That’s why they will not survive.

As with all Puritan movements of the past, present and future, there is one reason they fail, one reason they will not or cannot understand.

I am knackered, three shifts in a row, so you have to do some (probably illegal) self-think for this one.

The Wanker’s Hopeless Orgasm hates to be seen for what it really is so when its real machinations are exposed, it does what all Socialists do and declares all opposition mad and/or illegal.

It is not just me. I just chose the name. Millions did not and yet they have the name too. Even if they don’t know it. Those in ‘power’ do not fear us because they believe in the ephemera of the safe seat, in the ovine herd they tend until it’s slaughterhouse time. They believe underdogs never bite upwards. They really believe that.

They do not fear us. This is not a bad thing at all. That which they do not fear, they do not try to fight. They will fight UKIP but will do nothing to sway its supporters. They dismiss us with a wave of the pompous hand. They fear us not at all.

That’s why they will not survive.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “That’s why they will not survive.

  1. Another good piece. Liked the video, too. Their sound reminded me of a band my son was in & your post reminded me of why they broke up. At the time, being censored (banned) by the BBC meant the end of the road for a musician. Pity, they were doing quite well until that happened. Plus ca change . . . have a listen here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mQcHm2SDZk&feature=watch_response_rev & you might guess why they had to go.

    Like

    • That’s fucking good and a bit of a sync as a friend today sent me ‘I’ve Got the Power’, which contains the lyric ‘I’m the lyrical Jesse James’

      Just like an underdog biting upwards … Snap!

      Like

    • Pity they broke up. If thery could have charted like Judge Dredd did in the late 60s/early 70s the BBC would have had to mention them on the chart show – but not play the record. Thus ensuring curiosity would drive them further up the chart 😉

      Like

  2. Agenda item 11, no. 72 states that the tobacco industry claims that the nicotine in electrofags (not WHO terminology) is synthetic.

    Shurely Shome Mishtake? Or not?

    If not then it’s not a matter for Tobacco Control. If so then electrofags are a con.

    Agenda item 4 is about Interpol’s request for observer status to the ‘Conference of the Parties’.

    The Conference of the Parties (COP) is the governing body of the FCTC.

    “Observers may also participate in the work of the COP.”

    If the nicotine in electrofags is synthetic, the FCTC “may also adopt protocols, annexes and amendments to the Convention.” so can likely extend their remit or have them controlled by another branch of the Wilful Humanity Oppressors.

    The UN will find a way to crack down on all personal freedom under the guise of ‘health’, ‘equality’, ‘peace’ and of course, the environment and ‘sustainability’.

    They care so very much about us, so you should stop having a go at them, Leggy. Learn to love Big Brother. Emmanuel Goldstein is the enemy.

    Like

    • Nicotine is a simple moelcule. Does exactly the same thing whether produced in a plant leaf or in a laboratory.

      It’s like vinegar – dilute acetic acid. The synthetic stuff is chemically identical to the fermented stuff. If you extracted it from human sewage (it’s in there) and bottled it, nobody could tell the difference.

      Arguing over how the nicotine is produced is just a scare tactic. It’s the new version of ‘the nicotine in patches is good, the nicotine in tobacco is bad’ when they are exactly the same thing.

      So now the tobacco industry is trying the same game as tobacco control. Can’t blame them, I suppose. They’re just trying to fight with the same weapons as the enemy.

      Like

    • In this new job, I’ve been meeting a few of them. Fascinating study – they aren’t stupid, just uneducated. Many of them now know a lot more things than they did before I arrived. Some of the things they now know are actually true.

      At one research institute I worked, there was a meeting to discuss what should be put on for an open day. We were trying to keep it simple and visual and interesting but the professor incharge wanted to ramp up the science. ‘People aren’t stupid’, he said. ‘Well, then why are there TV ads encouraging adults to take reading classes?’ we replied.

      He was one of those scientists who hadn’t realised there was a world outside, a world of people who like to see down microscopes but who don’t want to be bombarded with the fine detail of what they’re seeing. They just want to watch the ciliates swim around.

      Like

  3. The ‘functional illiteracy’ is the reason that I think that we should use simple phrases when jousting with drones in newspaper comments and such. It’s part of ‘casting doubts’. The “85/84%” seems to get through quite well. Something like, “Doll’s Doctors Study showed that 85% of smokers die from ‘tobacco related diseases, but do you know that it also showed that 84% of non-smokers also died from the same diseases?” I also like to use the phrase “One size fits all” rather than ‘totalitarian’, “Absolute authority” rather than ‘fascist’.

    Like

    • Definitely. Start getting technical and the eyes just glaze over. Keep it in the real world, relate it to things they know.

      If you give people the total internal area of their lungs in square metres, it means nothing. Tell them that if they were unravelled and spread out, they could cover a tennis court, and they can picture it.

      And ‘fascist’, like ‘racist’ has lost all meaning due to overuse.

      Like

  4. Many, many moons ago when I first stumbled upon your old livejournal blog I was at once bowled over by your writing style and thence by the scrappy overall theme of your content. I was myself amateurishly writing about the Righteous but instead christening them the Nouveau Puritans.

    The absolute capper to me was the very title of your blog, “Underdogs Bite Upwards”. Being a newbie Yank reader of the British blogosphere, I wondered if it was an old Welsh saying or perhaps the title of an obscure (to my Ameri-centric head) English movie.

    I’ve since read each and every one of your posts (I’m happily hooked) but I don’t recall if you’ve ever scribed one specifically explaining your lively heading.

    I suppose I could do so myself by utilising the search box at the upper righthand corner but the ‘stupid’ thing would likely return every post you’ve ever written by ‘computer stupidly’ including your blog title in the results.

    Like

  5. Chuckus Yermoney – brilliant (c/f Frank Davis’s blog)

    I’m a firm believer in the power of mockery to burst the inflated balloon that is their ego – and hubris.

    Like

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s