Blast It Home


Citizen Guides































































































































































Blast It Home


Citizen Guides



A Citizen's Guide to Absurdity

my fish


Once upon a time

Once Dennis the Menace was allowed to tie a cat's tail to a car bumper but the cultural landscape in Britain has been damned by political interference in the thought processes of its citizens. Once it was acceptable to call a spade a spade and to give someone a black look. You can no longer be queer if unwell or gay if you are happy. You can't celebrate St George's Day because you'll upset the ethnics. You can't take pictures of your own children in public places.

Once there was a Golly on our jars of Marmalade. The the gollyAbsurdists went looking for symbols of black denigration and they found the Golly, he had to go. Children used to collect the labels from the marmalade jars to gain their Golly badge, they read the Beano and Dandy, they didn't read Umberto Eco and Ferdinand de Saussure on the wonders of semiotics. The children didn't realise they were being brainwashed by James Robertson and Sons.

Golly lost his place on the marmalade jars in 2001. But long before that the Absurdists were mounting their assault, in the early 1980s, Mr Golly lost his job in Enid Blyton's Noddy books at the Toytown garage, being replaced by Mr Sparks and the Greater London Council boycotted Robertson's products - that must have been Ken Livingstone's finest hour.


Pleased as Punch

Once we were "pleased as Punch" but now we are not sure if we should be, as Punch no longer puts Judy through the mangle and now beats her with a feather duster, instead of a stick; what kind of perversion is this. Wiltshire council have discussed taking Punch and Judy books off their library shelves, while Colchester council plan to ban the puppet shows altogether.

punchObviously, pretending that domestic violence doesn't exist is healthy for children.

In May 2013, in a primary school classroom, a six year boy told a class mate that his trainers were gay. The school took this 'thought crime' most seriously. The headteacher sent for a representative from Stonewall to address the whole school on this most serious of matters - obviously, it could get out of hand.

Get out of hand, that's what we call the use of idiom, meaning to become out of control, perhaps to run riot; imagine, children throughout the land might start using gay to mean rubbish, not good, not cool. Now, we can't have that, the word gay belongs to the homosexual community. The fact that children hijacked it two decades ago is neither here nor there - the word gay belongs to homosexuals and they don't want children using it to mean something bad because being a homosexual is not bad, its normal and natural and children need to understand this.

Well, clearly children don't give a toss about the sensibilities of the gay community and why should they. You can take yourself as serious as you like but there's no reason in the world why anyone should agree with you.

And most importantly, let's remind ourselves that the so-called gay community hijacked the word gay from happy people but it's probably not occurred to the man from Stonewall that gays are a bunch of thieving scoundrels. Homosexual activists do not realise the damage they have done. Heterosexuals can no longer describe the happiness of their temper, like the poets of old, as gay because everyone in the office will think that they have decided to 'come out'.

The little episode outlined above provides ample enough evidence that we are living through a time of absurdity.



Art Critics and absurdity

That's absurd!Rothko

In May 2012 Sunset-hued Orange, Red, Yellow by Rothko sold for £53.9 million at a Christie’s auction in Manhattan’s Rockefeller Center.

In October, a man from the Yellowism movement defaced another Rothko at the Tate (value £9m). They say the cost of repair will be £200,000 - you'll be paying for that.




Kapoors Tower, just one large mocking piss take

tower"Up close the steel tubes that have been bolted together to create Anish Kapoor and Cecil Balmond's homage to the architecture of dreams are not merely red, as they appear from a distance. They are deeply, organically, warmly and carnally red, a red of freshly exposed arteries and organs...."

Well that's the Guardian's view, here's another view, it's a pile of junk, a waste of £22 million, (even if most of the money came from steel billionaire Lakshmi Mittal).

And they charged Olympic visitors £15 per adult and £7 per child to compound the injury....

And the Turner Prize this year goes to - the man from B&Q.

As Blast-it predicted, Richard Wright's wall paper won the £25,000 Turner Prize 2009.

The Prize jury said they: "admired the profound originality and beauty" of Wright's work.

Poet Laureate Carol Ann Duffy, who presented the award to Wright, praised the shortlisted artists. She said: "This years shortlist shows we have some of the most inventive artists in the world working in Britain.

(Carol is the biggest selling living British poet... why?)

"We need artists' unique perspectives on the enormous challenges facing us."

(What, like solving the banking crisis, the global warming crisis, the justice system crisis, the elderly care crisis, the dirty hospital crisis. No, not solving, just providing a new way of looking at things. Right, yeah, really useful.)

Wright himself said: "I am interested in placing painting in the situation where it collides with the world; the fragility of that existence. Being here for a short period of time, I feel, heightens the experience of it being here."

(You're not actually here Richard, you only think you are.)

He added: "Sometimes I feel a sense of loss because I can't repeat the work... but maybe that sense of loss is part of the point."

(It certainly is and we all share your loss, Human Resources at B&Q have decided to move you to the gardening department.)

Value for Money at B&Q

For only £8 you can now see the Turner Prize shortlisted exhibits at Tate Britain. This really is an opportunity to experience British comedy at its best.

Jonathan Jones, art critic for The Guardian, who is also one of the judges, said:

'I think it's going to be a classic Turner Prize, to remind people why it's such a great prize, and rewallpapermind people why British art is so exciting.'

We're all breathless here and we think we have spotted the winner. Richard Wright's 'Untitled' work, which includes intricate patterns from gold leaf painted across one wall of the gallery. Apparently, this is Richard's 'most complex and ambitious composition to date'. Sometimes words don't have to mean anything.

Strange how it looks like a roll of wallpaper that anyone can buy from B&Q for £5.99.





Hitting a Stonewall

Stonewall came into being in 1989 as a part of the struggle, (that's how Stonewall itself describes its starting point) to combat Section 28 of the Local Government Act.

The Act was introduced to prevent the promotion of homosexuality in schools; but the strugglers thought that it stigmatised gay people and it galvanised the gay community into action.

The rest is history, Section 28 disappeared and Stonewall grew and grew, taking on the remit to campaign/lobby on all matters related to gay rights - they also make school visits.

Michael Gove goes all gay

Education Secretary, Michael Gove, declared war, whilst addressing a Stonewall gathering, on the ‘utterly outrageous and medieval’ use of the word ‘gay’ as an insult.

Mr Gove's declaration serves to illustrate that his grasp of history is wanting, the word gay was never used as an insult in the medieval period. Be reminded that this is the man who has been strident in his determination to reshape the school history curriculum, twice a year at least. And yet he hasn't a clue about the historical usage of the word 'gay' as an insult.

Why does he mention the word medieval in his outburst, this could lead those with no grasp of history to believe that the medieval period was a time of anarchic menace, when children described the things they disliked as gay.

How can a minister of the British state, responsible for education, be so foolish that he cannot recognise the irony of railing against the pejorative use of the word gay and failing to recognise his own pejorative use of the word medieval.

The medieval period laid the foundations for all the privileges that he and all his short-trousered chums enjoy today. Gove uses the term medieval to mean primitive and unenlightened, adding further distortion to the historical record that he insists that our children imbibe.

Beyond gaiety to the language of hate

A couple of years ago a young chap was arrested for calling a policeman's horse gay. What the offender failed to appreciate was that the PC had been primed for action, via homophobic and racial awareness workshops to actively police the language of hate.

The thought police have already had substantial success, e.g. the words nigger and paki may longer be used in public. This banning is claimed to be a mark of progress towards a more tolerant society but it has also made discussion of the use of these words absurd. Commentators in the media have to make reference to these words by saying 'the n word' and 'the p word' and latterly, instead of saying yid, they have started saying 'the y word'. How long will it be before we see a ban on the use of the letters n, p and y in media discussions?

Kids is also a banned word

We have already seen the word 'kids' banned in schools and the word pupil is frowned on in school reports. Several years back teachers were encouraged to refer to all school children as students, whether they were studious or not.

A bit of history

Let's be clear, there's nothing new about absurdity but the current bout stems from the 1920s, to a bunch of good old boys called the Frankfurt School, who spent most of their time confusing themselves (and everyone else) by writing books that no-one really understood about the fusion of individualism in Freud's work and the collectivism of revisionist Marxism. Revision in the sense of shifting the focus from the economic to the the culture of ideas, that is, how ideas are generated as mechanisms of control.

Back then, the debate was about toeing the party line, making the right noises within earshot of the commissars of fascism in Germany and the USSR. However, what we also see occurring is a distortion of classical Marxism as it morphs into so-called Cultural Marxism. The latter was supposedly providing an analysis of power within society but ended up breeding feminism, gay rights, civil rights, equal rights and laws, laws policed by commissions to ensure correct behaviour. Deep irony, nearly one hundred years on, the fascist commissars have been replaced by commissions.

Meanwhile, 7% of the population own 84% of the nation's wealth ... so much for the value of the analysis provided by Cultural Marxism as it became an accepted field of study in Britain's universities, under the guise of cultural studies - what a success story.



The Masters of Diversity

The Equality and Human Rights Commission, (EHRC), is a statutory body (quango) and has the responsibility to protect, enforce and promote equality across the seven 'protected' grounds - age, disability, gender, race, religion and belief, sexual orientation and gender reassignment. They do this protecting in a place called Equality Land - a kind of Tolkien middle-earth.

The Commission had 14 apostles at the end of 2010, who were asked to re-apply for their jobs, five have now left the sanctuary of the cathedral to wander abroad in sackcloth and ashes. Their high priest, Trevor Phillips got his job back automatically - as did his deputy. New Labour decided to slim down the number of apostles to 11 hence, apostle re-selection has now left the Commission two short, which means that some of those protected grounds will be left without cover.



Leaning to think right

be correctThe Equality and Human Rights Commission, came into being in 2007, think of it as a mega-quango, it was set up to correct citizen behaviour and distort the language so that citizens 'think-right'. Unlike the majority of quangos, that just exist to carry out government bidding and deflect criticism, the EHRC has legal powers to intervene and to issue compliance orders to ensure that public bodies keep a framework document on every bookshelf and run diversity workshops.

The Human Rights Commission has spawned a thousand agencies with tentacles that spread virus like into the private lives of citizens, resulting in a crisis of confidence and uncertainty. Did anyone ask small people if they wanted the Brighton dwarf throwing competition banned?

Franz Kafka would have recognised this place, where anonymous button pushers pursue, with Jesuit zeal, the defence of diversity, and nobody appears to know how we arrived in this land of absurdity - where a university lecturer, Brett Mills, is telling us that animals have a right to their privacy - Sir David Attenborough should take note.

Apparently, TV wildlife documentary makers are the worse offenders, prying on animals in their most intimate moments.

Brett told us:

"Many of these activities, in the human realm, are considered deeply private, but with other species we don't recognise that,"

The BBC took Brett's criticism seriously enough to take on a defensive posture and felt the need to explain that its prying activities were all in aid of scientific enquiry and the preservation of ecosystems - nothing to do then with all the money the BBC makes worldwide with its wildlife programmes.

We can only wonder how long it will be before Mr Mills will be campaigning for a Bill of Animal Rights and then those nasty bird watchers had better watch out.



The Expanding Lexicon of New-speak

The Journal of Animal Ethics, published by the University of Illinois Press, is on a mission to redefine the way humans talk about animals.
Well, actually, the mission is more about getting people to re-think their relationship with animals.

This re-thinking exercise begins with the language we humans use to talk about critters. Apparently, we have to stop referring to them as beasts, pests, vermin and, even pets. You see the term pets implies some form of ownership, treats the pet like a piece of furniture, something that's owned. You see, pets have owners and that's a derogatory relationship - can't have that, can we?

Clearly, pet keepers, or companions, as the Journal prefers to call them will struggle with the moral issues of sharing their lives with their cats and dogs. Placing a lead on a dog implies some kind of S&M fetish and placing the dog's food bowl on the floor degrades the companion bond. Surely, companions should all eat on the floor or at the table. Providing the food for one's animal companions also presents some problematic issues. Let's face it, dogs and cats are pretty useless at feeding themselves, they just can't open the tins. How can humans form a meaningful companionship with an animal if they patronize them on a daily basis by doing their shopping and opening their food for them.

According to the Journal of Animal Ethics, wild animals should be referred to as free ranging, free roaming, free living. So not wild but free - got it!

The Journal tells us: 'For most, "wildness" is synonymous with uncivilized, unrestrained, barbarous existence.' Language such as this prejudges the animal and stops us from thinking clearly and unless we discipline ourselves to use less than partial adjectives in our exploration of animals and our moral relations with them, we wont be able to think clearly.

Well, here at Blast-it we are crystal clear in our thinking - animals exist to provide food for humans, in the home they should only be found in the fridge, and the notion of Animal Ethics in a world where humans kill each other routinely for profit is a indulgence we can't afford.

The Mullah of all Diversity

The police in particular live in fear of the EHRC. Kent police chief, Richard Brunstrom has turned into a mad mullah from some comic book. One of his antics was to offer an essay prize to young children on the subject of hate crime. This is all to do with the mullah's efforts to toady to the Stonewall lobby in celebration of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) history. The whole project was designed to increase respect and understanding of LGBT issues among youngsters.

And it's the minds of the young that the Jesuits need to reach, as they tell authors of children's books that they must have happy endings, to avoid upset and they tell teachers to negotiate an accommodation with kids rather than telling them how to behave.

A world where no one loses?

Imagine, you're nine years old and two nice female PCSOs come to your school and invite you to take part in an anti-bullying poster competition.

So you and the other kids in your class set to work - you produce a meritorious masterpiece that Saatchi & Saatchi would pay fortunes for and the doodling idiot next to you produces a dog's dinner that only a Guardian art critic would think worth a second glance.

Judgement day, the certificates are being given out; your certificate says: First Place Award, excellent - the nitwit's certificate says the same.

Perhaps the art critic from the Guardian was the competition judge, no matter, you receive first prize, a 45 piece art set. Your less than artistic companion collects no prize.

At some point later both children are at home explaining how they both came first in the drawing competition to combat bullying but one of them received a fine prize and the other nothing. Also, on that same day, several children went home to report their First Place Awards in the competition.

'We'll have no losers here'

This school of thought is just confusing children, not to mention their mums and dads. Winning and losing are facts of life, schools would have more chance of combating bullying if they focused on the positive aspects of competition, the need to be mentally and physically strong and stopped pretending that everyone can be a winner.

Mass Hysteria: Another mouth to feed....

In Britain we live with the absurdity of the citizenry genuflecting and forelock tugging in the direction of the Windsor family. For republicans it's an embarrassing spectacle bordering on insanity.

Although you prepare yourself for the spectacle, although you know that the peasants are about to start dancing again, you will always be astounded. Idiotic media types shove microphones under the noses of the dancers, perchance to gather an unpolished gem of inspired reflection on the wonderment of the occasion. It's marvellous, it's wonderful and they relate how pleased and full of joy they are, and how they have travelled miles to stand outside a private hospital to stare at the doors or stand outside Buckingham Palace to stare at a piece of paper announcing a new arrival.

Kate Middleton, who married into the Windsor family and metamorphosed into the Duchess of Cambridge, gave birth to a son. An otherwise quite unremarkable event, given that over 2000 other children were born in Britain on the same day, except that this one is inexplicably special.

News flash: the peasants and world's media have now moved on to stare at Kensington Palace. How long they will maintain their staring vigil is unknown but be assured that the BBC will be interviewing an expert later.