Rule, Britannia?

'I am proud to be British' they announce. 

As if Britishness had become a foreign concept- as if it something elitist to say 'I am British'. What does that even mean? To me it's just a nationality, written on a passport, attempting to define me. It really doesn't.

The raucous claims of Britishness, the people behind the noise, are mesmerised by the call to restore what is 'Great' about Britain ricocheting between the mouths of each party leader. Is it only those with a general understanding of the history of the last 100 years who understand that this plea to national identity is the most obvious form of propaganda? Can our modern day politicians find nothing better to string us along with? Are we no more developed or intelligent that our 1930s Russian and German counterparts? Build a common enemy- reinforce patriotism- embed nationality in education. Surely it's not just me who can see the undeniable parallels?

A common enemy: immigrants, haven't they always been. Clearly nothing changes, or no politician is imaginative enough to change anything. What about the tax evaders- are they a not more worthy enemy? But, of course, they deliver such important 'services' to the U.K that their criminality can go unnoticed. (Did the Queen forget to remind you to pay your taxes whilst she was knighting you Gazza?)

How many times have we heard a politician serenading Britain with constant reminders of her greatness? Their faces begin to merge into one grotesque mask: Cameron, Farage, Miliband (and the other, useless one, what's his name?) a super-beast of political inadequacy. With ease this gusto infiltrates education: a heinous announcement to make the study of English in schools wholly British in an attempt to indoctrinate the young- what a load of bullshit. Michael Gove can go shove that where the sun doesn't shine (his conservative arse). How can one study English without understanding its roots and links with other countries. It's disgusting enough that African literature doesn't even get a word in let alone American literature being banished as well. But of course, the English language is heralded as one of the mighty triumphs of the British. I am in utter despair. Perhaps History should have a more prominent place on the curriculum?

If only plagiarism was to the student as stealing past political tactics was to the politician- if only.

Money Never Sleeps

How much money something produces isn't a measure of worth or success: it's an indication of greed and consumerism, something that that shouldn't be cared for, let alone respected. Talk of balanced budgets, deficits and recessions would be devoid without the concept of money.  Money is something that humanity has inflicted upon itself; it tortures, it kills, it destroys. Everything we do involves money, whether it is spending it, receiving it, waiting for it, counting it and always worrying about it. The obsession with balancing the budget, decreasing the deficit, working even at a surplus is ridiculous: this sacrifices our own happiness. Money is still used to enslave the lower classes (yes, I'm going to refer to classes, no use in pretending that they no longer exist), it's used as bait to reel us all in and keep us in tow. The importance of money is fed to us throughout childhood so that by the time we reach adolescence we have that want, that desire for money.

What even is money in the first place? Is it just a piece of paper? A coin? It represents something but what exactly: oppression?

The idea that money is the ultimate goal is ingrained within our genome, childhood dreams obliterated and replaced with the image of riches, wealth and the power that this so unethically entails. But money isn't real it's nothing but an idea. This is illustrated by Gilbert Ryle's theory of a 'category mistake', a mistake in the use of language, which is highlighted by the scenario in which someone requests 'can you show me the money?'  and is inevitably presented with coins or notes, the statement 'can you show me the money?' is a category mistake as there's no such thing as money, it's just a representation of an idea, in a similar way to Russell's example of a student visiting a university; looking around the buildings such as the halls of residence, lecture halls and library but then asking 'but where's the university?' as if it is a separate entity, it clearly isn't: the 'university' as an entity does not exist and neither does the 'money'.

Economically, how does having a balanced budget, or functioning in a deficit impact the average person? Although it may be assumed that working in a deficit instantaneously entails cuts to healthcare, education and the like, contrastingly working in a deficit can permit increased expenditure on public works, health care and education: the main sectors that affect OUR lives, rather than cutting them to create balance and a neat little figure on a spreadsheet.

Who actually gives a fuck? Being in debt is shameful? As is taxing the old, leaving people homeless and denying people happiness.Get a fucking grip and live a little, don't waste time worrying about how facts and figures measure up on a spreadsheet and care about what's real.