Foucault was interested not only in historical analysis, but the history
of how historical analysis has changed. The process by which historians
look for trends claims a kind of neutrality. They are merely exposing
the timeless unseen forces driving history. But historians are not
scientists, and even scientists are humans. Foucault showed that this
analysis by historians is shaped by their values and ideology, and the
role of institutional power on development of knowledge.

So can we truly have a neutrality? Or is this a lie? If everything is a
power, then what is this power advocating for? Power is not only at the
point of the gun. Maybe in the beginning when one side is weak, but as
they grow, they become institutionalised, embedded in societies'
consciousness and become the new status quo merely defending themselves.

Now civil war has broken out in Southern Turkey, and everyday police and
army are being killed by guerillas and city self defense forces. This
was after the mayors of towns in Southern Kurdish areas of Turkey
declared autonomy - that they no longer want to participate in the
Kurdish elected state. Self defense councils run by the community, and
organised with help from guerillas were formed. The mayors of the towns
were elected through the Turkish state.

Everyday though Turkish television is broadcasting scenes of crying
parents. Coffins draped with the Turkish flag, a state funeral and
shouting from the mother or father in anger over their son killed by the
vicious terrorists. The state propaganda is relentless. An Islamist
state ruled by Erdogan, a dictatorial fascist, who was good friends with
Hekmatyar, a vicious Islamist terrorist. And the terrorists?
Libertarians following the strategy of Bookchain's municipal autonomism
aiming to create a society of direct democracy, gender equality,
political pluralism, economic cooperatives, and preserve ecology.

America, the great bastion of global freedom, spreading the values of
democracy and freedom now stands with the Islamist Turkish government
against the libertarian PKK terrorists. A Turkish government which has
also supporting Islamist groups in the Syrian civil war. Why has it
become so fashionable to compromise on our ethics in global politics?
Has the world ruling class become so paralysed with nihilism that the
only was forwards that they see is making huge ethical compromises so
the bad guys don't take their throne? Or worse even is there a
conspiratorial plot to suck the world dry before the inevitable collapse
from an unsustainable system? Or is it that we've all blindly bought
into an anti-ideological managerial belief of neutrality, driven by
blind selfishness labouring under a globalised tragedy of the commons
like autonoms in a giant machinery of slavery tearing ourselves apart.

Whatever the cause, it's clear there is a seething hatred of discontent
bubbling below the surface. The inability for the system to adapt is
only antagonising this force which is unlike anything we've seen in
history yet. The transhumanists talk of a magical technological horizon
we'll cross which will suck us deep into the well of acceleration which
they worship as the transcending era of humanity. I instead see it more
like an age of warfare, starvation and death from the ashes of which
something new will soar and that we are participating in this.

I wonder sometimes, how do the bureaucrats view this? These young
wild-eyes idealists and whipper snippers who know nothing of the world,
that want to rebel and reject politics. There's often a competing
narrative on the one hand of a young electorate that has decided to
reject voting because they're absorbed in iPads and PlayStations, and
the other of a young people that do not appreciate the great democracy
that their great great grandparents fought to defend. "If only we can
get them to engage in the system" they tell us, a system which doesn't
want to listen to the inexperienced voices of new blood, or allow them
to make mistakes.

Audacious politicians even propose making laws to force people to vote.
And so politics has sunk into the guttertrash of spin and shoddy ethics
for the greater good of tweaking the establishment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19W8uunIsw

The rise in the last few years of opposition parties or people such as
Ron Paul, UKIP, Podemos, SYRIZA and HDP is part of a new trend in which
identity politics is on the rise. Although these parties or groups
supposedly come from different parts of the spectrum, they share a lot
in common in terms of form and not simply content or policy. Although
they are still analysed through the classic lens of left/right politics,
they together represent a new class of politics which is different from
before. And really, I believe they are more similar than different
because of how they engage the electorate.

General UK elections are Labour ('left') and Conservation ('right')
punting the ball between each other every decade with the Liberal
Democrats usually controlling a usual 10% minority. However in the last
2015 UK election, a new party, the UK Independence Party which campaigns
for UK sovereignty and an exit from domination from Brussells gained
12.7% of the vote, and the LibDems gained only 7.9%. A surprising
result, yet because of the crappy vote counting system in the UK (First
Past the Post), UKIP got only 1 seat in parliament while the 2 main
parties got 330 and 232, and the SNP with 8.6% got 56 seats in the
national parliament.

Now there is the Labour leadership elections. There's the usual
predictable riff raff of plastic clones that say whatever they think is
popular, but another guy Jeremy Corbyn has become very popular among
youth and re-energised Labour politics. He talks about crazy things like
taking on the corporations, shutting down the nuclear program, or
boosting the health service. He has a history of voting against most
Labour policies including the war and is portrayed as a crazy old
leftist and Marxist.

Inevitably what all the talk about why he has suddenly become popular is
still framed as left and right but misses the fundamental crucial point.
He talks like a human being. He doesn't flip flop to curry favour. He
has an ideology and a belief that guides his own thoughts and talks with
conviction and charisma. He shows a humbleness, dressing modestly, and
says that:

“I have this desperately old fashioned point of view that policy making
and decision making should not come from the top, passed down the food
chain for the foot soldiers to go and knock on doors and release it on
the unsuspecting public,”

This is not a backing of a political candidate. I simply want to better
understand the forces guiding change here. Watch that YouTube video I
posted above, and compare it with the stark contrast of the Jeremy
Corbyn campaign. You have the professional politicians wish an
established way of creating election campaigns, spreading their
marketing message, making spin campaigns, carefully controlled and
managed public appearances. And it stinks, everybody knows it stinks of
garbage. This system only serves the ethically devoid:
Liz Kendall profile: 'I don’t want to protest. I want to get into power':
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/10/liz-kendall-profile-power-labour-leadership-election

Then Corbyn is this old man in a sweater that is not caring to answer
critics who attack him, simply pushing his ideas, doing interviews on
YouTube and making large public rallies that are packed and a campaign
funded by donations through the internet.

Quote from the Guardian:

"Long-Bailey described Corbyn as “everything a stereotypical careerist
politician isn’t.” She said she had encountered two kinds of MP in
Westminster: conviction politicians and “consensus” ones. She had no
time for the latter, describing them as the sort of people who think
changing the world “is all a very good idea in principle but they like
to put their efforts into tweaking an existing consensus and appealing
to what’s popular in the media at the time.”"

His appeal has even made Tony Blair, universally despised and hated in
England, come out against him, as well as all of the current Labour
leadership in the pockets of corporations.
Corbynmania is ‘Alice in Wonderland’ politics, says Tony Blair in final
plea
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/29/tony-blair-corbynmania-alice-in-wonderland

Their argument is that for the good of the Labour party, and being able
to make real change, the general election is God. And that unless the
Labour party is a party of appeasement, they will not win. Therefore
they must play the game. This is the crux of the main argument, and one
which rests on "the means justify the ends". Among all the excitement
and energy which is revitalising the youth and giving them hope, are
bureaucrats from the dead age clinging to what they know and calling on
them to listen to logic. Tony Blair says Corbyn’s supporters are
operating in a “parallel reality” which rejects evidence and reason, and
says their leftwing choice for leader will be an electoral disaster.

It goes further, and something is let out which betrays who morally
bankrupt and corrupted these snakes which hold our chains actually are.
As Tony Blair goes on to validate himself and why plastic politicians
desperate for power willing to sell themselves to power are a good
thing, Blair admits that he does not fully understand the forces that
are stoking what he calls “Corbynmania”.

As in, he does not understand what are the forces behind this. We'll
have to keep an eye on exactly his intent behind this phrasing. As
another Labour candidate said Corbyn’s popularity “reflects a deep
disillusionment” with Westminster politics. But I'm sure that Tony Blair
already understands this. And that his opposition has more to it, than
simply winning an election.

The Guarian says:

"Tony Blair sees Corbynmania as part of a trend across western
democracies that has seen movements from right and left, including the
SNP in Scotland, suddenly prosper off the back of disillusionment with
traditional politics and a resulting desire to “fight back against the
system”."
...

"However, he says such movements provide a “refuge from reality” rather
than a means of confronting it."

Tony Blair:

“It is a vast wave of feeling against the unfairness of globalisation,
against elites, against the humdrum navigation of decision-making in an
imperfect world. It persuades itself that it has a monopoly on
authenticity. They’re ‘telling it like it is’; when of course they’re
telling it like it isn’t.”

Despite all the talk they bang on about democracy, you really sometimes
get an opportunity to see deep into the soul of these people. It reminds
me of an article I read when the Conservatives were campaigning against
changing the UK vote counting system to a fairer method, one of their
MPs said that the country needs to have someone with their hand on the
steering wheel. For all their talk of free markets (the Conservatives),
I don't think they actually believe in market economics steering
politics. And when you have the guys in charge telling us no, this
cannot happen because party X won't get into power which represents you
better than party Y but then their actions show that on some deeper
level they are even more compromised than they present to us. That we're
being lied to by pretenders that claim to share our values. Pretenders
that justify to themselves, they are experts and professionals to the
throne, despite claiming not to fully understand the global forces at
work. Against an inevitability of change, they are fighting against it
claiming that the change will not happen therefore we need to stop the
change.

And why do we respect these people? Is it because they wear a suit or
have good propaganda? We all know their technological legislation is
rubbish, that they understand nothing. Why do we think they understand
anything at all? If you watch the interviews of Ashton Carter or Obama
on VICE News about the Islamic State, the things they say are hopeless.
They still talk about eliminating 'the leadership' and haven't even
begun to grasp the ideological aspect that gives this movement its
power. They created the Iraqi government, with the best weapons but
without an ideology, with a claimed neutrality that crippled it and they
just run away from battle and corruption is massive. And yet IS which is
the enemy of everyone is thriving with a strong court system that
challenges corruption, and a successful economy. We can listen to the
propaganda or study real sources.

I can't find the article, but it was the Telegraph or some newspaper
telling about how the IS raises $$ through 'extortion of businesses' in
their terroritory. In other words: taxes. Funny the double standard from
a press that pretends to be neutral.

Jeremy Corbyn poses national security threat, says George Osborne
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/31/jeremy-corbyn-poses-national-security-threat-george-osborne

An MP from the same Labour party now takes it to the next level. This
guy is now an international danger which he calls "an unholy alliance of
Labour’s leftwing insurgents and the Scottish nationalists" because he
wants to scrap the UK nuclear weapon system. This is the power defending
the power. With this also comes a new announcement to renew the program
for £500m. That it will create thooouussands of jobs! There is many
interesting things we can see here, about the formation of power and how
the structure feeds itself.

To put the icing on the cake, I'm going to leave you with the latest
Islamic State video, titled:

"Return of the Gold Dinar"

Starring interviews from Ron Paul, information about the corrupt banking
system that supports wars and control, and unveiling the release of the
new Islamic State monetary system: gold, silver and copper coins.

Much of the content of this video is libertarian philosophy.

https://ia601503.us.archive.org/32/items/ROTGD_201508/ROTGD.mp4

Pictures:

http://imgur.com/a/LcAlj

The dominations will be worth around: 640€, 130€, 10€, 5€, 1€, 10ct, 5ct

Ron Paul:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNmVgtvUEAEsAfR.png

So what happens after we bomb IS out of existance? The world will return
to normality right?

"There is no alternative" said Margaret Thatcher in the 80s, and in the
90s after communism fell, an author wrote a very popular book called
'The End of History and the Last Man' which said:

"What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the
passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of
history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological
evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the
final form of human government."

Idiot.