The Subversive Nature of Children's Nursery Rhymes

Nursery Rhymes are antiestablishment and pure ideology at its most refined. At a time when it was punishable by death to question the royal monarchy and the vast masses were largely illiterate it was the power of potent melody and coded imagery that allowed the truth; social injustice to infiltrate the minds and thought of society anonymously. From the infamous Baa Baa Black Sheep about the injustice of paying 1/3 of wool to the feudal master,1/3 to the church only leaving  the farmer his family and young sheppards 1/3 to elk out an existence on.Or Ring a Ring o Rosies highlighted the horror of the bubonic plague to Ladybird Ladybird about Protestant priests burnt at the stake the list goes on, read for yourself. My particular favourite is Rock-a-Bye Baby about the doomed house of Stuart.   Moss

Content courtesy of BBC Britain – a new series focused on exploring this extraordinary island, one story at a time

“A lot of children's literature has a very dark origin,” explained Lerer to Today.com. “Nursery rhymes are part of long-standing traditions of parody and a popular political resistance to high culture and royalty.” Indeed, in a time when to caricature royalty or politicians was punishable by death, nursery rhymes proved a potent way to smuggle in coded or thinly veiled messages in the guise of children's entertainment. In largely illiterate societies, the catchy sing-song melodies helped people remember the stories and, crucially, pass them on to the next generation. Whatever else they may be, nursery rhymes are a triumph of the power of oral history. And the children merrily singing them to this day remain oblivious to the meanings contained within.

The stuff of nightmares

Baa Baa Black Sheep is about the medieval wool tax, imposed in the 13th Century by King Edward I. Under the new rules, a third of the cost of a sack of wool went to him, another went to the church and the last to the farmer. (In the original version, nothing was therefore left for the little shepherd boy who lives down the lane). Black sheep were also considered bad luck because their fleeces, unable to be dyed, were less lucrative for the farmer.

Ring a Ring o Roses, or Ring Around the Rosie, may be about the 1665 Great Plague of London: the “rosie” being the malodorous rash that developed on the skin of bubonic plague sufferers, the stench of which then needed concealing with a “pocket full of posies”. The bubonic plague killed 15% of Britain’s population, hence “atishoo, atishoo, we all fall down (dead).”

Rock-a-bye Baby refers to events preceding the Glorious Revolution. The baby in question is supposed to be the son of King James II of England, but was widely believed to be another man’s child, smuggled into the birthing room to ensure a Roman Catholic heir. The rhyme is laced with connotation: the “wind” may be the Protestant forces blowing in from the Netherlands; the doomed “cradle” the royal House of Stuart. The earliest recorded version of the words in print contained the ominous footnote: “This may serve as a warning to the Proud and Ambitious, who climb so high that they generally fall at last”.

Mary, Mary Quite Contrary may be about Bloody Mary, daughter of King Henry VIII and concerns the torture and murder of Protestants. Queen Mary was a staunch Catholic and her “garden” here is an allusion to the graveyards which were filling with Protestant martyrs. The “silver bells” were thumbscrews; while “cockleshells” are believed to be instruments of torture which were attached to male genitals.

Goosey Goosey Gander is another tale of religious persecution but from the other side: it reflects a time when Catholic priests would have to say their forbidden Latin-based prayers in secret – even in the privacy of their own home.

Ladybird, Ladybird is also about 16th Century Catholics in Protestant England and the priests who were burned at the stake for their beliefs.

Lucy Locket is about a famous spat between two legendary 18th Century prostitutes.

Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush originated, according to historian RS Duncan, at Wakefield Prison in England, where female inmates had to exercise around a mulberry tree in the prison yard.

Oranges and Lemons follows a condemned man en route to his execution – “Here comes a chopper / To chop off your head!” – past a slew of famous London churches: St Clemens, St Martins, Old Bailey, Bow, Stepney, and Shoreditch.

Oranges and Lemons has inspired a children’s game in which kids try to avoid being caught by the ‘executioner’s ax’ as ‘Chop! Chop! Chop!’ is shouted (Credit: Getty Images)

Pop Goes The Weasel is an apparently nonsensical rhyme that, upon subsequent inspection, reveals itself to in fact be about poverty, pawnbroking, the minimum wage – and hitting the Eagle Tavern on London’s City Road.

My Thoughts On the Status Quo, Trying to Learn & Naive Experts

If one does not know what one is talking about, one should keep asking questions loudly until they're satisfied those who think they know what they’re talking about also don’t, Socrates springs to mind, for if he did anything he conveyed so well how so called experts know absolutely nothing on what they expertly claim to know. The elaborated quote of Wittengenstein by Zizek comically notes how “whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent”. Immediately the stupid question arises”.

It seems to me that the mind and our conception of reality are in a categorically opposed relationship an  antagonistic death roll of adversaries’ fighting along the poorly paved road of knowledege with would be genius’ and total numbskulls jostling down it alike. Perhaps the mind tries to shape our knowledge in a self-protective way and when we come into contact with the reality of known facts against the contents of our thoughts that later of which we once held above question our perceptions of how life is can come crumble down before our very eyes in an instant ideology gives way and we are proved wrong time and time again whether we care to admit or not.

But who should we believe in regards to serious social problems like racism do we trust a know it all expert that has studied everything there is to know from a whole shelf of books at library or someone who has experienced and been subjected to racism every single day of their lives, I know who I would choose. It has been already stated in modern life that it is impossible to say anything about the unspeakable e.g racism, so why must we add that we don’t speak about it, does the classical Kantian paradox of not knowing what we will never know mean we can’t even seek to describe it even for a purely aesthetic value.

I would argue that the status quo’s true aim is to disassociate, distort and divorce us from our own perceptive knowing, by denying our development and learning of common place knowledge. From childhood we are incased in a position that generates an inferiority complex our real life experiences counting for nought in the face of clinically sanitised educated analysis. But one need only think of someone who thinks they have done the right thing throughout their whole life, until that horrible point were their subjective view transfers to an objective one from the other and their decisions gazed upon in a way that conveys that the exact opposite of what they thought is true is actually the case. Despite this we seem to gladly slam the door closed to greater knowledge and objective understanding because society denies the subjective experiences a place of importance, as a place to grow and nurture the sense of oneself that offers a competing view to entrenched beliefs guarded by the status quo, maybe this is the stance we collectively take toward children that generates the social situation we currently face of lack of inability to live ones life and give it meaning. Camus once said that suicide is not something work contemplating because the sheer meaninglessness of life opens the door to true meaning that we can code into the programme that is our own life. I don't deny this view but argue that is increasingly becoming harder and harder to materialises and stay strong to the meaning and ideals we place as the foundational basis of life in this neo-liberal world. 

In a roundabout way the hegemonic monopoly on information relies upon our position of unknowing like a child, and when we actually come close to knowing things, before we do so in unwavering entirety it is the lingering doubt that the Mother or society capitalises on and uses as leverage to control us before we can know for ourselves. When we are confronted and face to face with an interlocutor we engage in an egotistical battle of competition were excess of knowledge is sought to the shame the other, that is until both fall heavily toward the ground of idiocy. 

My fleeting thoughts on the new disguise of racism look specifically at the role of neo-liberals and their role  in the ballet of life. In my experience it seems the supposed cool chums of society unwittingly champion the Game of Thronesesqe calvary charge toward the new frontier of bigotry. They are doing this by making the matter of racist prejudice unspeakable in a way that degrades real progress on the issue. Racism is never addressed directly a cunning ploy to try and make it a non-issue to swept it up under the rug. Indeed what a wonderful world it would be if we could all repress the social belief of racism and deny it as a societal ideological myth instilled in us involuntarily, maybe we could all carry on with our racist lives while denying the privilege to others in society. 

Is it strange to think there are some many racists in the Southern states of the USA were racism is outwardly promoted as the thing to do whilst in New York and other states multiculturalism is promoted but possibly underneath this pseudo acceptance racism bubble’s violently under the surface till the day a liberal snaps and the rooster finally comes home to roost in a big way possibly dwarfing the scale of the atrocities carried out in Alabama. A scary thought by denying the existence and place for racism in society we cut ourselves off from trying to neutralise the problem by making it an openly laughed at thing what a world it would be if this conversation was to occur in Missippi;

 “You know what my friend Joe said the darnest thing the other day he said he was a racist” 

“well what you know Joe aint that the funniest thing I heard all day, would you believe it people still tryna be racist!”

“and it gets better,  I picked him up last night and we went out for tea but he insisted we drive in his 

Japanese car to his favorite Indian restaurant where we ordered imported Dutch beers with our meals”

“being racist those were the days you got laugh at people stuck in the past like that”

“Sure does bring a smile to my face” 

The Dominating role of Violence in Slavoj Zizek's Philosophy - presented by Paul Taylor (Zizekian Studies)

My comment on the video: Thanks for the perceptive critique of "Secret Millionare" Paul Taylor its funny how millionaires of such large companies are secret pseudo individuals hiding behind there stone walled property. I really agree that the secret is how one individual/family can violent exploit all the everyday shown people for excessive monetary gain. They give back with the hand that feeds what has been taken ten fold with the other. One worker in an army of thousands gets a holiday and a check to buy back the fruits of their own labour. This video made me think, as Bukowskis tombstone said "Don't Try" haha

Summary thoughts:
The background of violence is the real. The overall system of media and the status quo want to diffuse our emancipatory potential by allowing us our political insight into the way our world operates only through capitalist entertainment. The establishment gives to us via the silver screen a symbolic illusion of what we truly want economic and social freedoms - true equality.Reality Tv is yet another way modern capitalism exploits the powerless in society by monetising even our most personal relationships with our families and turning them into entertainment content to feed the corporate machine.

Paul Taylor argues that we are sold a cure to our problems which is in fact one of the main reasons for our suffering. He takes exceptions to figures like Bono and Bob Geldof who only specifically through gaining vast riches by functioning in the system can afford to true and right the wrongs of social inequality. Taylor highlights how our dependency on figures of philanthropy and charity for certain issues like poverty in Africa stop us from getting to the core of the issue namely creating a fair and even playing for countries and people to compete in an equal economic game.

The fetishist disavowal:of violence "I know very well but even so" I keep the cycle of violence continuing is one of humanities most deeply troubling problems. And as Taylor states quoting Hegel to flee from something one fears is not the answer as the thing we seek to put distance in-between ourselves still exerts a hidden power over you. One could think of all the Rambo films and action thrillers were the lead protagonist flees from corrupt beaucracy only to latter be engulfed in a much larger conflict with the same force. Violence and confrontation in Zizek's view seems inevitable because only through confronting the wrongs in the mechanics of society can we get closer to a better one 'or fail a bit better" as he says.

Perpetual violence mares each and every life within society from the poor all the way to the rich know one escapes the structural violence of institutions and society. One need only look at a hagged former President or Prime Minister to demonstrate the inability to run from power relations and the drain on our human lives that they exert. Marx himself agreed that the bourgeois are victims of their own success at the top of the social totem pole for example their loveless marriages he saw as  more akin to financial transactions of hereditary wealth than anything to do with individual subject's entering into loving wed-lock. For all the abuses the elite subject the lower parts of society too in work through the abuse of the means to production and capital it does seem a just reward for them to not truly be able to marry for love, at least in the past! Vestiges of this inability to truly love of the 1% percent can even be seen in hit shows on modern cable television take for instance Game of Thrones" with the almighty rich and royal Lannister House whose siblings are forced to marry for power, money and social standing instead of love no wonder they become fixated with prostitution, war and incest.

A summary of how Zizek's Hegalian-Marxist Lacanian View developed - by Paul Taylor 

The Marxist Slovenian philosopher Božidar Debenjak was an early influence on Slavoj Žižek. It was from Debenjak that Slavoj began to turn to German idealism and Slavoj Žižek began to be influenced by the Frankfurt School. It was in Božidar Debenjak's course at the University of Ljubljana that Slavoj Žižek read Karl Marx's Das Kapital through the lens of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Phenomenology of the Mind. The perspective formed through this interrogation of Karl Marx and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel has heavily influenced Slavoj Žižek's contemporary works. Slavoj Žižek has associated with Tine Hribar and Ivo Urbančič, both Heideggerian philosophers.

Slavoj Žižek was hired at the University of Ljubljana in 1971 where he worked as an assistant researcher. His master's thesis was controversial due to the Marxist tendency of the reformist Slovenian regime in 1973 and therefore he lost his position at the university. After this period he worked for the Yugoslav army in Karlovac. Slavoj Žižek later began to work as a clerk for the Slovenian Marxist Center where he became acquainted with Mladen Dolar and Rastko Močnik. Both of these scholars were focused on the works of Jacques Lacan. Slavoj Žižek began working for the Institute of Sociology for the University of Ljubljana in 1979. Shortly after in the 1980's he began to publish books which examined Heglian and Marxist theories from the point of view of Lacanian psychoanalytic theory. Slavoj Žižek has two sons from two different marriages.

Slavoj Žižek wrote the introduction to John Lee Carre and G.K. Chesterston's Slovenian translated novels. Slavoj Žižek edited a number of translations of Louis Althusser, Jacques Lacan and Sigmund Freud to Slovenian. It was not until the late 1980s when Slavoj Žižek came under the scrutiny of public attention. During this period he was a columnist from his work for Maldina, a magazine aimed at youth which criticized the Titoist regime. The magazine gained notoriety for its stance against certain aspects of the times Yugoslavian politics, in particular the increasing militarization policies aimed towards society. Up until October of 1988 Slavoj Žižek was an active member of the Communist Party of Slovenia. He quit during the protest against the JBZ-trial. He was not alone in this protest, he quit along with thirty two other public intellectuals with origins in Slovenia. Slavoj Žižek was involved with the Committee for the Defense of Human Rights a social movement fighting for democracy in Slovenia. In 1990 the first free elections were held in Slovenia. At this time Slavoj Žižek ran for President aligned with the Liberal Democratic Party.

Slavoj Žižek became widely recognized as an important theorist of contemporary times with the publication of The Sublime Object of Ideology, his first book to be written in English, in 1989. Since this time Slavoj Žižek has taken the contemporary philosophical world by storm, never afraid of confrontation he is a dangerous theorist. Slavoj Žižek's work cannot be categorized easily. He calls for a return to the the Cartesian subject. Slavoj Žižek also calls for a return to The German Ideology, in particular the works of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling. Slavoj Žižek's work draws on the works of Jacques Lacan, moving his theory towards modern political and philosophical issues, finding the potential for liberatory politics within his work. But in all his turns to these thinkers and strands of thought, he hopes to call forth new potentials in thinking and self-reflexivity. Slavoj Žižek also calls for a return to the spirit of the revolutionary potential of Lenin and Karl Marx.

The Nazi Royal Family Salute

Hmm what to make of this well we all know the Royal family are German in heritage so it shouldn't come as such a big surprise. And they do seem like they are horsing around a bit and rough housing and shaking around a lot like wobbly jellow! plus their pet dog is quite cute the way it runs round...but nevertheless the clip for all it's worth shows how non-plussed the royal family was to Nazi take-over an organisation put together and funded by the German aristocrats of which the Royal family would have very close ties, if anything the clip displays a fearless grapple hold on power regardless of which way WW2 ended, thank god we didn't end up with a Nazi Royal Family posing with Hitler perhaps some where over the rainbow in a parallel universe things are a little more fruity!!! On a more serous and sombre note the clip post holocaust does seem to trivialise the atrocities perpetrated by the Third Reich, and on that note I think the Queen herself should apologize to protect the reputation of her family and loved ones. Although she was to young to understand the significance of her actions her parents surely should've known better! shame on you Queen Mother :)

 

Nietzsche - The Lone Philosopher Dancing in the Stars

One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.

Friedrich Nietzsche

I watched some youtube videos on Friedrich Nietzsche today, he certainly wasn't a person you could accuse of having everything his own way. From his dad dying during childhood to contracting syphilis from a brothel and then to be forsaken by the love of his life it almost seems a Greek tragedy of which the philosopher studied intensely. I find it interesting how Nietzsche discovered Schopenhauer's works and at first completely embraced the pessimism and sad outlook on life, until he wrestled the concept of the Will free of his fore bearer turning the will that was in Schopenhauer's philosophy the root of all human pain and suffering:

"Suppose that, with the exception of some sore or painful spot, we are physically in a sound and healthy condition: the sore of this one spot, will completely absorb our attention, causing us to lose the sense of general well-being, and destroying all our comfort in life. In the same way, when all our affairs but one turn out as we wish, the single instance in which our aims are frustrated is a constant trouble to us, even though it be something quite trivial. We think a great deal about it, and very little about those other and more important matters in which we have been successful. In both these cases what has met with resistance is the will"   (Counsel and Maxims)

Into a positive and life affirming attribute, Nietzsche arguing that:

"One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star"

The will of sorrow thus turns into un-ending source of fuel that confirms Nietzsche great belief that what all human beings really want is the power to transform our lives and achieve what we never thought possible. A dream turned into reality. A lonely German man who had almost no friends except Richard Wagner Nietzsche firmly believed in the ability to enjoy a second wind in life achieving things that we once deemed out of reach and only possible for others or before are lives went off the rails. The reason for Nietzsche totally embrace of our own particular life pitfalls, highs and lows warts and all was because he knew destiny came about in completely different ways and if one could only embrace one's life completely even if it meant living it forever and ever you would indeed find for oneself a life beyond good and evil above the masses of 'medocracy' you would become Super-human the true potential of humanity.

A great analysis of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" by Philosopher Brian Johnson

Epicureanism - Money, Power or Friendship

The often ridiculed philosopher Epicurus believed that our sensory knowledge was the basis for all human knowledge. The fact that atoms existed in his view was strengthened by visual observation over and above abstract reason. His famous example of holding a stick in water during the day so sunlight reflected off the atoms in the water bending the stick was the basis of atomic existence because when one pulled the stick out of the water the stick became straight again. He believed reason and the mind alone could not sufficiently convey the actual existence of atoms, only through observed physical and repeatable examples could we understand the structures of reality. Despite this Epicurus argued for many things outside observation and visual certainty one controversial theory being the idea of a mortal soul destined to die due to its atomic material structure. In contrast to Plato's winged immortal soul that returned to heaven and earth in an endless cycle Epicurus conception of the soul meant that it was fundamental prone to decay, death and ultimately destruction. Just as the human body decomposes overtime same goes for the soul breaking down and becoming a null entity the atoms of the soul dissipating maybe due to a lack of consciousness acting like a glue.

Similar to the modern theorist and psychoanalyst Freud the ancient philosopher Epicurus argued the way we orientate our lives around our own inescapable deaths is detrimental to our happiness. 'The Freudian death drive' identified much earlier in Greece is thought to propels us towards action in life to hide our sub-conscious knowledge that we will soon be all dead and are living on borrowed time. Epicurus perceived that 'the fear of death stimulates the desire to accumulate wealth" hence our inability to confront our own inevitable end generates the excessive need, drive and desire for superfluous material objects to take our minds off the dreaded unknown; death. Moving towards religion Epicurus theory stated that the idea of God was an oxymoron. He firmly doubted and dis-believed the existence of gods on the basis that 'if they really were invulnerable and completely happy, why create a world? And have interest in mortal lives'. I stand in agreement with this view because it really doesn't make sense for a perfect being to create an imperfect world/beings to entertain themselves. The only reason a 'God" would ensue an act of creation would be due to a lack of completeness in their existence and individual entity denying them the status of a god. The notion of divine boredom seems like a poignant imperfection. 

A serious problem with Epicurean thought is a commitment to a fixed, structural determined reality were a person or agent can nevertheless self-determine ones life and actions in certain instances. Epicurus insists that the "atomic swerve' a known phenomena at the particle level were atoms can change from a determined route to another path means all things in reality including human beings can break free from a certain interactions and conditions avoiding situations that determine the outcome of our own lives. Through the questionable 'quick save' power to allow us the ability to make autonomous decisions in an unfree world we can improve the quality of our lives. Although things are written in stone from Epicurus view about our lives we can still choose the tablet on which we write the particular life narrative we choose for ourselves. Despite this perplexing conception of freedom responsibility in relation to our actions, just like the swerving of the atom becomes ambiguous, for it becomes increasingly difficult to say whether someone is truly accountable for their actions, for instance did someone exercise their own free will in a situation top change an outcome or did they go with the pre-determined flow of their life events due to the determined nature of the world we find ourselves living in.  

Through the ages Hedonism has become synonymous with the figure Epicurus and his thinking and thoughts in philosophy be it in a vastly mis-understood way. To set the record straight the ancient philosopher actually postulated against popular opinion that one can not 'buy a life of pleasure that outweighs pain'. Epicurus argued the sensual senses were unable and deficient in aiding the hedonists pursuit of pleasure correctly. Although he held that the 'infallible good' was indeed pleasure that was known by the senses he did not promote a crude modern caricature of the idealised lifestyle summed up by money, sex and power, the reverse was his true for the philosopher as he outlined the desires mentioned of a base human appetite were riddled with fears, pain and worry due to the problematic and frequent loss of them for no reason and the painful arduous hard work undertaken to gain them let alone maintain them. From his oppositional view to excessive material wants and desires Epicurus stated that when one truly becomes free of the spinning cycle that is "the wheel of desire" the truly pleasurable life devoid of anxiety is achieved. In order to maximise happiness a hedonist has to find pleasure in the simple things of life like; leisure, food, conversation, shelter and warmth in truth the basic necessities of life. Epicurus subtle form of moderate pleasure seeking and the utter avoidance of pain places a strong emphasis on the calming nuances that help make the human condition a fun and easy experience. 

At the beating heart of Epicurus hedonism is friendship standing proud above all other objects and human relations in the world. The reason for this position of esteem afforded to friendship is due to the redeeming qualities associated with friendship, being: justice, mutual benefit, aid in tough times as well as emotional/physical security. While the dominating traits of greed and power may seem enjoyable for a time, especially if held in abundance the inevitable wane of greed turns to debt and power transforms into open rebellion generating painful repercussions for the followers of such vices. In a similar way friendship flourishes in the good times, celebrations and joyous occasions of life yet it also thrives in hardship.    After sometimes undergoing a rigorous test in a bad situation were we tend to discover our true friends, friendship either breaks and is all but lost or triumphantly passes the test becoming far stronger and above question helping safe guard a dear friend from the  possible experiences of cruelty, antagonism, sorrow and plain meanness from others. 

It is because of this 'steadfast' quality of Friendship that it takes up such a staunch opposition to injustice dealt by corrupt and violent institutions and individuals in society. Whereas other philosopher might have tried to sway a person into thinking society is built on 'divine inspiration and social hierarchy mitigated by human nature' Epicurus is vastly more cynical maintaining that human society is structured predominantly by 'human anxiety' manifesting in corruption and greed in a sad bid to avoid death. The poisonous shadow of death is why friendship proves to be 'the most pleasurable' pursuit in life, namely because the collective human needs of others granted privilege through the vast friendships in the world will in time erode away our enemies position of power who monopolise human wealth for their selfish ends extending human unhappiness. One might indeed tend to think of Julius Caesar a gifted man who amassed great and power fortune but who alas died at the hands of many murderers, if he had possibly privileged friendship over money a bit more he may have been able to survive and live a longer more fulfilling life, a true friend in most instances would have made him more aware of the plot against his life and urged precaution. The creation and functioning of the state in Epicurus view is an offshoot of friendship. It's sadly often diverted true aim is to help citizens forsake pleasure for pain.        By acting justly the hedonist and state function in a relation of friendship improving the life and existence of both entities 'The pursuit of pleasure demands the cultivation of moral virtues' and if understood properly  'the one great incentive to face danger and brave troubles is friendship from the epicurean perspective'. 

To conclude there are many criticisms levelled toward Epicurean philosophy one of the most harming being that his philosophy is essentially a shallow simplified account made for popular consumption because even the stupid can grasp the core principles of the theory namely; avoid pain and anxiety, veer away from excess, friendship is at the core of a happy life and the role of the state to promote pleasure. While below the surface the Epicurean ideas after analysis by intellectuals find contradictions that expose the difficulties that "has, a useful result: it shows us why principles that initially seem simple and attractive are neither simple nor attractive after all". From my view despite the structural problems of atom swerving self-determinism I would argue that the shallowness argument of Epicurean theory does not destroy the validity of his Epicurean philosophy. Certainly If ones primary aim is to trip up a theory based on speculative atomic claims before the invention of modern technology one can reduce the claims of Epicurus significantly. However, what I would argue in Epicurus philosophy that is impervious to damage are the simple unquestionable truths about the virtue of helping others and undertaking a temperate modest outlook on life to produce a pleasurable experience of the human life. Epicurus metaphysics maybe be off to a degree but surely his moral compass and good attitude is facing north. 

Sources: Classical Thought - Terrence Irwin (All Quotes) This whole article is indebted to this reading significantly as I offered my own view on ideas raised by Mr Irwin in his summary of the thinker and plucked out the thoughts that most interest me like a book review. 

A Short video on the man himself :) 

Karl Marx - The Joys of Unemployment and the Reality of Over-Abundance

This is a great video that highlights the most important points of Karl Marx's revolutionary thinking about Capitalism; an often mis-understood thing that is the main mode of modern economic and financially relations between human beings, objects and our environment. Whether one buys a chocolate bar, a house or pays a cleaning lady to tidy up your house chances are your living in a capitalist world were all relations are distorted by money. Ever had that feeling that your friend would rather not buy you a sandwich but does so anyway Marx even addresses the social phenomena of human selfishness in relationships.  

Before I watched this video I had no idea how radical Marx was! I never knew for instance that he thought unemployment was something to be recognised, celebrated even cherished as a glimpse into a possible positive future. A time were everyone doesn't have to work can choose what they want to do due to the main problem of capitalism; that is to affect at producing for its own good. It reminds me of a fact I heard years ago that Russia alone could possibly generate food for the whole population and steal have left-overs. Well, you certainly wouldn't think that looking at modern food prices. In New Zealand the main supermarket chain should really be called Count up not Countdown! could someone sue them for mis-information, now that would be funny.

Joking aside such pivotal parts of Marxism that the world is still abundant and how employment is unrealised social "Freedom" reminded myself of the lies churned out about Karl Marx, the prejudices clinging to the man and obsfucating his theories. The mass media and social conditioning to obey  really does try to poison the virtue in Marixst philosophy and economics. One usually always hears the claim that Karl Marx wants to take away money from hard working individuals in society and re-distribute it to the undeserving poor and working class. The prevalence of the idea of 'money theft' associated with Marx no doubt compounded upon his Jewish heritage creates the horribly persistent idea that he is a mad communist hell bent on causing utter financial chaos. But does Marx really want to deny us the ability to survive through engaging in monotonous work, some ignorant people fiercely agree and argue his ideas jeopardise the simple transactions of buying food, paying our rent and generating a livelihood. 

In reality Marx wants real financial order by turning away from the problems inbuilt to capitalism that actually threaten your ability to pay your mortgage, feed your family and find work. His great beard is not purely seeking the denial of other peoples rights to property, money, objects and other human beings for profitable exploitation due to envy and jealousy. Instead Marx genuinely wants  improve the lives of everyone through reducing anxiety and giving us security. He was even perceptive enough to not that the rich are unhappy to as marriage at the top echelon is an investment not built on a foundation of love. Marx and his social theory is adamantly in favour of us following our passions and enjoying life without poverty and sadness. He's even trying to help us fix our personal relationships so we don't get put in the dog house whenever we subconsciously forget to by our lover flowers due to ingrained selfishness! To conclude Marx is only presented as a subversive immoral individual in history because he wants to restore the morality and human dignity to the selfish, lazy dis-enfranchised people throughout the world who are both rich and poor.  

A Segway on Marx and Over-Abundance

p.s - If Karl Marx was fat could we read it as a personal affirmation that Capitalism aims to exploit us     for no other reason but to feel guilt which controls our thinking so even when we are confronted with the access to over abundance, resources and enjoyment in the world we deny it to ourselves - e.g We know that there are a hundred cans of Coke in any store yet we must be punished in a way to enjoy just one can! 

Is that we are indoctrinated into an ideology which demands that we are satisfied with the wage not the riches, the singular over the multiple, the subject over everyone! If one thinks about it from an early age in childhood we are forced year after year to share our Birthday cake with others? Is that truly just. 

Would a Marxist Birthday in fact not be to share a piece of cake with everyone else but instead make sure that all our friends have the ability to bring a cake too. Is the answer to inequality to really reduce what we have, to improve the amount given to another person or instead improve what another person has removed from ourselves so we are not depleted and they are not beholden to us. 

Surely it must be the case that autonomy is more important than egoist generosity. Dependence is what Marx wants to erudite from the world but not by means of a cynical hand out, more like a hand up to make your life your own!