Why I Chose Marxism

Perhaps the title would be more accurate if it was why Marxism chose me, but a large number people reading this would probably identify with most of the reasons I give, and would have come to a different ideological understanding of the world. So I will stand by my assertion that I chose Marxism, whether this was a conscious or forced choice is, for the most part, irrelevant. What people may not be able to identify with are the individual milestones in my life that shaped my outlook from a very young age, the questioning of the status quo, the naive understanding that things were just not right, which eventually led to my discovery of an alternative, better ideology. These were all experienced in isolation from my friends, family, and community. This is not to say that this same process of evaluation of the world around us was not simultaneously occurring among my peers, just that I never shared my thoughts with others until recently. There was no sense of the community leading me towards my encounter with Marxist thought, I sought out an explanation and identified with it by myself, albeit with a few small kicks in the right direction.

That rather neatly brings me to the point of this post. I often hear people I am boring to death, with yet another rant about the rich fuckers exploiting the earth/working class/pretty much anything they can extract surplus value from, say, why are you a Marxist?  This question has always been a difficult one for me to answer, not because it is particularly hard, or because I do not have a coherent answer to the question, it has always been because any answer I would give would require a substantial amount of time to provide. Most people simply do not want to devote that amount of time to a question they believe is relatively simple. The truth is that it is anything but simple.

The first time I can remember questioning the way wealth was dispersed among society I was aged seven or eight, it was Christmas day, and as was traditionally the case my rather meagre, but none-the-less appreciated, range of toys was bringing me the usual amount of rather fleeting joy. This was when the invitation to join a friend at his house was extended my way. Until that day I had never been to a friends house on Christmas day, I was not expecting to notice just how much more wealthy he was than I, even though there had always been an acknowledgement by myself that he had more money. Where my clothes had always been tatty, cheap, hand me downs, he was always relatively turned out for the time, wearing all of the latest sports gear that was desired so much during the mid to late nineties, Upon walking in to his house I was shocked by the sheer range of what I would now consider consumerist junk, but at the time thought was among the most important things in the world, he could afford. Playing with each and every one of his gifts for the next couple of hours felt like receiving a kick in the knackers, with every new thing he showed me that sickness and pain I felt grew exponentially. After a few hours I could no longer take it, I felt for the first time in my life like I was worth considerably less than someone. That he had more 'things' proved it to me. I ran home and cried for an hour or so until my father came in to comfort me. Why I remember this is because it was the first, and only time, he had done this. The image is so vivid in my mind because I now come to realise this is something he too suffered from, the knowledge that despite being surrounded by the poor, the working class, we were very much in the underclass, and as I grew older I learned we were suffering the worst effects of poverty at the time.

Life carried on much the same for a while, we were on appallingly inadequate benefits, we had no money, I grew to acknowledge this. Whilst I did not like the strain it put my family under, that it put me under, I did not think I could do anything about it. After a couple of years this changed. As a family we were now in employment, for a while at least, we had a few pennies to our name. These new found earnings were not without a cost for my brother and I. We were also in employment. The nature of the work my family had managed to secure was pay-per-unit work, and the pay was terrible! To make ends meet my brother and I was required to work a couple of hours a day making light fittings during term time, during the school holidays we worked in the factory making them, and on the weekend we delivered them by van. Those were the good times in this period. When the amount of money paid per unit fell it was not uncommon for us to be taken out of school and put to work. Where friends were enjoying their childhood, going to school, and playing football with friends, we were working up to ten hours a day. My education suffered significantly. During the early years of my education I remember being classed among some of the brightest pupils in my year, my parents were proud, but by the time I had finished my primary education I had slipped from the top of the pile to the middle of the pack and I never fully recovered. I cannot fault my parents too much for this, we needed the money, and riding around in that rickety death trap of a van with my brother was fun. I remember with great fondness driving down a road and the doors suddenly blowing open on the back exposing us to the cars behind, we struggled to close the doors whilst holding up boxes of brass connectors and plastic-moulded lights. We still laugh about it occasionally today. We were more than happy to help out, not only because we had an acute knowledge of our economic inequality, but because we knew that was what you had to do when you was as poor as we were. Why the Thatcherite political class, and the uncaring society in which we live, largely ignore the effects of extreme poverty on children is another matter.

Moving into secondary school my memories of what led me to choosing to identify with Marxist ideology become less nostalgic. It was tough. Really, really tough. Most people would identify the period of their life that they are in secondary school as being the hardest part of their life. You are developing a sense of individuality and trying to find a place for yourself. The differences between people, between you and your classmates, become more pronounced than at any point in your life. Hyper-divisions exist everywhere, even between people with very little that marks them apart. You feel alone in almost every sense of the word. When picking my options for secondary education my choices were limited, the grammar schools were now out of the equation, I had fallen too far behind where I once was. This left a few options, but due to the cost of travel this was whittled down to two. The local one with a bad reputation or the village based one, a bit farther out, but with a fairly decent reputation. It served the slightly richer community in the villages and small towns just outside of my own. Having now reverted back to benefits, my parents decided I should go the better option, I could get back to where I once was with a push. Looking back I cannot help but feel this was the worst decision they could have made. There was not many of us at this school on benefits. The difference between myself and my classmates was immediately noticeable, they had access to everything I did not and I quickly found myself slipping from the 'grammar stream' to the bottom/middle once more. The economic disparity between my family and theirs affected me in other ways, in worse ways. My inability to keep up with their 'fads' and other nonsense found me slipping more and more towards the outside of the mainstream, until I was both derided by those I was forced to be around and invisible to the rest. I did not want to be there. My attendance slipped from 100% in year 7 to just over 30% by year 11. It felt pointless to me. I was poor, I was not going to make it in this world. I just wanted to be done with it all and work. I needed the money as fast as possible so that I could no longer be the poor kid, the irrelevant mass in the classroom. Like most of the working class, being in school offered me nothing. You need money to succeed, it buys the freedom to learn. It affords the individual an escape all of the concerns that plague an adolescents mind. Once more I felt like I was worth significantly less than those around me, I was that kid crying on Christmas day again.

Fast forward a few years and I am in low-paid work. It is part-time at a local supermarket. Before that I had been out of work for over two years since leaving school. They had kicked me off benefits for not looking for work, when in truth I was and there was no work, I just did not follow their procedures to prove I had been. The lovely people at the jobcentre annoyed me with their implied accusations that I was simply lazy and so I gave up caring. I had enrolled in college as a way to pass the time. It was here that I first encountered Marxism, and whilst I agreed with much of what was said, I spent far too much time drunk to fully appreciate how relevant it was to me and the working class struggle. My studies at this point followed a familiar pattern, at first I was exceeding expectations, then as I became aware of my inability to afford university, alongside added pressures from home, I simply stopped going and let grades fall away. The main problem was the financial pressures from home after my father had lost his employment once again. It meant I was working near full-time hours in addition to going to college five days a week. I asked myself what the point was if I could not afford to go to university. I was needed at home. So once again, economic pressures and barriers had pulled me away from reaching my potential. I had become a vital part of the economic lifeblood of my household. It was at this point I started questioning everything in much more detail than before. I began reading and searching for an answer that explained why I was unable to achieve anything without being pulled back into deprivation. I remember spending large amounts of time thinking about the Marxist theories we had skimmed over in my Sociology class and decided read into it and to find out more.

Four years later and I was still working for the local supermarket, at just above minimum wage (by about six pence... the gits). I had read quite a bit of Marxist thought and I had found my place. I had found the truth behind the collective struggle experienced by vast swathes of people trying to achieve the great capitalist lie, like I once had, of raising themselves up from the working class to become 'successful'. I found myself constantly banging the war drum against the lazy bastards earning a fortune for walking around inspecting the shop once a month with a stick up their arses. I began to argue about their exploitation of us workers more and more by the day. Why should the owner be earning about a thousand times more than me for doing jack shit everyday? He had not even founded the company, he had just inherited this wealth. I argued about how much profit they were extracting from each hour of work with my fellow employees. It was then that I came to realise that I had chosen Marxism.

Shortly after this revelation the last thing holding me in my home town had been lost to me. Suddenly I had found myself enrolling into the only university willing to take a punt on me. I was going as a mature student, with little to no academic achievement behind me, but I was determined to succeed.
After my three years at university I had (very nearly) repaid the faith whoever decided to accept my application had in me, I missed out on my target of a first class degree by around one percent, it was a good result, far better than I would have predicted going in, but I find the struggle to lift myself from the lower reaches of the working class continues to this day. To date Capitalism has done nothing to help me, and many others like me, and that's why I will continue to choose Marxism.

Cheeky Rape Recipes With The Daily Mail

Wow! Just wow! The Daily Mail have actually gone and done it. The British edition of Der Stürmer have plunged to new inglorious depths the basterds. Incredibly, for that 'news' source, they have taken a different spin on their remit of smashing all sense of taste and human decency. For once they have not plucked a story out of the race hate, class war or casual sexism generators. Instead they have chosen to go for a 'cheeky' promotion on alcohol induced raping.

Just days after publishing these articles, "Two friends jailed for nine years after raping drunk woman, 18, in alleyway just minutes after meeting her for the first time on nightclub dancefloor", "Three guilty of drunken party rape", and "Britain has more rapists in jail than any other EU country thanks to tougher sentencing", all clearly and unarguably anti rape/rapists (despite some of the comments), they decide to publish an article seemingly excusing a form of rape.

Now I know many will read the article, "Fifty shades of booze! Nine clever cocktails (and cheeky ways to drink your date into bed)... inspired by the erotic movie", and argue that it is a harmless piece of journalistic crap trying to cash in on the 'fifty shades' hype through advertisement revenue generated by linking a poorly written article on cocktails to a movie based on a poorly written book about cocks. To many it would be nothing more than the usual click bait that accounts for 90% of the internet alongside porn and cat pictures.

However, to defend the article on the basis that it is about cocktail recipes is to ignore the importance of what lay between the brackets in the headline. 

A test of how important something is to changing the nature of an image or sentence is to simply remove it and see what remains. 

The sentence without the bracketed words reads: "Fifty shades of booze! Nine clever cocktails inspired by the erotic movie" which, whilst still eluding to the throwaway nonsense that the article will contain, tells the prospective reader that it will be a fun little article which may contain 'essential' recipes for anyone interested in drinking cocktails based upon the most talked about movie of the year so far. 

Reading the removed section of the headline alone paints a very different picture. It is not beyond the realms of possibility, in fact it probably does exist, for the self contained element of the headline to be a post/headline/thread on one of the many websites dedicated to the female hating section of the internet populated by the MRA's. 

If a headline, or at least a single but very important element of the headlines message, is the sort of disgusting crap you would be able to read on the sites run by so-called 'alphas' then you know it is rape apologist in its nature. Whilst I am not arguing that the woman who wrote the article is an MRA, the message within the headline is worryingly reminiscent of it. The Daily Mail, by virtue of promoting language like it on their website, alongside their usual repertoire of casual sexism, have just gone and legitimized it to their less critical readers.

The fact that the essential message of the article remains intact when you remove one third of the headline speaks greatly of the nefariousness of the removed sentence, "cheeky ways to drink your date into bed" is meant as a joke, an unfunny joke, and one in very poor taste. It is a product of the 'rape culture' that breeds morons like Dapper Laughs and his ilk. A culture that views the domination and control of another person's body without consent as not a big deal, as funny or "cheeky", and as normal. 

Evidently, it is also culture that the Daily Mail both believes is abhorrent and excusable at the exact same time. 

Do Ethnicity and Gender further compound existing class inequalities? (first year essay)

This is the second of my university essays I will upload, mostly as a safe place to keep them from being lost to me. It's also a slightly better piece of work compared to the travesty I had already uploaded, although a quick read through revealed that there are still plenty of mistakes present.
So once again, if it is useful to you as a tool for what not to do then go ahead and have a read, and whatever you do don't plagarise it... You will be caught due to the way this work was submitted.

*********************************************************************************

To many social class is no longer relevant in contemporary Britain, they argue that we now live in a classless society and everyone has an equal opportunity in life and that discrimination based on class, ethnicity and gender no longer exist. However, within this essay I will attempt to provide a persuasive argument for both ethnicity and gender still having a significant effect on already existing differences within social classes. By doing so I will attempt to demonstrate how the experiences of working class women would be different from the middle classes and men in general. In doing so I will highlight how this affects areas of their lives ranging from income to opportunities. In addition to gender, my essay will focus on ethnicity being a source of social division, touching upon subjects ranging from the equality movement to employment opportunities. After doing so I will offer an explanation to how both these categories within society exaggerate existing differences with social classes.

I will focus this part of my essay on how women’s experiences of inequalities are intensified as a result of their working-class backgrounds. Working class women can often be the subject of derogatory stereotyping, their behaviour towards both family and others often associated with deviancy from what is expected of feminine behaviour. When writing about class and gender, Beverley Skeggs illustrated how the middle-classes in Britain created themselves by demonstrating ways in which they were different from the ‘other’, the ‘other’ in this case being the working-class (Skeggs). This created the term ‘class’, and this process of distancing the middle-classes from the ‘other’ is still being used to differentiate between the middle and working class today. Examples of this can be seen often within our society such as the focus by political parties on the breakdown of the family unit, with single mothers being the main focus. This focus on single-parent family is important as it is often associated with working-class families. As Skeggs wrote “just think about the contemporary British Conservative government campaigns (at the 1995 party conference) which demonized single parents thereby (re)presenting working class women as degenerate, irresponsible and a threat to the national family” (Skeggs, in Mahoney and Zmroczek 1997: 125) although this example is from sixteen years ago, this attitude in the media and through politicians is something that can often be seen or heard today. This process of demonization stigmatises the working class female leading wider society to believe that single parent families thought of as working class, are the cause of many of the societal problems within everyday life.

It is not just single parent women who as a result of their working class background that can be at a disadvantage within society. Women throughout society are at a disadvantage in most professional occupations, as a result of this disadvantage women in general earn far less than men in work, known as the gender pay gap. Women make up almost 50% of the labour market in the UK, but earn on average far less due to the lower statuses of positions women hold. Meg Maguire writes about this inequality in her chapter in Class Matters: ‘Working-Class’ Women’s Perspective on Social Class. Maguire states that women are at a disadvantage when it comes to being employed within academia, although more than half of the students within higher education are female very few of these move into lecturing. Something she claims makes those that are in employment within this area ‘outsiders’ to the rest of the academy (Maguire 1997). The inequalities within this sector of paid employment do not stop at this Maguire goes on to explain that on top of the fact that fewer women go onto work within higher education those that do work in lower positions within the lecturing staff, something which is echoed generally throughout most organisations. She writes that “They are concentrated in subordinate positions within an occupation which is organised and managed by dominant male workers from the same occupational class and background” (Maguire 1997: 89). This over-representation of male upper and middle class workers in positions of power within organisations such as universities, large companies and banks has a large effect on the potential for progress in employment for females within that profession. This makes it hard for women to move up the company ladder due to the institutionalised sexism, often referred to as the class-ceiling, whereby women can see the way to progress through the company but cannot due to them being female.
This glass-ceiling effect is echoed in Pamela Abbott’s chapter on gender in the book Social Divisions, within she states that gender has a detrimental effect on the type of employment available to women. She states within that women are concentrated in the low paid manual areas of the employment market, often in caring roles or working in non-manual low paid jobs such as secretarial positions or as clerks in offices. These jobs, although many would consider them to be white-collar and therefore middle-class jobs, are low paid and therefore mean that these women are likely to be living on low-incomes close to the minimum wage available. Citing Payne and Abbott, she states that “Despite over 20 years of equal opportunities legislation, there is still clear evidence that the ‘glass ceiling’ (a barrier to women’s upward mobility into higher level positions) and the ‘glass wall’ (a barrier to women entering occupations defined as male) still act as barriers” (Payne and Abbott 1990 cited in Abbott: 88). This illustrates the divisions that are still present in society, and the obstacles that women face in employment if they wish to progress in their careers, or even gain entry into the occupation that they want to have a career in.

Divisions within society take shape not only due to class and gender but also are related to ethnicity; the background of the person can often lead to social exclusion from areas that other people may have an easier time accessing such as health care services, education and employment opportunities. Although social work can be criticised for failing many groups within society such as children under their care, the ethnic minority community it can be argued suffer an even greater level of negligence due to the effect of institutionalised racism or even racism from the individual social worker themselves. For this argument I will only examine the institutional racism that these communities may face when seeking help from social workers. This can lead to forms of social exclusion Dominelli writes that “The dynamics inherent in the racially exclusive tendency result in black people having limited access to the ‘goodies’ or caring services provided through social work intervention” (Dominelli 1992: 166). By this she means that the ethnic minority community often face huge obstacles in receiving state funded social care, such as community workers to help with everyday jobs around the home that they cannot do themselves due to age or disability or state funded accommodation in old age due to health or dependency. This can be linked to class as most of these services are used by working-class people in retirement through either age or disability. Ethnic minorities are vastly over represented in the working class due to the way that employment opportunities are often inaccessible to them due to their ethnic background. This income inequality is what I will now turn my attention to.

Minority ethnic groups within Britain are more likely to suffer from both poverty and unemployment, this inequality in employment is compounded by the fact that even when in employment the types of jobs and positions they hold generally are much lower paid and more disposable, for example low-skilled manual labour. This fact is highlighted by statistics taken from the Office of National Statistics, Annual Local Area Labour Force Survey 2001/02, the worst affected minority ethnic group was Bangladeshi men and women with unemployment rates at 20% for males and 24% for females, compared to the White majority groups at 5% and 4% respectively (Mason in Payne 2006: 112-113). These figures show just how unequal employment opportunities can be for minority ethnic workers in the UK, added to this Mason explains that during times of economic downturn in the economy minority ethnic groups suffer far worse in relation to the white majority with levels of redundancy (Mason). Unemployment is not the only form of discrimination that minority ethnic groups receive in the labour market, although some ethnic minorities are increasingly closing the gap on the white population in high pay jobs such as the Asian community in the UK, most groups are still at a disadvantage when it comes to employment in skilled and professional occupations.
This disadvantage in accessing the higher level jobs within society for some minority ethnic groups features in many studies conducted, Mason states that within the application process there is still a significant level of discrimination against those from minority ethnic backgrounds (Mason in Payne 2006). One study carried out matched two identical applicants, their CV’s were exactly the same in qualifications, and experience in that field of work was sent to companies from the Times 1,000 index. The only difference in the letters inquiring about future employment was the names of the people inquiring, Evans and Patel. The study found that companies were more likely to respond and when responding provided a better quality of response to Evans than their responses to Patel (Mason). This study highlights the institutionalised racism within companies, and the difficulties posed to minority ethnic groups when trying to achieve social mobility, due to the widespread levels of difference in levels of response given to both these fictitious candidates for jobs.

In conclusion, I believe that both gender and ethnicity play a major role in divisions within society. The role gender plays in intensifying social divisions can be seen in the way that public impressions of the working class female through both politics and media demonise the individuals as being deviant. They are stereotyped as having values differentiating from the middle-class norms held by society, and are perceived as being a threat. Added to this gender can act as a barrier in both attaining professional employment and in progressing through the corporate ladder, with both the glass ceiling and perceived male jobs providing potential barriers for women in achieving social mobility. The role ethnicity plays is a similar one to that of women in dividing society, the area of social care provides inadequate care for many ethnic groups in society through institutionalised racism, perceiving those in minority ethnic groups to be somehow less deserving of help provided. The lack of jobs opportunities and high unemployment rates with ethnic minority groups help perpetuate these class divisions based on ethnicity as many companies are either unwilling to employ ethnic minorities in high pay jobs or employ these groups in less stable jobs that are at prone to jobs losses much quicker in times of recession. Overall, I believe that not only do these divisions help to extend the class divisions in society I believe they are actually made much more intense for minority ethnic groups as a result of the class structure in the UK.

References

Skeggs, B. (1997) Classifying Practices: Representations, Capitals and Recognitions, in Mahoney, P. and Zmroczek, C. Class Matters: ‘Working-Class’ Women’s Perspectives on Social Class, London: Taylor and Francis, 123-139.

Maguire, M. (1997) Missing Links: Working-Class Women of Irish Descent, in Mahoney, P. and Zmroczek, C. Class Matters: ‘Working-Class’ Women’s Perspectives on Social Class, London: Taylor and Francis, 87-100.

Abbott, P. (2006) Gender, in Payne, G. Social Divisions, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 65-101.

Dominelli, L. (1992) An Uncaring Profession? An Examination of Racism in Social Work, in Braham, P., Rattansi, A. and Skellington, R. Racism and Antiracism: Inequalities, Opportunities and Policies, London: Sage, 164-178.

Mason, D. (2006) Ethnicity, in Payne, G. Social Divisions, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 102-130.

Do Not Despair Ladies! At Least There Is The Kitten Bowl For You To Watch Tonight

So it is Superbowl Sunday, all over the world people are anticipating one of the most watched sporting events of any calender year. People who haven't watched a single second of football all year will tune in for the one game that encompasses all that I enjoy about the sport. It will be intense, fast, and non-stop entertainment, even the advert breaks (I die a little inside for admitting this) are entertaining (depending on where you watch it). I think most recognise that people of all ages, sexualities, ethnicities, and genders around the globe can be counted among its viewership. Most. Clearly the cretins at the Daily Mail cannot be counted among these as the article "The claws are out! Puppy Bowl gets competition as Kitten Bowl returns for its second year - but which team of furry critters will deflate more balls?" suggests.

Okay, I know what most people would be thinking now, "the only person suggesting women will not be watching the Super Bowl tonight is you matey... Just look at the title to this blog post". The title of this blog post was chosen because that is essentially all they are saying with this article and where they posted it on their website, in short the 'femail' section of that disgusting e-rag. 

The blatant sexism of that 'female focused' section is something I have wrote about before, it trivializes the female, moves them to the outside of the normal readership (males), and undermines any notion that women are interested in anything beyond the family, relationships, fashion and obviously Kittens.

By publishing this article there they are oblivious to the fact that sport is not the preserve of men, and Kittens are not just enjoyed by women. In fact if this article, as poor and pointless as it is, was in the standard part of the Daily Mail's website it would have just been another example of the tabloid trash they publish on a hourly basis. The fluff that is only there to lighten the endless waves of Racism and fear they shove down the throats of their paranoid readership. Just quick, disposable, complete devoid of critical analysis, harmless trash.

In publishing it where they did they have highlighted once again the casual, and sometimes not so casual, sexism that they delight in producing and shown just how out of touch they are with the modern world. The Daily Mail as a source of 'news' are akin to the grumpy, racist, Grandfather we all recognise, unable to see beyond his 1930's upbringing and still believing that men and women cannot share any common interests.

Having played American Football (as we call it over here) at a university that has a female team and seeing how much heart they put into every game, how much work they put in during training, and how much they enjoyed playing the sport, I can categorically confirm that every single female watching the Super Bowl tonight will be enjoying it as much as the male viewers, with scarcely a kitten in sight. Despite what the Daily Mail think about it.

Oit, James Blunt And Chris Bryant! You Are Both Wazzocks.

I feel the need to take a different approach to this much commented upon spat between these two. As you may have read, which is likely if you've found this blog way down in the search engine results on somewhere around page 48,000, Chris Bryant stating that he believed it was considerably easier for those from privileged backgrounds to find 'success in the arts'. Unsurprisingly one of those privileged people hit back, enter (stage left) James Blunt.

In response to Chris Bryant comments about privilege and the arts, James Blunt launched in a rant about his personal experience and how privilege will not necessarily lead to success. Citing his experiences as proof that privilege does not open doors for people in the entertainment industry. In the process calling him a classist gimp and a wazzock.

I couldn't agree more with Mr Blunt, he is a complete wazzock. This is clearly a trait they both share, as within this rant James Blunt reveals how little he understood what was being stated. One look at the wider media will tell you how class works overwhelming in favour of the educated, middle to upper class, white people, to which James Blunt belongs. Everything from ballet to sitcoms are rammed full of cast members over representing the red-brick universities and public schools to which Chris Bryant was referring. To ignore such obvious and overwhelming evidence is to condone the existing situation, thus believing that is the way it should be, and in James Blunt's own language, to be a classist gimp. 

Regardless of his own personal journey, which I admittedly knew very little about prior to reading this story today so I cannot verify the difficulties James Blunt claimed to face in making his name, the fact remains that being from a wealthy background does afford you certain privileges that the lower classes would not be able to rely upon. For instance, the correct assertion that having wealthy family members would help the aspiring performer to afford the schooling fees and years of low income that characterises someones early years within such a competitive industry. They simply have a reliable source of financial support that means they do not have to compromise their time with those pesky distractions such as making some money to eat, drink and sleep somewhere warm. 

Clearly Chris Bryant has said nothing that is not factually accurate in this respect. So why is he a classist gimp and a wazzock, just like James Blunt? 

Had he not used the example he did, discussing celebrities, and instead focused upon the other 'traditional' elitist institutions such as the one he represents then I may be inclined to disagree once more with James Blunt. However, he did not. His comments and focus upon the entertainment industry assumes that the lower classes do not desire meaningful, academic, or any of the traditionally important and well paid roles within society. The comments seem to be playing upon the stereotypical image of the lower classes as dumb, work shy and averse to responsibility and only desiring instant fame and gratification. He is all too happy to discuss inequality in the media but ignores the place in which he earns his livelihood, the houses of parliament, hardly a place famous throughout the UK for being bastion of working class representation. This may be because he, much like his sparring partner Blunt, is a boarding school, publicly educated, child of privilege. 

That seems to me to be the point of the attack and the reason he shares the 'wazzock trait' with Mr Blunt. By highlighting the inherent advantage of the privileged few in terms of making it in the entertainment industry, he has simultaneously brought about a focus upon his own privilege, and the privilege of the vast majority of his peers, within the establishment. Something which I hope doesn't go without notice within the ranks of the 'plebs' he is trying to distract from the more important conversation about representation in the decision making processes in society.

Why I Am Worried About The Lifting Of The Cuban Embargo

I have not moaned on this blog for what seems like an eternity now. It is not that I have not wanted to many, many times. It has just been my complete lack of interest in the world lately, something which happens every year as Christmas approaches, with all its 'festivities' being rammed down our throats in enormous quantities. The television gets switched off, newspapers and their online versions ignored, even interactions with my more consumerist friends is limited in the social media world. It frankly fucks me off more than usual.

Today that changed. Whilst at my workplace it was business as usual for a while, I was happily ignoring the noise produced by the radio DJ's, they were for the most part (I presume) spouting their usual shite. Then, suddenly, there was one story I couldn't help but become interested in. America is lifting its illegal, petty, and thankfully unsuccessful trade embargo with Cuba. 

For a moment I was happy. As you really should be with this kind of news. It surely is a good day for the people of Cuba, no longer shall they be the subjects of unfair, punitive, economic sanctions for daring to seek a path different from the American ideal.

Maybe this is a new America which does not wish to impose its own ideology on every nation in the world, one which doesn't shape its foreign policy exclusively in the terms of its big businesses interests, one that will not attempt to interfere in the running of a populace beyond its own borders.

Then I paused and sighed as I remembered that it was the most powerful of the western capitalist nations and the least likely to live and let live. Much like Britain, France, and pretty much every other imperialist nation from Holland to the new kids on the block in China, America does have a long and continuing track record of manipulating or coercing foreign populations and their 'elites' into situations that further their own agenda.

The extent to which this will happen in Cuba is anyone's guess, but as we know from both current events and history the last remaining superpower does not like having leaders on its doorstep which don't have big businesses, or more specifically American big businesses, best interests at heart.

My main worry is that the free elections which will happen sooner or later, and will be demanded by more than Owen Jones and the other pro-plutocrats, will not be won by a man or woman the people. Rather I see that too being manipulated and warped in favour of a pro-western, free market loving, sycophant. Should it not be the case, could you realistically see any scenario where another election is not forced upon the nation through international political will? I cannot.

I foresee only one outcome for the country, and it is a bleak one. It too will become a budget America. A nation of McDonalds on every corner, of dawn til dusk iPod advertisements, a twenty-four hour Disney channel, huge influxes of aspirational propanganda telling the Cuban people that they too can live the American dream... and within a few generations, a nation of rampant exploitation among the swelling lower classes and a small, burgeoning bourgeois elite, increasingly being marketed both nationally and internationally, as proof that rampant capitalism has the ability to improve everyone's life.

Congratulations Cuba on your impending cultural homogenization. Say hello to the Western Hegemony that will soon be dictating your every action.

Shocking News: Scientist Revealed To Have Poor Fashion Sense And Social Skills

Many people on twitter have fallen into their default 'outrage' setting this week as a genius who worked on the comet landing has revealed himself to be far from that in the wardrobe department. In fact his distasteful dress sense was so appalling that he genuinely thought a shirt as in your face as the one he chose to wear, featuring scantily clad and heavily armed women, was the right choice to make during the highlight of his career thus far. My annoyance with the ridiculousness of this outrage is three-fold.

Firstly, and most importantly, he is a scientist. If you expect anything other than social awkwardness and a twinge of sexual desperation from one, or indeed are experiencing the opposite when you interact with one, then you are not speaking, listening, or reading something from a very good scientist. Okay I appreciate that is a gross over simplification of the facts (with a huge dose of stereotyping to boot) but you cannot argue that there is not a 'geek' culture within the science community, and that culture does unfortunately come with its many misogynistic characteristics. Do not mistake what I am arguing for here, I am not apologizing or making excuses for the shirt. What I am saying is that being outraged over the awful attire choices from a scientist, who quickly changed his shirt once it became apparent to him that it was sexist and inappropriate, is perhaps not the most constructive of things to rally against. He is not the cause of the culture of misogyny, merely a symptom of it, a geek fooled by the culture that surrounds 'geekdom' and the wider society. The comet landing took place on 12th November, the same week that everyone started going bonkers over these photos with the strap-line 'break the internet'. BREAK THE INTERNET! The point of that strap-line really needs no explaining and just highlights my argument. Symptom or cause, individual or bigger picture, I know which one I consider more worthwhile and constructive in confronting. Only made all the more significant by the worrying racial connotations of the champagne butt balancing picture.

My second point is that the guy just helped land a man made object designed to gather data on comets onto a comet! Give the guy a break and just enjoy the scientific achievement for a little while before discussing the appropriateness of his shirt. This was the stuff of movies until the team at ESA achieved it. Beyond that it is a vitally important step towards further understanding comets. What we learn may even save the planet from a devastating impact on day, or help us further understand the origins of life on this planet. In fact there is a lot we do not know about comets, and at a crucial time in the proceedings, surely it would have been better to just let the man get on with his job and kicked up a storm over his inappropriate shirt choice after all of the butt-clenching had died down?

My final grievance with this outrage is the presumption that women will not what to engage with science because of his shirt choice, that it shows how unwelcome women are in the scientific community. Again I would argue that the clothing choice of one man does not hinder the impact women can have upon science any more than it helps it. I would argue that the society in which we live, through the means of socialisation, was the bigger reason for the disparity in the number of female scientists in relation to men. Everyone is familiar with the term 'women's work', that women have specific roles differing greatly from men that are determined by their biology. What many people fail to realise is that gender is socially constructed, because of this so to are the roles that men and women play in society. From schooling to pop-psychology we are told that these fictional gender differences matter, that men are better at certain things physical or intellectual pursuits (like science) because of their biological make-up, women are much more adept at caring, creative, or communicative roles. This is largely nonsense beyond the very real differences, those being that men are on average 30% stronger than women (although there are obviously exceptions), so many men are slightly better equipped than women for very heavy manual labour (although that does not mean they would be any more competent than large numbers of women or that there aren't just as many women who would excel in these roles) and women have the required gear for childbirthing. Everything else to do with gender specific roles, or what society tells us are such, is blatant misinformation. To suggest that this man and his shirt are going to put women off entering the scientific professions is just as equally misleading. It is not his shirt that would do that but the years of socialisation the young female will receive. The socialisation you see all around you from toys, to television or film, to subtle nudges towards an easily identifiable and socially acceptable gender identity from her parents, all conspiring to tell her that she is only suitable for 'gender appropriate' work and to leave the science to the boys. To lambast a man who wore a sexist shirt on a internet stream, however important that stream may be in shaping a child's future, I believe is missing the point and trivialising the actual problem facing those who want to get more women entering into high-status, scientific careers. Foremost among these is a culture that encourages women to turn their backs on science to engage in 'feminine' activities long before a person's (lack of) fashion sense has any bearing on their futures.

#bearface #heroic

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

No.

It is not.

I could probably end it there, but I feel like I really should explain. Children in Need have launched an advert providing helpful 'tips' on how ordinary people can raise money for charity, which every time I've seen I have felt an unstoppable urge rising inside of me, forcing whole body into a frenzy of uncontrollable bouts of violence, my jaw clenching until the grinding turns my entire jaw into bone meal, the anger only quenched and fading once it is expelled in its final moments as a scream, either loudly or internally, leaving behind a hollow shell where once belonged a man, forlorn and frustrated with what was witnessed, yet calm once again.

I am well aware of how this looks. Usually when I choose to moan about something I feel fairly confident that anyone with a fully functioning brain, with at the very least a modest mental capacity, would understand, relate, and most of all share in my frustration. But here, on this occasion, I look like a right miserable sod. I am but that is beside the point. 

What I find so frustrating about this advertisement is not the cause, or its good intentions, or its god awful cheesiness. It is the #bearface bit! Why is that something that should be considered heroic? Good on you ordinary woman for not wearing a product you are expect to wear under intense, and ridiculous, societal pressures. Good on you for showing the world the 'real you', without actually making much of a meaningful attempt to change the appalling and damaging way those products, that you so heroically discarded, are marketed at females. Good on you for listening to Abbey Clancy, a lingerie model who happens to be married to footballer (I was not at all surprised when I searched who the hell was doing the voice-over), for not subscribing to the nonsensical beauty ideal for a brief moment. Somewhat ironic given that she is a large part of its continued existence. Just good for you. You are simply the most heroic person to have walked this planet.

It is at this point when I come to realise I have made myself sound like a complete arse, I am sure that for many 'ditching the make-up' is truly terrifying. I appreciate that. What I do not appreciate is why it should be considered such a feat of bravery and the damaging effects the beauty myth can have upon women. Perpetuating this myth, that beauty is achieved through cosmetics and as such it is brave to 'ditch the make-up', will not help anyone beyond the obvious short-termist goal of raising a few bob for a 'celebrity' charity event. One I suspect is staffed almost entirely by people seeking only publicity and whom have, in all likelihood, contributed very little of their own 'hard-earned' cash.

What the people at Children in Need should be doing, if they had any sense, would be showing the useful ways in which people can contribute to charities and their fundraising. Bake a bloody cake, or do a challenge, as are suggested in the advertisement. Hell even do the tired dressing up to show how 'zany' you are, despite always coming off as a tosser with no imagination and looking like a twat all day. Dare I say it... shock horror... you could even collect money in a truly unique way (at least for these public, celebrity, charity event things)... with dignity and information!!! Crazy! 

Just don't think you are helping anyone in the long-term by listening to Abbey and "ditching the make-up and donning the paw" because ultimately, the idea that not wearing make-up is something abnormal gets enough children to be in need of help as it is. Poor form from Children in Need who raise for, as one of their many supported charities, the anorexia charity beat.

If you want to donate to them do so, just please don't humour the #bearface suggestion. 

Under A Month To Go In The Rochester And Strood By-Election: So Who Are The Candidates?

I was trawling through my favourite corners of the internet earlier, looking at the usual, when I stumbled across the Britain First post on Facebook about their candidate in my local elections, at which point it suddenly dawned upon me, I have no idea who the candidates really are and what they stand for. I looked for a while and couldn't find a page that outlined all of their manifesto's and pledges to the constituency, something for which I do not know whether it is my fault, for looking in the wrong places, or if it simply is not there. I thought to myself, for once do not just moan about this woman and her politics, make one page devoted to the candidates in the Rochester and Strood by-election, to the best of your limited abilities, which might help (at least some of) the people make an informed choice among the THIRTEEN options. So here we go, into the unprecedented territory of a relatively unbiased post (only because it is already clear I am not a fan of BF).

Mike Barker MBE: Independent
Bomb disposal expert.
Twitter: @MikeBarkerMBE
Received MBE for Gallantry in 1972.
Convicted in 2008 of making 'Threats to Kill'.
Imprisoned in 2010 for non payment of Council Tax as a protest.

Is concerned by the unexploded ordinance on the SS Richard Montgomery in the Thames Estuary near Grain, which has 10,353 bombs onboard and has not been made safe for the nearby public. Other concerns include the continued existence of nuclear weapons.
That is pretty much all I could find out about him, other than that he originally wanted to run as a Respect Candidate but was not replied to by George Galloway and his party. So I would assume that his politics would be in line (at least in part) with those of the Respect party.

Christopher Challis: Independent
Cambridge educated Accountant
Twitter: @Chris_Challis

Couldn't find too much on him so this is taken from his tweeting; Appears to be a keen supporter of free-market capitalism. States that he is pro-free NHS. Believes lower tax rates will inevitably produce higher tax intake. Is against the Inheritance Tax and would like to see it eventually scrapped when no longer needed. Mentions the EU referendum, and it being blocked by the House of Lords previously, Although not explicit that implies a pro referendum stance. Tweeted support for an article arguing against the legality and ethics of Multi-National Tax Avoidance.

Hairy Norm Davidson: Monster Raving Loony Party
Woodsman and Log Supplier

Couldn't find much on this chap other than he ran in Faversham and Mid Kent at the 2010 elections gaining 398 votes coming last (I would argue still more sensible than what some of those other voters in that region chose).
Here is the Monster Raving Loony Party manifesto.

Jayda Fransen: Britain First
Director of Britain First Merchandise

Main concern appears to be the construction of a Mega-Mosque in nearby Gillingham. They are an Anti-Islam group whose issues appear to be that of Islam in the UK, immigration in general, 'declaring war' on the Westminster establishment, and our EU membership. Here is the Rochester section from their website. As a bonus here is a video of her charming confrontation with rather bemused groups of Tories and Muslims.

Stephen William Goldsbrough: Independent
Lay Preacher
Twitter: @StephenGoldsbro

Tweeted this petition to stop Nestle patenting a cure-all flower. Also retweeted a tweet from 38degrees in support of a change to the gagging law. That's all I could find on him. Only two tweets.

Clive Gregory: Green Party
Bass Player
Twitter: @clivebassman

Clive's main policies include the following: Opposing the proposed development of Lodge Hill, the re-nationalisation of the railways, calling for a people's constitutional development, full monetary reform, £10 per hour minimum wage, protection for the NHS, and of course environmental sustainability (including opposing fracking in Kent). Read about them in a bit more detail in his local manifesto. His blog is a useful tool to use if you want to learn about his politics too, particularly this post. Here is the full 2010 Green Party manifesto, unfortunately it is an old one but it will be a good indicator of their core values. For slightly a more up-to-date, but more focused on Europe, manifesto there is one from the European Elections available.

Geoff Juby: Liberal Democrats
Medway Councillor for Gillingham South. Contested Rochester and Strood in 2010.

Surprisingly hard to find information on considering he is a candidate for one of the 'traditional big three'. Here is a rather wishy washy interview from 2010 for Rochester People and his profile on the Medway LibDems website. Because of his lack of online presence (like many of the other candidates) I am going to have to assume his politics are completely in line with the parties. As such I will base it on the Lib Dems pre-manifesto. These policies include: Balancing the nations books (the austerity program), raise tax free allowance to £12,500, protect education spending from early years to college (and education promise, forgive me for this one slip up in bias.... but... haha as if that will happen... it sounds familiar and is still a sore point for me and my bank balance), more free childcare, stronger border checks, greater devolution, and more... for more information check out their full pre-manifesto.

Naushabah Khan: Labour
PR Consultant and Kickboxer
Twitter: @naushabahkhan

Unsurprisingly, her twitter is useless as a guage of her policies... as it is pretty much just PR friendly photographs. Thankfully, she has a personal website devoted to this campaign. It makes me searching a little bit quicker as I do not have to trawl twitter, news sources or dubiously constructed websites, and hopefully I will be able to get on with my evening much sooner than I feared. Her concerns do make her seem committed local issue, real grass-roots politics in the community she wishes to represent. Her website lists as her campaigns a commitment to save Strood Library from closure (or relocation), fighting against 'Boris Island' in the Thames Estuary, fighting for the betterment of train services for commuters and improving their rights, and she wants to know about local people's experiences with GP waiting times to boot. You can read about it all on her website which handily includes a blog too. In the interest of fairness I will also include the Labour party manifesto? Or issues?... Heck I don't know what this is meant to be, but it does include some key promises so it will do. It's all on that website.

Nick Long: People Before Profit
Housing Officer

@nichopbp (found him after this post was completed... Check it out if you want to know more)

A party based out of Lewisham, this will be (as far as I can tell) their first foray into politics outside of the capital. Very left-wing. I could not find anything on Nick Long or his personal policies and concerns, the best I have is the website for the party. Have a look around and you'll be able to understand what they are about. Admittedly the focus of the website is upon Lewisham but I'd imagine they would take a similar stance with Medway's local services.

Dave Osborn: Patriotic Socialist Party
Also stood in Clacton?

Taken from their Facebook page "The Patriotic Socialist Party is pleased to announce that Dave Osborn has been selected to stand for the Rochester and Strood Parliamentary by-election. A former member of both the Labour Party and, more recently, UK Independence Party, Dave has shown himself to be committed to fighting for the Patriotic Socialist cause."

As confusing as that statement is (socialism and UKIP in my mind are completely antithetical) I feel I should provide some information on who they are and what Dave Osborn stands for. His manifesto on their Facebook page states that the Patriotic Socialists will: Prtoect public services, oppose austerity and fight for the poorest and most vulnerable in society, introduce a living wage, nationalise the railways, Royal Mail and energy companies, take control of the monetary system in the UK (creating debt free money), withdraw from the EU and get tougher on immigration, advocate environmentalism and animal rights. For more information on the parties policies take a look at their 10 point plan manifesto.

Mark Reckless: UKIP
Former Banker and Barrister
Twitter: @MarkReckless

The man who triggered all of this by switching from the Tories to the New Tories UKIP. It is Mark Reckless, so what does he stand for now that he has taken that small step to the right? His own website should shed light on it, thankfully there is a post there entitled "Why I am leaving the Conservative party and joining UKIP". Unsurprisingly, he talks of UKIP's 'outsider' status and taking on the old Westminster elite who have caused the public to feel disenfranchised with politics. Further into it, and after his dig at the tories, he gets to the nuts and bolts of his policies, in it he states that he wants to: Cut immigration, deal with the deficit (continue the austerity program), bring down taxes, make MP's more accountable to their constituents, localise local issues (an example he gives is housing at the Lodge Hill site), and of course get Britain out of the EU. You can read about UKIP's wider interests on their website.

Charlotte Rose: Independent
Sex Worker and Sexual Trainer (also ran in the Clacton by-election)
Twitter: @_Charlie_rose

Previously appearing on the Channel 4 TV series 'Love For Sale'. She won the award Sex Worker of the Year in 2013. She is primarily concerned with the need for greater 'sexual freedom'. She has hit out at the governments failure to deal with problems including porn addiction and the Rotherham child exploitation scandal, she has also called for a comprehensive sex education overhaul.

Kelly Tolhurst: Conservative
Businesswoman and Marine Surveyor
Twitter: @KellyTolhurst

Selected via an open primary, contested between her and Anna Firth. She has a six point plan to "secure a better future for Rochester and Strood" which includes: Action - Not just talk - on immigration, getting Medway Hospital out of Special Measures, a housing development plan that works for us (Lodge Hill again), more police officers on the streets, more jobs and better infrastructure (keeping businesses taxes low and sorting out traffic in Medway City Estate), and finally improving the local schools, something she will definitely know about having attended Chapter School (I jest of course). And finally, here is the Conservative Party plan? I guess it's too early for a proper manifesto anyway, but its pretty much all there. As it stands it might all be pointless for her whatever the result, as an article on the Channel 4 website claims that judges could over turn any conservative victory in Rochester and Strood due to a breach of the legal spending limits. I guess time will tell if she does win.

Her page on the Conservative party website is also asking you to voice your opinion on capping welfare payments further, which I strongly urge you to disagree with, it is extremely harmful to those who are in the unfortunate position of needing it to survive, whatever your politics are more extreme levels of poverty is not a good idea.

Right that's your lot, I'm tired, I've been doing this post for untold hours, I have work early in the morning, and quite frankly I am now bored of it all.

Hope this helps anyone who is confused by all the 'options'.

If you want my two pennies... I'm still sticking with the Greens.

Obsessed With Islam: Facebook and Widespread, Unchallenged Racism

Racism on Facebook is something I have touched on before, a constant thorn in my side, that itch which never ceases despite how often you attempt to scratch it away. Whilst every form of racist posts on Facebook send me up the wall, it is the obsession with sharing 'stories' which focus upon the supposed irrational, barbaric, or otherwise antithetical aspects of Islamic beliefs with the 'enlightened' western world, which brings forth my wrath more than annoy other.

Why should I choose to reserve more anger about one form of racism on Facebook than any other? The answer is simple, I do not get more worked up about anti-Islamic posts than other forms. I do despair at how easily nearly every one of these posts go unchallenged by the majority of my 'friends' or even their friends. When these posts go ignored it is implicitly condoning the belief that Islam and the Islamic people being targeted are incompatible with civilised society. It further marginalises a large stratum of society already quite marginal in terms of relative power.

Ironically, many of these posts criticise Islamic people for not wanting to accommodate another religion or set of societal values whilst simultaneously neither wishing to accommodate their beliefs or values. Of course the people who make and share these posts often do not realise this inherent hypocrisy. When they are on occasions forced to acknowledge this, usually (although far too rarely) by someone challenging their choice to spread marginalising or racist propaganda, many go through a process of reconciliation in an attempt to bring their beliefs in line with the acceptable. Tellingly, this process usually involves warping the non-racist position more than the racist one in order to concede as little ground as possible, thus in (their minds at least) validating their beliefs.

Most of these techniques are easily recognisable. It might involve projecting their own privileged position onto Islam, thus switching the blame for the perceived incompatibility of coexistence within one society from the majority group onto the minority one. They might ridicule an aspect of Islamic belief to show its irrational nature therefore relegating it below their 'superior' culture, whilst ignoring how perfectly reasonable the request or concession would be if it was coming from a group not currently the subject of such unconditional hatred. More often than not they simply will not have to bother.

The only reason I mention the way these posts are made compatible with acceptable views is because within these techniques the truth of why they are so frustrating to see go unchallenged everyday surfaces. They are in all forms only used as a way to reaffirm the poster's racist beliefs. Even when hiding under the guise of something 'humorous' or 'banter', such as the inspiration for this post.

Whilst boredom scrolling through Facebook I came across this innocent looking photo of a London cabbie grabbing his door handle, which I must have passed on half a dozen occasions, before noticing two words that jumped out at me on screen, they were "Arab Muslim". Knowing Facebook posts are usually fall into one of four categories; reactionary, inflammatory, incorrect, or just plain boring, I knew I was onto something. 

Accompanying the generic looking photo were these words:

London cab driver's answer to a request from a Muslim to turn of the radio. (You just got to love the Brits.) A devout Arab Muslim entered a black cab in London. He curtly asked the cabbie to turn off the radio because as decreed by his religious teaching, he must not listen to music because in the time of the prophet there was no music, especially Western music which is the music of the infidel.

The cab driver politely switched off the radio, stopped the cab and opened the door. 

The Arab Muslim asked him, "What are you doing?"

The cabbie answered, "In the time of the prophet there were no taxis, so piss off and wait for a camel.."

Many people would wrongly argue that this is just a humorous anecdote, that it is a reasonable response to someone trying to force another person to adhere to their religious beliefs, and that those beliefs are clearly irrational and incompatible with a developed, modern, and (without even a subtle hint of irony) tolerant society. 

But would this be interpreted the same way if it were a story about a Christian taking offence to a piece of music? I would argue no. Instead of laughing it off and agreeing with what it, the likely reaction from the very same would be to meet it with huge amounts of hostility. There is plenty of evidence of this if you look at stories in the many racist, right-wing mouthpieces about 'good ol' Christians' being subject to discrimination where Muslims would ALWAYS be accommodated. Such as in the wording of this article and the comments scribbled with crayons by the readers.

Additionally, the "Arab Muslim" in this (I suspect fake) story was not just anybody asking something unreasonable. He or she is a paying customer and most of the people who are sharing or posting this rubbish most likely adhere to the old adage that "the customer is always right". If that saying holds any truth and the "Arab Muslim" was paying for this service, why should he or she not be allowed to ask for something they find offensive to be switched off? 

The only reason that is is differentiated so much from what someone who posts this would expect for themselves can be because the subjects are an "Arab Muslim" and a Londoner (who is white if you look at the picture). Its is all about location and race, Western European versus Middle Eastern, Christianity versus Islam, Normal versus Abnormal, Right versus Wrong and nothing else.

As with all of these posts, it marks Islam out as the antithesis to Western Culture. To ignore and leave it be, is to condone and to agree. Opposing racism online is becoming increasingly pertinent as more and more of our social interactions and knowledge dissemination are being conducted on social media platforms such as Facebook. So next time you see one of these posts ask yourself... who will challenge their racism if not you?