Featured post

Moving backwards in every way. Stop and think!

Face book activity has been off the chart lately with the regressive policies being signed off by the 45th president of the USA, the seg...

Wednesday, 18 December 2013

Interesting Reading 18th Dec 2013

As you may or may not realise I am a Student of Psychology and many aspects of academic writing outside psychology catch my my interest too.  Currently as I am on vacation and I was looking for something to read outside of what I have been studying and although sociology and psychology do cross over in some places I still find sociology quite interesting.

I came across the following book on and decided to scan through the book for an idea of what it included.  I have to say the writer seems to have put a lot of work into this with 20 chapters on various aspects of sociology including one on scientific sociology in which the focus is functionalism and refers to Talcott Parsons and Emile Durkheim however he still refers to Marx theories as well.
Overall this looks like a good read so if this is young thing you can take a look here 

Another Book I keep in my Library in Smashwords is there marketing guide.  As I am published here I like to keep up to date with all of their material.  Smashwords really is a good place to publish eBooks so if you think you have a book in you why not take a look here and see how easy it is.  You can also find out how to format your book before publishing here and the best of it is these books are free.  As are many others that are published there.

One last book that caught my attention was this one because it is academic.  I remember going through critical analysis of poetry at college and I found it really difficult to pick up on all of the minor details.  I must have written my analysis about 6 times before I got it right, and wish I had seen this before attempting it.  So if you are studying literature this may be a good start to learning what to look for.

Well those are my book choices for today and over the next few weeks there will be more so please do check back and I will do my best to find cheap, or even better, free but informative academic style books for you to look at, read and learn from.

Wednesday, 6 November 2013

Pareidolia OR Seeing things with your Imagination

Please do not look at the pictures until you have read the article and test this psychological phenomenon for yourself.

Looking through my face book today I come across a post that really caught my eye. Now I love cute little rodents such as mice and rats so I follow a group dedicated to posting up cute pictures of these little fellows in their natural habitats. This picture however was not in their natural habitat it was in fact of a rat on MARS? 

Well I just could not believe this at face value so I did some digging and this actually ties in nicely to my previous article (rant) about the teapot. I have enclosed pictures so as you can see what I am referring too but please do not look (Psychologically I know now that I’ve told you not to look you want to so apologies for this but hang in there) 

I dug around on the NASA page and found absolutely nothing to confirm the sighting of rats on Mars (no surprise their heh heh) but I am aware of a psychological phenomenon called Pareidolia. Many people are capable of this ability. Keeping the terminology in plain English Pareidolia is the ability to form pictures from shapes and symbols. The mind does this by looking at the visual and then pulling past images from your memory and piecing the image you see together with images you know such as a rock can suddenly be a rat (you can look now ) or a teapot can suddenly resemble Hitler (yes my earlier rant was about this particular teapot).

So there you have it and as a side note, this is where the saying never believe everything you see comes in useful! 

Hitler on a Teapot

Rats on Mars

Friday, 25 October 2013

Stratification within the Education System

The picture seen for the children of tomorrow is very bleak and disheartening. Marx stated that the ‘ruling class ideas were maintained for the ruling class’ and I now find that stratification has now somehow leaked into our educational system, creating disaster for our children’s future. Some people would state that the education is being ‘dumbed down’ however this is not the true definition of this ruling class ideal of stratification, nor does ‘dumbing down’ encompass the whole outlook of the role of the education system today. When you look at the motivation behind the education system as being the workforce needed for tomorrows society, stratification, the division of social class or the division of strata, is the dominant issue within the education system today. The Labour Government used their power (in 2010) to implement the idea of stratification for children using their (self proclaimed) new and improved ‘multiple choice’ education system. They emphasized that this was to benefit education in the UK, in reality however, it only benefits the future workforce. Due to this change to the system the education systems role has changed and rather than it being an institute of knowledge and enlightenment, the system has now become nothing more than a cloning industry for tomorrow’s workforce. This begins in Primary schools and prepares them to become drones in their own future society for the ruling class to exploit when needed.

When I was younger, school is where I learned many and various different topics. Some things would be difficult and challenging and others much easier to grasp and understand. I loved English and History, but was your average typical young student of the eighties, full of ideas, ambition and drive, totally unaware of the economy and politics. I now have nieces and nephews and used to love helping them with their homework until it dawned on me recently that the new education system is teaching young primary school children in picture book style about things such as Egyptian history, Roman history and nature. My older nieces and nephews had homework and tests with a lot of multiple choice tick boxes in them. None spoke of history or nature as they grew up, none seemed to have the same excitement about their future as I did in my school years, and none had any ideas of being a scientist, an archaeologist or indeed anything other than service roles such as child care or call centre work. Why would they? It is common knowledge that the UK is now built upon the service industry and there are hardly any science or research institutes around the UK any more. The UK government does not invest in such frivolous spending any more due to budget cuts and the economy. Children are being taught to grow up and become drones to benefit the service industry in this country, they are not taught to strive higher and achieve or exceed expectations, they are not taught about the world outside the UK and they are not shown things that would make them want to travel the world any more. They are needed here in the UK, therefore the government restricts, minimizes or controls what is taught and when it is taught. This then creates a passive working class for the ruling class to exploit.

This is not to say that they never teach history however; teaching young children about Egypt becomes an issue when the knowledge is not expanded upon in High school education. It’s as though it is deliberately taught at an age where children forget things and nothing grows from that little seed of interest planted at primary school as it is denied from further thought. I was in high school before I learned about the Rosette Stone, The Battle of Hastings in 1066 and the French Revolution. When I had learned it all, I read more in my own time, I was enthusiastic about this new knowledge. My concern is that if the younger generations want to learn properly about various topics, they now need to find the cash to get to college or university. Previously we were taught in great detail about these things at high school that gave you the drive and enthusiasm to follow up these subjects in greater detail and go to college. In today’s education system there is nothing to motivate high school pupils into wanting to read more or push themselves through the financial hardship of student life at college.
I would also like to point out the very unreliable “tick box” learning method. I had to sit an exam without “tick boxes”. I had to actually remember what I had been taught and write it down in an essay format at the age of 16 (15 for some of my friends whose birthdays fell later than the exam dates). Back then, we applied what was taught to us in daily life without even thinking about it. Now children are taught what to do but not how or why they are doing it. This means that the knowledge learned is not being applied anymore, they pass tests by ticking boxes and then forget about it.

The Labour Government imposed this ‘multiple choice’ method of education and the Conservatives have not moved to reverse this. I would at this stage ask why? Andrew Marszal, from the Daily Telegraph, shows a table of schools before and after the change in examination methods and by all means each school performed on average of 40% better. This, at first glance looks beneficial however looking at the research carried out below by Craik & Tulvin, there are cracks in this system which are not being dealt with.

What these results do not show, is whether after a year the students could take the same test and score the same again. Psychologically this is not possible. This type of learning and examination process does not account for the fact that immediately after the exam the information becomes forgotten. This is because nowhere in the curriculum are the students taught how to apply this knowledge to everyday life, why they need this knowledge, in other words. It has been researched and proven that ‘applied learning’ is remembered much better because it is repeated and used often. This can be seen in the research carried out by Craik & Tulvin in regards to their “levels of processing” theory where results showed a far higher long term memory when the participants gave meaning to the information they were trying to remember, in other words they applied learning to the information gained.

Where in the current teaching curriculum method do we ensure that this type of research is actually used to benefit the children being educated today? The answer it seems, is that we don’t. Politicians are either oblivious to these important factors or they choose to ignore them because it does not give the instant results they are looking for.

Ambition is a key factor here. It is being wiped away by political bureaucracy and red tape. Where are this generation being guided to? Are they being geared towards a production line, a desk in a call centre, an office assistant? Now there is nothing wrong with either of these roles. I, myself, have worked in two of them and known many good people who have worked in these sectors too. The key difference is I was given ambition, the choice to strive forward at school and in life. I learned about things I wanted to know more about and I am capable of applying many taught skills to life which enables me to continue moving towards a goal or overcoming an obstacle. At school I was given a passion to learn more and grew up with ambition knowing there was another world out there. The way our Education system is working is archaic, and removes choice and ambition from today’s children.

This system is working backwards and teaching children less and less about the world, achievement and ambition. It wipes away opportunity at being anything other than what the ruling class want for society. Stratification as Marx has argued, exists in all capitalist society’s as a Ruling class idea. This Ruling class idea now begins in schools, with children and creates a complacent subject class for the work force of the future. As working class adults who are always in conflict with the ruling class in today’s society, we should be protecting these children from this same conflict in tomorrow’s society. Instead we sit back and allow the ruling class to continue exploiting us, and now our children too.

In time, if we continue in this manner we will regress and some things in history will be buried and long forgotten. Some things will never be discovered. Along with this forgotten information will be the very reasons that there should never be another war. Today’s children should be encouraged to study science in order to take us into a cleaner, brighter future. History should be remembered by these children so as the mistakes of the past are never repeated. This current state of the education system is failing to account for these two very important factors in favour of capital. The children of today, the adults of tomorrow, will suffer for this.

To what extent was World War Two a people’s war?

When you look at World War Two across the globe, a pattern emerges. The pattern shows that in each country there was a people’s war ongoing. Germany and France both had aspects of this in them which will be discussed in this essay. Using two examples I will discuss to what extent World War II was a people’s war. 

The conventional view of what World War Two was about was that it was a war to fight Fascism, to stop the persecution of the Jews and to stop world domination. These are conventional Imperialist motives. This view does not highlight that during the War the people became organised resistance fighters. Henri Michaels sums up European resistance, he states, “Most of all he never separates his actions as a resistance fighter from his actions of a citizen...the resistance was an ideological struggle for the dignity of man.” This definition gives the clearest motivations for a people’s war. During the war people fought for dignity and freedom against Fascist dictatorship, globally.

There were attempts by resistance to fight the people’s war in Germany throughout World War Two. Communists showed defiance as they warned that they were being “trained as cannon fodder and … they must bring the Fascist to ruin” . There were also strikes and sabotage on military production lines and resistance fighters who helped Jews find escape passages out of Germany. The White Rose resistance (students) maintained information circulation on Hitler’s methods. Some of Hitler’s inner circle saw his ambitions expand and it became apparent that a war on two fronts was a threat. They were being bombed daily, losing thousands of lives. The Conservative resistance, including Gordeler, wanted to keep the spoils of war and maintain a healthy Germany but had the problem of unconditional surrender so ‘Operation Valkyrie’ was carried out by them in July 1944 but failed to assassinate Hitler. Gordeler and the resistance both failed as they were not supported by any other resistance factions or Imperialism against the Axis. Any resistance formed was never able to unite with others as the factions were separated by class, culture and race. However small the efforts, these are still aspects of the people’s war. 

Within Germany all resistance was quashed before they could gain momentum, even after the war the Antifascists groups were stopped abruptly. Germany was split between Russia, France, Britain and the US. Antifa’s emerged as the Third Reich was dissolved; 120 committees formed with 150,000 members across Germany in only two weeks. Their aim was to forestall Hitlers ‘Nero Order’ (the self destruction of Germany’s infrastructure) . Others helped to re-house homeless, distribute food and distribute Antifa leaflets and posters requesting soldiers to desert. Many broke away from class and race difference to establish unity. The US and USSR were however treating Germany as “the defeated enemy state”. It took only two weeks for Imperialism to abolish them completely. Stalin did this by use of violent, immoral brutal force. The allies followed suit using military force but did not reprimand any “Stalin like” force used. Allied Imperialism had gained too much to lose it now, if the Antifa’s unified there could be an uprising, giving Stalin the upper hand in Germany, neither of the Allies wanted this. This final resistance movement in Germany was demolished and the people’s war was lost utterly and completely.

It took only 6 weeks for the Germans to occupy France. France's vaunted Maginot Line failed to hold back the Nazi onslaught and the German Blitzkrieg poured into France. Britain offered support to France in the form of a Franco-British union, Frances response was announced by their Cabinet stating “Better be a Nazi province at least we know what that means” . On the 22 June 1940 they signed an Armistice giving the Germans full authority over the North and the Vichy Government authority in the South. This was an Imperialist move to protect the country from the anarchy. Due to previous uprisings General Weygand thought if the Nazi’s left enough troops during the occupation, this would control the population . 

French resistance factions formed across the entire French Empire. Communists rose up, a mixed group of resistance from all classes, race and religions formed to fight against the Vichy government; they were named the Maquis in rural areas . A young French Brigadier, De Gaulle, who had escaped to London, announced the existence of “Free France” during a BBC broadcast. He attempted to gain support from other Imperialists such as the French Commissioner in Chief of North Africa, this support was initially limited but as Imperialism changed its aims, so too did the support De Gaulle received. His aim was to maintain a hold on the French Empire, but his message and his methods caused disinterest and conflict within each resistance faction as he tried to militarise them and administrate them, using his secret army. Some resistance factions were experienced in methods of Guerrilla Warfare which were already successful so they would not adhere to De Gaulle’s methods, such as the PCF led ‘Franc-Tireurs et partisans’ or FTP. Others chose to remain neutral.

A key victory for the resistance came when De Gaulle sent the order that General Eisenhower wanted maximum disruption of the Wehhrmacht from within France. The French resistance were ready and willing, interior forces rose from 140,000 to 400,000 between June and September. All resistance factions fought, thousands died in places such as Vercors but this was still a victory for the resistance as the boats finally landed on the beaches of Normandy. This is a clear picture of the success of the people’s war in France but the resistance factions were still segregated from one another at this time. 

Operation Torch, where top Vichy officials were arrested, changed the way the resistance worked together. Admiral Darlan was one of the arrested and the anointed Heir of Petain. Darlan held the same values as other Vichyites such as Laval; who was later hanged. The resistance were stunned when the US officials handed the North African Government to him . Darlan did nothing about the anti-Semitic laws in Vichy France, and now De Gaulle’s’ men sat in concentration camps alongside Communist and Maquis resistance. This move united all French resistance factions. De Gaulle became the figure head, however his objectives were still entrenched in Imperialist motives, far from what the people fought for. 

De Gaulle planned on liberating Paris but was fearful of anarchy if the people succeeded without his presence, mass strikes had already erupted. De Gaulle ordered they stand down until his arrival. His secret army waited dutifully but the Communists resistance along with some other factions such as the Maquis ignored this. Headed by Communist, Rol-Tanguy, (a veteran of the Spanish Civil War - The dress rehearsal for WWII in which they had no Imperialist Allied support and lost) 20,000 resistance fighters, started the uprising. They fought well for 8 days. On the 9th day they lost 99 fighters to 5 Nazi’s. The resistance re-grouped immediately and on the tenth day more resistance fighters emerged to fight. The Nazi’s were defeated and Paris liberated, this was a huge success for the resistance. The extent to which World War Two was a people’s war in France is a large one which was supported by Allied Imperialism and impacted directly on the Imperialist war itself. 

When you look at global resistance motives for the people’s war they are identical. All fought against Right-wing Nationalists/Fascists for freedom. Germany’s people fought alone from within the Axis powers, France fought with support of Allied Imperialism. Resistance motives remained the same throughout the war, only their approach, support and results changed. 

WWII Germany was for the most part an Imperialistic war. There was a small people’s war ongoing but there was no support from Allied Imperialism and they failed, as did Spain which is mentioned briefly. France shows that this was a people’s war on a larger scale; they fought throughout the globe and within France. They had the support of Allied Imperialism against the Axis. Their resistance won many battles and their people’s war. 

From the evidenced countries the conclusion drawn is that the extent of World War Two being a people’s war was balanced. It was as much a war about Imperialism as it was a people’s war, a people’s war which could not have succeeded without Imperialism against the Axis.


H, Micheals, The Shadow war – Resistance in Europe, 1972, p.12.

Gluckstein, D, 2012. A Peoples History of the Second World War - Resistance versus Empire. 1st ed. London: Pluto Press.

Eye Witness to History - history through the eyes of those who lived it. [ONLINE] Available at:

Maquis (World War II) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia. [ONLINE] Available at:

I have recently published An Academic View of World War Two on and it included four full Essays about World War two.  These are a great help when working on Year one Essays for university.

Inconsistencies in the application of appeasement among the British Politicians in the 1930’s

In the run up to WWII British Politicians took unexpected or different approaches to appeasement during the 1930’s. In order to find out why there are inconsistencies between British politicians, there needs to be an understanding of why Churchill did not always support Chamberlain in each episode of appeasement. Chamberlain was consistent, Churchill, however was more complex. This essay will focus on the reasons behind the inconsistencies by looking at different episodes of appeasement throughout the 1930’s. It will explain the reasons each politician chose to take their stance in the issue of appeasement. 

Appeasement was an approach the British used throughout the 1930’s; it was a ‘policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace’ . When looking at the conventional view of Appeasement during this time it would seem, at face value that Chamberlain and Churchill appear to be consistent in the way they deal with this policy. Many quotes from history show us this must be true such as Churchill’s statement regarding the case of Manchuria. However, when searching beneath the surface you can find many speeches and further information to the contrary. 

The Manchurian crisis (1931) shows us that when taking into account the Mukden incident the Prime Minister of that time; James MacDonald (1929-35), took the same stance as MP’s Chamberlain and Churchill. There was no reprimand to the Japanese for invading Chinese territory, thus, appeasing Japan. In 1933 Churchill re-affirmed his stance of appeasement to this crisis with the following statement to the commons. “I must say something to you which is very unfashionable. I am going to say a word of sympathy for Japan … I hope we in England shall try to understand a little of the position of Japan, an ancient state, with the highest sense of national honor and patriotism, with a teeming population and remarkable energy. On one side they see the dark menace of Soviet Russia. On the other the chaos of China. ” 

Churchill brings focus to the ‘dark menace of Soviet Russia’. At that point in History we know that Communism was feared by all democratic and Fascist leaders. China were in early stages of Communism with many internal wars ongoing, hence, referral to the chaos of China. Japan where one of the largest powers in the world and were seen as an ally against Communism preventing any advances from Russia and therefore agreed that this approach, appeasement, was in the best interests of the British Empire. 

The Anglo-Naval agreement (1935) was not however, so amicable between British politicians. When Hitler approached Baldwin for permission to rebuild his Naval units Baldwin and Chamberlain agreed that this was only for defence reasons. Churchill however called it "acme of gullibility”. Churchill had been speaking out against defence cuts since 1933 when Hitler was appointed Chancellor, Churchill was acutely aware that Germany could become a threat but was outnumbered on this point of view. 

When German troops marched into the Rhineland (1936) Chamberlain took the stance that Germany had suffered enough over the last 18 years. They did not intervene on behalf of France favouring that of Lord Lothians opinion that Germany was "only going into their own back garden." Churchill however described this move as “a menace to Holland, Belgium and France”. Churchill seen the oncoming threat from Germany and disagreed with the general appeasement given.

In the case of Austria (1938), Hitler sent an emissary to Great Britain to advise that Austria was in turmoil and he wished to step in to assist, he asked if Great Britain had any objections to this and was advised that although they did object they would not intervene. Chamberlain Justified this by accepting that Austria was a German spoken land which was part of Germany’s old Empire, Germany was only re-claiming her land back and that she was only assisting Austria. This was an appeasement approach from Chamberlain (who was now PM of Britain). Churchill disagreed calling Anschluss "a programme of aggression, nicely calculated and timed" . 

Czechoslovakia showed Chamberlain was prepared to apply appeasement at any level to keep Britain free of War. Only six months after Anschluss, demands were made for the Sudeten lands. Chamberlin met with Hitler hoping to resolve the conflict peacefully. After consultation with Hitler and the British and French governments, a meeting was set up (excluding the Czech government) to discuss the demands. The decision was that the Sudeten lands be handed back to Germany. Chamberlain attended a further meeting with Hitler and returned with a signed document guaranteeing peace between Britain and Germany. Appeasement had been successful according to Chamberlain. According to Churchill this was not acceptable at all. On October 5th 1938 at a meeting, Churchill spoke of the disappointment of Munich and pointed out that had the Czechs been left to their own, they “would have been able to make better terms than they have got - they could hardly have worse”. 

After Hitler took over Slovak, the politicians rallied to Churchill’s point of view. They offered protection of Poland in the event that Hitler tried to invade them. Poland was invaded and in September of 1939 British politicians stood together and ended appeasement by declaring War. 

Chamberlain was the strongest known advocate for appeasement. Chamberlain was focused on protecting the British Empire from the atrocity of War from any front, at any time, be it Fascism, Communism or Nazi’s. 

Churchill also looked at the overview of all threats to the Empire. He wanted to protect National interest too, however; he was not always in favour of appeasement as a solution to everything. You can see from his choices made, he would use events to gain further advantage to the British Empire, such as appeasing Japan because they were holding back Communism on the Eastern axis. He appeased Italy because of their fight against Communism and his agreement on the application of appeasement during the Spanish Civil War allowed Franco to wipe out Communism there. Churchill appeased because Communism was the bigger threat at that time and it made tactical sense to do so. 

When you look at Germany however, Churchill did not appease and spoke out against appeasing politicians. Churchill himself seems to have taken a watchful eye over Germany during the years of Hitler’s rise to power as he certainly shows himself acutely aware of the threat. Churchill also shows that his focus on threat shifted from Communism to the German Nazi’s as their direct threat in Britain’s own “back yard” became apparent. Churchill’s choices reflect the priority of the threat in accordance to National interest. 

British politicians did take different approaches to appeasement during the 1930’s. This essay has shown that although there are inconsistencies between Chamberlain and Churchill, the motivations behind these inconsistencies were the same, to keep the British Empire safe. What this essay shows is that Churchill was looking at British National interests and who directly impacted on this in the short term. Chamberlain was looking at British National interests and anything that impacted this over the long term. 


Gluckstein, D., 2012, A Peoples history of the second world war - Resistance versus Empire, Pluto press

Appeasement and the Road to War - A:1 - A:6

I have recently published An Academic View of World War Two on and it included four full Essays about World War two.  These are a great help when working on Year one Essays for university.

How did the world end up having another war after the war to end all wars?

This question has been debated for decades and no one issue can answer it in full. There are many arguments and theories about what caused the second world war but no one conclusion has ever been agreed upon. The war to end all wars was a brutal slaughter of men and the only thing agreed upon was that it should never happen again.

Upon looking at the information provided I would have rashly theorized that the Second World War stemmed from the Treaty of Versailles and the fall of the League of Nations in 1933 upon further research and following up on various leads I have however come to a different conclusion, but this is only one of many I have found along my journey of WWII. This is a very loose theory based on many aspects on the road to war which I hope to look at in much further depth at a later date.

The Treaty itself was extremely harsh and very unforgiving taking into account nothing of what would happen to the German civilians when this monstrous document came into force. The Financial implications left Germany with nothing and the country fell to ruin. Families suffered. Politicians still ate, they still went home to comfortable beds at night with their families surrounding them and their maids serving them but civilians who had done nothing except try and survive the war themselves suffered massively. Some lost homes; many had already lost their men and their sons and were already suffering the same grief that any Britain, French or Italian citizen suffered. To add to this the financial penalties along with the restriction of growth (border restrictions) was naive and arrogant. Through ages past it has been proven time and time again that when people suffer together they stand the most defiant. (The French revolution is only one example of this). Removing military troops and destroying or removing arms was at least in some form acceptable, asking for remuneration for damages was acceptable, returning territories conquered was even acceptable but the Treaty of Versailles took liberties and those liberties were taken from the already suffering German citizens. If the treaty was meant to deter politicians and hierarchy from further war it failed dismally. With the somewhat half hearted assistance from the League of Nations all it succeeded in doing was giving Germany time to recuperate, rebuild and wait for a saviour to come along and save them. Hitler was that saviour they would turn to two decades later. Hitler, and this is no compliment, was a genius. He used his charisma and manipulated the people, he manipulated the politicians (and assassinated anyone he could not manipulate) He manoeuvred himself into a position where the people needed him and he had their blessing to end the war that should have rightfully been won by them some 20 years previously.

We return to the League of Nations. In light of the information provided it would seem that The league of Nations managed their administration to a limited degree throughout the 1920’s however we are lead to believe things started falling apart in 1930’s due to the rise of Japan Germany and Italy as 3 new major powers. Each challenged the League of Nations in some form and consequently left leaving the League of Nations with even less backing than they had previously had. After following a lead on the Treaty of Versailles however it is discovered that in 1919 the Germans logged their objections to the treaty Britain considered renegotiating the Treaty however France nor America would not entertain this idea in any form. At this point the league of Nations had not officially been formed as yet.

In 1922 Germany failed to deliver a supply of wood and were ruthlessly invaded by France in order to retrieve it. There was no wood to retrieve. Under the terms of the Treaty this was viable however The League of Nations was now formed and this should have been avoided at all costs. The terms of the treaty had not taken into account land mass, growth and time-scales  It was impossible to supply wood when there were not enough trees to supply from. Shortly after this America stepped forward and bailed Germany out of a great deal of debt with a loan. This helped to get Germany back on its feet although it was a slow process it did help. America continued to aid Germany over the coming years keeping them above water.

At this point Hitler would have been around the age of 33. After joining the German army in 1914 he had already received 6 medals for bravery as a runner in the trenches during the great war. With or without the League of Nations Hitler was already on his path to starting world war two. At the age of 30 his journey had just begun and although he faltered as he tried to find his feet it was still the start of his journey when in 1919 he joined the National socialist German workers party (NSDAP), this was quickly corrupted to Nazi. Although this party was very small it was to be the beginning of Hitler's career in warfare. Again I state that at this point the League of Nations was not officially formed as yet and the treaty of Versailles now hung over Hitler's head like a dark cloud. This, along with various other unhealthy hatreds, fuelled Hitler to drive forward to his end goal, leading the Germans back into their former glory, no matter what the cost.

Between 1924 and 1929 Hitler spent time in prison re-thinking his strategy into politics and re-integrating into the NSDAP on his release. Between this time frame it could be said that under normal circumstances Hitler would not have succeeded as his party were consistently failing to gain more seats. Something happened at this point however that would forever change the face of history. Wall Street crashed and America pulled in all her investments across Europe, including Germany. Germany was now back on her knees with nowhere to turn.

Now return to the year 1919 for a moment when the Germans first logged their objections to the Treaty of Versailles and neither France nor America would renegotiate the terms. There had been no League of nations then and up until 1929 they had done little to affect any outcome on a war. They had Indeed allowed their members to invade one another without reprimand or consequence and they had up until this point kept arms limited throughout the nations involved with the league but up until 1926 Germany had not been involved with the league so between 1920 and 1926 the league of Nations were still relatively inconsequential to the oncoming war with Germany. there is no way they could have foreseen a 30 year old runner in the German army with a passion for war and an unhealthy hatred of Jews amounting to a leader hell bent on giving his country back what the Treaty of Versailles had taken from them.

In 1929 Wall street crashed and took everyone with it. Germany was left looking for their saviour and Hitler was almost ready to take up that mantle. In 1930 Hitler began his campaign to have the Nazi’s elected. He staged speeches, mesmerized crowds and created a unity among the German citizens that had not been seen since before the Great War. When the elections were over the NSDAP were the second largest political party in Germany. Overnight they had accomplished the impossible and became one of the biggest influences in Germany from a party that barely held onto 7 seats to a party that now held 107. I would add at this point that Germany had joined the league of nations in 1926 and that this would be a pinnacle point where the League of Nations should have taken notice. this was not an easy accomplishment even when the events leading to it were as devastating as the wall street crash. This deed had never been accomplished in such an overnight and astoundingly massive significance in votes. This was never addressed in this manner however, they had viewed them as one of the three rising powers but Germany was about to become much more than this although no-one seemed to notice.

In 1931 The League of Nations found themselves being tested over the Manchurian crisis. when Japan, a major new power, attacked China the league of Nations had opportunity to deal with this. Without the backing however they could only sit idle and watch. At this point it is noteworthy to mention that although they had dealt with a few minor disagreements in the early 20’s they had never dealt with anything on this scale before. through previous lack of retribution or consequence and through lack of resolution between many smaller nations previously the league of Nations had backed itself into a corner and had no way to deal with the blatant disregard for the common purpose of the league. Collective Security. Japan blatantly ignored this while other nations sat in amongst the league observing that Japan was suffering no consequence.

In 1932 Hitler ran for president in Germany which should have drawn attention. His speeches were not clouded with niceties towards other nations. His message was becoming clearer. He wanted to return Germany to its former glory, “tear up the Treaty of Versailles and end war reparations” (www. The History and if the league of nations had taken note they would have known there was only one way to achieve that. The 1932 election campaign did not put Hitler in the president's seat however it did unnerve many other German politicians as the NSDAP numbers seemed to be soaring in the public’s eye. It did not however seem to upset the League of Nations who continued to ignore the signs of an oncoming war if Hitler did succeed. 1932 was to be a long year of politics and backstabbing in Germany which at least delayed the war for one more year, however the final results of 1932 were to cause Hitler to take the position of chancellor of Germany in January of 1933.

This now brought Hitler into direct contact with the league of nations so he too could sit and observe how things were dealt with from their perspective. He was indeed there when Japan decided to leave the League of Nations due to a unanimous vote against their invasion of Manchuria. They were seeking further space for their growing population and received no reprimand or solution to this problem. The vote told Japan everything it needed to know. The League of Nations was of no benefit to them so the resigned from the League as Hitler watched. with the resignation of Japan without consequence, there would be nothing stopping Hitler form leaving. Not only were they limited in arms by the Treaty of Versailles but the disarmament limits stopped all members building up any form of security and Hitler was aware of it all. In effect The League of nations had spoon fed him information on each nation's military supplies. Shortly after Japan resigned from the league of Nations, Germany followed. The League of Nations was now proving themselves to be inadequate for the task expected of them and collective security was failing. Nothing was being done to protect the smaller country’s being invaded, nothing had been done in the past. The remaining members fought on regardless trying to maintain their ideal but unrealistic concept of collective security.

In 1934 it should have been crystal clear to anyone watching that something was wrong with the German government. Operation hummingbird (the night of the long knives) finally put Hitler into a position where he could officially declare himself the leader of Germany. Many opposition political members were “set up” and shot by the Gestapo. It is said that possibly hundreds died in this “purge” but it left Hitler with complete and absolute power. With this absolute power and his charismatic appeal to the millions now, Hitler set about rebuilding the German military, the fleets, the air force and the arms needed for the war he had waited for nearly 14 years now. In 1939 he would achieve that war.

1935 brought on the Abyssinia invasion in which Italy were not reprimanded in any way for invading. At this stage It is perfectly clear that Germany now has a plan. Japan has invaded twice and is likely to invade again. The statistics show that the League of Nations has or could have stopped many smaller wars if they had not sat in “Appeasement”. it is clear to see that either another governing body was needed to help support the League or they needed to use harsher methods to deal with members who had disregarded the leagues purpose. I would also add at this point that the League of nations in the instance of world war 2 were inconsequential. World war 2 would have happened with or without them in formation. Even though I state earlier that they should have sat up and taken notice when Hitler started to rise, if they had, there would have been nothing they could have done except allow the members to build more arms in readiness for the war to come.

The war happened because even before the League of Nations was devised ,an unfair and inhuman set of expectations set down in the Treaty of Versailles. The war happened because the world did not take the opportunity to renegotiate the terms of the treaty in 1919 when the option was offered. The war happened because innocent German civilians were made to suffer greatly for something they could not really control. It happened because those same people who had suffered the same as anyone in the war who had lost someone needed someone to turn to, someone to save them. The war happened because in 1914 Hitler took his hatred of Jews and his passion for war and ran the trenches happily, even gleefully. . There was another war because Hitler manipulated, manoeuvred and assassinated his way into absolute power. The war happened because when the great crash happened in 1929, Hitler even manipulated that to his advantage, drawing in millions to his beliefs. Vengeance was the cause of World war two or was it just the inconsiderate demands the world made on the Germans that caused the 50 million deaths of world war two.



Thursday, 19 September 2013

The basics of Locke and Marx contributions to the theory of the state

At least three main types of power exist in all of the states. It is cannot be a state if it does not have these types of power. These powers can be Legislative (Parliament in UK), Executive (Government in UK), Judicial (Courts), Sovereignty (Permanence)

Most state population will also identify with the state and accept its authority, giving the state legitimate power; known as authority in democratic states. Sometimes, however, this is not the case, for example; the people of Basque rebelled in the early 90’s and their rebel core, the ETA refused to recognise or identify with being part of the Spanish state. A state usually has defined territories over which it can exercise its power. Often there is a misconception that the government is the state. State and government are not to be mistaken for being the same, they are two very different sources; however, the government is an important feature of the state.

There are three types of State Apparatus, each with their own model of support supplied to the state, not the government. There are the Coercive State Apparatus (CSA) which incorporates Executive governments, legislature, police, secret police, courts, prisons and military. The Ideological state Apparatus (ISA) includes Education, Media and religion. Finally there is the Administrative state apparatus (ASA) which deals with sectors such as the civil service, the welfare state and social work. The state apparatus are all intricate parts of the key features of a state however breaking them down into their actual apparatus structures allows you to see each detail as a separate sector.

Compared to most institutions for instance, a government who rely on limited time based on public voting, the state exists as permanence or under longevity. The British state has been in existence since 1707 since the act of Union. The sovereignty of the state differentiates the modern state from the medieval or feudal state. Instead of a King passing his land down to lords in order that they control their own territories a modern state utilises centralised power over all sectors.

The theory which makes the most logical sense was created by John Locke, a Pluralist. He argued that power is shared between various groups to create a democracy or democratic state. He also believed that the elected officials, the government of the state, had accountability for their actions. This accountability gave the people, the electorate, the power to renounce them if they did not act responsibly for the benefit of the state. He called this “The social contract”. In return for looking after the state, the people were also obligated to uphold the law and return in kind, the responsible actions of an individual of the state.

In days gone by this theory fit the time well but has this theory aged well? Has it become outdated due to sheer mass of human expansion, compared to the 1700’s? Where does our system fit into Locke’s’ theory?

Locke must have been visionary in his day as the system still works. The social contract is still a vital feature in today’s society. The ability to vote through choice, not coercion, gives us the authority, through voting, to renounce current government if they are not accountable for their actions or do not act in the best interest of the state. In this area of Locke’s theory it still stands extremely solid.

Locke’s theory of separation of powers is also still a working model in today’s’ modern state. We have many groups with power over specific sectors such as religion, politics, military, education, judicial, legislature and Executive. Although one government does govern these for its term, these sectors are in effect kept separate. Each sector has its own policies and budgets to work with so no one party alone or individual official can dictate objectives to them. Every decision has to be agreed and negotiated, often voted on via a referendum, before conclusion.

Marx was an idealist. Marx believed that there was no state before Capitalism and that Capitalism was the state. He believed that the proletariat were oppressed by the Capitalist class. He argued that there was no choice for the proletariat but to go and seek employment in order to live. He argued that there should be common ownership or equality of condition. He believed that resources should be shared equally and that only the limitations of human ingenuity or recourse availability itself should impact on this.

 Both Marx and Locke were seeing the state from different concepts but both were looking at a fairer system where the people of the state would have benefited. Marx’s theory was a sound theory but the world is not ready for his utopia as yet and I fear it will never be ready.

Locke’s theory has potential to carry us much farther through time. The state definition by Locke was a precision theory for its time and has withstood mass growth of the human race with ease. Our society has become more complex however it is simple to assert this theory to any sector of the state, even in today’s modern world. Take media for instance, something that never existed in the 1700’s and yet it has been integrated into society using this theory with ease. John Locke’s theory has held solid since our sovereignty in 1707 and holds solid in many other states too such as America, Canada, and France. States all over the world are still influenced by his theory and until we see another visionary such as Locke, it will continue to work as it has stood the test of time and no doubt will work for many more centuries to come.

What is the Medias Role today?

In order to understand the following very different theories on Media we need to understand that the media, 70 years ago, was incredibly different from today’s mass of media outlets. Radio and Newspapers were the key media in the 1940’s and 50’s. From the early 1980’s however, satellite helped to globalize news via television. The birth of the internet also opened up even more media avenues than ever previously possible. In this essay we will look briefly at the audience response to media today and I will be comparing the Marxist Theory against the Pluralist Theory whilst discussing what the role of the media is in today’s world according to both perspectives.

Marxists state that Ownership is causing bias in the media due to the beliefs and attitudes of the owner. They state that many companies are involved in synergy which helps to mass advertise their products. Marxists also argue that every epoch is ruled by ruling class ideas, from your tribal chief to today’s Corporation owner. In Marxism this argument along with the following statement from Ben Bagdikan, stands as a testament in the issue of how the media impacts society. Ben Bagdikan (1997) stated that if each of the USA’s newspapers, magazine, broadcast stations, book and film studios were owned individually, there would be 25,000 registered owners. There are in fact only ten major corporations that dominate the American media.

The Glasgow Media Group, carried out research “War and Peace” (1985) and “Getting the Message” (1993) shows the media from the traditional Marxist viewpoint, unlike their earlier research which focused on the Neo Marxism Hegemony theory. The Glasgow Media Group has been conducting research studies on television news since the early 1970’s. The aim of these two particular studies was to evaluate media content and show how this was communicated to the audience. The method included the group analyzing hundreds of television news programs, evaluating the content and how it was delivered. They concluded consistently that the language used within the programs was ‘ideologically loaded’ and would influence an audience. They also concluded consistently that Visuals are similarly loaded with ‘connotative codes’ and that the programs agenda set was to report on the impacts to the audience rather than report on the cause of the event, such as a strike. It was also concluded that the powerful do have more access to the media and that there was a pressure on journalists to broadcast from the establishments viewpoints even if this did not reflect the journalists own view. There is however some criticism from the pluralist perspective, for example, they argue that many journalists attempt to expose the unacceptable capitalist; they use The Watergate scandal (40 years ago) and the Tory sleaze campaign (23 years ago) which helped to remove several MP’s from the benches (these two examples are relatively outdated examples in comparison to today’s media sources and ownership issues). There is a key strength, however, in all of the research that the Glasgow Media Group has conducted overall. This strength is that they have taken much of their studies from a Media deliverance point of view but have also looked at the audience receiving the message in later studies. These show clear UN-bias of the research of these studies.

The Pluralist as you can see from previous criticisms of Marxist views, has another perspective which states that the media is diverse and all society have equal access. They put the impact of the media solely in the hands of the audience.

Katz & Lazarsfeld (1955), carried out the “personal influence” study based on data collected (in 1945) and concluded that the media, in general, have a rather limited influence. They argue that this is because the mass communication process can be impacted by five variables. The Variables are described as the following; one, the type of medium used to convey a message can impact on how the audience perceives it. They go on to state that based on technological advancements some may only have access via certain mediums, i.e. radio. Two, variable exposure is how much you are exposed to that information, such as hearing it on radio and from friends or in newspapers. Three, the nature of the content can also impact how the audience responds to the information. Four, the audience’s beliefs and attitudes can also modify or distort the message being given. Five, lastly, they argue that Leaders or opinion makers can also mediate the message, such as a wife voting the same way as her husband does. From a Marxist perspective this research could be criticised from a view that it was funded by one of the most influential corporations of its time. It was in fact, funded by the Rockerfella Foundation (who supported Lazarsfeld to emigrate to the USA and secured his role as the director of the Princeton Office of Radio Research). The Marxist would also argue that the beliefs and values of the audience are in fact influenced by the media message, based on ownership bias and message delivery. They would also argue that the data used for the research was outdated as it was taken from data ten year previously.

There are assumptions in both theories that we also must look at before looking at any further weaknesses in each theory. The Pluralist Theory of putting the audience in charge of their acceptance of the information given is logical; however, when you consider that the assumption here is that the audience has a perfect knowledge of everything this is not something that is possible. From a Marxist perspective this assumption can only be applied to fringe groups, however in today’s media these fringe groups are often ridiculed to re- adjust focus back to the ruling class idea. This then suggests that information given by the media is not equal or diverse. From the Marxist perspective it is assumed that the audience suffers from a false consciousness and therefore believe everything the media tells us. Fringe groups, however, thanks to the internet, are growing and more “truth seekers” are appearing daily. Choice of information on the internet can be checked and accepted willingly by the audience. This does, to some effect, weaken the false conscious theory, however when you consider that Marx himself states that it is inevitable that the working class will revolt, these appearing Fringe groups actually support that more working class or audiences are “awakening” ready to fight back against today’s media system.

Each theory criticizes the other in what we see as an objective, sociological way however we still need to understand that the media, 70 years ago, was incredibly different from today’s mass of media outlets. Television was a very new concept and access to this media type was limited to the upper class or Cinema houses at that time. Radio and Newspapers were the key media avenue to their audiences in the 1940’s and 50’s. From the early 1980’s however, satellite has helped to globalize the news and world issues. You can turn on your Television to choose from 100 channels or more at any time and have instant access to any type of programming you want. Now from a Pluralist perspective this does give the diversity that they discuss. It soon becomes apparent however that many of these channels are in fact owned by the same people, In other words, the rich have the monopoly on what we see. In the early 90’s however the birth of the internet was a global household phenomenon which has opened up even more media avenues for the audience. Now with the “truth seekers” having access to this type of medium it has caused much displeasure to, as Marx would label, the ruling class. Marxists argue that the logic of Capitalism dictate the contents and effects of the mass media within society however Pluralists state that it is the beliefs and attitudes of the audience that impact on how the media message is received and dealt with that impacts society.

In conclusion, looking at the pluralist theory we see the role of the media is to inform and educate all audiences equally but as I sit writing this essay, listening to a song written about the media very recently, the words repeated in the chorus are “therapy, advertising causes therapy……advertising’s got you on the run” (System of a Down, Steal this album, Chic n Stu, Serj Tankian, 2010), I have to question this theory for two main reasons. Its information comes from a time where media was miniscule in comparison to today’s media outlets and as proven by Ben Bagdikan, also concluded by the Glasgow Media Group, Ownership is indeed centralised and biased. It is therefore logical to conclude that Marxists have a much better understanding of the media and its role today, in this instance, this tells us that the role of the media today is to supply the audience with ruling class ideas (influencing and pressuring the audience - the consumer),to keep capitalism as the key priority for the ruling class.

The Road to Dictatorship in the UK

I truly fear for the future of the UK under the tyrannical rule of one Mr David Cameron. When looking at what he has succeeded in doing since his "shoulder barge" to the political throne in may of 2010 it seems very clear to me that Mr Cameron is indeed an authoritarian dictator determined to destroy the poor and make the rich richer during his reign.

This may sound harsh however we need to remember that firstly The conservative party were 20 seats short in the elections so they are in fact (although it is hard to see this right now) a coalition government. The definition of Coalition states that it is "An alliance for combined action, especially a temporary alliance of political parties forming a government or of states."

I, personally cannot see an alliance anymore, I see a power, money hungry man stamping on everything and everyone who opposes him. Think about it, even the Labour leader yielded to the policy of refunding all of the sanctions to people who were unfairly made to work (under an archaic law of slavery-may I add). These people had their payments sanctioned for standing up for their belief that slavery was outlawed centuries ago. In turn they suffered, some of them starved, some of them lost their homes, some of them would have lost their families; because let’s face it, fear of challenging the government and loosing the only income they had would have stopped them supporting their partners beliefs even if they knew it was basically illegal. Cameron has already stated that they would look at re-wording the act. The act is immoral and if re-wording it makes it legitimate we have serious issues. 

April the first 2013, or April fool’s day.  This is truly named correctly as we are all fools in the unluckiest year of the century. Today will be remembered by many, not for the pranks or the funny news stories, but for the beginning of the destruction of the welfare state, Bedroom tax introduced, disability living allowance scrapped for some watered down version called PIP and council tax benefits are now in the hands of local councils who have no funding as it is. The NHS can now buy privately (as long as it meets regulations-and we all know how that will work, they have minimal budget already. We will see less and less state of the art medical advancements unless we choose to go private...on minimum wage?)

Legal aid is being severely limited and will hit two key things that will cost lives in the end. Child custody cases, Fathers and mothers, carers all will be hit as legal aid is denied. Children stuck in the middle of these custody battles will suffer, what happens when a parent cannot afford a lawyer and the child is inadvertently handed to an abuser? It’s too late for the child then. What happens when the poor parent knows that but can't prove it fast enough? I am truly sorry to say it but suicide and child abuse will rise. It is very sad to say but I feel I must emphasize this, some parents fight over the children only to score points with each other, these are the types of cases which are treacherous for the child, but David Cameron doesn't care about this at all. Another addition to suicide attempts will be the Employment legal aid which is being vastly reduced. The larger corporations are already taking advantage of their staff having fear of being fired and sent to the unemployment line which they see only as another oppressive system. This will give them cart Blanche to do whatever they like and no-one will be able to fight back, this will cause stress, depression and add cost to the NHS on prescription medication and again I foresee a rise in suicide.

For every action there is a reaction and Mr Cameron is not accepting the reaction to his actions which will come, either that or he just doesn't care as long as he continues to live in his beautiful house and eat out in the best of restaurants with his happy little entourage of yes men. He has started dissecting our welfare state and it will not be long before we are left with nothing, no homes, no food, no security for our families and no protection from the very people that are meant to look after the state and its citizens, ALL state citizens. I see a man who has done nothing but blame the unemployed and the poor for the countries so called debt he persecutes them and is ensuring that they disappear from the statistics but he does not help to create jobs, so how is he planning to make us disappear? That is the fearful question.

There are many, many other policies and acts that the government can push to have re-worded to their own benefit.  Not least of all the Human Rights Act!  Now; I realise that the ‘snake tongued’ Mr Cameron has said it has to do with protecting the country but somewhere in History you will find that Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini all used the same verbal and tactical concepts to brainwash their own state citizens.  What they actually did is beyond comprehension, but I’m sure you know of the 11 million Stalin murdered and of the tens of thousands Hitler sent to the death camps or the thousands Mussolini had shot.  Their rule caused death, suffering, slavery, inequality, forced labour  and the list goes on.  Women and children were of no consequence and were used as required.  The poor were forced into labour until they were near death or dead.  I ask you to step back and look at the changes made so far, now look at the changes Mr Cameron wanted but were denied.  He lost the cases for forced labour so is re-wording the act but Specifically let us look at the ‘Communications Data Bill’  or more commonly known as the ‘ISP Internet Snooping Law’.  He fed us this proposal because he wanted to ‘tighten the countries security against terrorism’.  This would make sense however they also made 4000 soldiers redundant in the same month that this ‘Snooping Law’ proposal was put forward.  Would 4000 soldiers not give us protection against terrorism if they invested in them more? Thankfully this snooping law was denied, unfortunately 4000 of our countries military lost their careers.

Make no mistake, they did not want this law to protect the country, they want this law to monitor what the citizens do.  For instance, eBay, online work, blogs, ad sense these can all be taxed and without a clock in or out resolution we cannot prove we worked less than 16 hours.  Remember; in Britain if you work more than 16 hours no matter what you earn, you are entitled to next to nothing.  This would mean they could cut further benefits.  This government wants rights to access your private lives, finances and tax you for it.  Morality and legitimacy are not part of their plan. 

They are proving this over and over again via ATOS with their punitive measures against the disabled. Many disabled cannot live their lives anymore, they are barely surviving on a day to day basis.  Many illnesses are getting worse because they are being demoralised and humiliated whilst being accused of NOT being disabled whilst sitting in a wheelchair!  They are planning on taking away free travel and TV licenses from the elderly.  These are the very people that fought for the freedom of the country they are meant to be looking after.  These are the people that gave them their next generation of workforce.  The women of this generation kept this country working while their men went to war and some never returned.  They did this for their country and this government is making a mockery of their loyalty.

Over the last two years I have read about old couples dying of starvation, homelessness rising; including child homelessness, and I myself have been on the rather oppressive end of the civil service also known as the DWP. After 15 years of working we were sent into financial crisis as we waited 6 months to have rent issues resolved, 4 months to conclude we were not to get child tax credits for the only reason that we didn't send in the paper work on time (only we did, we sent it 4 times) , 6 weeks to sort out a joint claim and 8 weeks to resolve it when I went to college. Any one of these delays and mistakes could have contributed to yet another death caused by having no money for a home or food and its going on all over the country.  

To put the icing on the cake I was told to go in for an interview with the DWP when I was 7 months into my college course (one month before exams) I thought it was a mistake, I was told it was not and that if they thought I had other skills that my partner did not they would look at getting me back to work.  I was speechless, a month before my exams and they could take me out of college to put me in work? I asked if they could do this when I was at university and was told if we were claiming in any way they could.  I have to say that this was the beginning of a panic for me as I was doing really well and to be forced out of university into any job they seen fit was not part of my educational plans.  I am happy to say now however, that my partner did get work after 2 years of searching.  I will now be able to go to university knowing I can complete the course (all going well).  This example however only shows that there is no care about education for the poor only a care to get as many forced into work as possible.

I originally thought they were doing this deliberately however, after some research I found that The DWP union were in fact trying to fight to get better benefits for us and better working conditions for themselves, They were highly understaffed by 20% nationwide and were banned for a long time by Mr Cameron's government from hiring more staff.  The civil service is meant to be an impartial body between the state and its people but somehow Cameron has them tied in knots too.  For further information on changes made you can read it here.

Mr Cameron is a Dictator and what I believe, the worst Prime Minister in British history.  He is causing suffering and death across the UK and no-one that has the legitimate power is challenging this. Where are the labour party and where are the Liberal Democrats; they are, after all suppose to be part of this government. 

Only the SNP seem to be challenging this Dictator. The SNP are doing all they can to try and save Scotland from this tyranny but I cannot see anyone fighting for England, Ireland  or Wales.  I say all this because I truly cannot see democracy at work in the UK anymore and sadly believe that soon we will truly be under a totalitarian rule; and this type of rule is not only archaic but it is the scariest in history.  Cameron does not need death camps or guns to control the citizens he is using the welfare state the same way Hitler used death camps and the same way Mussolini and Stalin used guns.

Take independence in 2014 before Mr Cameron gets his way and removes our Human rights.  As for the rest of the UK Vote him out in 2015 and save yourselves the misery and suffering that will follow if you don’t.  

For further info on Camerons plans for the Human Rights Act read here