workin onna chain gang, ho ha!

years ago i read a book by one walter mosley called "working on the chain gang" (ama/abe). boy, was that a mistake! if i hadn'ta read it i'd by runnin tings propa by now, but still. 

what it did expose me to was the concept that slavery did not die with the emancipation proclamation, oh no. it's still going strong today. basically if you have to work, you is a slave; the only difference between a whip and a mortgage payment is one of degree. gotta be up in time to not be late coz you gotta pay the rent? slave. can't risk missing a day & losing your job coz you got a car payment to fill? slave. simply must get the children into a  private school & that's why you working the mile? slave, slave, slave!

see now, don't be getting all panicky on me. there is a way out. the easiest way today to not be a slave is to be born so rich you never have to work unless you want to. "wealth's precipititous, though..." pointed out the sainted one "doesn't that mean rainy?" i answered. however, it is a good point. yet the insecure nature of money does not detract from its power, if you got it. 

it also does not detract from the fact that most of us haven't got a lot of it. so what can we do? there is another solution, of course & it is fairly obvious. all you have to do is make sure nobody has to work. "but how? likkle drumma, how?" i hear you cry, in unison. heck, even the unaffiliated amongst you are probably wondering what the solution is (union based humour, eh? you can't beat it!) all you have to do is have the state contribute toward a basic level of housing and nutrition (like they do with healthcare & education) there, that wasn't so tough now was it?

problem solved! no more having to work! and no more minimum wage jobs - employers would have to offer more than the bare minimum cause everyone would get that for free! "but wait a minute" i hear you muse "how would you possibly pay for such a scheme?" good question, there is, after all, no such thing as a free lunch! and to be sure we'd probably have to lose a few billionaire's (by, say, reducing them to mere millionaires) but hey, most of 'em ain't  millionaires anyway (actually milliardairs) they just cheatin! 

if you are a regular reader of the daily mail or a similar publication you're probably now thinking: "harrumpf! you'd just get everyone eating free meals and taking free housing! the economy would collapse!" which is a fair point. except the evidence doesn't quite bear it on out. for inkstains: all kids get offered free education, yet they are having to threaten parents with jail just to make sure they go! ditto with healthcare. if people go for proper checks it works out a lot cheaper and easier for everone involved. but do they? do they bollox! most people wait until thy're at death's door before they dare to trouble a health professional with their presence. 

also, i know people. and most people like nice things. and will happily work to pay for them. most people wouldn't be caught dead taking state freebie's unless they absolutely have to. someting to do with 'pride' or summink. no, i've got no idea either. but suffice to say the economy would not be under any form of threat. in fact, it would be better off, as several studies have shown that homeless, starving people don't make for very productive staff members.

now i know what some of you're thinking: "ain't this sposed to be a nihilist blog? that sounds suspiciously like socialism to me!" and you'd have a point. but if you think about it, doing away with the state is an anarchist concept. one i do not have a lot of time for. for, without the state, we are merely 9 billion apes shitting over anything & everything (who do you think builds & mantains sewer systems?) and who wants that?

not me mate, not me.

9-5

Work eh? i It really is for fools and horses, never a truer word said. I've always preferred the term 'wage-slave' so much more accurate because most of us are slaves. If you add up how much you get paid and then subtract you room, board + clothing costs and what have you got? not much I'll wager (not that I can afford to). Are you, then, much better off than a slave? You get to choose you own food, whoopee-do, but you have to buy it and cook it yourself, at least slaves had that done for them!

It's a mugs game basically, but what's the use of moaning, I feel that at least I spent some of the public purse before I started contributing toward it. I once had to sit through having some imbecillic Tory twat tell me "that's money that should be going toward disabled people" no doubt followed by something like "my brothers disabled, you're effectively stealing from HIM!"

I mean, please, does none of you have any idea how much we're spending wiping out the human populations of Iraq/Afghanistan? Or how many "scarce resources" we've used up upgrading our entirely pointless Trident bath-toys? (don't worry Tory-boy got this an' all). And yet, for some reason, we simply can't afford the odd £30 a week to keep those, such as myself, who intensly dislike having to work?

Noo-Labour have been on at this one as well. Having to 'clamp-down' on 'benefit-scroungers'. Eh? There's no such thing! You either get benefit or you don't. There is no such thing as a benefit scrounger because we are all (most of us at any rate) entitled to a fuck of a lot more than we get anyway. That's waged and unwaged thank you very much. So I'll also thank you to shove you 'benfit-scroungers' up your fucking arsehole!

I mean it sure ain't my fault if you decided to buy a house so you now have to go to work until you die, is it? I just can't abide people who are so petty that just because they've spent their pissy little lives working shit jobs to keep their shit wives and shit kids in the shitty shit they've become accustomed to. They somehow feel I've got to suffer the same!

FUCK OFF!