It's not tolerance; it's humanity.

Just before I get into this, can I just register my disappointment with the electoral registry people who seem to think that I wanted to be registered to vote fifty-miles from where I live and in person. A four-hour round trip, £20, and somehow fitting around 5 hours of lectures and getting home in time to see the results start to come in? Fuck that. Democracy sucks. Worth it though. Any way, that's just a little rant I wanted to shove up here. Pankhurst might have indirectly died for the cause, but I'm suffering more. Frcereal.

So what I want to lecture on today - yes, lecture - is the overuse of italics. No, it's not. I'm being facetious. What I really want to talk about is immigration. For once in my life I have drawn out a rough plan of what I want to argue, so I'm going to see if I can take the unprecedented step of formulating a cohesive and logical argument, through a normative structure which actually reads properly. It's unlikely that I'll manage it, because I normally reserve my slices of logic for my academic work - but I will do my best regardless. At least with reasoned aforethought I can pretend I have an ounce of common sense.

Reason dictates that I start by discussing just what immigration is, and then explain why I (though borrowing heavily from academia) think it is necessary. Defined as the one-way migration of people or peoples to a new place, or into a new population; it actually has much broader importance. Immigration underpins societal development and growth both economically, politically, genetically, and socially.

Without economic stimulation from international communities - both through trade agreements with no tangible immigration, and new specialisms and skills migrating into a country - we are left with budgetary stasis. We end up with hugely mounting deficits and an untenable black hole in our finances. Economic growth shapes employment, individual finance, education, housing; in essence, without economic growth and stimulation a society starts to slow down, starts to stop, and then starts to regress and shrink. You cannot function as a solely sovereign state without at least economic ties with other nations. Again, you cannot function as a solely national society because without an influx of new skills, trades, specialisms, and whatnot, you will start to fall behind the world. Maintaining a superpower, for instance, would be an impossible dream. The American dream would be shattered into a million pieces. The UK 'dream', already, suffers from a lack of skilled workers. They haven't been deciding to track across to us. The UK issues, however, I will come onto later (in reference to the EU, among other things).

In terms of politics as well, immigration underpins - and occasionally undermines - ideological shifts and tracts. A society cannot claim to be a republic based on the freedoms of peoples if it limits or prevents people from entering, or leaving. Apolitical autocracy would be the dominate pattern, and it would slowly start to ruin the place. We learn and we develop by testing systems, seeing how they work. Without immigration and communication with other places we would become a guinea-pig in our own sick experiments; finally ceasing to exist as a sentient entity. This is ignoring the obvious link with the economy: without the immigration population funding a sizeable chunk of governmental spending, we'd have no need for a political system. Simply, there aren't enough people - without immigrants - to fill the need of an operational country.

Genetically, immigration is a necessity. Miscegenation and genetic variance is imperative to the required evolution of a developing populace. Rough reading around done, I can't say a whole lot more about genetics...'cause, ya know... pretty crap at science.

Leaving the most obvious to last is always a good technique I feel, so here it is: socially. Imagine a world devoid of multiculturalism; one achromatic mass of sprawling bodies, clamorous, seething over one another in a dreary, uneducated monotone. A mound of lifelessness and depression. A grey world, in short. No variety in language, in religion, in politics, in conversation, in any form of social interaction. It would be horrendous. Nationalism is fine, but, man, can you imagine a world where the only people you ever meet are from your country? I shudder to think about it. That's more frightening than an Orwellian state of security, as far as I am concerned. So, again, immigration is necessary for a society to grow, to develop, to move forwards when needed, and to regress when needed; immigration, emigration, and diaspora are conduits for the ever evolving global consciousness. Our tangible link to one another: an existentialist dream, in short; connections forged through connections, with individuals ever present; unaffected by external drive, acting merely on their own volition (excluding refugees, obviously). That's context and benefit done, then.

Naturally, as with any system of transfer, there are kinks and issues. You cannot always connect to the internet, can you? So it follows reasonably that there will always be problems to address with such systems as immigration. There are costs, people, of course they are. This isn't a utopian world, I'm afraid. So what are the costs, and why are they bearable? First off there is the tangible cost to a country. Immigration is expensive: it effects housing, unemployment, welfare, public sector services. It's logical that the more people you have, the more money you have to spend to look after these people. To me, if I were to have a baby right this minute I would be bearing a cost exactly the same as if I were to invite an immigrant to come a live with me. Obviously, there is no familial tie, and there is the nationalistic side to the argument - but on a meta-level there is no difference. That is just a person, I am just a person, we are just people; irrespective of colour, creed, sexuality, height, whatever the hell you want. Nationhood dictates that we should prioritise our own above that of others; I disagree. Being proud of who you are, and where you are from, includes - and needs - the belief that we are all equal. If I were proud of my country it would be because I can turn around and say 'yes, come here. You are I.' I'm not proud, but that's a whole other debate. So that's no more cost than having a child. Perhaps a fallacy, but on a real level it is one and the same. Yet if I were to do one action after the other I would be greeted by wholly different reactions. Immigrants are seen as invaders; babies as a blessing. Let's face it, babies look fucking weird. They're more alien looking. Creepy. So that's money. What else is there?

LOSS OF IDENTITY. You know what identity is, right? Constructs of layers folded together into a cohesive form? An ever-changing, shape-shifting indescribable phenomenon which defies convention, labelling, and language? Identity is a word; what identity is is impossible to describe adequately in words. It is a feeling, a disguise for discontent, a mask, a crutch, formality and normalisation. Identity is love. It needs no identity in itself, how ironic. Unidentifiable identity. I like that. If you're talking about national identity, and the loss of, then I'm afraid you're woefully misinformed of what it is to be a part of a national identity. National identity is a not a standalone concept: a prerequisite of forming any kind of identity is adapting, and adopting, the cultures and ethos of others. It is needed. It is warranted. A national identity would be an umbrella term for multiculturalism; your identity does not need to be part of others'; assimilation is not the same as homogenization. That is the crucial difference. Separate parts of society can function as a mass, individual and present -- working together. When cultures are adopted they do not supersede or usurp other ones; they simply become a part, apart from the rest, but included within it. This is all fairly confusing, sorry. Do you see what I'm saying? There doesn't need to be a loss of identity when other identities are introduced; if anything it should help bolster and firm up your own identity; adding, and enriching, pointing out flaws and positives.

THEY TURK UHR JEEEEEERBS. No, they didn't. I will get to that. So where is the cost? What am I missing?

There are misconceptions aplenty; the immigration debate is stilted and contained beneath this misappropriated title of 'racism'. It is not racist to discuss limitations and problems with immigration. That's a ludicrous suggestion by any standards. The misinformation does not stop with making it taboo, however, oh no: immigration is blamed as being the cause of economic downturns, of sheltering and harbouring illicit activities, of decreasing national productivity; and immigrants themselves are accused of stealing jobs, taking welfare, living off the state with no right to it. Take today's climate as representative, for example; we are suffering through a global recession of proportions unknown to most people in our generation. The worldwide economic slump has been galvanized by overspending, miscalculating, and gambling. Emergency quantitative easing, and other economic stimulus packages, are the only things which are keeping us afloat: contingency bailouts and nationalisation of the banking industries wan't forecast, but it was foreseeable. If you turn to someone on the street, however, and ask them why no one has got a job, why no one has got any money, why the country is bankrupt then chances are you might get the response 'immigrants'. A reasonable deduction, perhaps. People at home to fallacy would probably recognise it as cum hoc ergo propter hoc: there are more people here at the moment. There are fewer jobs. Thus the people are to blame. It's not really a correct deduction: the increase in people is contributory to the final result; but symptomatic happenstance is not causation. Yes the increase in people limits the job market, but it does not in fact cause joblessness: a malfunctioning marketplace causes joblessness. A thriving marketplace should theoretically flourish and grow under an increasing volume of skills and trades. Mass immigration is a problem, I am not trying to deny that, but it is not the cause of all of our issues.

Adding to this is the fact that the statistics do indicate that people whose jobs have been 'taken' are the same people who refuse to do work which is deemed 'menial' or 'beneath them'. Apathy in the sector is indicative of listlessness and laziness. People are offered jobs, when they are reliant on the state, and they refuse; before lamenting how immigration is killing industries which used to employ local people. In times of hardship we should be willing to turn our hand to anything. The new skills as well will help us adjust to an increasingly unreliable future. We need to sure up our knowledge and expertise in renewable energy; to become a leader. This creation of jobs is inextricably linked with new specialisms. Look, I'm not saying that what we have at the moment is perfect - far from it - but I am saying that with analysis and progress, we could be living under a fundamentally better system. We are all too happy to bleat about fundamental human rights of our own people, but when it comes to others well to hell with them. THEY TURK UHR JERBS. Learn words. These are rights innate in civilization. Go with it, please?

For Britain, quite a few of the problems have come with the connection to Europe. This connection, however, raises the most important misconception. People are confusing freedom of movement with immigration. They are different. Within the EU you are, normally, allowed to freely move between countries and to live. Freedom of movement, with normal transitional controls, is integral to what it is to be in the union. If you didn't want that, go vote UK:IP. Everyone else is for it. When you are complaining about mass immigration you are entertaining misuse. It's not immigration; it's movement. If you actually look at the numbers of immigrants then you will be shocked. They're not exactly unmanageable. Or at least they wouldn't be if we were to be able to run a country properly and fairly. Immigration means from outside the EU, right? Got that? Good. This segues rather neatly into party perspectives, I suppose, and I feel obliged to at least glance at them given the upcoming general election (under seven days away now).

The Conservatives want to put a cap on immigration, but given the fact that we're already in the EU, and they will not pull us out under the manifesto, we will still be groaning under the influx of EU residents settling here. They are proposing to arbitrarily limit the amount of people who can enter the country from outside the EU. This cap, in itself fundamentally pointless because 80% of UK settlers come from inside of the EU, would thus exclude people over a certain number. This is because the Conservatives would lead you to believe that a cap stems freedom of movement, but it does not; they propagate the idea that a cap would prioritise people who deserve to be here above those who simply want to move. It would not. If anything it would further prevent those would-be residents from getting here. What if you were the ten-thousandth-and-one person? Who sets the limit? How is it drawn up, and why? It's arbitrary and combats nothing, because of the EU. Give us something useful. It's a 'reaction' to the surge of people who have entered the country under a shambolic Labour system. Like I say, however, it doesn't work and it makes no sense.

Labour want to bring numbers down by a significant amount. They have already introduced the 'points-system' (to be seen in Canada and Australia, etc.), but about thirteen years too late. They want to bring in biometric identity cards (grossly invasive, as far as I am concerned), and monitor people coming in and going out. Again, thirteen years too late. They would also only want skilled workers. Slightly more reasoned than the Conservative policy, but only just. The problem is that we had a free-for-all. It was nigh-on 'open-door', and it crippled us. Given the climate we were unable to cope. Labour alone are not to blame, but they did nothing to help. Get rid of them, they cannot be trusted to deal with immigration reasonably.

The Lib Dems are offering an idealist's dream. An amnesty - that's what it is, Clegg, stop denying it - to people who have been living here illegally for ten-years or more, a dedicated border patrol, and exit controls as well. On top of restricting the amount of people who can enter, obviously. The amnesty seems like a good idea, to be honest, because it basically says 'we know you're out there somewhere, but we don't have the time, money, or resources to look for you. So just come out and you can stay.' They plan to penalise people with community payback (volunteer work and the like) when they become legally integrated into our system. They also plan to draw the illegal immigrants away from exploitative criminal gangs. It sounds great, again. Naturally, the main objection would be that people will simply doff their shadow-capes and come to live off the state. Another burden on the crumbling economic infrastructure of our beating heart. It's speculative, but Clegg has maintained that it is a one-off. And, let's face it, something has to be done. There's no point in ignoring the problem. They'd also regionalise immigration: sending new recruits to areas where they were needed. If I had to pick one, I'd go with this, simply because it's humane and reasonable; though not necessarily reasoned.

I want an ideal world, I do. What would we have in an ideal world? We would have an economy functioning properly, and ways to facilitate mass immigration. We would have limits on freedom of movement (tens of thousands a year is too much) and we would have a points-system. We would have people staying where they want in this country. We would have freedoms and human rights: incorporating other cultures into our own. Hugging each other in a hippy dreamscape. We would have a housing infrastructure which could cope with new people, and we would have a job market which rewards people based on their merits; which doesn't profile on race, or prioritise on PC-induced equality. We would, in essence, be civilization. Realistically, however, some of these things are just a pipe-dream of my ideologies. I think we could reinforce the points-system, we could regionalise settling, we could have enough housing, and we could have enough jobs. This will only be when the economy is fixed again, though. Until then we need to be miserly with our policy. I hate to be parsimonious, it's one of my things, but sometimes we have to be. There simply isn't enough money to go around at the moment, and we cannot spare it to thousands of people surging across from within the EU. 'But how do we improve, Jack?'

Well, we start to regulate immigration and freedom of movement. Make it a requirement to speak an adequate level of English, make it a requirement to have a skill that we need, make it a requirement that there is a job available to people wishing to move here. A lot of people, from Poland in particular, came here when we joined the EU and did a lot of manual-labour. Became plasterers and plumbers. Made loads of money, sent it all home. Bankrupted us, then fucked off. That can't happen. That's not racist to begrudge someone who does that, that's logical. I lament a country which forces its citizens to do things like that, and I loathe us for allowing it to happen. Too busy revelling in the glory of our economic prosperity. Up on the dizzying heights of America-fucking, we became enamoured with power and greed; we became lazy and ignorant; our propensity for leadership became our downfall -- ignoring the small to look at the big. So what we need to do now is start fixing the economy, right this second. Get banks lending, and get the industries back on their feet. Then we can start to cope with the amount of people who have entered this country - both legally and illegally - and once we start to do this, we can learn how to accommodate more and more. This country needs to expand if we are to grow as a people. In the meantime, whilst we sort out our finances, we need stricter controls and regulation; we need to curb illegal immigration, and we need to incentivize finding work for people who are here legally. If we can get people into work, doing whatever is required of them, then we can both reduce the burden on the state, and start an economic recovery.

I always plead for tolerance, it's like my thing. I will berate you until you agree with me, and shout and ignore when you don't. This time, however, folks, I'm simply too disappointed in us to do that. I can't plead for tolerance, because tolerance this is not. This is humanity. We've forgotten what it is to be connected. We have forgotten what culture is, what identity is, what being a person is. We have forgotten what we are, and who we are. We have forgotten how we are. I cannot beg for tolerance, when all I wish for is humanity.

A bastion of unpopular views.

"Oh my God, Jack. That's fucking disgusting. What the hell is wrong with you?"

Leaving aside the multitude of obvious things, today's problem was that I was defending 'perpetrators' or statutory rape. For the uninitiated (what the hell is wrong with me? I had this problem yesterday. I'm not intending to make it sound like there's a sort of club for people who bone under-16s), statutory rape is penetrative sex between a man over the age of consent and a girl below the age of consent. So in the UK, basically a guy over 16, boning an under 16. It's not a difficult concept to imagine, I fancy. Wait. No. Again with the disgusting choice of words. Ah, bugger it. So to speak. Obviously, statutory rape is different from rape in that rape is - if proven - a proven accusation levelled against someone that they willingly and knowingly forced penetrative sex on an unwilling party. Someone who hasn't consented, basically. Stat-rape (not to be confused with the Latin statim, please) thus requires a willing accuser and willing witnesses. Consent is irrelevant. As far as I am aware there hasn't been anyone prosecuted for this in a bloody long time. As with most things I discuss, however, it's not quite as black and white as I would lead you to believe. With that in mind, I am going to ignore things like sexual assault (in this context relevant because it is an 'of-age' woman against an under-age boy), and sexual assault (homosexual statutory rape, I suppose). And just for your own knowledge of this, statutory rape is more 'properly' known as unlawful sexual intercourse. Obviously, I should be discussing all of these things - but because I don't have the time, mental energy, or thoughts, I'm not going to. Again, with that in mind you can probably take my thoughts here as representative of my thinking re: all of the other issues involved in these things. The main reason I'm only talking about statty is because that is what I was forced to defend earlier today in a law seminar.

Being embroiled in arguments where I come out looking like a paedophile/kidnapper/man with a love of bestiality/holocaust denier etc. is not an uncommon thing for me. Having ridiculously open views on subjects means that you quite often come across as somewhat... eccentric in your thinking -- if you'll permit me to trivialise so awfully. Now, this is probably attributable to two things: unreasonable opponents, and frustration. I can debate well, when I have time to formulate my arguments properly; unfortunately, such is life, this is not a normal circumstance. Things just sort of... happen. Couple that with people who will just shout over you until you cannot be bothered to respond any more = you being a bigot, rapist, kidnapper. As with today, as with the defence of statutory rape. As with my denunciation of the legal age of consent in Britain. My declamation simple: age of consent is arbitrary. My argument simple: statutory rape is unenforceable, and cannot be captured with an umbrella law - there is a need for individual analysis of each circumstance. Their rebuttal: age of consent is the law. Their argument simple: I'm disgusting. That's me. Not them. That's. Yeah. There we go. Not so simple, eh? This is post-modernism at its worst.

Basically I think that in most circumstances an act of statty would simply be a couple who had been in a relationship for a length of time and then the male has turned 16 whilst the girl is still under-age. Seems reasonable, doesn't it? I don't get how you can object, to be honest. I don't need to make my argument. Someone explain why my position makes me a defender of rapists and I will think of a counter-argument. Until then, go use your common sense.

Teenage ba-doink-a-doink.

Given my total and absolute disassociation from all of life, or as so categorised by my therapist as 'disengagement, total apathy and sociopathy', I have decided to turn my ire on an issue raised slightly below us. If we take the professional diagnosis as a given, then I feel obliged to do something tangible to rectify the situation. As you can see from my recent stuff, most of it has just been pondering how and why I should kill myself. Having failed twice, however, perhaps someone is trying to tell me that I should try a different tack. Tack is a horrible word, incidentally. Any naysayers can, by-the-by, go fuck themselves: a pyrrhic victory is still a victory. Random rage out of the way: what's wrong with teen fucking?

Abstinence

Anyone who has taken an abstinence pledge should be rounded up and shoved into a concentration camp. In my utopia, however, no one is persecuted simply for being a moron; and thus, fear not, this is not the same as a Nazi concentration camp -- in mine all we ask you to do is concentrate on facts, and not let irrationality guide your decisions. You can believe in creationism, and follow a religion, but because I guarantee that you do not follow the absolutes of said religion I think it's reasonable that we expect you to at least be educated in forms on contraception and sexually transmitted funeases. If your riposte involves any of the following words "proselytizing", "indoctrination", "amoral", "liberalism", "atheism", "moral compass", "unprincipled", then I ask you to remove yourself swiftly from my planet. Thank you. Owing to the fact that I don't carry around abstinence statistics with me, I'm just going to make some blithe assumptions about rates of pregnancy in people who have taken the celibacy route. You're morons, but it's OK because I love you anyway. I'm pretty sure (and this seems a logical thing to conclude) that rates of pregnancy, disease, and other icky-sex things, are all much higher in people who have taken this route. Presumably this is owing to the disavowal of any formal education in contraception, anatomy, biology, etc.? I'm not suggesting that you are forced to sit through classes with people whom you deem immoral, or even amoral, but I am coercing you into at least reading about the topic. You cannot base safe-sex on an ideal: if that were the case we could quite easily write off mental disabilities, genetic mutations, the Pope, &c.. If you can be educated then we can adopt you into the mainstream, or as you could probably call them, the civilized. So this is problem number one with teen rates of pregnancy and all the other bits and pieces (now on referred to as 'problematic teen fucking (PTF)').

Education

I'm not sure of the state of the education system in your respective countries, dear reader(s), but if you're British then you'll be fully aware of the lamentably slap-dash approach we have in this country. Far from institutionalising sex-ed (always makes me think of a teacher just roundly fucking all his students whilst shouting 'THAT'S THE LEARNIN''), we have just let it fester in a swamp of indecision and confusion. Not that I'm advocating institutionalising sex-ed, but at least a systematic, opt-out approach would encompass the majority of the students who live in my secular country. Obviously, the other end of the spectrum is the absolute dissolution and devolution of sex-ed: placing the onus solely on the parents to give their offspring a grounding in reality. My 'country's' government has historically taken the condescending position on parental guidance: that it is flawed, impossible, a dream, and never a reality. Whilst I agree with the essence of the thought (no one is to be entrusted with any kind of useful information, because they're all morons), it hasn't proved germane to the education of the next generation. The problem has arisen, I think, because both parents and leaders have viewed one position absolutely precluding the other. I do not think this is accurate or logical. I think the two can run concurrently with little or no problem. I don't understand why we need one or the other. I foresee few problems which could rise from the bud of teaching and guidance.

I think the main issue parents have is that they might have ideological, political, or sapience-deficient differences with the establishment. Religion aside, because it's an impenetrable quagmire for the most part - but incredibly simple here (religious intolerance of kids fucking, go figure), I think there are some decent points raised, but they're couched so horribly in terms of nouveau-hippy liberalism. The first difference would be ideological: people who disagree with the state taking such an active role in the education of their kids in such pragmatic things such as boning each other. That or just disliking the thought of anyone teaching their kids that such a thing as fucking exists. That's where the PTF comes from, I suppose. If there is a disagreement, then it should be an opt-out system wherein parents are instructed how to teach their children, and given the tools by which to do so. That way the children do not have to face mixed messages between school and home: that isn't conducive to adequate retention of information. Trust me, I'm like... bipolar or something. I embody mixed messages. I am mixed messages. See what I'm doing here? Anyway. In this way we can have some state superintendency over the systematic education of our children. As long as it is ensured that everyone gets an equal and well-proportioned grounding then I don't see it raising too many flags.

Argument against: parents might not do it. That's... well, yes, that's true, but at the moments parents might be telling their children to discount everything they hear in these lessons anyway. So, that's not really a valid objection. Unless you want to entirely overhaul the school system, and if so you are free to do so: get your kids on 'un-schooling'. It's preposterous and is merely synonymous with sensationalist liberalism, but it's your choice to be stubborn if you want. Go for it. I ain't stopping you: I ain't obstreperous like you. Go figure.

So that's the first ideological problem. The second one is too closely related to religion, as I cannot see any parent ideologically disagreeing with sex-ed for their kids, in this situation anyway. The next problem would be political, I suppose. Some people disagree with how different parties run the education of our nation, and that's fine - but it's not reasonable grounds for pulling your child away from crucial life lessons. That would be a grand hypocrisy, my friends, because whilst you admonish schools for their haphazard, and lazy, delivery of sexual-education you sit idly by whilst your children attend lessons such as 'life skills', 'PSE' (where children are taught that racism is bad, and that homophobia is for silly people [assuming that we've become so amoral that these aren't socialised into children by the age of 3]). Whilst you take political umbrage with the institutionalisation (that's such a type-ful) of PTF, you take advice from women such as Dawn Butler (instrumental member of the Department for Children, Schools and Families), who says: "Shakespeare is important, but I would prioritise PSHE". In case you've managed to wade through my parenthesis-strewn-prose (thanks, Will) PSHE is Personal, Social, and Health Education. Sounds great, but what it basically means is "wash, don't swear, don't be a bigot." The actual education in these things comes from science lessons and the like. I would know, I did this shit.

I've put a break here because the last paragraph was hard going. To sum up my feelings about political differences justifying issues with sexual-education, here is a quote from Rod MacKinnon - some headmaster in London - "Muddled thinking is guaranteeing failure for the noble aspirations we all commonly hold for the education of the young." Good man, good sentiment.

Onto my last educational problem: idiots. Of course there are going to be idiots who think that any kind of schooling which encourages safety is a bad thing. That's just a part of living in a society which allows people to claim £4,000 a month in benefits for an adopted son with learning difficulties, whom they then torture and dismember when his benefits stop. I'm afraid we live in a country so devoid of collective morals that we cannot muster a counter-argument for lunacy. There is simply no words to describe how you could be so stupid.

The Law

We're in a bind, humanity. Well, Britainality. We've come too far down the line. We took too long in legalising homosexual-intercourse, and we took way too fucking long in bringing the age of consent down to 16. Oh, and then way, way too fucking long bringing the age of homosexual-consent down to 16. Then again, in America you can legally fuck an animal in 20 states, but only marry someone of the same gender in 6. If you don't believe me go look it up. The world amazes, ever so often. Our Europhile counterparts are all flourishing under the success of their lowered age of consent. With lowered age of consent comes earlier education. I do not advocate the 'start at 5' policy which has been bandied around -- but there is definitely scope for bringing the age of education down to 8 or 9 or something. That isn't too early, and just because a child cannot fully understand that which they are hearing, their interest will at least be sparked so as to enable them to later fully engage with the material. Lowest rates of PTF are, I think, in Scandinavia. They seem to have everything over there, even S.A.D. And that shit is great, I swear. They have consistently applied a policy of reason and logic to the education of their children; and thus their laws reflect this. We waited too long, Britain, now we have to educate against the current of sense. A well placed pebble could, hypothetically, alter the course of an entire river -- an insurmountable task, but not an impossible one.

Am I for changing the law? Yes. Because I'm an Eddie Izzard follower 'revolutionary liberal' ('we'll kick down the doors of the House, but we'll pay for the damage' or something). I am all for revolutionizing that which has become stoic, and that which has proven to be unhelpful (or even actively against what we want). Just because it's going to be an incredible fight doesn't mean we shouldn't take it on. Then again, I'm emigrating in just over a year so I don't really give a shit what we do. We're already fucked. It's all platitude, but the platitude has levelled to reality.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN

I hate this patronising view that children cannot learn things. I hate this condescending to the next generation that they are too emotionally immature. What does that even fucking mean? I can make arbitrary rulings too, ya know, but they don't mean anything. Put some investment in your words, please folks. Children are fully capable of adopting new regiments of education, and that is why I preach the systematic application of logic, reason, dictate of learned justification. Come on, cunts, it's not a difficult concept. If I ask for consistency, all you can rejoin is that you are at least consistent in your inconsistency. I agree with the guy I quoted earlier, there is scope for righting this wrong. Stop trying to make our children minions of multiculturalism: these are societal constructs, norms, adoptive morals -- they are not for our schools to teach, because they cannot be imparted through words or actions alone. Whilst we berate our children for not being tolerant we are forgetting to make sure they are fully equipped to deal with the real world. Is that not what we the propaganda is trying to make us believe? Is that not the fundamental point behind ridiculous concepts such as PSHE? Is it not preparation for a world full of hate, loathing, voiceless desire? I don't want my child to learn to darn, when he doesn't know how to put a condom on properly.

What they need to know

Things that are missing from sex-ed, at least when I did it, were numerous. Bearing that in mind, let me just try to think of the more salient things that must be taught to children. Speaking of that, maybe I should become a hypocrite: I'm against most forms of standardized testing, because I think it sets a curve of learning and encourages 'teaching the test' -- the resultant education being in how to absorb pointless information, not apply useful stuff. I could be influenced to change my mind here, however, and yes, I will now actively encourage a test for children in sex-ed. Oh god this sounds like incitement to perversion. Let me rephrase: we should make sure children can apply this knowledge. Nope, that doesn't sound any better. Let me try again: when we have taught the lessons, we should make sure they understand it? Fuck it. No test. It's just going to be a paedo paradise. Forgive me. I will still be a bastion of liberalism.

So. Just a quick run down of what they need to know:

1) How to use different methods of contraception. Not just condoms. Female-condoms, IUD (intrauterine), the injection, the pill, minipill, IUS (intrauterine), diaphragm, etc.. They should also be taught that the pill + condom = safest method.

2) What diseases can be transmitted through sex. Not hard to teach. Kids love icky pictures.

3) How to prevent these diseases.

4) What can happen if you or the product fails (babies, abortions, morning-after pill, etc.).

5) Emotional side-effects.

That's not a hard list to cover is it. Ethically it's not even supererogatory, it's simply necessary. Go fucking figure that this kind of thing is ignored.

That is what I have to say on PTF. I think there are solutions. Cohesion, people. I plead for sanity.

It's quite possible...

... that I just can't do this any more.

'My magic brings Hermione Granger to the yard and she's like, it's Levi-OSA.'

Yeah. I laughed at a facebook group. That's sensationally poor. Idk what's wrong with me. Last night I went out, and got kicked out - apparently. This being after I'd thrown up in the toilets, sung a Glee version of Don't Stop Believin' and then passed out at the bar. Honestly, I was so fucked. It's been such a long time since I was drunk enough to remember nothing for a period of about 3 hours. It's like I was date-raped. Maybe I was. That'd cheer me up. Nothing like a nice ass-pounding to clear the cobwebs. Not that there are any cobwebs.

On a lighter note: I am still alive. However begrudgingly.

So there's this thing.

And it punched me in the face repeatedly. And I was in agony. And I developed a nosebleed, and part of me was afraid of dying, but the other part of me embraced death as final relief. Then I realised that what I was talking about didn't actually make any sense - and that nothing had punched me in the face, because who could hit this? So I went shopping. I have no idea what I'm talking about. Erm, life update. No, I don't want to do that. Turns out people I know read this >_>, kind of ruins the brutal honesty I could employ. Even with code-names, people would have to be morons to not realise I was talking about them; and because of who I am, none of my friends are morons. Maybe I should give everyone and everything elaborate names: adjectives can be replaced by colours, places by shapes, and names by objects. That'd be so fucking confusing. So, totes, I'm fucking red, toaster is going for an orange in square. Nope. Even I have no idea what I'm fucking talking about there. That makes no sense at all. What the fucking hell am I talking about? Don't ask me. Tell me. Anyone who can guess will win absolutely nothing, because I have nothing to give you - and even if I did, I probably wouldn't give it to you. Because you suck. You're a fucking blue triangle. Cunt. Etc..

Whatever. It's Sunday, fuck off.

I don't know what I should do with my day-time day-today in the day. I have evening plans, but days are so fucking boring and long. Maybe, idk, go down and get a coffee or something, but that's a fucking long way to go for just a coffee -- especially when I just had one. I like coffee. I dislike people who pretend to like coffee, however, and tea for that matter. I refuse, on principle, to make tea or coffee for someone who says "weak, lots of milk, 2 (or more) sugars." If you don't like the drink, have something else, don't just wank off into the cup. You terrible person. It makes me sad to think of coffee being used and abused in this way. Just in the same way that every time you get a black coffee at Starbucks they burn it - as they do with espresso. I'm not sure why; probably it's because they're so used to people ordering mochafrapachaichinos or something that they don't remember how to make coffee. Is it showing that I'm not in a very good mood? Because I'm not. And I'm not trying to hide it. I don't want to do the thing tonight, because I can't be bothered - and it will be crushing defeat and ignominy. That's a really, really fucking hard word to spell.

Oh, in lighter notes I have been having recurrent thoughts of suicide, mother has been made redundant and am feeling crushingly alone. Honest to god, if it wasn't for people around me shouting at me that it's selfish, I'd just go ahead and do it -- this time I might actually succeed. Failing at suicide attempt = lameass. Succeeding = kickass. True story.

------------

The time for talking is over. The time for action has begun.

Queer theory.

"No, merely a plagiarist; not everyone knows fuck all about Foucault."

An interesting idea, Mr. Self, and one which I would normally be happy to get on board with. Unfortunately, I fall into the group of people who do know something - however little - about Foucault. In case you've not read Dorian: An Imitation, then I will explain what I'm talking about: it is, in its most basic terms, a rewriting of Oscar Wilde's infamous The Picture of Dorian Gray. Anyone unaware of the homoerotic subtext of that novel should probably stop reading now. Good. Taken as a given that you're aware of the story, I'm just going to ramble about queer theory for a while, and why I think Foucault would be spinning in his grave if he could see the gay community as they stand. Please be aware that for the purposes of simplicity I will be using the term gay community; if my plan is at all followed then I will explain why it is problematic, and thus italicised - but if I ramble too much or forget what I was going to say then at least you know that I do not believe the term gay community has any validity in 21st-century life. Good-o.

So, yeah, some context. Having recently read, and then studied, some queer theory I started to note a trending thought. First off, just for accessibility, queer theory is basically the appropriation of a derogatory slur for a basis of critiquing and criticising literary texts and works (as well as broad societal trends). Having read around queer theory for a couple of months it wasn't until today that some more of the pertinent critics were pointed out to me (in the form of a lecture). These, I think, are the more interesting ideas which have developed since the creation of, as coined by Foucault, the 'homosexual species'. Basically, towards the end of the 19th Century we suddenly made a conscious decision to categorise homosexual acts as creating a homosexual person. Previous to this sodomy was merely a facet of life: practised by many, and accepted by most -- the 'homosexual' as an identity didn't really exist until we started proscribing characteristics (which were the precursors to stereotypes) towards this section of society. It was then when we vested meaning behind the action that we started to develop prejudices, slurs, and began to make the association between décadence and homosexuality. Context is fun. Lectures are fun.

Prevalent among the gay community is the thought that 'we are homosexuals. Homosexuals is what we are, how we are, who we are.' I have always strongly opposed this view, arguing that in fact homosexuality is just a tiny facet of self; and thus have been increasingly unpopular among the more vociferous of my gay friends. They think that my argument trivialises the hardship that a minority faces, and particularly their minority. They also seem to think that I'm a bit of a self-hating queen, and that I view homosexuality as laughable. None of these things are true, but I cannot be bothered to justify what - to me - seems self-evident. Hopefully with the argument I'm laying out here it will become clear precisely why I think the way I do.

So with the creation of the 'homosexual identity' also came the thought that homosexuality was an identity. Well, no, it wasn't: it was an enforced label. Anyone at home with labelling theory? Me neither, but apparently it exists. Judith Butler, in Gender Trouble, argues that gender identity is inverted when analysed: that homosexuality is a set of acts and behaviours which demonstrate how a person exists in society, but doesn't define who they are. My lecturer today suggested that she is saying 'gender is performative'. Seems like a reasonable assertion to make, non? I mean, I'm struggling to think of a counter-argument against that. She, just the same as I, is not suggesting that we consciously decide to act in a certain way, but that these are simply that: acts. Seems like a wonderful suggestion, and has some fairly obvious real-world examples. If we accept that gender is not an inherent characteristic, then we could start to identify why such things as transgenderism exist. Please note, as well, that I'm not confusing gender and sex. We are talking about gender roles. Good. Anyway, further on from this - and taken again from today's lecture - is Sedgwick's view that "homosociality [bromance]... [is] actually on a continuum with homosexuality; heterosexual and homosexual desires [are] not opposed." That would go down atrociously within the gay community, I can imagine. Again, however, I agree with what they're saying.

Further on from this, as well, is Michel Foucault's idea that the creation of the "homosexual species" was a good thing. He suggests that as soon as a group of peoples are identified and categorised then they can start a resistance. Seems reasonable, again.

Now that I've parroted the views of a few people I will just tell you where I stand: I agree with all three of them. I think there are people who put too much value on an intrinsic sexuality, and it's not something that can be justifiably done. I would go further than Foucault, however, and suggest that the biggest obstacle - and thus reasoning behind contemporary queer theory - is the gay community themselves. Whilst there was an adoption of the view that if people invert the slur, they have a platform on which to launch an assault - there is a confusion of ideology. People have taken the identity to mean a person as a single, and it should be used as a collective. It's silly to use it as a grounding for launching revolution, and then continue to put so much emphasis behind it yourself. It says 'Look at us. We are a collective group, with individual voices, trying to fight for good. But also, we have no cohesive thought on homosexuality and continue to invest more meaning behind it than it deserves. Your bigotry makes a mockery of our identity.' Nope, it doesn't. The biggest obstacle is you, my friends. Further on from this is the idea argument which pervades Will Self's Dorian: An Imitation; that 'gay culture' (or 'gay community') is a problematic term -- that it is essentialist propaganda and misappropriated use of words. It doesn't make any sense, basically. I agree, I don't understand what gay community means -- and I have often been on the receiving end of vitriolic comments because of my usage of it. It's separatist isolationism, with a plea for inclusion, from a non-cohesive body: 'Look at us. We are defined by our sexuality, but in the meantime you shouldn't refer to us as such.' Makes no fucking sense. I want a total dissolution of the idea of 'gay community', but I also want said community to stop being hypocrites. We are people, we are not sexualities. It's not a difficult concept as far as I am concerned.

Blah. I basically just wanted to talk about the people I had been taught about. It wasn't meant to be quite so... lecture-y, nor did I intend to pretend that a lot of the views were opinions I had thought up by myself. Full credit goes to the three critics I mentioned, to whom I would owe the foundation of my opinions. I merely wanted... idk, people to be aware of why I get so irritated with gay people sometimes. It's so... unnecessary.

Bleh. Oh well. Weekend. Woo.

P.S. "You said you want to fix this; I'd rather burn these bridges..." ♥♥♥♥♥

A liberal, a fascist, and a nationalist walk into a pub...

... and it ends in an inevitable and tedious argument. For some reason no one has yet managed to create a joke which starts that way; so perhaps mine should be the first. Unfortunately for myself, however, it was a reality: I was the liberal, there was a UK Independence Party Parliamentarian, and there was - alas - a complete racist. Just to add some sense to the occasion I will briefly describe how the following events came out.

Having been invited to a pub quiz I was only to eager to get my drink on. We selected a pub pretty close to us, in a quiet, cobbled, slice of suburbia. It was cute. Bloody expensive, mind. Having supped verily from the font of alcohol, I found myself in a surreal, and alarming, tête-à-tête with a couple of locals. To my front was a man who had been singing Sea Shanties only minutes earlier (some weird Morris Dancing thing), to my front-left was my fascist, and to my full-left was a housemate of mine; and an equally minded gentleman. In fact, it was his red-faced presence which first attracted me to the group. I only went over to enquire why he looked positively furious: as it turned out, he had been trying to argue against both of them simultaneously and, obviously, was having a bit of a hard time keeping his emotions in check. Now, I should just add that my friend is well-read in German politics, and history; so when later the quote "what we're seeing in Germany at the moment, and how they're behaving towards Europe, is exactly what we saw during the formation of the Nazis", crops up - you might understand why he was quite so angry about it. Ignoring the fact that it trivialises a humanitarian abortion, obviously.

Yes, so when I joined the conversation I was greeted with the immortal line "where are you from?", to which I replied "Brighton" (a liberal, gay, free-city), and in return I received a scoff and "yeah, you can tell." That fantastic slice of homophobia set the tone quite nicely for the rest of the conversation. Unfortunately, because I was quite so tiddly, I can't put down everything that happened verbatim, but I will do my best to remember the gist of what was being said - and probably improve my arguments in the meantime.

"How old are you?"
"20."
"So you think you have the age to know about these things?"
"Yes, I think I do. I don't think that age is at all linked with ability to recognise right from wrong."
"I disagree: you weren't alive during X, Y, Z, like I was."
"That's kind of irrelevant. You don't need to have been alive during something to know about it, or to understand it. Your position on Europe, however: I live in Europe - and so by your logic I am fully entitled to an opinion on it. Your position is hypocritical: you purport to be a party ensuring civil liberties and freedoms, and yet are exclusionist and want us to be sovereign."
"We should be a sovereign state. We know what we need, Europe doesn't."
"But what about the economic benefits?"
"We can cope."

-------------- (to indicate that I forget a lot of what happened in the interim.)

"I'm sorry, but we should be stepping up our nuclear arsenal."
"Under what faulty logic does ensuring freedom correlate with stepping up nuclear weaponry? We already have enough firepower in the world to destroy each other a-thousand times over."
"No, we don't."
"No, we only have enough to destroy a few countries by ourselves."
Fascist: "We should use them on *insert any middle-eastern country here*."
"No, we fucking shouldn't. I'm sorry, that's insane. How am I meant to feel safer if everyone in the world used the same policy as you would have us use?"
"They're all building them, we should have them to."
"No, we should step down our programme: two separate deterrent agents don't ensure peace, they cancel each other out. That's stalemate. No one will be using nuclear weaponry because the consequences for themselves would be so insane."
"We need them."
"OK."

--------------- (A long time later).

"England is for English people. We should throw everyone else out."
Exeunt.

I couldn't tolerate that, and so had to leave the pub. Admittedly it was already 2-hours after chucking-out time anyway, but that's beside the point. The landlord followed me (he had joined the conversation some time previously) and apologised repeatedly, saying that they don't "normally get the kind of cunt" in their pub. I said I understood, and we had a debate about multiculturalism; and whilst he was a supporter of UK:IP, he wanted democratic inclusion in Europe. He was a reasonable fellow. Suffice it to say, I didn't blame him, and said that it wouldn't put me off coming back - in fact, it would encourage me to. Good bloke.

Anyway, the point of my story is this: I was too drunk to point out the most ridiculous flaws and fallacies within the Nationalist's ideas. That job, however, would have been pointless for me. Towards the end of the conversation, our fascist got more and more racist, bigoted, homophobic - just all of the horrible things a person can be - and the Nationalist had to continually state that "[this guy] is nothing to do with what we stand for."

If you have to say that aloud, you've got problems.

-------------------------

It's the second political debate tonight (not to be confused with the made-up 'Prime Ministerial Debates', as scheduled by my University's free paper), and I'm going to be glued to my seat I expect. It's on foreign policy, and thus Nick Clegg (Lib Dem) is going to get roasted. He's going to get raped, because no one in this piddly little country seems to understand that he's not profligately pro-immigration: he wants controlled multiculturalism. He's not proscribing opening our doors: Labour have already done that. If people could remember that he'd do fine, but they see him as a leftist moron. Which he's not.

http://www.last.fm/music/The+Title/_/Miss+Me

Buy that. If you buy one track this month it should be that. There's nothing more Summery than something that makes you bop as much as that does. I don't care that the lyrics are shocking and that it's pathetic, it's so fucking happy. Tip: needs to be incrediloud.

Do it. Be happy.

Smile: it'll soon be over.

Annie, girl, you were so right.

The sun did come out tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day. And then I discovered this song, and then I was so happy that bits of me fell off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjub6QHjsj0

Good god in heaven it's so summery. I love Summer! Summer for the absolute win. I went out today, and I looked good, and apparently that was true because two people asked me out on 'lunch-dates'. Which was interesting. And not... platonic, friend-dates. I said no to both because I'm having a gay year.

Sigh.

No want gay year any more. It's clearly not doing me any favours: the man I want to fuck is 'straight'. Seriously, though, I would break him into hundreds of pieces. THIS COULD BE THE RIGHT TIME TO CHANGE. Sorry. Yeah. Good mood. Going out shortly. Gonna get my crunk on. Good lord what am I talking about? I've regressed; I'm sorry, children. It's OK, because I talked about malapropisms earlier so it's not like I've totally become a randy child again. Or probably I have or something. I don't know, and frankly I don't care. There was going to be a point to this, but characteristically I have completely forgotten what it was.

So here's a reason I love my friends:

"I need to go shower and shave and stuff."
"njoi yr ablutions."

Truly, they are good people.

Revelling in the triumphalism of the occasion...

I should probably feel guilty for what I did last Friday morning. I should probably feel guilty for a whole host of things, however, so this isn't causing me to feel particular contrition or remorse. I enjoyed it immensely, and as far as I am concerned that negates the possible impact it may or may not have had on my classmates. In fairness to them, it's not actually completely true - but it does have at least a grain (there it is again) of truth. Soon we are to present our dissertations in front of a select group (our class), and two 'moderators', or markers. I asked the reasonable question "can we make our presentations fun?", to which the reply was "yes, you need to make them appropriate for your audience. How you do that is up to you." My reply? Well:

"Fuck it then: I'll come in a clown costume."

Sigh. Things like this should never be said out loud. No wonder I alienated half of them in the first fucking week. One of my good friends just showed me a verbatim transcript of a conversation we had after a few weeks of knowing each other; to cut a long story short, it ends with me saying "I'm sorry, I hadn't even realised you had gone." What the fuck? No wonder so many bad things keep happening to me. I need to be nicer to people, apparently, and that means I'm going to have to start small - on a local level. I am going to be the conservative friend-maker. I'm all about devolved niceness. Or something. That conceit is never going to work for the rest of this blog, because I can barely keep it going for two sentences. That's rubbish. Almost as rubbish as that modifier I couldn't 'undangle' earlier. That was truly sublime in its rubbishness. I think the first thing I'm going to do is to stop calling all my friends hypocrites. Then again, several of them are hypocrites; so is it not doing them a disservice by being blasé in my lies? I don't know. Do people like being lied to if it makes them feel better? Is it my duty, as friend, to assuage their feelings of low self-worth. Or, conversely, is it my duty, as friend, to show them their failings and to help them work through, and past, them? That is what they do for me. There is brutal honesty permeating every nuance of our conversations. That sounds like a paradox, but trust me it isn't. That's the kind of intellect my friends wield: nuanced brutality. Truly, it is not something everyone can pull off. I suppose that's why I like them: I see that there are ways to be who I want to be, but a nicer version. They are nice versions of me: truthful, helpful, honest, useful. I am several of those things, but they don't imply strength or positivity. I don't want to only hit the odd-numbers. No one likes the odd-numbers. That's why they're 'odd', and people who collect plugs are 'odd'. You see something going fairly, you say 'Oh you've got an even share, there'; and when you see a mental-health failure you say 'Oh, he's a bit odd.' I need to get my flip-reverse on.

Onto triumphalism. Where does it differ from schadenfreude? In several crucial ways, I would argue. Now let me just invent them as I go. If you weren't aware: I've never planned anything I'm going to say, on here. That's why there's too many commas. That's why sometimes my sentences go nowhere. That's why I get distracted. That's why I so often say 'This is what I'm going to talk about', and then go on to talk about nothing even vaguely related. That's why sometimes my sentences include so many adverbs and adjectives that you cannot understand them. I can't understand them. Anyway. Look what happened there! That's irony for you. Also, my friend used to genuinely believe that it was 'iron-knee', but that's a different story. And one which I cannot morally tell you. Yes, so now I need to make up some bullshit about why schadenfreude and triumphalism are different. I suppose you would probably start by arguing that schadenfreude (abbreviated henceforth as Shaude) is revelling in the misfortune of others, whereas triumphalism is taking almost lascivious delight in the glory of your own victories. If that's not a semantic split, I don't know what is. Glorying in the failures of others, or glorying in your victory over others? That's just a whore dressed up as elitism. Whortism. That's a weak argument. If you ever get into a surrealist's conversation with someone, try to avoid towing that debate-line. You'll look like a cunt.

So is there any difference? This isn't moral absolutes here, Jack: think of something a little bit impressive to argue. I suppose it's where you stand on the definition of triumphalism: it's either about superiority, or the weakness of others. That is a semantic difference, but one of actual importance I would argue. In this case, for instance, it would be so bold as to suggest implied superiority is better than the weakness of others: it is I who is strong, and your weakness is extraneous. It kind of takes the individual out of the equation; makes the whole thing a smug unilateral kind of affair. I suppose that probably makes it worse, in hindsight. What's worse, then, you? Is being pseudosuperior worse than laughing at someone's weakness? It's a marginal difference, at best, but one which could be important - I suppose. If you had some really weird friends.

That's a point. What am I talking about? Who cares? How is this even vaguely important to anyone? It's not even important to me, and I'm writing about it. Oh well. I can't fictionalise any more bullshit and pretend it makes a jot of difference to anyone (myself included). As far as practical circumstances go Shaude and triumphalism are much in the same thing, I would suggest. Unless we're talking the ultimate-proper definition of triumphalism (that it is applicable more to dogmas, doctrines, and race, etc.). If we were to make that case then evidently one has more brevity, and gravity, than t'other. Shaude is merely a chuckle, some forms of bigotry, however, could probably be attributable to triumphalism. That's possibly erroneous. Triumphalism would be the last port of call for any sort of persecution; unless you were to suggest that it was an umbrella, catch-all for all sorts of things: xenophobia, homophobia, arachnophobia, etc..

Now I'm just rambling. Go away.