Start of the next Wave?

Dubai has asked for more time to pay massive international debts. That's Dubai. The playboy sheikh-state famed for being er...really rich.

This video shows their super-daft-expensive resort for the elite.


http://tinyurl.com/2sj65r

Looks even weirder now.

When countries default it is very bad news. Dubai might well not be the first.

Analysts who predicted the 2008 crisis (which actually started earlier) say that Japan or even the US will go down.

In any case, the dollar is heading for a might fall and gold is on the up despite apparent attempts to supress the price.

Keep in mind that the people saying we have turned the corner, establishment media, politicians and "experts" are the same people who "never saw it comming".

http://tinyurl.com/ykqhbsl

A note on "our boys"

Brown spelling a name badly late at night, and the hate-match between Murdoch and his old ally have been the circus of the week. But this story of continuing betrayal of the armed forces slipped by comparatively un-noticed.We also know too many end up on the streets. All the sombre puff around Rememberance is nothing if we don't actually look after people. Of course, that may be best done by not having ill-fated spurious or vague missions that go wrong in the 1st place.

Howard League Report:

http://tinyurl.com/yavtq65

The Doublespeak Chronicles Part 1

Doublespeak : "The power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously..." (Orwell)

Here and in some future posts I will discuss examples from modern mainstream discourse and political life. It's a vital topic to understand because doublethink, and it's close cousin "cognitive dissonance" set up confusions in people's mind which are very dis-empowering and can even allow us to be manipulated.

This is a controversial thing to say. One can be accused of being aloof and writing off swathes of people as gullible pawns, or even of being a "conspiracy theorist".

But most mainstream media is demonstrably in the hands of a small bunch of very narrow interest, so the idea that they might be able to set parameters of thinking and debate is hardly tinfoil hat stuff.

Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays, was the father of modern Public Relations and advertising. He wrote "On Propaganda" - a ground breaking treatise at the time.

Soviets and Nazis in particular gave "propaganda" a bad reputation (along with putting fluoride in the water), so "PR" ended up the preferred term.

It was Bernays who got first got women to think smoking was a symbol of feminism through a range of media stunts and advertising.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSdrYJOvr3Q

(This link is from the amazing Adam Curtis - his BBC documentaries like "Century of The Self" and "The Trap" are vital viewing on these issues and easily found on Youtube)

Advertising throws up an example of everyday doublespeak, not the best but it illustrates my point.

Advertising is a mega billion global industry that essentially engages in mind control. Many people will say that advertising doesn't affect them. But if it had no effect then the capitalists simply wouldn't pay for it.

Naomi Klein's No Logo is the standard modern-ish text on the power of modern advertising.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0TQR1kVs0k

As I said before, "propaganda" is often associated in people's minds with Hitler and Stalin's regimes. But does that mean it became less successful after their demise, or did the propagandists get better and more subtle. Evidence suggests the latter.

Another example: How many people claim not to believe what they read in the papers or other mainstream media but are happy to espouse firm opinions based exactly on what they gleaned from those media?

These examples are a bit simplistic, but I hope they set the scene to discuss more specific examples from current political life.

Exhibit A: The European Union "Presidency" and "Constitution".

As an issue, the EU bores the pants off a lot of people. We had a European Election earlier this year where Europe hardly got mentioned, even though it has to be said that UKIP got the 2nd highest amount of votes.

But it's been in the news this week because the last obstacles to the full implementation of the Lisbon Treaty have fallen away.

And we've had plenty of hype about "Who will be the president?". It now looks like a certain war criminal is no longer in line for the job. Pro EU people in this country must be very relieved. But, the idea of an "EU President" really bothers some people.

"hang on", they say, "...what's this...we weren't told about this...I don't want an EU President without at least being asked".

"Ahhh...." say the defenders...."This isn't really a president".

The specific role is to be "President Of The Council".

Currently this job is done for 6 months at a time, the post rotates according to who is head of the government of the nation operating the "presidency".

The main functions are to chair meetings, draw up agendas, technical bureaucratic stuff like that.

The new position will be allotted directly to one person on 2 1/2 year terms. So, it's not really a president. Just president of the commission. The cynics just didn't understand. And once this is explained to the troublemaking citizen, it's straight back to "who will be the president?", "the president this" and "the president that".

The person will represent the EU on the world stage (presumably lessening the chance for 27 countries to represent themselves) and generally swank about the place as president. Would Blair have wanted the role if it was just a dull and technocratic?

Some may not accept that the EU is engaging us in doublethink, at least not deliberately, on the basis of that example.

But what about the "constitution"?

A few years ago, when some countries tried to run the constitution by some actual citizens in referenda. Notably France and The Netherlands roundly rejected.

The way round that turned out to be to just not call it a constitution. This got round all necessary national courts and parliaments apart from Ireland's - the only country who have been allowed a direct say on this watershed document, and the score is still only 1-1 in how they have voted.

Angela Merkel said "The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact." And that is the consensus.

2 quotes to shed light on the mindset at work here

"We know that nine out of 10 people will not have read the Constitution and will vote on the basis of what politicians and journalists say. More than that, if the answer is No, the vote will probably have to be done again, because it absolutely has to be Yes. " — Jean-Luc Dehaene, Former Belgian Prime Minister and Vice-President of the EU Convention

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly ... All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way". -Former French President and Vetran Euro-stalwart and Trilateral Commission member.

Not directly related, but we shouldn't forget: "We will put it to the British people in a referendum." — Gordon Brown, General Election Manifesto, 2005

If you weren't convinced that the "president who isn't a president" is doublespeak, the "constitution that isn't a constitution" is a slam-dunk. And there's worse to come in future editions of "The Doublespeak Chronicles"...

A letter to auntie

Hopefully the ripples from the fascist stuff last week will subside quickly, but I thought I'd post up this letter of complaint to the BBC anyway.

Next piece comming soon.

--------------------------------
Sir / Madam

I am writing to complain in the strongest terms about the systematic hype given to Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time last week. I also have a series of questions in bold I would like answered as soon as practically possible.

Normal practice in Question Time is for guests to be announced at the end of the preceding edition. As a licence payer I require you to tell me:

- Why the BBC built up to the programme by regular mentions in news bulletins across the network of Mr Griffins appearance.

- Why the show was oriented around the appearance and opinions of one guest .

Both these phenomena are unique in my experience of watching the show since childhood.

You have given Mr Griffin enhanced status as a guest you consider newsworthy.

- Who made these decisions, when, via which procedures and under what auspices?

If it was a matter of chasing ratings then I hope the BBC is pleased that in return for a 4 fold increase in ratings on the back of your orchestrated publicity there has been a vast increase in interest in the fascist party and ideology.

Although claims may be made about wanting to "expose" the party or that Mr Griffin may have looked foolish to some, it is pretty clear that he and his party benefited, first from the hype for their brand, then from the victim status they can legitimately claim from the unique way the show was conducted.

Please understand I am in no way objecting to the invitation granted to an elected MEP to appear on the show. I also accept that a degree of controversy was inevitable. However, the completely different treatment accorded to him was needless, naive and highly irresponsible.

For years the BBC has given disproportionate coverage to this medium sized party.


I also require to know if an editorial decision was taken at any time or level during the recent European election campaign that the BNP were to be one of the "major" stories.

As an example The Green Party get more votes nationwide and have many more elected representatives. Why do they not get the same amount of attention? Are they just not sensationalist enough to suit your "news" agenda?


I trust that when Mr Griffin or other BNP speakers are to appear on such shows in future, they will receive exactly the same amount of low grade publicity given to other speakers. Any other approach will indicate a continuing fetish for fascism. The BBC needs to look long and hard at the dynamics behind this. I trust you can speak to this issue as well as answering my questions and give me some account of discussions about last week's circus that are taking place at higher levels.


Thank you for your time, I look forward to a full and detailed reply.

Steven Durrant

Election Fever Cranks Up! - Democracy's Great Farce

The final pre-election conferences are nearly done. The fevered hype starts here. But what really is at stake as a thick fog of "debate" descends in future months?

How much of the endless analylsis and propaganda will be genuinelly relevant to country, people or planet?

Churchill described a General Election as "Democracys Great Feast". He might have been right then, but this is now. Even if we have a different governing party, how much effect do they really have when resources and labour are so heavily dominated by a global casino capitalism mediated by failed financial elites?

For the economy it's probably too late whoever wins: The 2 main opposition parties would have landed us more or less where we are now through "light touch regulation" of the banking sector. So although £880,000,000,000 national debt will be mentioned a great deal, the main cause of it won't get very much mention. Sure, there's talk of controlling the banks, but read the small print and there are not even medium size changes proposed to the system.

Nearly £40,000 per household has gone to the banks. For months Brown jibed at Cameron for being "Mr 10%", but soon he and the LibDems were admitting to their planned cuts. They will say they are "telling it like it is", but if they were to do that they would be saying "sorry, your tax can't pay of education and stuff, it has to cover the banking mess we allowed to happen".

So, for all the huffing and puffing there just isn't a vast amount between the 3 bigger parties. Listening to endless debates, even the much-talked-about TV Leader debates, risks being a mild waste of time at best, but more likely will be a dangerously misleading distraction.

Brown has been sticking to the "choice between us doing X and tories doing Y" for years. It's got incredibly stale, God help him if that is the mainstay of his campaign.

"Vote for us, we're not them" is often a major cry during election time. As a rule, the larger such a cry, the more of a vacuum there is in the credibility of those saying it. Much of the Labour / Conservative rivalry is tribal rather than substantially political.

Whatever the outcome next spring it is almost inevitable that the incomming government will very soon be the most unpopular since Thatcher and quite possibly beyond.

We will pay taxes to cover the bankers while services are cut and the real economy struggles, regardless of hyped rollercoaster rallies in the speculative sector.

And this is all just if things don't get worse.

Like the EU elections earlier in the year, this once in a 5 year chance runs a big risk of being under-utilised as a reality check. The next 5 years will see unprecedented global problems with the economy, climate, public health, food and war. It's very hard to understate the significance for the species of the short period ahead. It could indeed be a revolutionary period, but not neccessarily in a good way.

As it is, it's very strange that Labour are unpopular as a result of their right wing policies (though the mainstream wrongly say they are "left") but the consequence will be another right wing government.

This is down to a voting system that leaves so many disconnected.

We essentially live under a cartel duopoly which Labour and Conservative have colluded in for many generations. Each knows that no matter how much they screw up they will be back sooner or later. When it comes to changing that system with some form of PR, Turkeys dont vote for Christmas.

This is why Labour went back on their promise to look in to it when they first got in. Roy Jenkins was commissioned to report on it, but Blair binned the report when he had his big majority. Now Labour are running into the buffers and some of them have oddly become excited about PR again. There's even another Labour promise to look at bringing it in if they get back in.

Every 5 years some soft progessives get very exited about idea of a hung parliament to force the issue. Yes, it might happen, but come back and laugh at me if I'm wrong - I think that to give it even a 25% chance is exagerating. Wishing for such an unlikely outcome every 5 years is just not enough to hang on to.

I'm not interested in PR because I'm in The Green Party, I deal with the system we have even though we suffer heavily by it. But despite some long established justifcations for the current system, none can negate the harshest of facts - that most votes don't count. Period.

This last week, Murdoch's Sun got the ball rolling and came out early for the other tory party. The response from different elements of Labour was very interesting. Some tried rather unconvincingly to shrug it off, others were angry. The general air was "they doth protest too much". If The Sun is so bad, what does it say about Labour that they received and courted The Sun's support for so long?

But if you think the media noise is bad now, just wait. Frankly I dread it and will focus on real world campaigns in Manchester rather than be taken in too much by establishment doublespeak.

Perhaps it is the result in a single seat, a win for Caroline Lucas in Brighton & Hove to become the first Green MP, that will do more to shake up politics than the blustering of the failed major partie and whichever of them acquires the poisoned chalice of government.

Peterloo Massacre and the echos of history.

Sunday saw a great turnout to commemorate the 190th anniversary of The Peterloo Massacre in Manchester.

This piece is mostly about some resonances today, but first a small bit of background:

On 16th August 1829 at least 15 people lost their lives and 600 were injured at the hands of the Yeomanry.

Why? Because they had the nerve to speak up for their own rights in a peaceful demonstration numbering 60,000.

The events took place more or less between Manchester Central (GMex) and the Midland Hotel

Here's more detail from the Wiki entry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre

A vibrant campaign exists to ensure that an appropriate memorial is finally instituted, hopefully long before the 200th anniversary. Currently the only formal recognition is a blue plaque.

Although many Mancunians are familiar enough with Peterloo, many are not. It's history is fascinating and hugely important. Thus the underwhelming formal recognition to date represents a denial of history and a whitewash.

The council have agreed to a substantial memorial but the nature of it is by no means settled. The campaign is rightly concerned that it not be some modernist or or post-modernist abstraction. Instead it should depict the event realistically, as well as being educational and respectful.

Around 200 people marked the occasion on Sunday with music, poetry, naming of the dead, wreath laying and reproduction banners from the time. Alongside this, members of the crowd wore "liberty caps" from the time and raised them on poles, mirroring the original demonstration.

Liberty caps had been a powerful symbol from Greek days as well as The French Revolution.

There were a broad range of people at Sunday's marking, but the events were specifically and deliberately historical and commemorative rather than political.

Nonetheless, some political similarities and differences echo down the generations to the Manchester, UK and world of the 21st Century.

From Palestine to Peru people still frequently lose their lives standing up for their most basic rights.

Although it's no secret that things are far from perfect in this country, we must never forget the sacrifices made to bring about the progress we have seen. We must neither be complacent of our own liberty or forgetful that other lacking it.

Nonetheless, people are still killed through the auspices of the state in this country and the habit can too often be for the establishment to lie and cover things up. 190 years of progress may be cold comfort for the Tomlinson and De Menezes families. There are other cases too.

If Sunday's events had been more overtly political I have no doubt that those partaking would have been photographed by Forward Intelligence Teams and put on any number of databases for being "troublemakers".

For all their talk of respecting democracy we have a government that would fingerprint and eye scan everyone of us for a database that will monitor us for lives via 50 categories of data.

Manchester is the chosen place for trialling the ID card system / National Identity Register, a pretty sickening irony.

And injustice against everyday people still reigns even in these fairly peaceful (if heavily monitored) times. We are encouraged implicitly and explicitly to blame migrants for problems while international finance oligarchs walk off with scores of billions in front of our faces.

We are still watching a massive transfer and consolidation of power and wealth in to the hands of a small elite, all predicated on the massive future debts of us and our children.

The effects of the governments sell out to failed corporate and banking ideology have barely got going yet. When they do they will be highly unpleasant and long lasting.
Don't expect any decent analysis from the corporate owned establishment media when it all kicks off. Do expect them to blame poor people. Plus ca change.

But finally, for now at least, I'd like to be positive about the chances for more unity among progressives. Sadly this is all to necessary in the face of a relative rise in the success of fascism.


Cutting a long story short, history shows that when a vacuum comes into existence when the establishment faces crisis in credibility.

Broadly speaking, that vacuum can be filled by a progressive / radical narrative or a reactionary one.

Few on the broad left would disagree that we have collectively failed in recent years to work together sufficiently despite some differences.

Manchester has set a good example through bodies such as Convention Of The Left, and slowly this kind of model seems to being emulated elsewhere.

In terms of the specific struggle against grass roots fascism in areas like North Manchester I would refer readers to my speech to UAF on this blog.

In finishing for now, I'd like you to think about the idea of 60,000 people protesting in Manchester today. Although people came from far and wide this represents around 30% of the cities population at the time. Today that would be 135,000 people.

The largest Manchester demo I can remember was 10,000 for the anti-Iraq war demo in 2003 (where guilty-by-association elected Labour figures also managed to get their second faces at the epicentre of events)

We all know where you can find scores of thousands gathered for a cause in Manchester today. It's still August but the round ball game is just back in season.

As we marked the events of Peterloo, the Sunday streets of Manchester were busied by people resplendent in shirts advertising one of the failed economic monoliths of the last year - AIG.

Nothing wrong in liking football of course, even if I haven't the time to detail the misdeeds of AIG. But is it a good thing that people don't seem to feel as much need or desire to demonstrate and be otherwise politically active any more?

Many will say they just don't have the time through working too hard: servicing debt which profits the banks and paying taxes which go to the er... banks. Perhaps serfdom never truly went away.

There is still a strong activist contingent in Manchester but the relative decline nationwide represents a worrying submission and apathy - the sort of disempowerment that leads to the erosion of rights which 15 people died for one Monday on the streets of Manchester, not so many lifetimes ago.

Speech to Unite Against Fascism National Conference

Below is a speech I gave at the UAF National Conference in Manchester on Saturday July 18th.

Speeches dont neccessarily translate to the written form, but it is unedited apart from the removed nicities at the start and end.

I’ve only a short time and among the things I was asked to mention was The Green Party position on the BNP. Well, they’re beneath vermin, and I think I can move on.

There are probably some of the twisted misfits in the hall today, and it’s as well they know that they are the traitors to this country. They despise freedom and the true diverse character of British people and history.

Not all their voters are racist, but a fair number are. We may as well accept that. We also have to accept that fascism has a mandate now, and this brings many new challenges. If anti-fascists can’t be candid about strategic shortcommings now then we are failing in our duty to oppose the menace as well as we can.

Here in the Northwest, the Green Party lost out to the BNP in the race for the last seat by 0.3%. With just 5 more votes in every ward we simply would not be dealing with this sense of urgency today.

A key part of The Green Party campaign was based around keeping the fascists out. This was partly due to the anti-racist background of our number 1 candidate. I think I’m typical in the party for being far more gutted that they got in than that we didn’t.

We are deeply grateful for local support from Respect and faith communities like The Sikhs who recognised that The Greens had a better chance than larger parties of keeping Griffin out.

Respect members worked hard with us as well as UAF, as our members worked with UAF beyond our own campaigning.

In areas like Lancaster with a strong Green presence the BNP didn’t do very well. In Manchester the Greens came 3rd in the city, the fascists a poor 6th. That makes me a lot happier about living here.

But the region is now contaminated by these filth. The curse arrived via the ballot box and whatever anti-fascist actions take place over the next 5 years, it will only be lifted via the ballot box. The playing field will be very different 5 years from now, but aside from our other strong issues I expect The Green Party will present ourselves as the chance to boot Griffin out, and that will be a well founded claim.

If Greens can win a seat at the general election, most likely Caroline Lucas in Brighton, it will hopefully balance the propaganda effect of 2 fascist MEPs.

The main electoral threat now is clearly at local level.

I will speak to the Greater Manchester area, knowing less of the region beyond. In bye-elections shortly before the Euros the BNP had mixed results. Horrifyingly 2nd in Moston, 10 minutes on a bus north of here; But less well in Salford Riverside and only as expected in Newton and Hyde.

Things have changed now. With much more resources than they used to have, and wind in their sails, the fascists will be after a breakthrough seat and there are a disturbing amount of wards that fit the profile.

The difficulty is that the BNP have to be beaten by another single party. If they do the groundwork then at least 2 other parties should to be properly active in that ward, so that there is a non-fascist alternative to any unpopular incumbent.

If the fascists get 2^nd place in a ward then that is way too dangerous, they’ll be the protest vote and will plough resources and activists in.

It is consistent community work that will hold off these people. The fascists are in at the grassroots in quite a few areas.

But the truth is that even big parties don’t sustain the kind of necessary activity across every danger ward. Not nearly.

Every person here who lives in or near an area of fascist activity needs to be aware of what alternative grass-roots groups exist, and assist where they can. This could be based on politics, culture, environment, faith and more.

Anyone who lives in or near a ward with such a threat needs to constantly badger ALL of their councillors to be doing the job properly. Complacency is a great aid to menace.

A foundation of community work means that the hugely impressive mass UAF leafleting actions at bye-elections are building on something.

I want to raise one common concern and critique. I trust it can be accepted in the constructive spirit with which it is meant: UAF is definitively non-partisan, that is understandable. But the electoral system is definitively partisan. If we tell people not to vote fascist and to use their vote, it isn’t really saying enough to say “anyone” when asked who to vote for instead. To make things worse, the best anti-fascist bet is often an unpopular incumbent party.

It’s a circle we have to try and square. For example, during the Euros there could have been more positive information available to people on what other parties stood for, especially the huge range of non mainstream parties.

There are other questions about strategy that must be faced up to. I hope we do that today, but I don’t have the time for them now and I don’t want to be perceived as negative in any way.

That said, we’re all gutted. Political reality is harsh, and no matter how well anti-fascists did, we didn’t do well enough in these parts.

But without the UAF, things could easily have been a lot worse, as in East Midlands where many thousands came out for Hope Not Hate in the fascist stronghold of Stoke, and the BNP failed to take a seat.

The Green Party can augment the struggle against fascism through helping at community level, as well as presenting an alternative programme and analysis which is critical of the economic insanity and political corruption that have aided the fascist so much in recent times.

We all know the credibility of establishment parties is in a mess. It’s notable that the BNP made a lot of the bankers having politicians in their pockets. They have always indulged in left rhetoric when it suits them. The threat will continue to grow as hardship mounts, caused by the unsustainable casino and debt economics of mainstream parties.

Beyond our activism we all have to challenge the acceptability of fascism anywhere it rears it’s vile head. This could be among neighbours, colleagues and family. But the media has a huge part to play.

The BBC certainly played up the chances of the BNP and gave The Greens much less mention even though we got more votes nationwide. I have strong suspicions that there was a specific high level decision that the BNP were a good story and worthy of hype.

When the establishment is in crisis, a reactionary or a progressive narrative can fill the vacuum. History shows the establishment tend to prefer the former.

All the more reason why progressives must be devoid of sectarianism. We can disagree but we must unite in common cause against the menace. We have had a wake-up call, the anti-fascist movement needs to be broader and stronger than ever. I think activists across many issues at least realise that now.