The Rebel Archetype: Non-Violent Resistor The peaceful revolutionary 6 to 7 min read There are many who fit this archetype such as Martin Luther King Jr, Thich Nhat Hanh, Nelson Mandela and Mikhail Gorbachev, to name a few! However, the two rebels I've chosen are the most recognised and quintessential non-violent resistors: Mahatma Gandhi and the Historical Jesus, but only based on the Gospel of Mark! These men rebelled against the status quo, preaching and instilling non-violence, moral reform, and compassion. If we can recognise their human flaws alongside their strengths, it reveals much about them as individuals! Gandhi: Beating Back the British Empire Without Bashing Anyone! Gandhi, the little bald guy with those round glasses, cleverly rebelled against British colonialism with his philosophy of Satyagraha, which means clinging to truth. It’s all about non-violently expressing disruption while holding onto peaceful principles! His virtues attracted admiration, ...
Starmer vs Sunak Election Debate
Televised Debates: An Ultimate Frustration-Fest
5 min read
No Compelling Character's Here!
Ugh, mate. Where do you even begin? With the fact that debates aren't usually rapid fire responces? Come on, questions need more than a forty five second TIME LIMIT!? Rishi, why are you cutting disabled peoples PIP, you ****?! Maybe we'll begin with that weird popularity-gameshow-feel? It could have been aptly called 'Don't get booed!' It knobbled any real meaningful exchange—great thinking, itv! Public discourse is an outlet and they're supposed to be a grand showcase of political excellence, flirting their grand ideas to the masses, that's right, isn't it?
 |
| This is like watching a telly debate |
This supposed itv debate was a real chance to show my family what the Keir Starmer was really about with regard to all the important issues. Yep, his father was a nurse or some b*****ks, and his mother made tools. That was most of it, well, unless you count his anti-Tory, parliamentary programmed polemics, which was no more than stating the bleeding obvious that the country is ****. Such dystopia to come!
First off, can we acknowledge that CONSTANT interruptions need to change? It was a bit of a one way assault from a terrified Tory—noisy, rude, with scare tactics, my face rarely left my palm. Sir Keir had no bite, like Stallone in one of those old Rocky films where the dude isn't fighting back. Rishi, playing the angry posh kid did whatever he could to get his way. Neither party had a chance to properly explain anything and the moderator was a news reader—did itv let her do a news report on herself?
.jpg)
We shouldn't forget the dodgy facts. Look, everyone has different viewpoints, but straight off bull***t shouldn't be allowed in these debates, we used to have fact checkers but that's clearly gone. Don't you think a candidate should be dishonourably disqualified if they lie or twist the truth?
It may appear that I'm saying televised debates are a complete waste of time, because I am, quite frankly. They're about as informative as a hayes mini cooper manual for fitting a kitchen. As this is my blog, I have a responsibility to call out for some kind of meaty, proper lengthy debate—maybe a Netflix or YouTube event would do it justice because itv are sporting a no frills value lettuce.
Comments