Macrons “overpopulation because of the poors” narrative is a farce. Overpopulation has long been cited as the principle problem holding back the global South, always as a tool to blame the poor. Take India for example, a nation with a huge poverty issue & culture where “6-7” kids is a social norm. There have been plenty of condom advertisements & even forced sterilisation & even if the goal was achieved and the poorest 20% did stop being born, They only eat 6% of the food, live in 4% of the housing, use 3% of the electricity. The scarcities of these basics are down to distribution not population. Liberals try to sound magnanimous & hide their racism by claiming that those in poverty “Don’t know any better, (the stupid poor)” this couldn’t be any further from the truth. At 3rd world levels of income within global capitalism, having many kids is the “optimal” thing to do, since you become a net producer at age 12 (in most developing nations). The issue is not over population but a neoliberal ideology that simultaneously blames & forces the third world to reproduce to compete in the free market.
When Labour supporters in Britain call for the return of “Old Labour” they ignore the fact that the much of the celebrated Attlee government of 1945-51 that built the NHS, welfare state etc. did so through theft and genocide.( – mainly in Malaya but also in Iran and Nigeria). The burden of Britain’s post WW2 economy was pushed on to British colonies. The disingenuous colonial left in Britain, ignore the imperialist history of the Labour Party and make out its problems only started with the Thatcher eras & Blair. Revolutionaries should be aware that Communism will inevitability smash the state & as pragmatic as it is to back Corbyn for now, many are under the delusion that the Labour Party are a good thing, they are not. At their root they are Trotskyist traitors & in their contemporary form they are revisionists. If we are to seek a radical shift and liberate all peoples, it will be with the devolution of power, given to the people and their vanguard revolutionary party. Do not fall for the cult of personalities, the worker and common woman & man are the ones who should be lifted on pedestals, not career politicians (no matter how noble they are). Socialism is what is being offered not a messiah. Communism is not a dirty word & the spectre should not have wear the mask of a kind old white man to stake its case. If Corbyn’s economic view is popular, Then Marxist economics is popular. If Corbyn’s view on housing the poor is popular, then communist views of property rights is popular. If Corbyn’s view on foreign policy is popular, the leftists view on imperialism is popular. We neither want the party nor the man! We want revolution!
Note: [The majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as a form of far-right politics.Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.]
In light of Richard Spencer (goon of the Alt right & self-proclaimed messiah of white power) being punched while on camera; a debate has began to form around whether or not it’s permissible to use violence against Far right members? Well, the answer is simple, yes, it is always okay to punch a Nazi.
Fascism and racism embodies violence; it secures itself ideologically & politically through threat of violent acts & violent beliefs. Parasites like Richard Spencer are not here to present discourse, they are calling people to take up arms for their cause. He buys into the reactionary, liberal left, knowing full well that they will give him the platform to shout his poisonous rallying cry. Scum like the “Alt-right” are nothing new. Fascists have been putting on suits & ties for decades in an attempt to normalise their tribalistic bullshit.
The National Front did the same thing throughout Europe in an attempt to legitimise themselves, as did those laughing stocks of Right wing Britain, Paul Golding & Tommy Robinson whose group of slobbering idiots ‘Britain First’ & the ‘EDL’ both attempted to enter the mainstream. Do you know what these groups have in common, despite their sickening ideologies? They were all dismantled by a violent visceral opposition of Antifa activists. These groups were met by huge counter demos that often broke out into conflicts & fights on the streets, resulting in property damage and injuries on both sides. Not only were these fringe groups physically wounded, but their morale was often broken too, by constantly having their demos dwarfed in size by the opposition that turned up to confront them. Not only this, but the state could not handle the pressure of such groups. It was costing local councils thousands and exhausting local police forces who could no longer guarantee people’s safety. It was this escalation of risk caused by violent direct action that suppressed these far-right groups & inevitably pushed them back into the fringe. Although the ideology still exists & once again the far-right is on the increase in Europe; it was violent protests, not liberal debate that destroyed the material threat from our streets & protected targeted communities from the far-right menace.
The liberal stance of trying to ‘understand fascists’ & give them a right to “free speech” is an historically flawed concept if one recalls the ironic slogan of German liberals before the Nazis took over: ‘We are so liberal that we even grant the freedom to destroy liberty’, and it was made very clear what Goebbels intentions were, when he stated: ‘We have come to the Reichstag in order to destroy it. If democracy is stupid enough to reward us for doing this, this is the problem of democracy.’
By offering Fascists platforms, you legitimise their point; by knocking their teeth out, you force their subjects to be taboo from society. If you attempt rational debate, you allow these cretins to swindle & manipulate their rhetoric & policy. We can see contemporary examples of this in the far-right parties of England, Hungary & France who have been able to do this very thing. Parties like UKIP, Jobbik & Le Pen have gained traction over the years, and increased in popularity amongst the right wing, to the point where they have been able to push policy & frame debates within their own political territories. This has resulted in a spike in hate crimes within the UK & has spread an anti-immigrant sentiment across European borders resulting in death and violence against marginalised communities as well as the abandonment of humanitarian help.
This moralist stance that we must rely solely on pacifism to prove our points is juvenile & ahistorical. Such pure notions do not deserve to be recognised as legitimate opposition or tactics to deal with Fascism. Anti-fascism can be both defensive & proactive. If Richard Spencer wore all black & spoke Arabic, the liberal press would not be debating whether or not it is okay to use violence against him, it would be cheering his defeat. You cannot live complacent in violent societies while simultaneously condemning violence against a system (or body) that perpetuates it. These are pundits who have praised Obama despite the mass civilian casualties which are a result of his drone program. These same people who call foul & give liberal sob stories over Spencer being punched, cheered when Saddam Hussein was hung. Unlike the contradictory take on violence liberals give, Anarchist and Anti-fascist militants do not use violence to reinforce themselves as a dominant ideology, but rather as theatre that co-exists with its theory. Anarchists & socialists are fully aware that punching Nazis one by one does not tackle the root issue of far-right ideologies. It fully recognises that it must rely on political organisation and propaganda as well as its physical resistance. The violent political dissidents of the militant left is as much of a performance as it is practical. A reminder to both the status quo, and the encroaching threats to people’s liberty, that people in large groups still hold real power over the systems & contracts that bind us to obedience.
This is not to say that we should enjoy violence; far from it. “militant anti-fascist violence is an unpleasant method to achieve a greater political goal. It is not fetishized the way that fascism fetishizes violence, and it would be much more preferable to rely on passive resistance; but we cannot guarantee that what Trotsky referred to as ‘flabby pacifism’ will effectively inhibit fascist encroachment. Fascism views passivity as weakness, not as a political strategy; it will crush peaceful protests and the will to resist, and their violence must be met head on.” (Militant Anti-Fascism: 100 Years Of Resistance by M.Tesa). Rather we should see it for what it really is a violent movement in a more violent world.
Those who all of a sudden cheer Obama’s clemency today, are the same people who applauded when Chelsea was put in prison. It was the right decision & I’m glad he did it none the less but, freeing Manning, does not absolve Obama of anything.
Chelsea isn’t free yet & Obama has simply commuted a majority of her sentence, she may still have time to do. The Obama Administration leaned excessively on Chelsea, for exposing war crimes during an illegal war America orchestrated (All the while giving light sentences to Government agents who leaked Us Intel e.g General Cartwright who took the fall for Hilary Clinton’s fuck up & CIA operative John Kiriakou who got a mere 30 months down to 2 years). Chelsea’s 35 years was always an over zealous attempt to crush the dissidents of Hacktivism and protests happening in America & to cover up the illegal actions taken in Iraq & Afghanistan.
Don’t Thank Obama, Thank Chelsea Manning.
19 Dec 2016 Russian ambassador Andrey Karlov is assassinated
The consequences of war are never contained within the borders of said conflict. The attacker shouted “We die in Aleppo, you die here” this is not a terrorist, this is desperate man driven to insanity and unstable violent behaviour. A bloody reminder that actions have consequences rather than an intent to spread terror.
Moralists will reject the attack in Ankara calling it radicalisation. This is all to often spouted from pedestals of privilege. Deep down underneath the dominant ideology and the social constructs we have created, we are all Radicals. I hold no quarrel, nor shed tears for dead politicians what worries me is the consequences that were unforeseen to the shooter. Russia and “tough guy Putin” will retaliate hard & it will not be the shooter who receives these repercussions in which ideally he should. If you are to commit acts of violence and propaganda by the deed against violent states & their agents ensure you create an environment that you alone are to blame.
I should start off by saying that I have no radical malice towards those within the vegan and vegetarian community. I should also state that I am not “Pro -meat”, in fact, I’d argue we all should eat less of it. It should go without saying that we should have some level of animal rights and should all condemn acts of cruelty & unnecessary harm to animals. This is simply a criticism of using this lifestyle for political motive or to argue superior morality.
The main thinking of the Vegetarian movement is rooted in Speciesism, a term popularised by the philosopher Peter Singer. The basis of these philosophical ideas lies within animal rights movement. The argument put forward is that there is no moral justification for human superiority over any other species, and it opposes the rearing of animals for meat, labelling it as unethical. In his book Animal Liberation (1975), Peter Singer describes it as “a prejudice or bias in favour of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species.” It claims that all animals deserve the same moral rights as our own.
This concept removes us from the food chain and ignores the anthropological connection between other primate species. The term “unnatural” is thrown around a lot when talking about eating meat. This trend within the Vegetarian community has zero basis and is more an emotive response than based in any logic. Of course, thanks to evolution and the miracle of human biology, we can eat and survive off a meat free diet; but that does not make us natural Vegetarians, far from it. In a 2003 article in ‘The new Scientist’, researchers discovered that “Humans evolved beyond their vegetarian roots and became meat-eaters at the dawn of the genus Homo, around 2.5 million years ago…” It is also proven that through our evolution a meat diet helped shape our species evolution to where it is today. Eating meat and cooking food made us human, the studies suggest, enabling the brains of our pre-human ancestors to grow dramatically over a period of a few million years. In the article ‘Eating Meat Made Us Human, Suggests New Skull Fossil’ by Charles Q. Choi, Live Science Contributor (October 3, 2012), it explains that it would have been biologically implausible for humans to evolve such a large brain on a raw, vegan diet, and that meat-eating was an essential element of human evolution at least 1 million years before the dawn of humankind. To claim eating meat is unnatural seems more anti-science than anti-meat, especially when you look to our common evolutionary ancestors such as chimps, who still have meat in their diets too. Biology and evolution cannot be categorised as unnatural on the basis of moral purity; it is neither progressive or helpful to any cause.
Purely moralist arguments such as this are noble, but all too often equally irrational. Morals and lines of ethics are not always universal. Singer’s writings are clearly influenced by European minds and would be impossible to translate to the Native American tribes, who once practised animal sacrifices. The Yanomami tribe in south Brazil hunt tapir for meat and yet they are far better environmentalists than most vegetarian’s in the western world. It seems odd to claim moral superiority over these people because you avoid dairy products, especially when you most likely contribute to the destruction of the Yanomami’s homes. How many vegetarians/Vegans drive cars that pollute our air or pay their taxes that contribute to landfills and the destruction of rain-forests, yet simultaneously claim that due to the lack of meat in their diet that they are now environmentalists? For many around the world there is not the option of vegetarianism. A market of choice is a first world privilege, and this ideal is smug rather than morally conscious. Rarely does it seem that vegetarians have issue with the ethics of meat itself. One surely cannot argue with its process in human evolution, or its inherent need to some communities. The most common argument (and most legitimate) is ‘Cruelty’. To this I argue with the linguistics of this statement. ‘Cruelty’ is a human conception, one need only watch the work of David Attenbourgh, to see that Nature and the Animal Kingdom can appear barbaric. Yet, we must remember that such concepts are alien to the chicken & the cow. Not because they the lack consciousness per se but, because animals eat each other within an ecosystem and the human ideas of morality and ethics do not apply to other species. The mouse does not hold the cat accountable. From here the argument can only go to the ethics of caging and rearing animals, but at this point the argument is no longer about eating meat but how animal husbandry is formatted. Such things as intensive farming, chemical growth and hormone manipulation in which Vegans/Vegetarians point out as inhumane, have very little to do with eating meat, and are to do with modes of production. Farming and agricultural surplus are a result of capitalism and the industry of farming.
“Hegel was among the first to see in the geographical triad of Germany, France and England an expression of three different existential attitudes: reflective thoroughness (German), revolutionary hastiness (French), utilitarian pragmatism (English). In political terms, this triad can be read as German conservatism, French revolutionary radicalism and English liberalism” – Slavoj Žižek
In 2003 the Iraq war ignited, with British prime minister Tony Blair fully backing the US led coalition, which was spear headed by George Bush and his administration. This bloody conflict, including the following occupation claimed over a million lives with the effects of this war still pumping out violence today. For those not in the know, we are currently (at last) having the Chilcot report dispensed. As a clear attempt to quell dissidents and ensure the story fades into irrelevance, it has taken seven years for these documents to be made public, in what can only be described as state suppression. This nearly decade long wait for this inquiry was a result to convenient & unspecified “delays” in which evidence of war crimes were kept from the British public. Now it has been clear for many years now that the Iraq war was illegal & at it’s roots the inquiry states what many of us already knew. However, despite stating the absolute obvious, these reports hold evidence to the crimes perpetrated.
Yet despite the value these reports hold, their is a fundamental criticism that must be addressed. The issue lies with Chilcot being solely framed from the liberal perspective. Liberalism key flaw is the idea of the individual being everything & at it’s heart rules out the reality of the dialectics. Because of this Historical correlation is being completely ignored within the framing of this debate. Because of Britain’s dominant liberalism, we are looking at these events as if they were in a vacuum. The divide and conquer of Iraq did not start in the early 2000’s more accurately it took form in 1914 with Britain, France at war with Germany. With Britain & France eyeing new territory in the decaying remnants of the Ottoman Empire, In 1916 British and French drew up the notorious Skyes-Picot agreement to partition the Arab peoples into new states that could become “Area’s of influence” for capitalism. France would take what is now known as Lebanon and Syria while Britain would seize Jordan, Palestine and what we today call Iraq.
This narrow field of perception is not only a fallacy in ignoring the basic concept of cause and effect but, it endangers any real Justice or progressiveness for us as a society to learn from. We must look at the narrative rather than the single sentence to understand how we can move forward. With the apologists & excuses that will come with the inevitable political fall out, we must not lose sight of the reality of the situation, nor allow this to become a sensationalist story to fade into the echoes of time.
Thursday May 3, 2012 an article was released in the British newspaper ‘The Guardian’ entitled: Journalists being killed at ‘astonishing pace’. The United Nation Associated Press reported that ‘Reporters without Boarders’ were condemning the ‘astonishing pace’ journalists were being killed. The reality of the deaths has a chilling threat upon our freedom of press. According to The Committee To Protect Journalists, in 2014 67 journalists were killed. There is tragedy in all loss, however, the death of a reporter is an important one to highlight.
Journalists have the ability to be our one true public servant & play a key role in any true democratic process. Despite mine & most likely all of our inherent mistrust in media,which is certainly not misguided, when we live in such a corporate sponsored era of reporting, the journalist is still a figure in society we should hold in regard. Algerian born philosopher and author, Albert Camus, once said: “A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad.” I believe this to be true – the media is simply a proving ground and it can be either full of bad reporting or good – it all depends on the journalist. So far this year, another 44 journalists have been murdered but not all get named:
Serena Shim was a 29 year old Lebanese/American reporter born October 29th 1985. On October the 19th 2014 she was assassinated. Now, to understand how & why Serena is so important you will need a little context. According to her mother Judith Poe, Serena was a “loving daughter” & “had a thirst for truth”. Serena worked as a reporter for Press TV, an English language Iranian news network that broadcasts world wide. On October 18th 2014 Serena aired on TV with a breaking story. She had reported that Islamic State/ISIS militants had crossed from Turkey into Syria on trucks bearing the symbols of the World Food Organization and other NGOs. Serena also stated in her report that the Turkish intelligence agency had threatened her and accused her of spying & that she was “a bit frightened” by what Turkish intelligence “might use against me.” It would seem that she had every right to be fearful – Serena is not the first journalist to die in Turkey. The country’s human rights record is tarnished by the bodies of dead members of the press. Turkey is labelled according to the press freedom watchdog, ‘Reporters Without Borders’ as the world’s largest prison for journalists. Between 1992 -2015, 1118 journalists have died in Turkey either murdered or caught in cross fire/combat. This high death toll and infamous title becomes that more damning when we consider Turkey is part of NATO with America while it sits on the European Commission with the UK & other EU countries.
Serena had been hounded by Turkey’s national intelligence agency over her reporting of the region. Her reports shone a light on Turkey’s involvement with the IS crisis, and how the country seemed comfortable with ISIS militants within the region of Kabonê, which is now a battlefield between Kurdish forces & IS. We now know Turkey used this situation to it’s advantage to attack the Kurdish populated territory on August 12, 2015 (instead of ISIS). The evidence out there points to Turkey striking a deal with ISIS & allowing the movement through the country. Without Serena’s reporting this would have been lost in history and these crimes forgotten.
One day after her report on October the 19th 2014, Serena was tragically killed in a mysterious and suspicious car crash in a rental car with her cousin on her way back to her hotel. The report states she was hit by a heavy vehicle that collided with driver’s side killing Serena. Her cousin fortunately managed to escape with injuries.
It should come to no surprise that the Turkish press was sketchy on it’s report & gave very little details to what actually happened. Media censorship is a frequent abuse in Turkey. A current example of this can be found in the recent attack in Ankara where we can see how restrictive the Turkish media is (Link). Press TV tried to reach out and find out more but claimed that both the vehicle & driver had disappeared despite the Turkish government alleging his arrest. In a report on the Press TV website, a London-based political analyst claimed that “our sister Serena” had been “assassinated by the government of Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan.”
Serena had dedicated her life to reporting & was torn away from her family at far to young of an age. Her name should be remembered and her contribution to the truth should be heard.