Henry's Shit List

Greetings,

So, first question will be where the hell did this idea came from. Well, I was on one of my usual walks to get some air and some exercise, with music playing in my ears, as usual. A particular song came up on my playlist, that would be "Shitlist" by L7. So, I decided that I would begin one here, being that the ones that hit the top of mine are mostly of the political kind.

This will be a "work in progress" because I will likely come back and re-order, and add to it as time goes along depending on how I feel at the time. I have not put it on my Patreon site, because I want people to have access to it, nice and easily, not that I get many hits on this blog.

The question is always where to start and where to rank them, so I will go with the ones that affect my life the most...

1.  Politicians:
1. the kind of politicians who claim that there is too much money being spent on social programs, and yet have no problem with increasing their salaries, especially in the same financial year;
2. the kind of politicians who claim there is no money to increase payments for pensions of all kinds, and yet can give big fat contributions to wealthy corporate sponsors of their political campaigns;
2. Corporate Leaders (of all kinds): Congratulations you've won capitalism. How much is enough? Do you even know what your profits are doing to your workers? When your profits in a single year could solve the social issues in a country and you contribute less than 1% tax, and less than 1% back to the community. You're only No. 2 because the politicians maintain the system that allows you to do this.
3. Extremists: of all forms, here I mean you who are at the extreme perspective of any system of thought. In this group I include all forms of extreme thoughts as you refuse to see the issues you create from not seeing a "middle way". This is seen in the aspect of terrorists, but also in such things as radical environmentalists and feminists. The focus should be on the best benefit for humanity. You refuse to see any other way than your own.
4. Media Moguls: You're just as bad as your buddies (politicians) above. You have taken it upon yourselves to decide what we should watch, what we should read, and what we should hear on a regular basis. Your purpose is  to encourage us to spend, to support your businesses and those of your corporate friends. Your other purpose is to facilitate the perpetuation of systems of abuse of those who are in a lower economic situation. Just to be clear that would be all of them, be they of a different colour, have disabilities, different religion, or different citizenship status. Isn't our society supposed to be becoming more Inclusive?
5. Celebrities: I think I would have to put most of them on this list to tell you the truth, because most of them have done nothing to deserve the celebrity they have, or done things which should result in their status being revoked. Notoriety is not renown, we should follow those who have renown, not those who have notoriety.
1. Sporting celebrities: supposed to be held up as examples for junior players of the sports yet they play the game with a focus on winning at all costs, not for the love of the game. The same can be said of the same kind of celebrities who also run amok in public, also setting a bad example for junior players.
2. The Rich: who have done nothing except been born into the correct family, this is what has made them supposedly famous. Why should we follow the example of someone just because they have a lot of money, especially when they set such bad examples?
3. Models: who represent such a small slice of the population, that set such high expectations for body-image. Yet, can they be blamed for this? Is it not also the industry they follow that pushes them to be like this? I would say it is more the case of what makes one shape of body better than another? How can one person feel superior because they are one body shape? Just to be clear on this one, it is as difficult to be Ken as it is to be Barbie.
4. Actors: who are stuck in the capitalist system. They demand ridiculous rates of pay, to maintain their lifestyles to which they have become accustomed. Once they attain this pay-grade, they believe they deserve it, and special consideration for everything. Again, where they set a bad example, are they people we should be following? Follow the actor who is truthful to their craft, rather than the one who is paid the most.
6. Selfish People: This is the broadest category ever. It covers people who simply can't think for anyone else but themselves. Many of the people already on my list can also be doubly included in this category as well. People on public transport who disregard simple courtesies.
1. Teenagers: Yes I sound like an old person. However, these individuals are becoming more and more self-entitled by the year. They talk about rights, never responsibilities. They have no care for anyone but themselves.
2. Drivers: In this category we include drivers who drive aggressively because it is more important for them to get somewhere than anyone else. 

So, this is the beginning of my list. I am sure there will be a lot more to come as I think about them. Yes, there are exceptions to every rule, and I also believe this. These are very broad brushes, but I don't feel like going through and spotting every single individual.

An update (10/04/24): I added Extremists to the list today, because they are the cause of a lot of harm in society through their extreme views. They are unwilling to see anything but their point of view concerning certain matters even if there are contradictory aspects in their view. This dogmatic approach is not useful to anyone.

An update (23/05/24): I added Selfish People to the list today, because I just don't get it. I don't understand the kind of person who must put themselves first, must have before everyone else, must do before everyone else, who has no consideration for anyone else but themselves. Behind the wheel of a car, these people are dangerous. In public, they push in lines, stand in the middle of footpaths, have loud conversations in quiet areas, and generally make a nuisance out of themselves. This is the result of the decline in courtesy, the decline in consideration for other people in the world. Too much "me first."

Cheers,

Henry.

Written Within the Pages

 Greetings,

If you do not read the books, you do not know what is contained within the book. Thus, you have no right to assume to know what the author thinks or has written. This can be applied to those who love to quote aphorisms from authors and then go on to attack them, as much as it is to those who claim that this or that writer is of this or that particular political leaning, due to what they have written. How would a person know what their political leaning is, if they have not read what the author has written?

People need to open their eyes. They need to open their eyes and realise that if they do not at least look at these books and authors they hate so much, they will be unprepared for those who use the writings within them. 

The Nazi Party in Germany did not just sprout from the ground, its popularity did not just grow over night it took time and persuasion of people. It was only when people's rights were being infringed upon, when people were being attacked and murdered that some people realised that something was wrong, but the mass of people didn't. The actions that the Nazis took were legal, they were passed by law. Think about that for a moment, those who hid Jews were breaking the law, those who murdered them, homosexuals and disabled people, were doing it legally according to the laws of their country.

How can you defend against a political standpoint if you don't know how it grows?

How can you defend against an ideology if you don't know what its tenets are?

How can you prevent the same things from happening if you don't know how it all started?

Erasing history because it's ugly, or because it makes people uncomfortable is not a good thing. It is criminal because it leaves people unprepared for the same to happen again. They are unprepared because they don't see the warning signs. The threat is not from the idiot skinheads in the streets marching about, it is from those who keep their feelings hidden, who keep their ideologies to themselves, but make small changes to our society to gradually twist things their way.

People complain about eugenics programs. How about the eugenics program by default that is happening in the world right now as a result of price increases? What happens when the poor cannot afford to eat? What happens when people even on benefits from the government cannot afford to keep themselves alive and eat? They die. The prices go up, more people die. It is eugenics by social class, by wealth. If you are not healthy enough to work, or do not have employment, you are priced out of LIFE.

Sounds crazy? Well who controls the ability to change inflation? Who controls the ability to give people on payments enough money to live rather than having them on the poverty line, or below it? Yes, that's right the government. Who do they act in the interest of? Their rich friends, no the so-called "people". Tax breaks do nothing for people on benefits.

What are the policies of these people? What are their true ideologies? How many of those match up to the ideologies of the fascists that people claim to be fighting by preventing people from reading books? Our oligarchical society, I say oligarchical because it takes thousands of dollars to run for office and not everyone has that money, only the top of the money piles, makes pitiful concessions to those below them while hoarding the riches to themselves. 

They complain about the cost of welfare, that the people on payments are not giving back to society. Well have a look at the Nazi policy and how they felt about the disabled, it is pretty much the same. The problem with the budget does not come from those from below, it comes from those from above. If the billionaires and millionaires actually paid any tax, rather than getting tax breaks, the budget would be a lot healthier. Our politicians look at things from the top, they have no clue about the people they represent. They are the enemy that, so-called politically-enlightened people, are ignoring because they foolishly believe we live in a democracy.

They would understand our actual state if they actually read some of the books they are so frightened to read. They would understand what's happening to their society, and what's happening to the people that they are supposedly defending while they are failing to do so, if they picked up the book and read it and understood what's actually happening.

Read the book. 

Yes, it will be ugly. 

No, you won't like it. 

That's not the point.

Get an education.

Learn how you can actually do some good.

Cheers,

Henry.

What is My Time Worth? Or Get a "Real" Job

 Greetings,

I have been sitting on this subject for quite some time and it is about time that I write it. We have all been told this idea that there are "real" jobs and there are jobs which are somehow not real. We have also been told that the time of those with "real" jobs is much more valuable than those who don't, and especially more than those who do not "work". This is a piece of capitalist propaganda which has been shoved down our throats so we go and find jobs that will pay money, to keep the capitalist system running, more to the point it will keep the politicians happy because it keeps people off welfare.

Of Politicians and Politics of the Social System

Politicians, especially those of a slightly right-wing persuasion, i.e. not Nazis, but those with who believe in free-market economies, where people should fend for themselves, and with no government interference, they believe there should be little, if any, social welfare. They admit that there will be those incapable of work, mostly the elderly, they make some consideration for veterans, very little for the disabled, and even less for the unemployed. So far as these individuals are concerned the unemployed are lazy, and the only reason that they are not employed is because they have not looked hard enough.

These same politicians tighten the disability evaluation for pensions so it is more and more difficult to get a disability pension, which only increases the length of the unemployment lines. Of course, they don't see it that way, all they see is people who are trying to feign being sick so they don't have to work. In Australia, the disability pensioners are counted in amongst the unemployed. In some other countries, their statistics are lower because the same disability pensioners are not, or are encouraged to study and given the money, so are not counted in those figures. They squeeze the disability pensioners, but leave the aged pensioners mostly alone, because they are a big voting base.

They claim that people should be contributing to their communities by becoming employed, getting off social benefits of every kind that they can and stop being a drain on the system. They don't mention the big tax breaks they promise to their fat-cat friends who give them election contributions. Tax breaks which enable large corporations to pay the smallest amount of tax, and the richest to pay very little. The smallest amount of taxation of these individuals 1%, even 0.5% would pay for the entirety of the social welfare system, and then some. This is what the politicians don't like people to know, and don't want people to think about, especially at election time. Instead they take from the middle and the bottom of society, rather than from the top, where they should be.

"Get a "real" job."

The heading of this section has been used as a line usually spoken by an elder individual (usually male) to a younger individual, who is following their dream, in some movie or sit-com. It is a line which many people will laugh at, and some will even agree with. I will ask the question, what is a "real" job?

Most often the individual who is following their dream is following an occupation which is not of the standard pattern; they want to become a musician, an artist, an actor, or an author, and these are some of the more mundane examples that could be given. There are occupations which are far more extraordinary which could be named. How are any of these less "real" jobs than the person who sits at a desk in an office as a clerk, or office assistant, or similar more standard occupation?

Think. Every time you listen to a piece of music, there was a musician who played and wrote that piece of music. Every time you watch a movie, there are actors on the screen, in all the roles. Every time that you pick up a book, there was an author who wrote that book, indeed every single word you read in a published article of writing, it is the same story. Unless the author waved their rights to that article, they got paid for that piece of writing, just like the musician and actor got paid for their work, because it is their job. A job which they take as serious as any other person takes theirs.

There are other jobs, many of them which we don't get paid for. There are people who are not employed in standard occupations who don't "work" as others do, but their time is valuable.

The Price of Time

There is a depreciation of the time of those who do not "work". In this case, I point to those who do not go to a "nine-to-five" regular, or shift-work job. They don't have standard hours. I point toward the individual who stays at home and performs "home duties". There are many hours of "work" which are not logged because they are not at an official place of business, or because the individual is not officially employed, or because they don't have a "real" job. This is across the board.

The time of these individuals is simply seen as less important. People who work seem to have more pressure on their time so they seem to be more important because they work, and they disregard those who do not do standard occupations or who do not work. Times are changed to the convenience of the individual who works, sometimes to the detriment of the one who does not, with a lack of consideration for their time; it is simply depreciated. Not as much care is taken for those who do not work in such timings. When it comes to the consideration of skills, the same can be said.

There is a depreciation of skilled people because they do not have work. In some instances people have left the workforce to pursue life at home and due to this their skills are somehow depreciated because they are no longer a part of the workforce. Why? Have they somehow lost the skills that they had when they were in the workforce because of this change? Is just because the individual does not expect monetary compensation for their time, the skill worth any less?

Why is it necessary to have a monetary value for a general appreciation of a person's time, effort and skills? This has a lot to do with the enculturation that we have all become accustomed. When something is paid for it has some value attached. Is something which is paid for in time and effort worth any less? We need to reevaluate what people's time, effort and skills are worth. For if people who do not expect payment for such effort suddenly expected such monetary reimbursement, then there would be a great shock by many as to just how much certain services would cost them.

In my case I have three different skill-sets, which I perform, three different occupations. I am a writer, historian, and historical fencer/fencing master. Depending on which one of these skills is employed will decide exactly how much I could, in theory, charge a prospective client. I have, and do, perform many of these as a free service, I write three blogs (including this one) for free. I perform historical investigations for my own interest in various subjects and assist with others that friends propose, for free. I also perform training as a historical fencer/fencing master in group sessions, for free, and as a barter-system with some friends in private.

I could, in theory, be charging quite a bit for several of the services which I provide and could be quite happily employed as an independent as per the occupations listed above. Indeed I have my own publishing company which I have published one book, and will be publishing at least one other book, with plans for a couple more. The purpose of this publishing is to get information out there, rather than making money; entirely not a capitalist approach. I would prefer to put the information in the hands of those who are interested. 

I know how much my time is worth. I heavily disagree with this notion of a "real" job, indeed I find it insulting. I think it is false and denigrates many occupations which are disregarded in our world. I think it is a symptom of a capitalist world where we are forced to only value what we is paid for in money. I think that people should appreciate those who spend their time, and value the time that they spend, for if they do not, it could come a time when they will be made to pay for such time, or they will be much less generous with it.

Cheers,

Henry.

The World Has been Ruined by Lawyers and Accountants

Greetings,

There have been many complaints by many different people about how the world is being destroyed by the "big" companies destroying the atmosphere and also the ecology of the planet. It is true that this does happen, but I would argue that we need to look behind them to examine who allows them to do this. To be sure it is the politicians who have their hands greased by the money to make sure that laws do not affect them too much, but there are people who need to read these laws and financial policies to make sure that the companies can use them to their advantage, lawyers and accountants.

The companies, big and small, are defended by these two groups of individuals, lawyers defend them from law suits in and out of court, accountants defend them in regards to ensuring that they pay the minimum amount of tax possible. No company went alone to face the taxman, they always went defended by lawyers and accountants, first the accountants, then the lawyers. This is how they get away with paying so little, with assistance from their friendly politician of course who has bent things so that his public bears the brunt of the cost instead.

There has been much talk about renewable energy sources, and "green" energy not to mention "greener" modes of transport. These have been available for decades, but have been bought off and buried by the "big" companies who are addicted to oil. How did this happen? With the assistance of their accountants to buy the small company out of the market first, and then the lawyers to make sure that they would not come back of course.

Several famous cases have proven that if you have the money then there is a lawyer who will find a loophole for you to avoid responsibility for your actions. The same can be said for accountants, if you have the right accountant and pay them enough, there is always a loophole through which that extra lot of earnings can be slipped so that you do not have to pay tax on it. Lawyers always bear the brunt of accusation of low character in their approach.

Lawyers have been called "ambulance chasers" looking for clients from amongst those who are at their most vulnerable and needy, in an injured stated. Their signs claim, "No win, no fee," but only take the case if they know that they will win. Our world has become more and more litigious, 'Weird Al' Yankovic mocks this fact in one of his songs "I'll Sue Ya" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeXQBHLIPcw). Obviously it points out some extreme cases but clearly it makes the point of the litigious nature of the world in general.

We need to sit back and have a look at our world and how much it is controlled by paperwork. It seems that every little decision we make these days needs to be documented or it will come back at us. A small outing becomes a major event because everything needs to be organised and everyone's needs taken into account, "just in case". We need to take control and understand that a mistake is just that, a mistake, no legal ramifications are required. Likewise we need to make the "big" companies pay as much as everyone else does, and also pay for the damage that they have done to the environment. To do this is going to take some ideological and political change.

Cheers,

Henry.