Today I have had the pleasure of entertaining discussions between different people in different, but related stresses.

I have today spoken to those who are after a relationship, in a relationship that they are unsure as to whether is right for them, those who are getting married, those who are getting divorced, and those who are waiting on the precious contact of those who are not immediately available to them. One theme comes up above all others: What is the right partner?

So I have taken it upon myself to compile thoughts as to what makes an ideal partner.  This is completely from personal experience.

A great partner will indulge your randomness, regardless of how it benefits them. They will do random shit, like allow your scruffy mates into your home for superbowl, help make the chilli nachos, and help tidy before they arrive, even though you have had to go to work yourself.

A great partner will accept your bullshit, because God knows we all have a lot. They will find it tolerable and cute, and you will accept and respect theirs as well.

A great partner will listen when you need to talk, and will acknowledge your thoughts.  When you are concerned, they will thinks of solutions; when you have desire, they will help to achieve and resolve that.

A great partner will fit into your life. Oh, your life may change with them, but a natural change is a good thing, and there will be no pressure to alter your personal state just to appease them (or vice versa).

A great partner is someone you are happy to be affiliated with, that you are proud to walk shoulder to shoulder with. A great partner is not just your equal, but a completed part of you.

A great partner has ideas and individual thought that inspires you, that you wish you had yourself. As a partner, this is an extension of yourself, and something that you can work on together. Greed has little place in partnership.

A great partner has independence and individuality. A brainless and emotionless sheep does not have the connection to be referred to as a partner.

A great partner feels the same way about you that you do about them.

Hey, a partner can be of the opposite sex, or the same sex. There can be one, there can be more. It can be sexual, it can be platonic. It can be something special, and it can be ordinary. Regardless of who this person is, they are a vital part of you… if humans were not meant to be connected, we wouldn’t have been created (or evolved or whatever) social creatures. If you ever have an issue with a partner, think about how they alter your life, and more importantly, how they support the person that you are. Partners are important, not vital, but pretty damn awesome to have around. Make sure that you pick yours with absolute care and love 🙂


Westfield Stratford City

I’ve never “got” mass consumerism. Oh, I’m ok with paying for experiences, but I really can’t see the appeal for paying vast sums of money to carry heavy bags full of things that you will rarely get to experience.

So, some may think that it’s strange that I would bother visiting Europe’s biggest shopping mall.  However, while I’m not a fan of shopping, I’m a fan of both architecture and progressivism, and Westfield looked to be the standard bearer for both in the consumer market.

I’ll go ahead right now and state that it categorically succeeds at the former, with simple design techniques completely controlling your experience. From the way the mall curves, with wide spaces between the opposite shops, forcing you to look down a long row of highly visible store names, to the very wide balconies that take up most of this space, forcing you to walk closely to the shop entrances: everything is forcing you to passive-aggressively buy.

As for progressive? Not so much. You see, when you make the “largest” claim, you would assume that there would be a vast variety of shops, a wealth of opportunities to spend your money on useless tat. This is where WSC fails. Badly. Westfield is seriously just a bunch of high street stores in a room. There is a teensy tiny corner with some fancy food and confectionery, but you get stores like that in train stations nowadays. The restaurants were average sized, the bowling alley looked very small and the casino isn’t even open yet, or licensed. I’ll have to wait to judge that then, but a casino in a shopping centre can only be so good.

I was hoping that there would be some alternative culture in there. The outside proudly boasts a “Vans” store, which is tiny, and there is a “Doc Martens” shop, although nowadays Doc Martens are about as alternative as Disney, but there is nothing else. No sports shops, and no sports apparel. I was hoping that perhaps a shop that specialised in sport gear from around the world, perhaps some American sports gear. None of that. Most malls now have gadget shops, right? Not this one (unless you count a small Apple store). There was an outside section that I didn’t visit, but part of the “amazing design” of the place herds you up and down the floors of the mall, with limited opportunity to leave. I spent a long time just trying to get out of the place.

If you want to visit 100 crap high street stores, get on the Central Line, and head to Soho/Oxford Street/Regent Street, where they all have their flagship stores, have more room, and probably better products. You want something special? You aren’t going to get it here. Westfield is as boring and generic as every other mall in the south east, and overpriced to boot.

Money spent: £0.00

Tempted Purchases: £0.00

Planned Purchases: £0.00

Day in the mall: Priceless (literally)

How I Lost Weight, And Started To Look Socially Acceptable: A Guide.

I ate better food, and started exercising. The change was quick, easy and relatively cheap. Don’t tell anyone though, it’s a secret.

Everyone needs to rant

You know what I hate? Parents. Walking around pushing their entitles bundles of shit around in Range Rover size buggies of doom, taking up the space of a small immigrant family on the tube at rush hour. Fuck parents, and fuck those who enjoy parenting.

Being a parent is one of the most selfish things you can do. Firstly, you are making a statement that you are somehow important enough to warrant including your genetics into the next generation of human life, despite having no way to oversee the future generations. You know Hitler, Pol Pot, and all those bad guys? You guessed it: they had parents, who, had they not been so selfish, would never have given birth to such disasters.

Children are crap. There is no way around it. They smell, they’re loud, they have no appreciation of public art. Quite frankly, children are disgusting. They are not suitable for the tube at rush hour, or in any social situation whatsoever. Hell, Butterflies have children that are a different species. Now that is how to avoid children. The children aren’t the criminals though. Parents are. Glaring over their bag of skin with some kind of perverse adoration, oblivious to the suffering of others.

Now some may say that parents are just people, as we all have reproductive organs, but that’s a load of shit. Parents like their children, and enjoy having them. You don’t need to be able to reproduce. Parents can adopt, and lead a human into the world with false hope and promises that acceptance is there for those who wish to find it. Some go crazy, and try placebos, like little wet pubic hair terriers that stink out the whole tube carriage at rush hour. They take up less room, but the comfort that affords you is ruined by the owner holding the stinky piece of fuck at eye level. It’s about as pleasant as children on the tube at rush hour.

Parents assume that shit is for them, when it isn’t. Like tube seats at rush hour. If you get pregnant, don’t go to work. Go away, to pregnant land. Those “step free access” elevators in certain stations are for disabled people you dumb fucks, not for buggies on the tube at rush hour.


And more. I’m off the train now.


News of The World

It’s a sham victory, but I’m going to revel in it. Proof that disproportionate pressure from the people can close down the society retarding newspapers. I raise my fist in celebration. Now to take on the rest of “News International”…

UPDATE: According to one newspaper (The Telegraph, clearly underplaying the magnitude of this news, like  scared schoolchild), Renault have pulled advertising from ALL Murdoch owned news outlets. YES.

Death To The Fake Democracy!

What a title! And if you’re wondering, yeah, I’m about to get a bit over dramatic. However, I honestly believe what I’m about to write… so opinions would be nice 🙂

It’s no secret amongst my friends that I’m fairly sceptical about democracy. I’m not a communist or anything before people start moaning, but I do believe that the democracy that we are given, isn’t real. What we in Britain do, is vote-in a person, who we know little about, to be our dictator. I think the latest Labour government proved that. We didn’t vote-in Gordon Brown, we were denied a general election when one was called for. Those things shouldn’t happen in a democracy, it’s not what the people asked for. Similarly, we voted in numbers for both the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives this time round, but neither of us got what we wanted. We got the “Con-Dem” coalition. And then, to prove how little we know about our leaders (and vice versa), Mr Nick Clegg openly supported a complete betrayal of his election promises, effectively dooming the future of his party. Way to go there, Nick. Oh sure, I believe in my heart that he was doing it while thinking of the long run (such as being able to gain Conservative support for a change to the voting system, so that his party could gain real power next time, and force through the changes that he truly believed in), but that’s pure assumption right there. In fact, it was a measure of how little he knew about the bastard bedfellows he’d made.

The main way our democracy is a joke, from an ideological perspective, is that our votes are not equal. If, like me, you live in a more congested area, then your vote counts for far less than someone who lives out in the middle of nowhere. An individual in Cumbria has more say than someone in London. That is intrinsically wrong (because I live in London). Welcome to the “seats” system.

The classic criticism of democracy is simple. What gives an individual the right to vote? How are they qualified to make such a decision? Why should someone in London, with their own problems, have a say in politics that stretch to Scotland? These are all very valid points, and the simple and honest answers are that a)nothing, b)they’re not, and c)because it’s fair.

Now, it’s a sad world where the only truly fair system is one where everyone is equally discriminated against (and even that doesn’t happen in this country of favouritism), but, like Winston Churchill said “…democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”.

Well now that’s changing. A revolution is already under way, the seeds have been planted, and everyone has been infected. Here’s the cherry on the cake: you’re all involved, and you don’t even realise it.

For years now ONE thing has changed in our world, and as such, has changed our world beyond the point of recognisability. We have accepted this change into our homes, we walk around different people than we did 20 years ago, and we are now an almost different species. What is this miraculous change? Technology.

Now, that may seem like a bit of a weak outcome to such a build up, but let me guarantee you, there is nothing weak about this. ALL technology has ONE function, which is communication. Simple. At it’s very source, that’s all technology does. Using metals, and electricity, and very precise machinery, computers and phones all communicate. Why does this make any contribution to politics? Let me explore this with you…

(I wrote the following months ago, so if it feels a little detached from the main text, that would be why)

Have you heard about 2010 Thai political protests? How about the 2011 Bahraini protests? Or the 2011 Egyptian revolution? The two large protests in the same about of years in Iran? The Algerian protests? No?

Well, that’s unfortunate, but hey, you’ll have perked your ears up over Call of Duty to hear about the Libyan revolution even if it’s only because there’s a war there. Wait, did I just mention 6 large conflicts that have taken place in the last 2 years? Yes, yes I did. Not including the “Second Republic” in Ireland. Or Tunisia. Or Yemen. Or Jordan. Or Syria.  Those are only the ones to my knowledge as well.

Now there are a few obvious connections between all of these protests. None of them happened in western countries, which might explain a general lack of interest amongst the everyday person in the western world. They were all political in nature, and are all generally aimed at removing or changing their individual government for being generally dicks. Political commentators may flinch at my over simplification of these serious events, but yeah, that’s what it kinda boils down to.

There are other links here, that the world news hasn’t really focused on, because they don’t involve any of the gratuitous death and violence that the news sells itself of. Most notably for me, is that these protests were helped, and fuelled by interactive communication. Now, this might seem a little strange, but bear with me here.

People in the west have been communicating with each other for a long time, and each major technological advance is more or less focused on improving that communication. People like to talk, share insight, and generally communicate, and lately with the internet that’s become easier than ever. Now smart phones are capable of accessing the net with 3G, affectively making the internet fully portable. That’s an amazing advance really. I mean, sure, you can contact people you know with phones, but the internet is free, can contact large groups at a time, and you don’t even have to know them! Blog sites and web forums are virtual conversations between strangers, and you know what? People on these sites find kindred spirits. They find communities that wouldn’t exist without the internet. Geeks have found each other, and popular culture has found geeks. People can date, relate and connect with people, when maybe in real life they felt alone. And that’s the link between these revolutions.

It would be ignorant to say that any oppressed person enjoys that position, but if that’s your life, and you don’t see how a person can fight an oppressive government, you aren’t likely to try and change the status quo. Remember that these are the countries and governments where you couldn’t stand up on a soapbox and claim foul play, because they’d just take you away.  Not only that, but a lot of people in these countries just know any different. I read online about “human rights violations” in certain eastern countries, but you know what? Not only do they have a different culture to us, but they don’t know any different. People criticised the opening ceremony to the Beijing Olympics, as being a testament to slavery and abuse, but you have to really wonder if the people in the ceremony felt the same way.

Either way, the people in these countries didn’t like the way that their governments were working. So why the sudden rebellion? Internet. Simple. At the core of all of these protests there are the same people. Young people, including a disproportionate amount of women, comparatively speaking. All able to access the internet in order to educate themselves, and communicate with others. I once made the observation that many people use technology that they don’t understand? That goes for governments to. They are never going to be able to fully outsmart, outwit, or control the internet, nor can they the people that know it better than them. Don’t get me wrong, everyone in these countries was aware of the problems that were happening, but these were the people who could, and did, change it.

If this all sounds like an overwhelming success, it isn’t. At least, not on a grand scale. No government is safe from this kind of revolution, and smaller ones are popping up all over the place. In Britain lately there have been a few “marches” lately, from students and trade unions unhappy with the current government. Yeah there have been similar in France and America and suchlike, but I know the British ones better. Now, marching is a time honoured tradition in this country, and has never really gone away. So why are these protests gaining so much media attention. Well, it’s mostly because they’ve been turning violent, or destructive. Why is that? Undoubtedly it’s because of the increased numbers of people there. Why so many people? Social networking. That little tabs on your facebook page? That’s right, the events tab. That right there is why. Oh, not everyone is swayed by an invite, but they are swayed by peer pressure, encouragement and viral campaigns, things that all of these events use, regardless of actual intention. And just making someone aware of a march is likely to attract those who wouldn’t actively seek one.

Just to use a contrasting situation, in 2002 around 400,000 people turned out in central London, some to protest, and some to support anti fox hunting legislation that was being bandied around at the time. The marches were side actually side by side each other, and being an animal rights issue in Britain, everyone cared. Despite the close proximity between the two groups, there was very little in the way of violence or problems. Why? I’d imagine because the only people who went out on that march were people who truly, honestly gave a shit. Remember, facebook wasn’t around until 2 years later. So why the difference now? More people, who wouldn’t actively attend such a demonstration.

Now I can’t say that facebook is causing all of these problems. That would be a lie. Facebook is nothing more than a tool. People are causing these problems, and the reason is almost certainly because after 60 years or so both of our major political parties have been taking turns to fuck our country up as much as possible, with our third choice party immediately turning over to their political opposition the second they had any chance at power. People are pissed. A lot of these marches are about issues that a lot of the attendees don’t really know anything about and probably only superficially care about. They wouldn’t even be aware of the marches, had social networking not informed them of it all. Which gets to the real crux of the problem.

Lies, untruths, coercion, opinion, and suchlike are all forms of information and communication. We’ve already been “exposed” to this in the medium of newspapers a lot, albeit in a biased and untruthful way, thanks to freedom of speech having been opportunistically hijacked by super capitalism. Everything on the internet was put up there by someone else. There is no internet quality control, and very little censorship. In fact, it’s about as “free” as anything can get in this world. People are reactionary creatures, as well as creature who like to socially fit in which is why systematic ideologies, like religious or secular groups are so widely subscribed to. When this extremely high level of communication finally gets to the point where every viewpoint, political ideology, and opinion is represented, and has been expressed, it means that you, as a person is going to have to choose what the truth is. Some may say “that’s better than having the truth dictated to you”, but I’m not so sure. Having a “pick your own fact” looks like it could go really bad.

Anyway, that’s not really an issue here (currently). What is an issue however, is how the governments are going to deal with it. We’ve seen the music industry try, and fail, to monitor and legislate content on the internet. We’ve watched actual governments trying to go after wikileaks, but that’s never going to happen when those guys are so much better at computer stuff than the government is. I’m pretty sure that the conservative core that makes up ALL western political parties is going to instinctively give out knee jerk reactions when this shit starts becoming an issue, mainly because of their own ignorance of the internet. “Shut it down” they may say, “get the ISP’s to filter all content”… yeah, right. That’s not going to happen.

My guess? The strangest revolution of all time. Governments are going to have to adapt and evolve around the internet. They won’t be able to lie or make false promises any more,  because some angry as fuck kid is going to call them out on it, and start some trouble.  The government of the future is going to not only going to HAVE to be honest, but actually give out information to people directly, whether it’s in the shape of a podcast or whatever. And again, they can’t lie, because someone will call them out on this. I’d kinda love this to happen, make public servant actually have to serve, and ask people if it’s going right. They’ll have to work in the interest of the greatest number of people; it’s the only fair system. Is this a good future? Depends on what people’s opinions are really, and unfortunately, at the same time this would happen, we’d also be having to choose our own “facts”. Which is going to put a whole load of pressure on social conditioning….

ANYWAY, this is turning into one of the longest blog posts I’ve ever contributed, so I’m going to have to try and wrap it up somehow. Will this new system be great? Nah, probably not. The same issues still apply, really. Why do we accept printed media over digital? It’s because it feels real, and trust worthy, while the internet, especially sites like Wikipedia, are customisable. The truth is, however, that a human being, flaws and all, wrote that information down, while being moderated by another. There is no absolute truth or fact in the universe, and as such, we will remain as poorly informed as before.  So, why bother writing this? Simple: We are heading towards a new world of democracy, one where governments are held more responsible. In face, we will be in a world of super democracy, where we can choose everything ourselves, and you’d better believe it’s going to shake things up. No wonder politicians are trying to rein in the internet. It’s never going to happen though. Sleep tight people…

A Man Is A Rape Supporter If…

So, there have been plenty of talks online about a list, published by my fellow contributor, who runs a blog called “Eve Bit First”. It’s caused some controversy over it’s depiction of “men” (that’s right, the entire gender), and how they all (we all) support rape, even subconsciously, by all being intrinsically guilty of at least one of the things on this list. She has previously published a blog, calling for the systematic annihilation of all men, and has expressed a patronising distaste for transgender folk, but hate figure she is not. She is simply a feminist, telling it like it is.

However, being sympathetic to her cause, as I am a man, who cannot deny that she is spot on, I feel it is my duty to publish several additions to her fantastic list, that she just doesn’t have time to publish herself, being busy with tons of fan mail each day. The original list, in all of it’s eloquent beauty, simplicity and honesty, can be found here:

The following additions WILL be released as part of the directors cut dvd.

A man is a rape-supporter if…

  • He is celibate (dude is hiding some big secret if he’s celibate. Hell, he’s probably wearing the panties of the last girl her raped, sick fuck)
  • He has nipples. Trying to confuse women to gain their trust is one of the oldest tricks in the book.
  • He has big hands. To cover a woman’s mouth
  • He has ever sworn/cursed. If he can control the petty thoughts in his tiny brain, how could he hope to control his tiny penis?
  • He has ever gotten impatient with a woman on the blob. No respect or understanding makes man a rapey rapey.
  • He enjoys horror films. Have you seen the depiction of women in horror films? And don’t even get me started on Evil Dead.
  • He has ever gotten erect. People without guns can’t shoot people. People with guns=Columbine. Just add penises.
  • He buys his girlfriend flowers. Condescending or what. Probably a peace offering for laughing at all the rape that’s mindlessly glamorised on television, only the pacify her until her back is turned.
  • He thinks that the prison rape scene in American History X was dark, upsetting or moving. Men getting raped is quite obviously fine, and there are plenty more to go before men and women are equal. After all, it’s about keeping score.
  • He can park a car perfectly. Practice, duh.
  • He works in a tall office building. Skyscrapers, penetrating the sky…. how did no one see it?
  • He was conceived. This is the most telling one… men are LITERALLY made from a process, where a male cells FORCES it’s way into a female cell. The tricky bastards start raping from birth, the absolute cunts!!!
  • He buys the best of DVD. Why else would a scummy, rapey man buy an item with a hole in it, especially one that can’t say “no”? Please, oh please, think of the plastic!

Ahem, on a serious note, I’d like to point out that rape isn’t that funny. Well, it can be, when approached in a satirical way, but in reality it never can be, and unfortunately we are still too far as a people from the goal of controlling, and preventing rape,  for it ever to be a mainstream humour, or open debate. Which is why, when the topic is handled in such a disrespectful and ignorant way, as “Eve” has, with this list, and the entirety of her blog, she not only diminishes the importance of rape, by reducing it to mere hate speech, but she also looses sight of the goal, which is to inform with a sight to end rape, or to stop women (and men) ending up in the situation where they are, or can be raped.

“Eve” quite clearly hates men. Her post calling for the destruction of the entire gender is proof enough ( The reason for that seems biographically clear. She has suffered at the expense of being a woman physically ( and didn’t get the pity she felt that she was entitled to.

Now, I just worded that unfairly. There are many who have taken their lives over less, but it does go to show the power that language has. The information I gave you was technically correct, but the way it’s phrased was really rather cuntish. However, “Eve” isn’t just about bad grammar. “Eve” genuinely hates men, going so far as to blame everything on them, somehow.

Now I’ve heard nut jobs who claim that religion is the root of all evil in the world, and from their experiences, it may well seem to be (it isn’t). I  am well aware of racists, who hate someone based on factors beyond their control, for reasons that are seemingly idiotic to everyone else, but I’m sure that amongst the under evolved lot of them, there is a normal person, who has a genuine reason. That isn’t fine, but it’s somewhat understandable. I’ve not ever heard of some one who hates an entire gender though. I mean, asides from being incredibly counter productive (no men=no more women either, dipshit).

The reasonable retort to that, would be to point out actual rapists as being a perfect example of someone who hates the opposite gender, and in some cases I daresay you’re right. I don’t deal in absolutes, however, and I don’t agree that all rapists hate women. Here’s why:

At school, I knew someone, older than me (not giving exact details out), who raped someone in his year. She was a good friend of mine, which is how I found out. It all got settled out of the limelight, and she decided to leave the school instead of him. The injustice of this, and the hatred I felt towards this man was unbelievable. The act in itself is violently repugnant to me, and to see someone get away with it just made it worse. As I grew up, he went from strength to strength, achieved very well, and was well liked. He became a “model citizen” as it were. Now, I know that the girl in question doesn’t hate him any more, an amazing feat of which I’m very proud of her. She has come to the conclusion that it was a mistake, made in error, and perhaps changed him into becoming the “great” guy he is now. I’ve never gone into graphic details with her, but if she’s come to peace with it all, then that’s that.

Can I honestly say that this man hates women? No, I really can’t. I can say a lot about him, much of it hateful. Hell, I could ruin his career, his relationships… I could destroy the remainder of his life by this atrocious act, but then, I’m not that kind of guy.

My point about all of this is that your actions against one person do not define your attitude towards a group. Conversely, the actions of an individual against you, do not define the attitudes of many people, who are only connected by some arbitrary definition. This kind of hatred, as I shouldn’t need to inform you, is pointless, unfounded, and harmful, and not only to the people that you are targeting.

“Eve”, in your posts you comment that women dress and act the way they do to “neutralise the threat” that men present (, while you claim that women act the way they are through social (which is in your mind completely patriarchal) conditioning (, showing that your beliefs conflict with themselves, purely in an effort to scapegoat men for everything wrong with the world (read:wrong with you).

If you honestly wish to target the rapists, and the patriarchy, and the oppression in this world, you are going to need to narrow your sights, because right now, bar maybe 100 women, you are attacking and insulting everybody, and it’s clear that everybody isn’t the problem. There are many real feminists (as you are most definitely NOT a feminist), as well as many men, who would fight alongside you, and in fact, currently DO fight to make the world a better place, from the enemies that you hopelessly attempt to identify.  Your counter productive hate speech will only hurt you in the long run, and while it might not ever change your mind, it won’t be men who are wasting their lives away in a cocoon of hatred, resentment, and bitterness. It’s not worth the waste, when your passion has so much to give. Open your eyes, accept the world, and change it productively.

(oh, and if you “quote” statistics, actually sodding quote them. Making statements like:

“because statistics indicate there is an almost 100% certainty that you have either committed a rape, or wanted to commit a rape, or knowingly assisted or defended someone who committed a rape, or mocked a woman who was raped”

when those statistics clearly don’t exist anywhere outside of your imagination, makes you argument look even less valid, if at all possible).