For the last few months I've been attempting - and often failing - to hit my weight loss targets of the week; at one point in my life vanity finally caught up with me, and I found myself no longer to be comfortable in the body which I currently have.
I was a pretty skinny kid, however, in my timeline that changed very quickly. From the age of around seven or eight I began to escalate in size; my parents and grandparents, as much as I may love them, passed it off as a part of growing up, simply stating that I would 'grow into' my size.
I never grew into my size - and now I'm left at 17lbs 11lb down from 18lbs 1lb which is not how I ever would have wanted to develop into as an adult if I had the mental capacity I had now, back then.
Over the course of time there has been a greater increase on the deconstruction of fat shame culture; this, in some respect, could be seen as a way of curving bullying and abuse, however I found myself wanting to change because of the bullies or the social implications that are associated with being overweight, and not the medical risks or adverts telling us to cut down on our calorie intake.
I feel, personally, that vanity is a more powerful tool in action than health concerns for reducing weight; by establishing a burden for those overweight socially to change their lifestyle, such as I must do, I see more effective than any speech a doctor could give.
I don't condone bullying without causality, but is fat shaming ever acceptable?
I, as an individual, do not see fit for purpose a culture which condones the bad lifestyle choices made by individuals -- I fear that, as obesity becomes more acceptable, that our children and cultures will suffer extensively: poor health, and a loss of the ability to use the resources around us effectively as opposed to fast food consumption.
Before I continue, remember that this is an insider's perspective. I suffer from my own weight problems, and these are my views on the journey so far and how society had influenced them.
My view is that, in some instance, fat shaming is indeed acceptable.
If a member of our community is unwilling to alter their lifestyle despite being at serious risk of health defects, then perhaps there is an acceptable motivation to mildly shame the person into a change; in absolute certainty it is paramount that parents who insert on passing down an unhealthy lifestyle to their children must be stopped.
It is not that I have a desire to cause someone distress, however a short period of suffering leading to a lifetime change for the better is, in my eyes, worth it.
Should this open the floodgates to bullies and maverick wannabe saviours of the fatties? No.
Very much the form of fat-shaming I see as effective should come from family and close friends who may possess the potential to display the damaging affect of their loved ones way of life in the hopes of progressing their chances in life, and no merely for a few sick kicks.
Love or hate this article I don't care.
Wednesday 6 November 2013
Irrelevant: A rebuttal to LeftFootForward
Per usual, the established-left have taken a few minutes out of their day to vaguely pretend to misunderstand the point that a public figure has made on the current state of affairs regarding the democracies across the globe that struggle to maintain the facade of freedom.
Left Foot Forward has joined the political class in slating the name of Russell Brand by publishing an article full of irrelevant points and historical events which have no place in the discussion of voting and the 21st century.
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/11/five-times-that-voting-has-made-a-difference/
As a voter, and indeed a centre-right activist, I will not break apart their arguments and contradictions contained within their article:
"In 2004, the British National Party narrowly missed out on a seat in the London Assembly, losing by just a handful of votes. In 2008, the party also came close to winning council seats in Amber Valley where the party lost by just a single vote."
The contradiction in this clear: if they were a hand-full of votes away from a BNP elected official then this is a clear indication that the battle for the electorate could have narrowly swung in either direction.
Democracy by vote ALLOWS right-winged and government oppression into the mainstream.
Look at the current coalition - while we may all agree that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were not elected directly to Parliament, it is clear that both parties had won enough seats to form a two-tier government.
Look at the impact of the Conservative polices to the working man; voting can just as much be a source of destruction as it is a power for good.
While I neglect the efficient use of historical instance in my opener, I would also remind the reader that Hitler and the Nazi party were elected to power in a democratic system.
Actually, no, it did not.
The will of the people made it possible to form a National Health Service - to label any political party as having created the very core of British health is lackluster; as previously stated on my blog, it is not a political party which is every responsible for change in a nation; political parties merely hop on to causes in the hopes of securing votes, and clearly for such a large movement there were many political influences from both left and right in unity over the need for healthcare reforms.
"There was plenty of ‘revolution’ in Russia... where millions of people were being murdered by Stalin and the Bolsheviks; but the welfare state was created ... by voting."
To deny the revolutionary frequency of the common man in Britain is idiocy; the Labour Party was formed from striking forces and revolutionary desires. The welfare state was formed in fears of such revolution as was being seen across many nations at the time; the best course of action to maintain control of a population is to present citizens with their wishes, more so when much of the male population is trained in combat and on the fly demolition.
In relating to my earlier comments, comparing the early 20th century to the early 21st century is a false comparison in terms of political progression - there are very few philosophies from that period which have not been tainted or removed.
Two illegal wars; two nations entirely destroyed. A Prime Minister who was more Thatcherite than Thatcher. The creation of the police state; The establishment of political correctness. The biggest wealth gap deepening since the last Labour government. Education standards plummeting, and generally a nation sinking deeper into a lack of prosperity.
Oh, and the null re-establishment of national services.
"To put it bluntly, Russell Brand has a $2 million dollar mansion ...it therefore makes very little difference to him whether there is a minimum wage or not or whether there are free prescriptions for people undergoing treatment for cancer.
This is not to say that wealthy people don’t often care about such things; but ultimately they do have the option of not caring, whereas poor people don’t. This is why celebrity cynicism should be taken with a pinch of white powder."
The left complain when the wealthy use their influence to fight for the working man, and yet when the famous use their power for progression there is a cause for complaint - please make up your mind in what you want: A complacent wealthy, or a man who is passionate about defending the working background in which he came from but just happens to have been successful in gaining a career?
The very notion that Russell Brand's wealth somehow alleviated him from political discussion is counter to democratic values where every single citizen should have a voice.
The drug reference is in bad taste, especially considering Russell Brand is a recovered addict and spends much time promoting drug awareness and rehabilitation
Those who vote have a raw deal along with those who do not - all those who voted during the last general election, who were unemployed, disabled, or unfit for work, have been getting the brunt end of a very revolting stick for quite some time now.
To say that the lack of political understanding or compassion for the opinion of the youth is due to not having a vote is absolutely terrible as an example.
Humans are philosophical creatures and have a belief system, even without voting.
If someone does not vote then they are not voided of belief and, to a certain extent, I actually feel that those who are politically active but do not vote are perhaps on a higher thought system than those who do; the majority of votes in each general election are from those who are protesting the actions of the last government, and not those with a deep rooted belief system.
Voting is a archaic system of establishing a ruling order.
"While it may be enough on the celebrity circuit to rally against ‘the regime’ and lazily call for ‘revolution’, if you appear on programmes like Newsnight and in the pages of theGuardian you should expect to have to expand on what it is that you want."
During the interview Russell Brand clearly stated that minds greater than his would be responsible for this -- stop creating a point where there is none.
Left Foot Forward has joined the political class in slating the name of Russell Brand by publishing an article full of irrelevant points and historical events which have no place in the discussion of voting and the 21st century.
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/11/five-times-that-voting-has-made-a-difference/
As a voter, and indeed a centre-right activist, I will not break apart their arguments and contradictions contained within their article:
"It kept the far-right out"
"In 2004, the British National Party narrowly missed out on a seat in the London Assembly, losing by just a handful of votes. In 2008, the party also came close to winning council seats in Amber Valley where the party lost by just a single vote."
The contradiction in this clear: if they were a hand-full of votes away from a BNP elected official then this is a clear indication that the battle for the electorate could have narrowly swung in either direction.
Democracy by vote ALLOWS right-winged and government oppression into the mainstream.
Look at the current coalition - while we may all agree that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were not elected directly to Parliament, it is clear that both parties had won enough seats to form a two-tier government.
Look at the impact of the Conservative polices to the working man; voting can just as much be a source of destruction as it is a power for good.
While I neglect the efficient use of historical instance in my opener, I would also remind the reader that Hitler and the Nazi party were elected to power in a democratic system.
"It made possible the creation of the National Health Service"
Actually, no, it did not.
The will of the people made it possible to form a National Health Service - to label any political party as having created the very core of British health is lackluster; as previously stated on my blog, it is not a political party which is every responsible for change in a nation; political parties merely hop on to causes in the hopes of securing votes, and clearly for such a large movement there were many political influences from both left and right in unity over the need for healthcare reforms.
"There was plenty of ‘revolution’ in Russia... where millions of people were being murdered by Stalin and the Bolsheviks; but the welfare state was created ... by voting."
To deny the revolutionary frequency of the common man in Britain is idiocy; the Labour Party was formed from striking forces and revolutionary desires. The welfare state was formed in fears of such revolution as was being seen across many nations at the time; the best course of action to maintain control of a population is to present citizens with their wishes, more so when much of the male population is trained in combat and on the fly demolition.
In relating to my earlier comments, comparing the early 20th century to the early 21st century is a false comparison in terms of political progression - there are very few philosophies from that period which have not been tainted or removed.
"It kept Labour in power between 1997 and 2010"
Two illegal wars; two nations entirely destroyed. A Prime Minister who was more Thatcherite than Thatcher. The creation of the police state; The establishment of political correctness. The biggest wealth gap deepening since the last Labour government. Education standards plummeting, and generally a nation sinking deeper into a lack of prosperity.
Oh, and the null re-establishment of national services.
"To put it bluntly, Russell Brand has a $2 million dollar mansion ...it therefore makes very little difference to him whether there is a minimum wage or not or whether there are free prescriptions for people undergoing treatment for cancer.
This is not to say that wealthy people don’t often care about such things; but ultimately they do have the option of not caring, whereas poor people don’t. This is why celebrity cynicism should be taken with a pinch of white powder."
The left complain when the wealthy use their influence to fight for the working man, and yet when the famous use their power for progression there is a cause for complaint - please make up your mind in what you want: A complacent wealthy, or a man who is passionate about defending the working background in which he came from but just happens to have been successful in gaining a career?
The very notion that Russell Brand's wealth somehow alleviated him from political discussion is counter to democratic values where every single citizen should have a voice.
The drug reference is in bad taste, especially considering Russell Brand is a recovered addict and spends much time promoting drug awareness and rehabilitation
"Young people get a raw deal from politics precisely because they don’t vote"
Those who vote have a raw deal along with those who do not - all those who voted during the last general election, who were unemployed, disabled, or unfit for work, have been getting the brunt end of a very revolting stick for quite some time now.
To say that the lack of political understanding or compassion for the opinion of the youth is due to not having a vote is absolutely terrible as an example.
" If you don’t believe in voting, what do you believe in?"
Humans are philosophical creatures and have a belief system, even without voting.
If someone does not vote then they are not voided of belief and, to a certain extent, I actually feel that those who are politically active but do not vote are perhaps on a higher thought system than those who do; the majority of votes in each general election are from those who are protesting the actions of the last government, and not those with a deep rooted belief system.
Voting is a archaic system of establishing a ruling order.
"While it may be enough on the celebrity circuit to rally against ‘the regime’ and lazily call for ‘revolution’, if you appear on programmes like Newsnight and in the pages of theGuardian you should expect to have to expand on what it is that you want."
During the interview Russell Brand clearly stated that minds greater than his would be responsible for this -- stop creating a point where there is none.
Sunday 3 November 2013
Established-Liberalism: The New Fascism?
Every day I am spammed with comments and frequent - and often well meant - words of equality and diversity; one would, from the speeches of togetherness than the internet and popular news sources flurry, think that the human race is one step closer to the Captain Picard Utopia of tomorrow, however, digging deeper, it appears that the grievous flag of veiled fascism takes place.
The internet is an interesting place for social study: almost any demographic may be found on social media, often interacting and posting publically their opinions, and indeed, countering the opinions of those they deem to be against the agenda of said demographic.
In my adventures through the internet I have met one group of people who both execute their rhetoric of equality while simultaneously bringing down the forehammer of fascism and loss of freedom; this group, naturally, is one I - as a right of centre fellow - consider to be my arch nemesis: the Established-Left.
To clarify what the Established-Left contains, they are the elder lefties who were formed from previous generational gaps, and indeed, the Establish-Left do not include many modern right-centric or neoliberalist liberal groups; it is hard to pin these Established-Liberals to any one political entity.
To highlight my point on the equality meets fascism statement, I recall a particular news article on Huffington Post UK's Facebook post which highlighted that Baby P's mother was released from prison and wishes to have another child. The commentators on the HP's pages tend to be small, so it is easy to build up an internet rapport with the few individuals who take the regular time to post.
In the comments I found the same people who preach love and solidarity also calling for the execution or forced castration of Baby P's mother, a common theme within the Established-Liberal community; a form of political bi-polar.
For the record: I am on the fence in regards to capital punishment, however, even I find it frightful to read some of the comments that come from those proclaiming to be liberal. I consider myself to be liberal-right, and find no connection to these forms of lunatics which swarm and multiply on the internet.
Okay, so they call for execution, and the Baby P case was a huge atrocity in the UK, but how does that lead to fascism?
This is where we enter risky land of counter-social engineering.
Established-Liberals were the driving force behind political correctness; while correct in the need to wipe of illegitimate forms of racism and lack of diversity, the Established-Liberals have now buffered a catalyst of anger and repetitive despisal of ethnic minorities through the suppression and destruction of thought relating to the challenges of failed multiculturalism. It now becomes a sin to question the impact of cascading cultures in one nation, or the impact of immigration.
Any free-thinker who dares challenge the preconceived notions of equality will quickly be shot down and attacked by the left, and branded, for the most part, a bigot or a racist.
I do not believe that equality can ever be achieved by the suppression of thought, or the inability and compression of any wavering thought processes against the status-quo.
I believe that if you are to look at one race subjectively, then you must look all those concerning your nation subjectively; if one culture can be made fun of, then they must all be able to be made fun of.
The right have now become more liberal than the old liberals of yonder days.
To create equality through forced fear of arrest or belittlement is fascism, and it follows the same route as communism in the old USSR or current china - and I doubt that any westerner would wish to live in those scenarios for extended periods of time.
The internet is an interesting place for social study: almost any demographic may be found on social media, often interacting and posting publically their opinions, and indeed, countering the opinions of those they deem to be against the agenda of said demographic.
In my adventures through the internet I have met one group of people who both execute their rhetoric of equality while simultaneously bringing down the forehammer of fascism and loss of freedom; this group, naturally, is one I - as a right of centre fellow - consider to be my arch nemesis: the Established-Left.
To clarify what the Established-Left contains, they are the elder lefties who were formed from previous generational gaps, and indeed, the Establish-Left do not include many modern right-centric or neoliberalist liberal groups; it is hard to pin these Established-Liberals to any one political entity.
To highlight my point on the equality meets fascism statement, I recall a particular news article on Huffington Post UK's Facebook post which highlighted that Baby P's mother was released from prison and wishes to have another child. The commentators on the HP's pages tend to be small, so it is easy to build up an internet rapport with the few individuals who take the regular time to post.
In the comments I found the same people who preach love and solidarity also calling for the execution or forced castration of Baby P's mother, a common theme within the Established-Liberal community; a form of political bi-polar.
For the record: I am on the fence in regards to capital punishment, however, even I find it frightful to read some of the comments that come from those proclaiming to be liberal. I consider myself to be liberal-right, and find no connection to these forms of lunatics which swarm and multiply on the internet.
Okay, so they call for execution, and the Baby P case was a huge atrocity in the UK, but how does that lead to fascism?
This is where we enter risky land of counter-social engineering.
Established-Liberals were the driving force behind political correctness; while correct in the need to wipe of illegitimate forms of racism and lack of diversity, the Established-Liberals have now buffered a catalyst of anger and repetitive despisal of ethnic minorities through the suppression and destruction of thought relating to the challenges of failed multiculturalism. It now becomes a sin to question the impact of cascading cultures in one nation, or the impact of immigration.
Any free-thinker who dares challenge the preconceived notions of equality will quickly be shot down and attacked by the left, and branded, for the most part, a bigot or a racist.
I do not believe that equality can ever be achieved by the suppression of thought, or the inability and compression of any wavering thought processes against the status-quo.
I believe that if you are to look at one race subjectively, then you must look all those concerning your nation subjectively; if one culture can be made fun of, then they must all be able to be made fun of.
The right have now become more liberal than the old liberals of yonder days.
To create equality through forced fear of arrest or belittlement is fascism, and it follows the same route as communism in the old USSR or current china - and I doubt that any westerner would wish to live in those scenarios for extended periods of time.
Friday 1 November 2013
Russell Brand: The long awaited influence
Yet again Britain's bearding Political hardcase, Jeremy Paxman, has taken on Russell Brand in an interview for the BBC's flagship programme, Newsnight.
Video below, I strongly advise watching for the full context of this article.
Russell Brand is, in some regards, the least likely person to be involved in controversy over political philosophies - a comedian often not shy of outrage and outlandish personas, filled with a less than exemplary past with drug addiction - however more than setting karma into order by performing in many charity and advocacy programmes aimed at assisting narcotic addicts on the front line - has not only broken down the comfort zone of the political class, but additionally has entered into the scene as a contender for the most relatable and sensical personality presently invoking change in the United Kingdom.
Editing the liberally influenced New Statesman, Brand speaks with a tongue of incredible articulation and in a brief interview enables the emotions of the majority of the population - not limited to Britain, but perhaps in wider Western Society - which has received a smear campaign from Paxman's traditionally status quo allies in the media and political class.
I find my own philosophies and beliefs symbolize in Brand; his personality and honesty is beyond refreshing in the prefabricated world of the major political influences in the United Kingdom, which often appears mass produced.
The argument against Brand is that he calls upon revolution without supplying the system to which revolution would implement, however, in his defence, he, himself, admitted that greater minds than his own would be responsible for the practical aspects of such a movement.
The media holds to account the lack of clarity against Brand with a void, arrogant point against the comedian who confessed his own lack of outline within his own answers.
The reality being that Brand has spoken the mindset of many of the electorate - with voting numbers falling year on year, the take over of many aspects of life by large corporations, and the political class destroying the hopes and dreams of the working class - with a ferocious roar and mighty bite.
A democracy should not on rely on votes or political parties for domestic change; the largest achievements on this nation were not brought into existence by the political doctorate; rather, individuals and grassroot movements were responsible for the wave of democracy and equality that has so far been resented by the pseudo-oppressive covenant of the wealthy and elitist.
Protest votes create a one-tier system for political parties where, until recently, the politics of entire nations would be relied upon two parties -- such as seen in the United States.
A lack of vote, and therefore an inability to form a government, forcing a greater number of political influences around the table, is a far superior method of change; just short of full revolution.
Why is Brand the influence that has been long awaited?
He's passionate about those in need; Brand has been seen to help the homeless, the addicted, the sick, and the poor with no photography equipment in-sight; his everyday kind acts are often only displayed due to the everyday smartphone - a fan, discovering Brand in the middle of a good deed.
He allowed himself to be angry and does not apologize for it and most importantly: he admits to his past errors with no excuse or sugar coating. Brand's words make sense, as does his logic and understanding of the common man.
Video below, I strongly advise watching for the full context of this article.
Russell Brand is, in some regards, the least likely person to be involved in controversy over political philosophies - a comedian often not shy of outrage and outlandish personas, filled with a less than exemplary past with drug addiction - however more than setting karma into order by performing in many charity and advocacy programmes aimed at assisting narcotic addicts on the front line - has not only broken down the comfort zone of the political class, but additionally has entered into the scene as a contender for the most relatable and sensical personality presently invoking change in the United Kingdom.
Editing the liberally influenced New Statesman, Brand speaks with a tongue of incredible articulation and in a brief interview enables the emotions of the majority of the population - not limited to Britain, but perhaps in wider Western Society - which has received a smear campaign from Paxman's traditionally status quo allies in the media and political class.
I find my own philosophies and beliefs symbolize in Brand; his personality and honesty is beyond refreshing in the prefabricated world of the major political influences in the United Kingdom, which often appears mass produced.
The argument against Brand is that he calls upon revolution without supplying the system to which revolution would implement, however, in his defence, he, himself, admitted that greater minds than his own would be responsible for the practical aspects of such a movement.
The media holds to account the lack of clarity against Brand with a void, arrogant point against the comedian who confessed his own lack of outline within his own answers.
The reality being that Brand has spoken the mindset of many of the electorate - with voting numbers falling year on year, the take over of many aspects of life by large corporations, and the political class destroying the hopes and dreams of the working class - with a ferocious roar and mighty bite.
A democracy should not on rely on votes or political parties for domestic change; the largest achievements on this nation were not brought into existence by the political doctorate; rather, individuals and grassroot movements were responsible for the wave of democracy and equality that has so far been resented by the pseudo-oppressive covenant of the wealthy and elitist.
Protest votes create a one-tier system for political parties where, until recently, the politics of entire nations would be relied upon two parties -- such as seen in the United States.
A lack of vote, and therefore an inability to form a government, forcing a greater number of political influences around the table, is a far superior method of change; just short of full revolution.
Why is Brand the influence that has been long awaited?
He's passionate about those in need; Brand has been seen to help the homeless, the addicted, the sick, and the poor with no photography equipment in-sight; his everyday kind acts are often only displayed due to the everyday smartphone - a fan, discovering Brand in the middle of a good deed.
He allowed himself to be angry and does not apologize for it and most importantly: he admits to his past errors with no excuse or sugar coating. Brand's words make sense, as does his logic and understanding of the common man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)