed, "They gonna teach that I'm Hitler too? #Britain." This was followed up with, "Any Scottish authors caught helping them to be sent to St. Andrew's and shot, this time. Or burnt at stake. #DegenerateArt" It is said that this post was only slightly facetious.

The Scottish Trump

In the aftermath of Scotland's controversial secession from the UK, the left have been thrown into disarray. The anti-immigrant preachings of the SNP leader, Nick Trumpeon, have led to much animosity from the moderate left. "Why are the mountains there," says Trumpeon, "if we are to allow for English immigration? Or even for fraternal relations with the Englishmen? All of this must be stopped immediately." To the incredulity of many, this was met by widespread cheers and hooting, as well as a bunch of skinheads leaping around in joy. Trumpeon continues, "After all, what is Scotland but a load of mountains, eh? Let us unite behind hope, change, and a free Scotland!" Apart from a few jeers from onlookers, calling him things like 'twat' and 'Scottish sh*t,' this is met with a positive reception from the audience. Surprisingly, the usual accusations of 'fascism' and divisiveness do not seem to matter to this audience.

The SNP's triumphant accession has been accompanied, to be clear, with occasional efforts at bipartisanship. For instance, Trumpeon once stated, "So this Jeremy Corbyn bloke stands against the rigged economic system? Well, we stand against the rigged economic system, and immigration!" The audience met this with a brief pause for consideration, and then an almost genteel applause. He followed with, "Well, them Tories though. They're trying to dismantle the NHS? Well, we want to dismantle the NHS, and immigration!" After himself pausing, he continued, "Actually let's dismantle the United Kingdom!"

Nonetheless, these attempts have often been met with summary rebuke, and he retains a reputation for divisiveness. Even many who were in favour of Scottish independence have turned against his Party. Trumpeon's response, "They claim to be in favour of Scotland, but they ain't, they just like it 'cause it sounds like 'school' and they're nerdy teacher's pets," was generally found decisive. The victory of the Scottish cause followed after, and was met by widespread celebration in Scotland. When asked what an independent Scotland would be like, he said, "Well not that different. Nationalist Scotland will be precisely what you'd expect." With that kind of re-assurance from the ruling Scottish Party, Britons can probably rest assured that Scotland despite the controversy will not be a major centre of furore.