Do the long-term unemployed people in this country have the right to exist in a state of complacency?

 Do the long-term unemployed in Britain today have any real right to continue to exist as they are, as fickle, lazy, work shy, miserable ragamuffins seemingly laughing heartily in the face of every hard-working man and woman in the country? In the strict sense of the word I would say, “No!” But this if only that such blatantly ignorant, unproductive and socially irrelevant people if unable to support and maintain themselves are, as such, economically redundant unproductive units of insignificant, spineless antisocial protoplasm – indeed, they are a complete waste of living-space in any decent, law abiding society.

 This is not because I would condemn the long-term unemployed out of hand for being continually unemployed in a society where a currently up to date employment history (with curriculum vitae attached) is “de rigueur” for gaining wothwhile long-term employment of any kind, or they remain unemployable. And which “state of affairs” in this country is inevitably the rigorous social norm, or is especially enforced by an ordered, bureaucratic, regulated system of paid employment. No, I would not condemn them for failing to fulfil that viciously draconian requirement of the job market. But I would condemn the long-term unemployed of today outright purely and deliberately for knowingly and wilfully being recalcitrant unproductive economic and social units of the British economy. And then for being so easily able to live with it as well, just so long as the various State benefits just keep on rolling into their basic bank accounts every payday, regular as clockwork.

 Personal productivity in our fast paced, technologically advanced modern world means a person being able to look after himself or herself as a self-aware, self-motivated, self-reliant social unit in society. It does not mean then that any naturally useless, inherently worthless long-term unemployed person is also necessarily utterly and totally meaningless, or necessarily has no real meaning. The naturally drab, sanguine, dull, lacklustre, useless, or economically and socially unproductive long-term unemployed person indeed has a very real meaning: to be unproductive at the expense of the society he or she lives in, survives within, or inhabits as a virulent parasitical growth upon the body politick. This is the sheer, raw, intensely personal meaning of the lack of moral and spiritual meaning and purpose to his or her life that a long-term unemployed person has to contend with in Britain today.

 The Marxists had a nice, neat, even polite word for the long-term unemployed, these economically unproductive, antisocial individuals exiled from decent society – Lumpenproletariot, they called them. Characteristically lumping them all together in one saggy, wrinkled under-bottom of social classification, or, for convenience – an underclass. Although they did not include the upper classes in this decidedly dodgy class-ridden definition of lazy, lacklustre, good for nothing, low-life scum – an almost criminalized “outsider” group of lackadaisical unemployables. In effect, the Marxists expected the upper classes to look after themselves at the expense of the social underdog, clasping political and economic power tightly to themselves as they went (and the upper classes weren’t wrong in that, only being crass, mean, and opinionated over it, as usual). No, the long term unemployed in this country are a long way towards being classified as being a classic case of Lumpenproletariotism, and especially if they cannot and have not ever done any useful, productive work in their entire lives. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they have not, and probably never had, and probably never will have, any practical understanding or appreciation of the work ethic, as amazing as that sounds to some.

 How then would it be possible to totally eradicate the long-term unemployed, these basically underemployed, basically unemployable, basically totally irrelevant, socially-naïve persons of ill repute from the face of the planet in a decent, law abiding, humane way? This is the stark social dilemma which confronts modern British society today. Of course, idealistically speaking, this is not a very practical thing to do anyway, as even those in receipt of any form of Government State benefit, of any kind (be it a service, a utility, a product, or (perhaps more relevantly) any regular benefit-based payment from out of the Welfare State’s enormously bureaucratic benefits system), can be questioned as to their inherent social usefulness as and when they receive it if they have not already “paid into the pot” on a regular basis to help pay for it.

 No, the question of what exactly to do about the long-term unemployed remains a nagging problematic quandary, an irritating social conundrum to the average working person, working hard every day for his or her well-earned crust of bread. Even if these hard working people themselves, in their desperate desire and fawning need for work itself (if only to massage their grossly enlarged egos), are as a result often being exploited in a myriad of different ways. In turn, inevitably, they are being imposed upon every day in a myriad of subtle ways, by those who best know how to exploit, use, and manipulate that very basic desire of ordinary, hard-working people to be socially useful, productive, wage-earning, morally motivated human beings. Ordinary people of average intelligence who are driven to work every day, solely by the driving need to improve their own desperate economic position and to maintain their essential social prestige.

 Of course, purely as an economically necessary result of this, some say that for doing so these ordinary, hard working people are merely bonded wage slaves: working like mules for a pittance and performing tricks for their economic masters’ continual amusement. I say that, as they have nothing better to do with their time, this state of affairs of being mere employees is their natural position in life anyway. In this society this sort of ordinary, average, workaday people are paid their due for what they can do (even if in reality it is only a mere pittance), and that is all they can expect for working hard in this society, their due – nothing more, nothing less.

 But then that is another matter (one of cold, hard economic necessity maybe), for we are still left with the question of what to do with these scruffy, no-good, lazy, lacklustre, lackadaisical, down-trodden, ostracised social misfits, these great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies, the long-term unemployed. And especially with those sad, virtually “institutionalised” ones whom just will not do any work at all, and do it all day long, every day. They being caught as they are, much like confused laboratory rats in the maze of a increasingly depressing social and economic cycle, and then never ever even cared enough about it all to try to get a real, decent job in the first place.

 Thus, these scruffy social miscreants with no apparent social or economic use whatsoever, these mealy-mouthed, socially unproductive economic units lacking even the basic desire to work to produce something of economic value to the world (but then still with the insatiable desire to consume what they have not produced), must face being systematically eradicated from the face of the earth by the society they have so blatantly scorned and that has so deservedly rejected them in turn. For them the Government says that they must “go to work” in a steady, socially productive manner (to perform the regular, daily work-task of full-time employment in imitation of, if not in mockery of, the essentially liberating work ethic of hard working workers), or face being expunged from decent society, utterly condemned and ostracized for their pursuit of an indecent, morally obscene lifestyle.

 Yes, the Government says these socially uncooperative individuals must join the intrepid British workforce in working for a crust of bread, and not be left alone to be thrown it like a mangy dog would a bone by its master. This is the truly Herculean task that has been appointed by the Government for the Jobcentres to accomplish, and is one that is apparently slightly easier to accomplish that getting a corpse to get up and go to work every day to earn his or her daily bread. Then, apparently, when this task has been done, these unemployable social misfits (probably laughing uproariously at our well-meaning efforts to utterly expunged them with impunity from the antisocial unemployment regime they live under), should also have the good grace to accept the plans which the Government has for them without making the least possible fuss about it as well, or ideally at least.

 But it is not all negativity, it is not that (in their sublimely surprising sanguine state of vegetate existence where all the amenities for existing have been provided for them – gratis) they do not present a lucrative market niche in the ever-growing social and welfare amenities and educational and training facilities market that caters for them. In fact, the long-term unemployed represent a burgeoning business opportunity in this burgeoning area of social enterprise to provide social welfare facilities that, in itself, is a nice profitable market niche. Which is an opportunity for those in big business to create work out of, and so exploit and profit out of these useless social misfits’ uncomfortable social and economic position. This the Government knows well enough already. At least in this way they can still be economically useful units of profit bearing potential, and so contribute to the overall economic recovery as they do so.

 No, despite this, despite even this capacity of the long-term unemployed to create jobs and employment opportunities for others (in the employment education and welfare administration field) to help them find work in the job market, these disgracefully unemployable social misfits, these local Jobcentre rejects, these barking-mad, back-biting mutts fed and kennelled by the Department of Works and Pensions, must be completely and utterly eradicated from the face of the planet. If only it is purely for reasons of good taste and ethical decency, and not sheer economic necessity. Yes, eradicated if not by others around them more used to working hard, long hours for a living hired to do so by the Government, then certainly by themselves alone – expunged from the inside out and consumed from within. Indeed, who in his right mind, in effect, would ever want to be, “One of them!” or be singled out as “social pariahs” by society and its various Government bodies in the first place?

 Without doubt, these utterly useless, antisocial individuals, the long-term unemployed in Britain today, must be destroyed, condemned, expelled, extracted, excised, or, in effect, eradicated from society. In short, the present Government considers that they must be made to pay through the nose for what they do and how they are, and not anymore ever be allowed to require society pay to support their dodgy, unproductive lifestyle at the expense of the average hard working man or woman in the street.

 Ideally, they must be marked out for what they are, preferably by their own inner knowledge of themselves as being nothing else other than totally useless and meaningless nonentities, marked out as being purely unproductive economic and social units in a necessarily economically productive and socially meaningful society. And then, as an added bonus to those working all day, day in, day out, for small financial gain just for something constructive and socially meaningful to do with themselves (and watching what occurs for a leisure and recreational activity), to be eradicated, expunged, excised, or otherwise extirpated from good, decent society as painfully and publicly as possible. This mainly just to teach the long-term unemployed this one hard economic and social lesson in life and which they had better not forget: That there is no such thing as a free meal in the real world.

Posted in Devil's advocate, Sardonic banter, Sophistry, Uncategorizable | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Noble Knights of Ni.

There follows below a translation into English (from the original archaic French) of a fragmentary 8th century poem about the noble knights of Ni. It has been done as part of a collaborative effort run and organized by the Department of Romance Languages and Literatures at Harvard. Their on-going aim is to improve the academic coverage on the Internet of the British Arthurian, or King Arthur legend and the parallel noble questing legends in early European literature, which, as a group, have the same cultural origins.

This poem-fragment concerns the questing tale, or legend of the noble knights of Ni, a group of middle aged knights being similar to the knights of the round table, but of a slightly later date, possibly late Anglo-Saxon or proto-Frankish knights of the Holy Roman Empire. If it is not completely legendary a tale, or this poem is not based upon factual historic material, their eventual fate is not recorded in the annuals of chivalry, or is now lost to history.

This poem I have translated myself with the aid of the Google on-line translation service. Unfortunately, it being only an inanimate computer programme, it is not quite used to dealing with ancient French (this copy taken from a 13th century manuscript kept at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France), so some of the wording and word order I had to guess at. Although, despite this limitation, the basic poetic essence of this ancient poem has come out quite well in the translation.

 
Oh, Needy Knights of Ni.

Oh, needy knights of Ni,
Bon chance to you, fair knights of Ni,
bright keepers of the sacred word of Ni itself;
good hunting to you while riding by, needful knights of Ni,
if but deserving of less sufferance than is due
than this quest reserves for you, noble Knights of Ni.
Yet with it being neither less nor more of what you are,
with nothing you go for it, brave knights of Ni;
nor by doing so, lack it, or not fulfil in full
your needful destiny to do with it.
Ah, noble ones of the order of the knights of Ni,
rejoice, as it can be done, oh noble knights of Ni.
But hark, yet none know the dread heartaches
of being noble knights of Ni none better
than the noble knights of Ni themselves;
nor none better know now, or nor later on neither,
that those heartaches will lead them to it itself also;
and so rejoice that needful things near at hand also
will come flowing from the knights of Ni themselves,
in their knightly quest for eternal over exuberance.
Noble knights, this is your needful quest fulfilled,
oh noble knights of Ni, to become much more
than legend or old song in the hearts of men of old;
perhaps men not from the noble order of Ni themselves,
but equally insistent in their quest for enlightened intercourse.
Oh, noble knights of Ni, on questing on your knightly errantry
based on being from Ni itself, continue being so,
in being those noble knights from Ni itself
sublime in all its purity; and yet it was nobly done
noble knights of Ni, so hastily flashing by in shinning armour,
even to attempt such a noble quest for it itself,
one so nobly based on the sacred word it itself represents.
Yes, nobly done, knights of Ni, nobly done.

Posted in Anti Heroes, Literary criticism, Sardonic banter, Spoofs, Twaddle, Uncategorizable | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Handy helpful surveillance hints for anonymous persons which can help you stay anonymous in public places.

 Where there may not be a 100% guarantee on the idea of never being discovered as being someone who is 100% anonymous, there are a number of ways to pursue the pursuit of anonymity in public places, and even with gusto as the sagacious sauce. A few simple steps can provide peace of mind for anonymous persons and help protect them from uninvited interference, and will also aid in protecting their identities from overly curious (but mostly harmless) people wishing to find out what exactly they are up to:

 

1. Acting as everyone else acts is essential for maintaining anonymity in public, and especially in and among crowds of homogenous people, where anyone you see could also be anonymous but who is probably disguising it well enough already.

2. Wearing a mask, or disguising visage of any kind to maintain your anonymity in public usually gets you noticed by people who may want to trace you afterwards. Especially if they are nondescript representatives of authority whom may actually want to have you put away for your own good, or even for the good of society.

3. Hiding anonymously behind trees for anonymous surveillance vantage points in front of police stations and other public buildings does not always work, as usually there are too many policemen hiding behind them already, to say nothing about what the Community Suppors Officers get up to there as well.

4. In socializing anonymously in an anonymous manner, others you already know who could identify you should never be mentioned or referred to by name, especially on public transport, in public libraries, cafés, public bars, public urinals, or in other easily accessed public places. Also, in practise, it is probably also best not to mention details of friends or family or social history either.

5. Don’t get into silly arguments with fellow anonymous people in wide open places while engaged in social networking, and especially when you are alone in the park at night seeking intercourse and are not in a group of like-minded persons also seeking intercourse, as you might even end up talking to yourself in a police cell.

6. When using the Internet to find fellow anonymous persons for the purposes of mutual social engagement, always use a separate email address other than the anonymous one you are usually known by. In addition, it is also considered a good option to use temporary email addresses for communications between other consenting anonymous persons already known to you.

7. It is probably always best to try to remain as inconspicuous as possible while surfing the Internet. Some anonymous people (who shall be nameless) often refuse to use home or work computers to contact people they may suspect of being anonymous, only using communal places such as public libraries and cyber cafes to impersonate other people whom could actually be them in disguise.

8. Avoid using public telephone booths for anything other than making brief, untracable telephone calls to known individuals. Any other prolonged use only promotes public comment, especially from other people waiting who may also want to use the phone to call the police anonymously.

9. Setting up social media accounts, such as on Facebook, Twitter, and Paypal, under the nom de plume of “Anonymous123…abd, etc.” does not usually work. And they usually don’t accept them as being by real persons anyway, even though they keep on insisting that they are.

10. Signing personal cheques under the nom de plume of “Anonymous” is generally not recommended, as usually it just doesn’t often work: either the cheque is not cashable, or it comes back to you marked as “payee not known.”  In addition, on-line payment methods should always be avoided, especially when ordering pizza from undercover government agencies working from high street addresses.

11. Looking for other like-minded anonymous people being incognito in public on the quiet is only effective if it is done in a non-obvious, non-invasive manner, either in the street or in the public parks, etc. Ideally, it should be done in the dark, preferably on moonlit nights for best effect. Other more public ways of moving about incognito, such as dressing up in silly costumes with like-minded people, merely attracts further unwanted attention from passing police persons in unmarked police vehicles, or even inconspicuous agents of the press in theirs.

12. The moderate use of onions, chives, pickled eggs, olives, gherkins, pickled hot peppers, or garlic to hide bad-breath from the crowd, or for preventing other people more aware of halitosis than you are being able to track you by scent alone is also recommended. Although in public places such as tube trains, or “Big-Reds” London buses, strong alcohol-laced mouthwash is recommended; it especially helps maintain your anonymity when going to work. Also, on public transport, always try to avoid direct eye-to-eye contact with your neighbours at all times, some of whom might even like to take a bite out of your hide without a moment’s hesitation.

Posted in Sardonic banter, Self-help, Sophistry, Spoofs, Twaddle, Uncategorizable | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The subtle art of the con game: A brief review of Professor Philo T. Cozener’s autobiography, My Life and Times as a Confidence Trickster (published by the Roycroft Press in 1908).

 A great number of the classic tricks of the age-old human practice of the con game are known from many works from the world of literature; most likely, or on the whole, they being semi-autobiographical work cashing in on the leftovers of a wasted life. While sharp, savvy, savagely brutal precepts, maxims, aphorisms, parables, and insightful anecdotes about confidence trickery can turn up in the most unlikely places in the literary world, from the works of Aristotle to Zeno (excluding Diogenes), or even from Austen to Zola (including Dickens), and beyond. Although I suspect that not a great number of the more fanciful scams portrayed therein would now be of much real use for budding confidence tricksters, even if they could be effectively extracted from their original context.

 As such, many, truisms, euphemisms, and precepts concentrating mainly on the shifty principles of the conman’s art as first put forward in a fairly coherent form, can be found in the writings of that famous 19th century Yankee charlatan, shyster, confidence trickster, and swindler of gullible businessmen, Prof. Philo T. Cozener, in his autobiography, My Life and Times as a Confidence Trickster. This is a brief, sensationalistic, but still insightful work, being a short 149-page book that was published in 1908 in a now rare, signed limited edition of 350 copies printed on hand laid paper. It was privately printed by the Roycroft Press for the author at Elbert G. Hubbard’s renowned arts and crafts workshop in North Aurora, New York State. Nowadays it is quite a hard book to track down, even in its second and third issues, even in the specialist antiquarian bookshops of Charring Cross Road.

 The renowned Professor of flim-flam, blarney, and spiel from Yonkers, and self-acclaimed master of the confidence trick, was the man (and not a lot of people know this) who reputedly tried to sell the French the whole concept of building the Statue of Liberty out of the newly-available, lighter, cheaper, and rust-proof aluminium, instead of the more traditional (but subject to verdigris decay) bronze sheeting; though, surprisingly enough, without gaining much credit for it at all, monetary or otherwise. He was apparently in cahoots with many of the professional conmen of the New York underworld at various times in his career, switching loyalty between whoever was in charge of the most lucrative con game in town at the time, which was usually something to do with the burgeoning bunkum bunko-traps and such-like, and other similar slight-of-hand malarkey.

 Always staying in the shadows, a supporter of more famous individuals rather than appearing to be an obvious driving force, he preferring to remain a subdued presence in any of the more high profile activities involving some form of illegality or another. He was known, not as the man with a thousand faces, but by a dozen different names mostly of Irish Catholic origins, holding separate bank accounts in each name and set up to launder money through each one. Thus he managed to avoid the clutches of the law for longer than most of his contemporaries in the field, justifiably earning the nickname of “The Professor” among his associates. But, as is inevitable really for those who repeatedly cross the line of lawful common sense, he was finally apprehended, tried, and sent to Sing-Sing correctional institution for his crimes.

 As the story goes, he was caught red-handed by one Alexander “Clubber” Williams, the New York Captain of police, apparently trying to sell some fake blueprints of the Brooklyn Navy yard’s’ new Dreadnaught battleship turbine engines to some Japanese technology investors. They even wanted to take a whole turbine engine apart and ship it back to Tokyo to use as a prototype engine design in their own growing modern model navy. Unable to do this legitimately they resorted to industrial espionage, exploiting newly forged Yakuza connections with the New York underworld. In the headlong pursuit of this shifty policy change they eventually fell into the clutches of the New York confidence men’s fraternity, who dealt with them accordingly, sending their best man up against them. But they could only get hold of the blueprints they wanted at extortionate cost, or so they thought, being conned into buying into a number of huge real estate deals selling some useless tar-soaked grazing land in Texas as part of the price of obtaining the desired documents.

 At the end of it all, together with owning vast tracts of worthless tar-soaked scrubland in Texas, the Japanese found they were only left with some inscrutable designs for some new fangled kind of inertia-powered flight. They supposedly being the novel ideas of some unrecognised boy-inventor going by the name of Bobby Goddard, who actually though he could fly a rocket to the moon if only he had the right kind of engine to do it with. Apparently, he was some unknown crackpot inventor (whose dubious fate more than likely is now completely lost to history) whom the Professor had enmeshed into participating in the scheme somehow or other, probably by promising to finance his future education at some Ivy League university. If the celebrated Professor had not tried to branch out from his main line of confidence trickery defrauding New York bankers of unused monies held on deposit, who knows, maybe he may never had gotten caught. Indeed, he might never have been heard of at all, and so gone unrecorded in the annuals of American confidence tricksters.

 The Professor’s book itself is, perhaps unsurprisingly, a sensationalist piece of writing that touches on the raw essence of the con artist’s game, but may be more to do with a complete egotist’s overweening pride, vanity, avarice, lust, and greed. But then these are also natural human attributes that we all have to deal with one way or another almost every day of the week (usually as found in other people around us), and so might easily be overlooked in the man himself, simply for being purely human faults which we all suffer from on occasion. On this slightly controversial autobiography being published at the time by the Roycroft Press, I do not really expect any tacit approval of the book itself was really forthcoming in the literary world as it then was; or, come to think of it, of the various accounts of the scams and dodges included within it as being a valid subject for a legitimate Roycroft Press book. Which is probably one of the reasons why it is such a difficult book to get hold of, as commercial press reprints seem to be non-existent.

 However, once the initial surprise about its insidious subject matter was put aside, I expect it could be appreciated for what it was, or as it was intended to be. As a common enough type of work that usually rounds off a misspent life that was lived, once it was lived poorly, and so was beyond all redemption (a fate reserved for any vain-glory amateur writer of sensationalistic autobiographical material, whoever he thinks he is). Of course, it shows us the true nature of the conman’s nefarious trade in the States at the time. But in a more serious vein, maybe it should really be considered as being more of a work that, through its focus on such a sensationalist subject, was still directed at the sensation-seeking public in general (they being ordinary, workaday people who liked to read lurid accounts of the current events in the crime world), rather than simply being a “rough guide to the con” for potential conmen, who probably wouldn’t read it anyway. It was, perhaps, more suitable then, as now, as being a popular magazine’s serialized page filler (where pages need to be filled quickly in some publication operating on the fringes of acceptability), and possibly best destined for the “Hello” magazine of the day.

 This little-known work printed at the Roycrofters’ craft workshops, would probably be a “must have” reference source for anybody who seriously considered himself to be an expert on the history and nature of the con game in the States; and so for anybody with credibility who subsequently wanted to write a competent book on the subject. Unfortunately, there aren’t that many copies left around to be had, but fortunately, especially for any serious researchers into the subject of the con game, there is one available “on shelf” in the Bodleian Library storage facility at Swindon, Wiltshire, a short train ride away from central London. The Bodleian, or Oxford University Library, being one of the few copyright storage facilities of printed books in the world, and stores for future reference virtually every book printed in Britain to date, and also many printed in other English speaking countries, including the United States.

 As hand printed books go, this rare autobiography of a conman is a pretty artefact: the title blind printed on soft leather boards, with brown washed silk endpapers, signed and dedicated by the author in the front, together with a copy number, “Copy No. 93.”, as usual the pages having been opened with a paper knife, with the publishers printing particulars and print history placed surreptitiously in the back of the book as per usual, and with the typeface chosen for the work immaculately suited to the subject. A collectable Roycroft Press book if I ever saw one. When I first saw it I was almost tempted to walk right out the door of the Bodleian with it tucked up underneath my arm; no one would really have missed it.

 But I would never have gotten away with it, (as there’s always a witness, even if it’s only oneself), despite knowing full well from experience that, as Prof. Philo T. Cozener himself said at his trial, “He who dares do the unexpected, grabs the prize right out from under the noses of the unprepared.” Or, as he said on another, more promising occasion in a lecture to the Women’s Institute of Yonkers, New York State long before he was caught, and perhaps more relevantly, “The world about us distracts us from seeing reality as it is, the lucid mind (when made aware of it) concentrates its thoughts on overcoming this illusion, or it is simply part of it.” As, after all, when it comes to tricking people intent on concentrating upon the moment at hand, surprising them with its banality is perhaps the best way to do it.

 But such things as petty pilfering is dishonest, and not the sort of thing basically honest people want to be involved in too often, if only for the sake of being afraid of being caught at it. And filching books from public libraries is something only the likes of people like Joe Orton could get away with with impunity; and even he was eventually charged with defacing public property in the end, as, in the end, he just returned them, vandalized with obscene graffiti. (These defaced copies of well-known works are now treasured possessions of the British Library, which actually puts them on show occasionally, often enticing groups of unsuspecting tourists, usually middle-aged Americans, in off of the main hall to see them in small, stuffy rooms with subdued lighting.) After all, when all is said and done, if an honest man is to go crooked over anything then it is much better for all concerned for him to do one big thing once, and then live on the proceeds ever after (much like receiving publishing royalties), and live much like a model law-abiding citizen from then on.

 Reading of the good Professor’s sensationalist exploits, chock-full of moralistic tirades, clever anecdotes, novel observations and the contrite, condensed wisdom of a reformed confidence trickster, who had eventually been caught red handed at the game he though he knew so well, it seems a pity that his talents could not be employed in a more honest business. However, ending on a good point, I believe he ended his days as an evangelical preacher, preaching redemption to the converted in the mid-West. How much he was sincere about what he preached is open to debate, but, whatever he was on about, for many years he was very successful at it, at the zenith of his preaching fame at the height of the Great Depression he eventually dying of a heart-attack on stage in front of hundreds of wiling “schmucks”.

 However, these numerous tricks of the trade he speaks about so profusely and in so much detail here in this book (despite his later digression from his natural career path), are still a handy reference tool for exploring how to fake and make and close deals, even in today’s world. Of course, they are a guide, an amusement, and also a rip-roaring yarn, but also a moral warning to us. And I think that the best thing to take away from this book of tall-tales is not to get above the bastion of reality that protects all those who take cover behind it. As once that is done, there is no cover from the slings and arrows of outrageous fate available there for anyone who does so, and he will eventually fall, like so many egoistic men before him have done, back into the abyss of self he crawled out of.

 Further information on this particular Roycroft Press book, together with a micro-filch text document of the book, can be obtained from, The Archivist, Main Enquiry Desk, The Bodleian Library, Broad Street, Oxford, OX1 3BG, United Kingdom. Specific catalogue enquiries or selective comments can be made by sending the communication to this email address: reader.services@bodleian.ox.ac.uk. It should be noted that the library would prefer to receive more complex enquiries in writing; this ensuring that the library staff understand the details of the enquiry correctly, and so that they can devote a sufficient amount of time to the answer. That is, if they deem the enquiry to be of sufficient merit to answer at all, and not ignore completely.

 To any reasonable requests for catalogue information and reference enquiries, I have found that the Library will usually respond within five full working days of the receipt of an enquiry, but in all cases within ten full working days of the receipt of an enquiry. Full working days are Monday to Friday except for the Easter and Christmas/New Year closure periods. Furthermore, the Library is obviously also closed for the traditional British Bank Holidays (in a sort of long “lost weekend” event for Englishmen), so it is not a good idea to try to contact them on those days either. In addition, the Internet-based “Ask an Oxford Librarian” service is available for questions about the Bodleian’s collections and services, including admission to the libraries, its catalogues and electronic resources, copying, and inter-library loans. All that is needed to utilize this novel Internet-based service correctly is for the enquirer to be in possession of an enquiring mind beforehand, preferably before any enquiry is made.

Posted in Biographical comments, Devil's advocate, Literary criticism, Spoofs, Twaddle | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A brief reflection regarding the recent demise of the School of Life’s “The Daily Aphorism” website.

 I wonder if anyone but those who regularly visit The Daily Aphorism website have noticed its recent, sudden, and unforeseen demise? The website which features pages on pages of contributor’s aphorisms (each one being viewed alternately from an archived list of them with just a click on a mouse) has been run for several years now by the School of Life in Bloomsbury. (For those who have never heard of the School of Life, it is a cultural enterprise offering good ideas for everyday life provided by offering a variety of programmes and services concerned with how to live wisely, and well, for a small fee.) The demise of The Daily Aphorism website may be of particular interest to all those who have an artistic bent in that direction who has posted their aphoristic endeavours on it (either as competition entries or just out of sheer boredom), although it may also amuse all who care to hear (and subsequently chuckle) about it. Whether this sudden disappearance is purely temporary, and merely indicates a temporary suspension of the website before a spectacular re-launch of a modified website, is not known, or not at least not by me, I being “out of the loop”, so to speak.

 Firstly, The Daily Aphorism started off as a website that distributed a short and pithy piece of aphoristic wisdom every morning by email straight to its subscriber’s inbox (sometimes whether he liked it or not). These consisted of a set of around thirty aphorisms by famous aphorists tastefully typeset in a “nifty” poster format which, apparently, could be reprinted out on a computer printer; these were sent alternately, one after another, over a month, or until the series was run through (then if it was not unsubscribed to, rumour has it that it started all over again, automatically). This initial set of aphorisms have also been typeset and printed, and posters were sold for a reasonable price from The School of Life’s shop in Bloomsbury. In addition to this “main page”, or introductory home page of the website, over the years the website has also collected together a large number of ordinary contributor’s own contemporary aphorisms, initially as part of a contest at the founding of the website for its subscribers to write aphorisms. These were initially collected together into a list as competition entries (probably as a “taster” as part of a promotional advertising campaign) that were also displayed on the website, This contributor’s “list” is what I am about to discuss here, which now is (or once was) a long list of aphorisms (good and bad, poor and terrible, dull and sour) which I suppose are and have become an essential part of the reason for this website for its continued existence.

 I have recently noticed that the staff at the School of Life have completely removed, deleted, or expunged the Daily Aphorism website from the Internet (usually it was to be found at: http://www.thedailyaphorism.com/ just for the bargain price of a left-click on a mouse’s backside), and without either so much as a “by your leave” nor a fond farewell neither. In fact, it is as if this website had never even existed: it has hurriedly been disposed of, been hidden from all prying eyes, and has completely vanished from sight. It is like burying a once-promising dead poet without a wake – and here he being found stone dead before his time and dumped and dusted rapidly under the carpet with due dispatch without publishing a word about him in perpetuity, or even in the obituaries. I can only assume that this is a permanent editorial decision – an act of classic censorship on the part of the School of Life, and one bought about by grim necessity of purpose and not done on a mere budgetary whim in response to the current economic downturn.

 As I saw the aphorisms gradually add up over the last few years, as they were posted on this website in a halting, but continual dribble of aphoristic babble which was immediately stored in its archived list, I came to the bright conclusion that making up a book of such ordinary, plebeian, common or garden aphorisms (in the main thought up by complete and utter amateurs in the field), would be an interesting idea to pursue as a publishing possibility. The School of Life itself would have been the ideal publishing vehicle for doing so, but I suppose that in reality this is not part of their original agenda. That is, if these various brief postings were considered good enough to produce a viable work of unique, individualistic aphorisms.

 Some of these “competition entries” will inevitably be posted under some spuriously-dippy pseudonyms, or were listed under variously nondescript “nom-de-plumbs”. And I suppose that the most prolific, well considered pseudonyms on this list of aphorisms would be difficult to separate out, to separate the “chaff from the corn”, so to speak. However, if upon thorough investigation these few dodgy entries were gently edited out of, or expunged completely from the full list of them, this would immensely improve the quality and integrity of the original material. While the complete dross, the clangers, the overly ripe prattle, the mere tittle-tattle, could be swiftly chucked out with the bath water. I myself, of course, have occasionally posted my own choice “pearls of wisdom” on the Daily Aphorism website. But I did not do this not as part of the original purpose of the website, which was supposedly to produce aphorisms for a long running competition (that quite possibly went on for too long), the best of which would originally have been posted up in the front window of the School of Life in the New Year (and, apparently, the outright winner of the original competition was to be offered a free place on one of the school’s “self-improvement” courses). No, I did so simply because I liked to see a good, chunky aphoristic sentence doing what it was supposed to do, although in my defence I believed that I did this in the best possible taste.

 I now realize that these rather amateurish, stumbling, lacklustre efforts of mine, of course, do not compare well with the fine aphoristic efforts of contributors to the complete list of aphorisms on the website, as contributed by various thoughtful people actually participating in the original competition. Those who, as part of the original campaign, were invited to compose their own contemporary aphorisms, supposedly for a prize, but more honestly to see what would come out of it, this archived list is all that remains of that initiative. Those who I think deserve quick mention here, to name but a few, being: Cory Leader, Kai Gordon, Tori Rowland, Ray D’Shramp, Al Young, Sally Child, Drew Kalm, Lauren Oh, Marty Rubin, Tyler Docherty, Guy Geduldig, Said Saillant, Dan van Dan, Archie Pratt, Sylvia Peay, John Alejandro King, Stella Creasy, Buddy Blank, Matthew Zeiler, Biff Geezman, Swami Raj, Said Saillant, Amber Gonelli, Pandora Shallcross, Albert Briefly, Olive Dresser, Penny Lane, Solomon Shandy, Monty Don, Alf Corny, Buddy Blank, Olga Tupping, Anonymus Anonymous, Martin Scribbler, Michael Atavar, Jimmy Leary, John Smith, the Masked Aphorist, Candy Zest, Icabod Plane, and last but certainly not least, Leonid S. Sukhorukov. Then, as I say, these basically competent, but mostly amateur attempts at aphorisms produced by those people who posted so much thoughtful work on this website would certainly add up to one good book, and which would certainly be a best seller on Amazon.co.uk. Any future published book comprised of selected aphorism as contributed to The Daily Aphorism website over the years would be an interesting contribution to the genre. And this despite this recent robust executive editorial action on the part of the School’s staff that, in doing so, has apparently rid itself of the original aphoristic material.

 However, having said this about the archived list of aphorisms, I also suspect that many of the various entries posted on this website, as uniquely individual efforts of budding aphorists, are possibly also quite spurious. Or, as serious quotations of seriously minded persons trying to say something quite profound, have not been sourced properly (but I expect which, under the circumstances, cannot really be helped). Such examples of witty creativity are commonly to be found dotted about the Internet in great profusion, pilled up in great regurgitated heaps like the discarded innards of fortune cookies. Nor I believe had they ever been fully vetted beforehand for their intellectual originality, or examined for showing signs of plagiarism of other more anonymous, witticisms, wise cracks, or bon mots either, before being posted up on the website (for all the world to gawk at in astonished wonder). This may be a structural failing of the website, but it is also an opportunity of people to show what they can actually do when they try to lax lyrical in public.

 This critical editorial action, of putting together a viable book of these aphorisms, would of course best be combined with the editing out of most of the huge amount of multiple entries on the website (of different individual aphorism) posted by more established, or known aphorists, who certainly do tend to plaster their work all over the Internet nowadays, and particularly on Twitter and Facebook. (They in the main being those professed up and coming contemporary aphorists who posted those aphorisms that were definitely posted for the furtherance of their own aims on this website, and not of the Schools.) The resultant pared down, improved, and vetted list published either as a short paperback, or, alternatively, return in triumph to the Internet in a sort of on-line literary archive, would certainly be an interesting collection of “aphoristic source material” of contemporary aphorisms today. Which would probably be very much an achievable task for the School of Life’s publications Dept. (which, apparently, it has been rumoured is nicknamed, “Dept. 14U/241,” by the actual teaching faculty); if, that is, the entries were professionally edited beforehand. All they would need to do this with effective dispatch, in the near future, would be for some gifted editor at the School to thoroughly edit the list of aphorisms that is (hopefully still) already available to them. However, I am sure that they must already have such a gifted person on their administrative staff, someone like Alain de Botton for instance. Or if not they can hire the fellow by the hour from a publishing house, or perhaps, even hire a freelancer in the field to do the job better for cheaper.

 If no viable paperback is to be forthcoming, or it was not possible to print due to copyright restrictions, I would certainly look forward to seeing such a glorious stash of “mothballed” or archived aphorisms again appearing on the Internet. Possibly even as conveniently filed under a thoroughly reviewed and edited “The Daily Aphorism” blog posted up on the School of Life’s website. It would definitely be a fascinating aphoristic on-line resource, and a viable reference website which would be similar in content and style to many others which I have seen dotted about the Internet already (much like precious pearls cast before ignorant swine), but one with much more credibility. In this matter, I hope that the School have not completely deleted the original archived list already; that of course would be the work of philistines, not philosophers. We can only wait and see for future developments to show us as to which course of action they have chosen for themselves.

 The grim (if not rather glum) alternative for the School of Life would be to completely ignore this creative literary spark produced by many, if not most of the contributors of aphorisms to the original Daily Aphorism website over the past few years. Which would probably reflect badly on their own purposes in creating this website (together with its archived “list” of aphorisms) in the first place. And which action, as I am sure that they already know, would only reflect directly on the School of Life’s credibility, and thus show, or publicly expose to criticism or ridicule their own views on the whole matter, for anyone to see. But I am sure that even in this they would take it on the chin and carry on regardless, like the grand old band of philosophical troopers that they are.

Posted in Literary criticism, Obituaries, Self-help, Sophistry, Spoofs | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A provisional list of new “Student’s School Rules” for Students of the School of Life in Bloomsbury.

As someone who is occasionally interested in the lectures at the School of Life in Bloomsbury (whose website can be found at: http://www.theschooloflife.com/ ), I sometimes am able to take a more detached view of their activities promoting the good life to everyone and anyone who they come into contact with, and especially with their paying students.

Recently, in my socially anti-reactive “street philosophy”, I have been concentrating on conceptualizing my dream theory that men, to live life well, must be the captains of their own ships, tossed like limp lettuce leaves upon the chaotic waves of an inconstantly hectic life. Thus, these philosophy book-pounding course of lectures at the School itself, are, at least to me, many of the ones which are actually quite similar or related to the “life-affirming” theory of mine, which I have thus far called: “Life-Man-Ship”. However, anybody else exposed to my ideas as an “impromptu philosophical lecturer” in philosophical discourse in street encounters, café life, pubs, public parks, etc., would probably do better to pop round to the School of Life and sign up for a few lectures instead; at least the social life is better for the students there.

This little list of would-be school rules presented below which, on the whole, I have gleaned from observing the behaviour at the school of the students themselves, and is thus the result of much unlicensed thoughtlessness. However, it must be said that none of the essential ideas or material I have proposed for these rules have been particularly well received by the faculty of the school so far.

As a piece of plain writing, written in the easy-going, satirically irreverent style of a schoolboy prank, it is thus both a cipher and an anachronism, and thus, as semi-philosophical rumination, goes with my own attitude towards the School of Life quiet well. These newly proposed “rules of student conduct” for the School of Life follow below.

I can only wait in intrepid anticipation for a more positive response from the school’s faculty than I have thus far received so far (in fact, it almost feels as if I am being ignored completely over this matter). This is, of course, probably because I liked to bend (if not break) all the rules of good manners and etiquette of satirical commentary while writing these rules out. Which can be so hard to tolerate in such an established educational institution as the School of Life apparently so desperately wishes to cultivate.

The text and layout of the following student’s school rules for the School of Life, as set out in its entirety, is the sole copyright property of the School of Life itself.

 

The Skool of Life’s Student’s Skool Rulez

(Or things I ain’t allowed to do at the Skool of Life in Bloomersburry!)

1) I will not look for “the meaning of life” in any other place other than where it may usually be found, in strikt accordance with the “directions for use” from the lecturers involved in helping registerred students to find it during normal skool opening hours.

2) I am not allowed to hum a “happy tune” when wandering the dark hallways of my mind while atending all the latest Skool lectures in Bloomsburry.

3) I will not poke the “strange looking” class-mates with pencils, nor shall I insist that their hairdoos be “all hippyized” before going to lectures.

4) Newly enrolled “newbie” students ain’t “there to be fed to the skool Kat, Baalfezzar”.

5) I will not make a “mountainous pile of crap” out of a minniskule little molehill that’s been swept under the carpet whenever “nobody wants to see it”.

6) I will not ask for an inmediate answer “right now” to “the meaning of life”, from the currant resident fhillosophers on their tea breaks.

7) I will not call the two “almost famous” resident Skool fhilosophers, “decorative bookends!”

8) It is a very bad idea to tell the resident “Swizz fillozopher!” he takes himself too seriously, while he perambullates up and down on the “slippery slopes of the mighty metafhorical Matterhorn of ineptitude”.

9) The current Direktor isn’t the “King of the Castell” (nor, conversely, is she a dirty raskill when she ain’t).

10) I am not allowed to take out a life insurance policy on the head of the head “psycho-ogling” lecturer (nor, in fact, to say, “bring me the horrid head of the horrible head of the horrifik head of the School” with impunity never again either, neither).

11) I will not say the phrase, “Get a Life!” to the skool caretaker, either infront of his two faces or behind his back, neither, either.

12) I am not allowed to sing, “People are strange when you’re a stranger” whilest skipping off to the Direktor’s office to be spanked for being too facetious.

13) I will not use my old socks as if “reversed upon themselfs with stairing paperclip eyes” to make metaforical hand puppets to represent a metaforically-idealized “skool masscott”.

14) I will not try to give the next strange-looking Aussie shop assistant in the skool’s shop (whom I may occassionally see serving paying customer’s “feel-good” drivel) Chinese burns behind the bookcases.

15) I am not allowed to try to chat up (nor subsequently try to goose) the latest “hot chick” shop assistants from Oz behind the bookcases at the back of the Skool’s shop.

16) I am not allowed to declare an official “Hug A Dirty Bum Day” on the Sckool shop’s premisis, whenever one inaddvertantly comes in the door looking for a free handout by mistake.

17) I am not allowed to yell “Fire!” every time I set alite too the toast in the cheap Taiwanese toaster now enstalled in the kitchen of the Skool’s shop.

18) I will not dress up in fancy dress as a pale green luminous “thinking carrott” at the Skooll’s next New Year’s Eve party.

19) When asking about “any gods’ news today?” at the Sunday Sermons, I am not to refer to the “Holy Trinity” as “The Force”.

20) I will not post “strange internet links” nor write “Bladders!” in Bembo Bold on the School’s new internet blog.

21) I will not call the “cool” lecturer of the Skool’s new “Cool” lectures “Captain Kool”, even if he is wearing a old Brittish Navy Duffle coat.

22) I am not allowed to ask any newbie-lecturer to show us all the “Oh, pointy-pointy, what is the pointy!” paper cone hat-trick whilst sitting in the corner.

23) I am not allowed to say, “well, you learn something new here every day” when any guest lecturer reveals “something quite profound” to the students.

24) I will not make up an impossible riddle impossible to understand by an “impossible” lecturer as a genuine “question of interest”, when he or she is “asking for it”.

25) It is not nesessary to yell, “Spam!” every time I gesticulate incontrollably un-nesessarilly when caught unawares in inscrutabuble lectures.

26) I am not allowed to make lightsabre sounds when waving my “glow in the dark” plastic ruler about in lectures.

27) I am not allowed to run about within the corridors of my mind (especially in a fhilosophical manner) between lectures, without being properly supervised by a fully qualified member of staff.

28) I will not attack my fellow students with blank post-it notes.

29) If the thought of a joke that makes me giggle privately (when, say, bunking off smoking weed in the sckool toilets) for more than 25 seconds, I must assume that I am not allowed to use it as a metaforically rhetorical question in a related lecture.

30) I am not allowed to bring a dudd Rubik’s Cube to any of the Skool’s latest “finding inner meaning to life” lectures.

31) If a class-mate falls asleep during a lecture, I will not take advantage of that too draw a “kiss me quick” sign in indellabel felt tip pen on his or her forehead.

32) I am not allowed to say, “basicaly, a little determinism is not an issue here, it is the little determinations” to the newly enrolled students of the “How to have better conversations” lectures.

33) I will not say, “buck up!” to anyone attending the provokatively inspirring “Understanding Depression” lectures who’s wearing a dark cape and a baggy felt hat with a feather in it.

34) I will not recommend the “How to Think More about Sex” Skool book as recomended reading to any sexy Sweedish foreign exchange students (either male or female), newly enrolled in the “Intensive” range of lectures.

35) I will not suggest to any of the more gullible foreign exchange students that to “conker the Earth with interrepid fortittude” isn’t a good career choice, for any absent-mindedly overly ego-centric (or otherwise) student of The School of Life.

36) I will not promote the idea within the confines of the sckool premises that all semi-serious (or psuedo-serious) discussions of any fhilosophical merrit at the Skool, are restricted to those who dare to discuss them further outside the bounds of the limits of the concreteness of the lecture theatres.

[Rules & text of rules copyright: The School of Life, Bloomsbury.]

Posted in Sardonic banter, Sophistry, Spoofs, Twaddle | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

It’s like this with you and nobody.

 This is a “little ditty” which I have found drifting about on the Internet, apparently done by some anonymous nobody; certainly, it wasn’t found at: http://nobody.blogspot.co.uk . I do not know how relevant it is to my main reader, whomever he may be, but at least it tells us all something about what the world really thinks of some anonymous nobody or other; he being someone, perhaps, much like my main reader, whomsoever he may be:—

 It’s like this with you and nobody: Nobody never is bothered about you, nobody never is much interested in you, nobody never wants to know much about you, nobody never could be bothered too much about you, nobody never much cares a jot about you, nobody never really gives a damn about you, nobody never has any time for you, nobody never is here for you, nobody never is on time for you, nobody never ever is on your side, nobody never ever lets you get away with it, nobody never really needs you, nobody never cares too much for you, nobody never needs to know you, nobody never could care less about you, nobody never has any time to spare for you, nobody never gives you nothing for free, nobody never thinks of you as being normal, nobody never is joking about putting you down, nobody never lets you get in the way, nobody never ever roots for you, nobody never liked anyone like you, nobody never gives you the time of day, nobody never really lies to anyone except you, nobody never short-changes anyone except you, nobody never believes a word you say, nobody never gives you any credit, nobody never ever backs you up, nobody never gives you a helping hand, nobody never lets you step up to the challenge, nobody never stops bothering you, nobody never laughs at you without grinning too, nobody never lets you go for broke, nobody never gives you anything for free, nobody never likes a born sucker like you, nobody never gives you a chance, nobody never thinks you’re any good for anything, nobody never lets you win the race, nobody never negotiates with you, nobody never thinks you’re special, nobody never gives you the benefit of the doubt, nobody never gives you any leeway, nobody never turns his back to you, nobody never gives you enough time, nobody never trusts you with anything, nobody never ever listens to you, nobody never thinks you’re reliable, nobody never even wants to negotiate with you, nobody never likes what you say, nobody never looks out for you, nobody never is bothered enough about you, nobody never gets irritated over you, nobody never ever was here for you, nobody never pays enough attention to you, nobody never really stabs anyone in the back except you, nobody never really puts anyone down except you, nobody never thinks you’re strong enough for love, nobody never thinks you’re the kissable type, nobody never thinks you’re a clean-machine, nobody never stands up for you, nobody never puts you down without a reason, nobody never ever was a real friend to you, nobody never needs you for nothing, nobody never gives you a second chance, nobody never gives you a good time, nobody never believes a word you say, nobody never does his best for you, nobody never greets you in friendship, nobody never talks to someone as boring as you, nobody never is ever there for you, nobody never stands up for you, nobody never will vote for you, nobody never loves you, nobody never cries for you, nobody never listens to you, nobody never agrees with you, nobody never chooses you first, nobody never supports you, nobody never really ever needs you, and nobody never liked you too much anyway, and that’s just how it is with nobody and you, but you don’t have to like it.

      Anonymous Nobody.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment