Tired of being hired?!

Tired of being hired?!

...

Start your own business today!

Image: A Big Issue seller

.

A-Levels’ hot fuck

Everybody who went to school or university in Germany would certify that studying in Germany is 20 to 100 times harder than in the UK. When applying for a degree course in the UK, my German A-Level qualification had to be assessed. In Germany the A-levels consist of major subjects called “Hauptfach”, and minor subjects called “Nebenfach”. When I contacted the assessment organisation to check my eligibility for the course, the advisor asked me if I had had English as A-level “hot fuck”. I did not understand the word, so I asked him to repeat the sentence. After the third time, I guessed that by “hot fuck” he meant “Hauptfach” (major subject). For about 30 seconds I pondered over my school experience in Germany, then responded: “No. Thank God, I had it only as a mild fuck!”

.

Most outdated: Calling our children children

It is one of the most paradoxical things that the word children is the most modern word used for offspring. In many non-Western societies it is still believed that “your child will always remain a child for you as the parent, even if he/she gets 60 years old”. This belief is not an expression of parently love, but of sad social conditions in which the rights of an adult individual are much less worth than the interests of the family. The usage of the word children when referring to adult offspring originates from ideologies which granted the male head of the family (the patriarch) or those representing him (including females) the right to determine the life of his children, even after they became adults. The Mafia families are examples of how such beliefs and family systems (did) function. 

Using the word children for both younger and adult offspring originates from the denial of individual rights in “tribal” societies. But even in today’s liberal world, when so many people are experimenting with gender and sexuality related wor(l)ds, it seems that children are still the most ignored social group. 

.

Identity politics and individualisation

Though at times, I, like many others, feel fed up with some aspects of identity politics, on the whole, I think it is a positive phenomenon and a step towards more individualisation. At the heart of identity politics lies the individual. Identity politics begins with questioning social identities, particularly forced identities, and promoting chosen identities. Its main aim can be regarded as liberating the individual from social oppression.

The self is not a predestined entity anymore, and everyone is encouraged to question his/her own identity and to ask himself/herself “Who am I?”. For many critics, exactly this aspect of identity politics is a proof that it tries to distract people from “real” political problems, by diverting their attention to themselves. However, the question “Who am I?” is not only a psychological or philosophical question, but more importantly a political one too. By questioning our own identity, we also question social relations and norms. By becoming aware of our wishes, desires, expectations, and our current social position we become also aware of those social forces which oppress our “true” identity, and we develop an awareness of our rights. Identity politics encourages us to fight for our own rights as individuals, even in cases where we may get persecuted or may have to give up many of our oppressing social relationships such as those family relationships and friendships which do not allow us to be ourselves.   

Though it is the individual who lies at the heart of identity politics, it will have far-reaching effects both at micro- and macro-level reshaping the society and all its political, economic and social institutions. 

.

Individualisation of labour processes and societal individualisation

Interestingly, individualism and the individualisation process emerged approximately at the same time as labour processes became more and more individualised (i.e. as the division of labour enormously increased because of industrialisation). 

.

Criticism of the media in a fast-consumption/-production age

In times when everyone is complaining about everything, it does not seem strange that so many people complain why the news do focus only on particular countries (see e.g. the editorial in the latest issue of “The Week”). There are currently 195 countries in the world. Not only our time capacity would not allow us to follow the news on all different parts of the world, but also our brains would explode with so much information. 

We live in a time when memory and remembrance have become social issues, with Alzheimer’s posing a serious challenge to technologically advanced societies. With the weakening of our memories we have also unlearned to compare, evaluate, and value. Everyone who regularly and carefully follows the news should know that nowhere else the news are so diverse as in Western countries, not only in the range of countries they cover but also regarding the variety of topics. In 2017, when I was doing my master’s degree in Sociology, I had a module on ethnicity together with a few Chinese overseas students. In their presentations they told us that they had never heard of the word and the concept of “racism”. One of them tried to write her essay on “racism in China”, and though she had online access to many Chinese university libraries, she could only find 3-4 useless papers in Chinese about racism, as she reported us. This example points out the state of media in China and many other countries where the media is (owned and) controlled by the government.

The fast pace of modern everyday lives and the excessive use of modern technologies such as smartphones, internet and social media, do not leave much time for “thinking”. One of the valuable aspects of social media is that they have advanced the status of their users from mere consumers to some kinds of producers. But this has significantly lowered the standards of intellectual products such as articles, books, etc., for they are now being produced also by “the masses”. 

.

Is it racist to date only black persons?!

Is it racist to date only black persons?! Definitely not, I believe, and was very surprised when I read an article by a young black woman titled “White people, only dating black people is not progressive – it’s racist”. The author criticizes one of her white male friends, and calls him a racist, because he “only dates black girls”. She tells us how she “felt like an accessory” after seeing a photo of her white male friend with his new black girlfriend on social media, for she thought she would have been “the interchangeable black girl in the picture” or “an extra black girl in the picture” if she had a sexual relationship with her male friend. 

Sexual enjoyment can only happen if one feels a strong sexual attraction to their sexual partner. Human beings are made of “soul” AND body, and bodily characteristics significantly affect sexual attraction. One’s age, weight, height, the shape of the different parts of their body (including face), their skin colour, hair colour/style, etc. all may have an impact on our sexual feelings. Just as someone may feel sexually attracted only to blonde women, slim/overweight women or women with small/big breasts, someone else may feel attracted only to black women. This doesn’t mean that for these persons, when choosing a sexual partner, non-physical characteristics do not count or that they are using their sexual partners as “accessories”. I can’t imagine that the male person criticized in the mentioned article would be willing to have a sexual relationship with any (!) “black girl” just because she was female, young and black, even if her physical characteristics would match his preferences.

I hope nobody would accuse me of sexism because I date only men!

.

The “black” and the “white” people

Many black writers speak of “black people” in a manner as if all black people shared common social characteristics and interests. For me, these writers are “black racists”, because they deny the fact that the only thing black people have in common is their skin colour. Not only there are significant differences between black people of different countries, but also within the borders of a particular country black people differ from each other enormously, such as is the case for “white people”. 

In Rwanda, in 1994, one million black people were killed by black people, only during three months. Most African countries have witnessed long-lasting wars between their black inhabitants. More than 70 million white people killed each other in WWI and WWII. The 1990s “Balkan Wars” between “white” Yugoslavians count as one of the darkest tragedies after the WWII. For the “anti-capitalists” and “anti-imperialists” among us a short reminder that wars between people of the same colour are not modern phenomena. Even in “prehistoric” times, tribes of the same colour fought against each other, killing people of their own “race”. 

There is no such thing as “black” or “white” people in a sociological or political sense. What does a black torturer in Nigeria have in common with his political prisoners?! What does a black rapist and murderer have in common with a black individual who follows humanistic principles?! Those who speak of “black” and “white” people suffer literally from a racist black-and-white-thinking. 

.

London – Iranian parents 'wanted virginity check for daughter, after finding secret boyfriend'

Huffingtonpost - Iranian parents living in London 'wanted virginity check for daughter, 18, after finding secret boyfriend'.
Mitra Eidiani, 42, and Ali Safaraei, 56, also threatened to kill their daughter Sophia’s boyfriend, warning him they were “dangerous” because they were Muslim, a jury was told.
The teenager was bitten by her mum, threatened with a kitchen knife by her dad after returning from the doctor, had her passport taken from her and was told she would be sent “back to Iran to marry a cousin,” Kingston Crown Court heard.

Continue Reading:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/parents-denied-virginity-check-for-daughter-18-after-discovering-secret-boyfriend_uk_5ba0ddd9e4b046313fbf6681

.

Demonstrative Logic!

Demonstrative Logic: Those with better arguments win the battle?!

See Moliere’s “The Would-Be Gentleman”, Act II, Scenes ii and iii. 

(Image source: Internet)

.

Illusions in the integration debate

One of the most discussed issues in the integration debate is the lack of a sense of belonging to the “native” community among immigrants. It is now fashionable to claim that this is the main cause for the growing numbers of Islamic extremists and terrorists in Western countries (a view I strongly oppose and which I have argued against in many articles written in Persian and German). The debates are often very emotional, lacking rational arguments and a thorough analysis of the facts. The opposing fronts use the same methods to influence their audiences. Whereas one front blames the “native” society for excluding immigrants, the other blames the immigrants themselves for not being willing to integrate. 

The bitter truth is that in many cases “integration” and “belonging” are impossible. One can only feel belonging to a group if (s)he and the group speak the same language (not verbally, but mentally!), laugh at the same jokes, have a similar world view, lifestyle, drinking habits, social behaviour and norms, etc. This is the case also for “natives”. That’s why the “natives” too have to search for like-minded people to prevent becoming socially isolated. And also among the “natives” there are people who feel different, and find it difficult to find a group they feel they belong to. No one can really be blamed for this condition. Just as it is ridiculous of a society to expect that all its members become “one”, it is ridiculous of its individual members to expect that the whole society becomes like them only because they want to escape social isolation. 

Both at individual and societal level there have been only two ways for this problem. The individual may be able to integrate himself/herself and become like the majority, otherwise (s)he has to stay isolated until (s)he finds some like-minded people (a search process which may often last lifelong without much success and with a lot of pain). At societal level, the minority group may be able to assimilate, otherwise it has to live its own life separated from the “native” society. The important thing here is that minority groups too have to follow the law and certain rules of the “native” society. 

As a person with migration background I know how painful it is to think that you don’t belong to any society or community, or as some would say, to feel “rootless”. Though I left my origin country when I was a child (living since then in Germany and the UK), and though I share Western cultural values, I still cannot think of myself as a European. But I find it too simplistic and unjust to blame either the European societies or myself (and my family) for this lack of a sense of belonging. I know that many people with migration background feel the same as me, as if they don’t belong properly to any culture or community. This is a fact which should not be glossed over or black painted. The main question here is not how to force all people in a society to become “one”, but how we all can peacefully live together, even when more or less separated from each other. 

.

Our Ancestors in Your Penis

“An invisible crowd which has always existed, but which has only been recognized as such since the invention of the microscope, is the crowd of spermatozoa. 200 million of these animalcules set out together on their way. They are equal among themselves and in a state of very great density. They all have the same goal and, except for one, they all perish on the way. It may be objected that they are not human beings and that it is therefore not correct to speak of them as a crowd in the sense the word has been used. But this objection does not really touch the essentials of the matter. Each of these animalcules carries with it everything of our ancestors which will be preserved. It contains our ancestors; it is them”! 

Excerpt from “Crowds and Power” by Elias Canetti, p. 47

.

The Islamic transformation of chickens into roosters

An Islamic grocery store in Bristol has chosen the picture of a bull and a rooster to cover its front door with. It’s difficult to guess what the store does offer its customers: Instead of milk products maybe bulls’ dung (or bull shit) for the plant pots in your kitchen, and instead of chicken breast and thighs maybe rooster testicles. 
Come on, don’t tell me that “It's the economy, stupid”!

Image source: Internet

.

Political schizophrenia

A “Paddypower” ad during the 2018 Football World Cup which took place in Russia:

( . . . )

( . . . )

( . . . )

( . . . )

.

Babyfuckers

Anti-Trump activists: “Trump is a baby!” 
The same anti-Trump activists: “Fuck Trump!” 

Photo: A giant balloon depicting Donald Trump as an angry baby 

was flown by protesters in central London on Friday (13 July) 

as the US President visited the UK.

A fucking observer: “Come on, don’t tell me that you want to fuck a baby!”

.

The Right To Sleep

“The right to sleep is a basic human right” – (source: FakeNews)

Image source: Internet

.

Similarities between Marxism and liberalism, and their main differences

Marxism and liberalism have much more in common than usually thought. Their views on religion, secularism, gender and race equality, sexual freedoms, family relations and even ‘globalisation’ or internationalism display enormous similarities. However, their approach to dealing with these issues differ greatly, as they extremely oppose each other in a fundamental principle: individualism. Pluralism, a result of individualism, is thus not a real option, or as they would say, “solution”, for leftists. Hence, though when being in opposition they strongly advocate political freedoms and rights, once in power, the first thing they sacrifice are the same freedoms and rights they had claimed (for themselves!) as an opposition group. 

The opposition to individualism makes Marxists to look rather backwards in their search for social “solutions”, and to have a critical stance towards modernity. The “ancient” societies where everything belonged to the “community” and the individual had to follow solely the community’s interests are the leftist ideal of an egalitarian and equal society, from which the word communism derives (see e.g. Friedrich Engels’ in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, 1884). For Marxists, modernity with capitalism as its main manifestation is the source for extreme poverty and economic injustice. In contrast, liberals see the accumulation of capital and the (sub)division of labour in the capitalist production system as resulting to more wealth for all societies of the world and their individuals (see e.g. Adam Smith in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776). 

Despite all the hostilities between Marxism and liberalism, their similarities made Karl Marx to applaud capitalism. Here is an excerpt from his Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848, Chapter 1): 
 “The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.” 

.

End

Everything has an end,
Only the sausage has two …

(A German saying; „Alles hat ein Ende, nur die Wurst hat zwei“.)

.

A critical issue: Criticism in everyday life

Critical thinking, criticism and discussion are the foundations of a vibrant democracy, and have a long history in Western cultures. However, in everyday life we rarely see people getting involved in political discussions and arguing against each other’s views. It seems that in Western cultures, criticism and discussion are regarded as belonging to the professional realm of politicians and journalists. Even at universities, where critical thinking should be promoted, there is not much discussion going on. During my studies at different universities in the UK and Germany, I never witnessed students getting involved in proper discussions with each other or with the lecturers, though seminars in social sciences, which make half of the study program, are designed for this purpose. 

Astonishingly, in the last two years after Brexit, I have never met anyone in person in favour of Brexit. At university, at workplace, in pubs and social meetings all people I have met disapproved of Brexit. I ask myself where the 52% are gone who had voted for Brexit! This is a revealing example of people’s fear of getting involved in discussions around controversial topics. They rather pretend than express their real views. This condition may be regarded by some groups as a sign of their victory over their political opponents, but it is rather a consequence of their silencing methods than winning the battle through better arguments. 

The promotion of criticism at ‘professional’ level and its simultaneous suppression in everyday life is a paradox which is also mirrored in the language. The word ‘critical’ has both a positive and negative meaning. It can refer to critical thinking (e.g. a critical analysis/evaluation) or to disaster (a critical condition/situation). Sadly, even in the 21st century, expressing criticism in Western societies may still lead to critical consequences for critics. 

.

Between the fronts

You often have to make a choice between stupidity and cruelty. You can’t choose between bad and worse?! No problem … Accept the consequences. (Fuck!)

.

Isle of Wo-Man

Isle of Man – what a discriminatory name! 

Come on, don’t suggest that the name should be changed to Isle of Woman, because
(1) this idea is the same discriminatory shit, only the other way round,
and (2) an island with this name already exists! (‘Isla Mujeres’, Spanish for ‘Women Island’, a Mexican island in the Caribbean Sea.) 

To solve the problem, perhaps the two should marry! (Don’t tell me that they may be gay or lesbian!)

.

Nationalism as a source for equality

Nationalism has many different faces. It can occur as a very aggressive and destructive ideology, but in its milder forms also as a source for equality. Nationalism can enable people in a society to overthrow borders that divide them based on their belonging to different ethnic or religious groups, social classes, castes, etc. It can enable citizens of a nation-state to regard other citizens as part of their own community and evoke a feeling of solidarity between them. It can transform social enemies in a society to brothers and sisters. Nationalism makes it possible that all citizens enjoy the same rights based on their citizenship and not on their social or economic position. 

Some may argue that even milder forms of nationalism propagate hostility and violence towards other nations while at the same time advocating solidarity between their own people. But historically, nationalisms that have been aggressive towards other nations, have also been violent towards their own citizens by not tolerating any political or cultural diversity and freedoms. Vice versa, nationalisms that have aimed to reach equality between their citizens, have also sought friendly relations with other nations. Nazi-Germany is a good example for the first case, India for the second. 

However, it cannot be denied that even milder forms of nationalism put their own nation first, and potentially regard other nations as enemies. In a crisis, milder forms of nationalism can suddenly (and easily) transform themselves into aggressive ones, like for example in former Yugoslavia. Despite this tendency, nationalism can be a step forward towards global solidarity. If we do not learn how to respect people of our own nation, how could we be able to respect ‘foreigners’?  

The death of nationalism would mean the death of the nation-state. It is ideal to live in a world where there are no borders, but how realistic is this vision today, and what are the alternatives to nation-states in the current world?

.

The unlogic of the ‘economic’ way of thinking

Many commentators regard the British government’s decision to cut the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) from £100 to only £2 with skepticism. In arguing against this decision, they quote The Association of British Bookmakers’ warning that a stake cut would cause 21,000 people to lose their jobs. The loss of job is a tragic event in many people’s lives, but according to a report by the Gambling Commission, 430,000 British over-16s are “problem gamblers” and suffer from severe addiction. The report defines problem gambling as a serious condition that “compromises, disrupts or damages family, personal or recreational pursuits”. The effects of problem gambling on one’s life are not less harmful than losing a job. 

Even in the ‘economic’ world of numbers, 430,000 weighs much more than 21,000. That is why the opponents of a stake cut try to decorate the British Bookmakers’ warning with further arguments. Alistair Osborne, for instance, writes in The Times that a stake cut on FOBTs would not solve the problem. The FOBTs addicts could switch to online roulette “on their phone standing in a betting shop”. “Gambling addiction is more complicated than one product”, she states (Source: The Week, 26 May 2018, Issue 1177). This argument is like claiming that a ban on hard drugs such as heroin (or setting limitations to their use) would not solve the drug addiction problem. Hard drug users could switch to other drugs – become alcoholics for example. 

Many of us know that the consequences of addiction differ between poor and rich. A heroin addict who can afford to eat properly, to sleep properly and to enjoy comfort, lives on average a much longer and less fragile life than a low-paid or unemployed heroin addict. Taking the side of the British Bookmakers, who would lose a considerable amount of revenue because of the stake cut, means ignoring the problems and needs of those who suffer most from a gambling addiction. In justifying the government’s decision to cut the maximum stake on FOBTs, Matt Hancock, the secretary of state for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, said: “These machines are a social blight and prey on some of the most vulnerable in society, and we are determined to put a stop to it and build a fairer society for all.”

.

Supercriticalism

I don’t believe in what I believe ...

.

Politically perverted

“Spy” (Russian: Шпион, translit. Shpion) is a 2012 Russian spy film, an adaptation of Boris Akunin's novel “The Spy Novel” (Шпионский роман). The movie is set in the year 1941, months before the German invasion of Russia. The two protagonists, security police officers Dorin and Oktyabrsky, are hunting a German spy in Moscow. They believe their success might reveal Hitler's plans and the exact date of invasion (Wikipedia).

I watched the movie in German (German title: “Iron Spy - Spionage für Anfänger”). To my great astonishment, the film not only praises Stalin’s gruesome secret police officer Beria, it also propagates brutal torture as a legitimate way of gaining information from the enemy. Whereas in Western spy movies the ‘good guys’ are those exposed to torture by ‘bad guys’, in this Russian James Bond version it’s the ‘good guys’ who practice the most brutal kind of torture to protect their fatherland (or motherland). It’s most likely true that ‘being determines consciousness’ (Marx), but semblance plays an important role in shaping the social being and the resulting consciousness. Thus, a culture which praises humanity and condemns brutality is more likely to produce individuals who believe in and follow human rights principles. 

.

Lack of humour in Russian comedies

In my online search for good comedies, I came across a few Russian ones, from the Soviet- and post-Soviet era. With great interest I began to watch the films, but unfortunately after 10-20 minutes watching each of the movies I had to stop, for the humour was not funny at all, at least not for people used to a Western style of humour. 

Good humour is a product of critical thinking, of viewing the self and everything around us from a critical angle and with skepticism. Watching those Russian comedies was a sad experience for me, as I felt the deep impact of 70 years totalitarian communism on the Russian society and psyche. 

.

The Struggle of Man against Technology

The struggle of man against technology is much more demanding than the struggle of man against nature …

.

A very weird understanding of ‘help’

You must have a very weird understanding of ‘help’ that people are willing to die on the street in temperatures below zero but don’t accept your offer to sleep in your homeless shelters even for a night. 

.

MI-sex

.

‘White’ monkeys and ‘black’ pigs

Some people associate monkeys with black people. I don’t know why. For me, this is definitely a ‘white’ monkey:

Some people associate pigs with white people. I don’t know why. For me, this is definitely a ‘black’ pig:

.

Proper …

I just wanted a proper tea,
So I fled my property …

.

Different types of sceptics

There are three different types of sceptics:

1) Macro-sceptics, who mistrust all institutions such as the government, political parties and their leaders, the police, etc.,

2) Micro-sceptics, who mistrust all individuals – strangers as well as those who they know,

and 3) M&M-sceptics who are a combination of (1) and (2).

:D 
:D
:D

.

Toyota – What’s bad for us, is good for others

In its recent TV advertisement, Toyota advocates ‘multiculturalism’ for the US society. A rabbi, a priest, an imam and a Buddhist monk, sitting in a Toyota-car, are heading to a football stadium. Though they reach their destination late, they are still able to witness their (American) team’s victory which they passionately celebrate together. Then, the sentence “We’re all one team” appears on screen. 

Toyota is a Japanese company headquartered in Toyota, Aichi, Japan. Though I am not familiar with Japanese media, I am relatively sure that Toyota does not as actively support the fight against racism and other social and political injustices in Japan, as it does in the US. Astonishingly, in 2016, Japan granted the refugee status to only 28 asylum seekers, in 2015, to only 27, and in 2014, to only 11 (source: Wikipedia). And it would be yet more interesting to find out how many people from other ‘race’s live in Japan – how many blacks, browns, bright-browns, dark-whites, and even bright-whites… [But unfortunately, I don’t have time to make an online-search for this and find it out! So, if you have found some information regarding this, please share it with me :D]

Links:
Toyota 2018 Big Game Ad: One Team (by Toyota USA)
Wikipedia - Immigration to Japan

.

Ex-plain

- 1+1=2

- Plain …

- No, no, no! Now I ex-plain: kfqitmuc ywqpamnz wrstvxhkh!

.

Past Perfect

The past was perfect – even in present tense 😉

.

Who's to blame?!

.

Hope in the ‘post-modern’ world

Until there is rope
living is possible …

Con-Fusion

Father State, Mother Nature.
The child, a fucking bastard!
- ‘Somebody called me … Where are my shoes?’
.
.
.
PS (1): This poem is based on emotions, not facts.
PS (2): Fuck off!
PS (3): Okay, you crazy motherfucker!
PS (4): [a feminist voice] Correction: You fatherfucker …
PS (5): Oh, my God!
. . .
PS (321): ‘Who is afraid of Virginia Woolf?’
PS (322): Oh, my Lord!
PS (323): Or House of Commons …
PS (324): The root of all evil is commonism (or communism?!) …
PS (324.1): Where ‘nature’ becomes the state …
PS (325): What ‘nature’?!
PS (326): The triumph of primitive tribal law over ‘nature’ …
. . .
PS (532): Is this a kind of anti-‘Manifesto’?!
PS (533): Maybe yes, maybe no …
PS (534): I’m totally confused …
PS (2000): ‘This is the beginning of a wonderful friendship’ …
PS (2000.1): ‘In the beginning was the word’ …

PS (3999): Hmm …  

.