London's Burning, Police Found Guilty.

On Saturday in Hackney an individual was stopped and searched by police, on the same day as a peaceful vigil was held commemorating the fatal shooting of a civilian again by the police. Later, police in riot gear were attacked.

What connections do we see? Police, Pigs, PoPo. Though titles on the BBC read: 'Police Attacked', 'Mobs in London', 'Violence hits new parts of London'; they should read 'Police behind it'. Can we actually believe the sensationalist reports saying it's 'an absolute war-zone'? or misleading ideas saying shop-owners are losing their livelihoods? were police just walking around, casually on a weekend stroll, in their riot gear when they were attacked?

I've been following the reporting by the BBC. It says who: criminals/youths; when: Saturday, yesterday, today; where: London; what: rioting; how: through violence... But why? Journalism follows a series of conventions, as a to-be journalist I will not follow them. Objectivity benefits the right, the status quo and authority. Moreover it is a myth. Foucault would say it is part of a media discourse, itself a product of the discourses of capitalism and government. Reality is subjective, I see things personally, I project my experiences and ideas to every news story I read. The events in London are done by people.. angry at the way they are constantly mishandled by police.

The Met Deputy Assistant Comissioner says: "When we have large numbers of criminals intent on that type of violence [i.e. burning, looting, protesting], we can only do that, get lots of officers there quickly and try to protect local businesses and local people."

A misconstrued reality, the people are on the street. Business will be payed back by insurers.

We have to look at the reasons why the police are being attacked. Last week an individual was shot, this week someone was being searched. What authority do they have? I have often seen police speed, I have been stopped and photos have been taken of me. I never did anything wrong but go to protests. London has been protesting for much more than just three days. Last year there were 50.000 on the street, the year before as well. It's always youth. What are they unhappy about? Is generation Z anarchic and ungrateful? Or are we having to push the boundaries to express a systematic reality. Climate change, education and the economy are all constructed in a certain way. Neo-liberalism runs wilder and burns faster than and doubledecker bus in London. It's in our food, we spoon it for breakfast, at school, on the couch watching TV. 

The markets are currently crashing, this double-dip has been predicted but the brunt of the hit will again go to beneficiaries and workers, while corporations will receive yet another budget bail-out like the one recently approved by "Left-wing" Obama.

I don't agree with attacking the police, there should be a clear differentiation between attacking property and people. Property is inanimate, it represents the state's authority. People act knowing these institutions exist. I don't think the police should have as much power as they do, but this is not their fault as individuals, the police body stands in front of the government in its protection. Any individual policeman is innocent of the way the system works, so they should not become targets. What if they attack Tottenham blacks and jews? London has not fully integrated these populations, nor has the rest of Europe. From here we see the violence these groups of the population suffer from, like in Sweden. Jews were once scapegoats, now Islam is.

Attacking property though only gives the state an excuse to repress and create culprits. On the other hand it brings the point across. The media love a class-based conflict with burning stores.

Refugees are the future. Ours or theirs?

I have written in a fair while, I've been way too busy. It'd be more correct, actually, to say I haven't blogged in a fair while. I have been doing a lot of work for Critic and a lot of planning tends to go in to the political Radio shows -I could fit two or three entries worth a week- you can listen to it on Radio1 from 10 to 12 on Fridays, internationally if you want! Last but definetly not least, the set-up of our political organisation, OGNA, is going well. Although we are all busy, we now have a magazine, to which I contributed many articles. All the mag articles are on the blog linked above.

Right, that out of the way, is it any wonder I have lately been looking into space unintentionally, much more often than usual. Thoughts blank, I stare until I notice my eyes are getting dry. In other words, I'm exhausted! A word I argue is quite onomatopeic. Uni, work, Critic, Radio, seeing people... 15+15+6+6+20=no sleep. Enough of that though, though I'd love to rant, I only have so much time before I'm hungry!


What I really want to talk about is the New Zealand respose to refugees. A couple of weeks ago, the media, which tends to be rather story-less in NZ, reported that Sri Lankans were planning on coming to New Zealand. Normally this wouldn't be a problem. As long as they spend money, they can take over the country for all John Key cares. However these were refugees, economic migrants. There are clear distinctions between the two words, but both imply they will need the support of the New Zealand welfare system. May I add, at one point enviable, now deplorable. John Key is already on a crusade to steal the gold off the Afghanis poorer kiwis. The burden of education, necessary to keep democracy running and society efficient is every day more obviously being thrown onto the backs of parents or students. Medical services are being cut, the dole isn't rising, sometimes I wonder why my taxes increase. What do I get from paying them but an increase in debt and a reduction in pay? I digress. These Sri Lankans, first may not have been coming to New Zealand at all. For all we know, they were escaping their country and we have to ask why... Is it because the Tamil population has been subject to a government aided campaign of ethnic cleansing? Aimed at destroying language, culture and race? This is the treatment the Tamil population has received in the last almost 30 years. Is it then irrational that they want to leave in the most insecure of boats, often paying years-worth of salaries, in search of a better education and a better future?
I think not.

John Key, calling on metaphores of war and behind a wall clearly saying 'fuck off you foreigners' is saying this not just to Sri Lankans or any other group of refugees, he is saying it to anyone foreign to his own mansion. It is a lie to say Sri Lankans would divide society, it already is: rich and poor. I'm part pf the poor, you reading this blog are too. We are part of an economic class that keeps this country afloat. Meanwhile we are forced to agree with the media's portrayal of refugees. It's an us vs. them situation.

In terms of media analysis, at my disposal only TV news, John Key was presented as an individual, standing before the Kiwi flag- holding all our opinions. No Sri Lankan was interviewed. Instead TV3 showed images of an unrelated refugee boat crashing into the rocks years ago (2006, Christmas Island FYI). We see all the refugees crammed, an intent to make a metaphor for the future of the country? Maybe, they are certainly portayed in a negative light. Crowded, loud, crying, different. We are not given insights into the situation, we are abstracted from any possible feelings of sympathy. John Key on the other hand is smiling, he looks honest, he is well-dressed. We are certainly two worlds apart.

The future will only bring us more threatening invasions of refugees. Dhaka's floods, swelling already; or Somailia's future wars. But remember their cries, their hunger, their desperation. They desire a future too. I believe future is based on past experiences. The past is what makes us hopeful. What do they have to hope for if we shut off our sympathy. Are we not all human? Or is it better to ask, are we all not human? Not all no.

Prisoners forever?

I just answered a poll on the stuff.co.nz website: Should prisoners be given a healthier range of food? Answer: Yes. 62% said no...
It may be a bit farfetched, but I reach the conclusion that this majority-part of the population also believes that prisoners should never be forgiven, they should rot in jail, much like the green loaves of bread we are giving them, they should die because they are bad and they are a threat to society and the status quo. The Status Quo Ante. I do not know what sort of food prisoners eat. I do know that the facilities they are incarcerated in tend to be rather fabcy in this part of the world, which sparks the question that 62% ask: Aren't they meant to be penitent of their actions? Answer: Yes.
We are all filled with a sentiment of remorse when we do something we know is wrong, what if there is no alternative? Should a bank robber be enjailed forever, if all he was trying to do was to provide some means for his family? If this person happens to be black or indigenous in a still racist socoety, how do we know the crime they committed is one they are in fact guilty of?
I'm too naive to think people are bad, and even more to believe that people cannot improve. We all do things we regret and we also do things because we need to. Families do tend to take priority over the system, and mine does too. If I were in a desperate enough situation to have to steal food from a supermarket in order to keep my kids healthy I would steal that supermarket. I'd be scared, no one wants to go to jail; even if it does have satellite TV, a gym, library, etc. There is another factor though, some jails are so much better than the society the criminals live in that it is better and more life-saving to be in jail than to walk the streets in a gang whose use is the protection of communities.
On food, should we give them better food? Yes, why? Because prisons are meant to rehabilitate. This is why there are workshops, criminals are obliged to do community service, go through counselling sessions. They aren't people born naturally defective, we cannot hide them behind high walls forever. Like a toy, if it comes out broken whose fault is it, the toy's or the machine's? I'd say the lattter, we cannot blame something on an inanimate object. We aren't inanimate but we do learn from the way we've been raised. I'd say the environmental factors are key in distinguishing who is going to turn out well or not. Genetics has a role; some people are naturally more aggressive or have more addictive personalities but these genetic differences will be pushed to the for by environmental injustices.
Why should they have better food? Simply because they should learn how to eat healthily so that they do when they leave prison. Then there children, if these prisoners have actually been rehabilitated, will stand a chance to grow healthily and in good environmental conditions.

This system throws more Maori in prison than Pakeha. Maori, as a fact are also poorer, there communities are unsafe due to the lack of jobs and because the youths parents are in prison. How are they meant to give their children a decent childhood if they aren't there? Maori also lost out in their culture, they were pushed away from their original communities and large family units into small private houses, uninhabited for the ten, eleven hours of work a week but for their children, who have no-one to teach them, show them or protect them.

Scottish independance would open up the European march for freedom.

On the 5th of May the Scottish election took place. A while back now. That the SNP won with an overwhelming turn in vote was surprising. After full scrutiny, it took 69 seats out of 129, a significant majority- with seats they stole from the Libdems and Labour. Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP, is openly pro-worker but also pro-independance, and the you can see the connotations in the speech he gave when he was declared winner: "I'll govern for all the ambitions of Scotland and for all the people who can imagine we can live in a better land. This party- the Scottish party - the national party- carries your hope and we shall carry it carefully and make the nation proud".

Now there are only a couple of reasons to explain why the SNP achieved such a turnaround, despite its support for independance. Either it was simply a product of an anti-coalition vote, or the number of Scottish in favour of independance is increasing. Your choice but it is mine to hope for the latter. We cannot say that those who voted for the SNP weren't at least expecting a referendum for secession.

Scotland is of course like so many other hidden nations of Europe. Both Catalonia and Scotland were empires in their own right, they ended up losing their territories due to monarchies intermarrying. Of course, your average person at the time was no more than a slave, with no freedoms nor any rights. The culture of many territories got at least difused, if not surpressed and/or lost altogether.

What is important though, is that when Scotland actually calls the refendum, which is scheduled for the second half of the five-year term, it will be very hard for nations like Spain to not allow the Basque Country and Catalonia to hold one, or France one for Northern Catalonia and Brittany. There is also the Val d'Aosta, Sicily, Corsega, Napoli, Flanders. the Suomi people, Chechnya... There are so many nations across Europe looking for greater autonomy or independance; what will happen to Northern Ireland? Scotland is just the blow of air that can help reignite seemingly dying embers.

Those opposed to independance give economic and social reasons. I'll address the economic reasons first. It is simply not true that independance will cut-off markets. Capitalism will continue to make its ties regardless of borders or lack therof. I rather think the new international projection will boost the tourism and industry of many of these nations. I'll step in to say that I am looking to argue against the reasons against independance set down by imperialism, and not really from a socialist perspective this time around. Many of these nations mentioned above are currently deemed dependant on central governments because the taxes of these nations go into the treasure chests of these central governments. The Basque country is an exception which many nations are jealous of, as it manages its own taxes. 
In terms of social factors, I doubt many of the states would spiral into war. Even though I think Spain could- clause 8 of the constitution says that if the unity of the country is under threat, the military is legally obliged to step in (They have certainly done so every other time Catalonia has seeked greater self-determination). I don't think people would necesarily leave the country even if it does become a new one. Physically your situation hasn't changed, you haven't been thrown in a tumble dryer! People will still live in Catalonia or Scotland and the biggest mistake on the behalf of any new government would be to create differences between the 'natives' and the 'foreigners'.

The way people is going to potray Scotland in the near future is important. Like they already say of Catalonia, they will say Scotland is already breaking up the state. To see how far the nonsense goes in Spain, watch this investigative report. What is a nation though, if there is no shared sentiment of cultural unity?

Non-violence, the world and Lybia.

It is often thought that revolutions are bloody, tragic events that kill so many for nothing, in the end. Regimes that have sprung up from these revolutions haven't always played up to the expectations, and that's an understatement! However non-violent revolutions do exist: Poland and Checkoslovakia cracked communism, South Africa made a transition to a fully democratic state, Iran in 2009 made it onto the streets and spread the word across the globe; this word may have been a powerful antecedent to the Egyptian, Omani, Suadi, Syrian, Bahraini and all the other revolutions taking place right now. When non-violence strikes, no-one knows how to respond. The strike isn't dripping in blood but rage, and hope. Martin Luther King was one of those men who could rally thousands for a cause we all think is just now, he harmed no-one. Gandhi too, as well as Mandela, Suu Kyi, the Dalai Lama...
Wheteher a revolution needs a single figure leading the way is arguable, there is no single person in Egypt, the collective is acting as a unity though.
I think one of the reasons the US has attacked Libya is because it is weaker in terms of military prowess and influence than Egypt or Iran are. However it is also because Libya is being torn by war. The fact that there is a war allows foreign troops to come in and restore the situation, save resources and then take care of the people, in that order. If we want a change in society, that the world as a whole cannot oppose, it's through a means that the people will agree with, namely non-violence. A revolution from below isn't a revolution from below unless it is brought about with the direct contribution of the average person. Someone with a gun isn;t an average person; most people are too scared of guns and are too opposed to killing to ever use one and what's more, guns are traditionally and historically carried and used by men. A revolution with a gun would thus likely create a society in which women would have little representation, again patriarchy. The person carrying the gun also has the subsequent ability to enforce obedience and this puts him in a position of authority.
So if we want a new society, without patriarchy, inequality and violence or a constant fear of it, it can only be brought to us through non-violence. Non-violence is the only practical way to achieve a non-violent society.

On the other hand a revolution won through war can only result in either the ruling group being massacred, as in Rwanda, or being made into a minority who live with less rights and under constant fear. This society would thus fail to be egalitarian.

Imagine.

Expressing dissent is akin to sin in totalitarian societies.

It would be wrong to say that no matter the size of a totalitarian society, it will always be bad. The bigger, the worse. A small movement has much less potential of harming millions who digress with them and will also be much less influential in the political sphere.

I strongly believe in beliefs. I don't believe in a God, but I do believe that everyone is genuinely a good person, I believe in second chances and I believe strongly in free speech. All three together, for me, constitute the basis for socialism, lets call it global equality. I'm happy to say I live by the three too.
I was doing the stall for the ISO today, a right-wing friend came by and we had a small chat. In the meanwhile the other three members of the organization doing the stall walked away and sat at a table nearby. I heard my name several times, but I figured I was just being paranoid. To be honest I almost should be hearing things, me and the ISO have had a fall out of late. When the three came back they sat around me. We made random chit-chat and then they made the move: one of the members (namely the one who is still more open to my differing opinions) started poking me. "What will your non-violent ways do against this huh?!" he said. I was going to take it as a joke when one of the other members asked me if I was a pacifist. He pretended to act surprised, but I've been openly a pacifist since it first came up in an ISO meeting a couple of years ago; his surprise was false and his tone gave it away. I said I was and that is when the barrage of questions and shouting started. They were shouting, they were condescending and it was three against one. I felt intimadated and I told them, they were ganging up on me.
I'll just mention that I am one of the most active members of the organization. I have written many articles and speeches, I have sold many magazines and been at practically every protest there has been since I entered the group, or shall I say society. Yet one differing view, a view that in student politics means bullocks is non-violence, but they cannot respect my individuality. The ISO, I quote "isn't formed of individuals" you see. They are an organization that hide behind a facade of 'true socialism', but what is true? They say they are democratic, yet they cannot accept dissent. They say they are pro-equality, yet they don't practice it; I know a couple of female members who feel disrespected and down-talked. They say they are going for a better world, yet they haven't even envisaged what it could look like. And if it's theirs we will be back to the mines and the factories and jackets of steels will be worn by those who pretend to be the most equal of us all.

The three members asked me what force meant to me, what violence was and then posed examples to prove that violence is legitimate. They truly think that violence will help solve problems, not create more. I didn't feel like it was a debate. It was an intent of brainwash. They would pound there points on me, and harder if I couldn't reply. What am I meant to say when they ask whether it is violent if a woman pepper-sprays her attackers when it is three against one- as well! look at that!- and they've pushed her down a dark alleyway, with all the connotations present in mind? I understand of course why she would pepper spray them. It is still vioent though, just like the act that the three attackers are committing. Both actions are wrong, that doesn't mean one is more justified than the other...

Non-violence doesn't seem to be a possibility within the ISO, even though non-violence is much more forceful. They would find legitimacy in some assassinations and mass murders of a minority. I can't. I believe that we each live life once only, due to this we should all have a second chance. People improve but above all, people are subjects of the conditions they grew up in and the conditions they live in. A disrespect for differing opinions is something you mimic when you see it as a child. That doesn't mean people will always be disrespectful, just that they are copying the behaviours of their elders. Aren't societies meant to evolve though? Shouldn't we by now open up to other opinions and be taught by them?

I'd rather not be down in a mine. I'm quite happy as a "middle-class bourgeois" studying my books. Of course, it'd be much more fun if everyone else could, but we all have perverse dreams.

Marx Never Wrote a Bible.

Marx himself was jewish, but he considered himself an atheist. He saw religion as the "opiate of the people", it was the drug the higher powers could use to keep the masses in line. In this life people have to follow the rules, from God and their lords. If they do, in the next life they will be rewarded with absolute salvation. Simple enough, it keeps people hooked up to the status quo.

However I find it ironic that so many Marxists follow Marx as if he himself were a God. He isn't. His ideas may have been 'revolutionary', but by no means does it mean that we should follow him every step of the way...
There are so many more writers to be read, not only Marxists. If we want a system that is inclusive, we have to be ready to accept ideas from other cultures and other movements. This will create a true democracy, it will create a system that people will feel identified with, no matter if Chinese or San.

It's quite basic, people won't jump into a boat if it only seems to be heading to chaos. Many people see Marxism as an idealistic system. People ask why a doctor would want to earn the same wage as a rubbish-man. Let me say two things, if it weren't for cleaners, we'd probably be all dead; the plague would have passed on again and the toll couldn't be smaller this time round. My second point is that this isn't about money. Marxism calls for a society where money isn't needed. We'd all do things for good will. Albeit, to get there we'd have to take steps. Marixism is an ideal system, of course it is! But it is a real alternative only if we know what it is. As I said before, people wouldn't gamble for a system that seemed somewhat unclear. David Harvey did a talk in Marxism in the UK a couple of years ago. He says that we can start the movement at any point in time, however we must constantly evolve, improve in order to reach the goal we want to reach. This is the idea of a revolution. We have to debunk the current system, but we cannot wait to see something spring up from the flowerbeds, I guess we have to dig the prize first and keep on digging until we've found it. Capitalism as a system constantly evolves: technologically, socially, culturally; it sets into us a bit more. As it sets in though, we become trapped and jobless or without a sufficient education, or maybe too much of one.
In order to reach this system of peace in which we all have a place to learn and express ourselves, David Harvey says we need ideas. Thinking about ideas after a revolution would lead us to communist Russia, or a stalemate like we are seeing in Tunisia. Has there been any advancement there, or will there be a new form of repression? Any future stuctures for a new system have to be created and tested beforehand, this way we'll know what we are aiming for. If we don't have everything configured, we won't get the enthusiatic support to back it and we will probably end up in a system much the same as the one we've got now. He says "the bourgeoisie does things that [open] up possibilities", a crisis is one of these things. He defines a crisis as "the irrational rationalizer of an irrational state". The state is one of oppression and a crisis is a rationalizer because it opens up those possibilities: workers get laid off and frustrated, this is irrational as they were made by the system, one that is irrational because it is unfair yet we live by it. There is the possiblity, not slim, that workers will "lose [...] their chains".

For last, in this long rant of mine in which I seem somewhat mad obsessed and both, religion has a place in this society. Marx is wrong. I don't believe in God, but those who do have been building temples and shrines possibly since humanity's dawn. Religion gives people hope, stories and a shared culture. While this society will be much better, tragedies will always happen. We either need hope or rationality to get through these, no offence intended. I see religion as a seeking for a perfect self, a notion from Fauerbach, isn't it human to want to be perfect?

London shows the hidden side of Europe.

After being in Catalonia during December, I saw more racism than I had ever seen before, and it disgusted me. And Catalonia is a nation relatively open to newcomers, integration has been a part of their ethos for centuries. I'm not sure if this ethos started to fade as I left or if it was just a figment of my imagination. Maybe this ethos never existed. Maybe it existed because I wanted it to exist. The case is, as I've said previously, Catalonia, Spain and, frankly, most of central Europe, if not all, is racist. And I think this is because of our governments.

There are two theories, that I know of, which are used to integrate newcomers: assimilation and multiculturalism. Assimilation is the approach used by France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland... It basically consists of the new population having to become French, Spanish, etc. Multiculturalism is the approach used by Britain and until recently Germany. This approach accepts that many different cultures can live within a state and each one is allowed to maintain its traditions as long as they don't interfere with the wellbeing of other cultures therein.

I've explained Spain's immigration problems before and the Spaniards attitude of 'they should be like us' and in France it became clear that the assimilation route had failed with the riots in Paris' banlieues in 2005, staged mostly by sons-of-migrants.

London however isn't like that. I had this mental image of the city being incredibly Victorian. In the sense that it was dirty, people were closed and I guess it was too big and scary. It wasn't like that at all.
My Granny, before I left the Bury station to Liverpool Street had told me that if I got lost I should seek a black or a brown person, not someone who's white as they'd be foreigners. Far from being racist slur, I feel it is a representation of true, current London. Migrants from Africa and the West and East Indies have been in London so long that the city is theirs. This isn't a bad thing, au contraire, it shows that British society can be so much more accepting and tolerant than the rest of Europe. It is a society where it isn't strange to see people other than white nor will they be considered strangers straight off. Liverpool Street Station was the first glimpse of London I'd had in years, the train journey was dark as I left passed four. There, now six, it was rush hour and I, for the first time ever felt lost. Not lost in the sense of directionless, I'd been in plenty of aeroports; I was lost because I'd never seen so many people rushing from one place to another. And they did it so gracefully. No-one bumped into anyone else, they all knew where they were going and that they had to get there fast. I was overwhelmed and literally stood for thirty seconds without knowing what to do, I guess it's a sort of Kiwi curse.
When I finally managed to get back into character and took the train, I saw something I'd never seen before. I was sitting on central line and around me the faces were of african origin, or latino, or pacifica, or chinese, or philipino. All these people were going back from work, all were thinking of the meal they were going to have with their wife and kids, everyone was actually the same. London is the clearest example of multiculturalism. The person opposite could be speaking in Arabic on the phone and the one next to you reading a book in Hindi; standing, a jewish person and on the far seat someone holding a rosary. They are all Londoners, regardless of views, ethnicity or religion.

London may not be the centre of a vast empire anymore, instead it is in the limelight of globalisation. However one place where things have yet to change is in the theatre. The West End is where it used to be and the Lion King is still being played at the Lyceum. Whilst in there though, I only saw European faces. Maybe I was sitting in the wrong area or wasn't looking hard enough but it seems English higher culture is still restricted to the English.