A momentarily withdraw to a post-existance that is in paradox to our accepted pre-condition

…and now for something completely different.

Those who have met me and discussed with me the complexities of the human condition would understand that i am very anti-intellectual. By that i actually mean the communication between an intellectual and an-other.

Was it Orwell who said that a middle-class socialist will never connect with the working classes because they are so caught up with ideology and they communicate that ideology in a way that no one would understand?? Hence why socialism would not appeal to the masses in 1930s Britian.

This is what i mean when i say i am anti-intellectual – i’m more for speaking clearly and coherently so that anyone would understand. This view is especially prevalent when discussing politics because to get into power you need popular support (well…). There is no way a population of a country would talk with the same conviction of an ideology and then communicate it in a way that not even the narrator understands, as do many who study political theory!

Anyway, i came across a website that republished an article by Stephen Katz called ‘How to Speak and Write Postmodern’. Read,  learn and enjoy:

by Stephen Katz, Associate Professor, Sociology

Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
Postmodernism has been the buzzword in academia for the last

decade. Books, journal articles, conference themes and university

courses have resounded to the debates about postmodernism that focus

on the uniqueness of our times, where computerization, the global

economy and the media have irrevocably transformed all forms of

social engagement. As a professor of sociology who teaches about

culture, I include myself in this environment. Indeed, I have a

great interest in postmodernism both as an intellectual movement and

as a practical problem. In my experience there seems to be a gulf

between those who see the postmodern turn as a neo-conservative

reupholstering of the same old corporate trappings, and those who

see it as a long overdue break with modernist doctrines in

education, aesthetics and politics. Of course there are all kinds

of positions in between, depending upon how one sorts out the

optimum route into the next millennium.
However, I think the real gulf is not so much positional as

linguistic. Posture can be as important as politics when it comes to

the intelligentsia. In other words, it may be less important whether

or not you like postmodernism than whether or not you can speak and

write postmodernism. Perhaps you would like to join in conversation

with your local mandarins of cultural theory and all-purpose deep

thinking, but you don’t know what to say. Or, when you do

contribute something you consider relevant, even insightful, you get

ignored or looked at with pity. Here is a quick guide, then, to

speaking and writing postmodern.
First, you need to remember that plainly expressed language is out

of the question. It is too realist, modernist and obvious.

Postmodern language requires that one uses play, parody and

indeterminacy as critical techniques to point this out. Often this

is quite a difficult requirement, so obscurity is a

well-acknowledged substitute. For example, let’s imagine you want

to say something like, “We should listen to the views of people

outside of Western society in order to learn about the cultural

biases that affect us”. This is honest but dull. Take the word

“views”. Postmodernspeak would change that to “voices”, or better,

“vocalities”, or even better, “multivocalities”. Add an adjective

like “intertextual”, and you’re covered. “People outside” is also

too plain. How about “postcolonial others”? To speak postmodern

properly one must master a bevy of biases besides the familiar

racism, sexism, ageism, etc. For example, phallogocentricism

(male-centredness combined with rationalistic forms of binary logic).
Finally “affect us” sounds

like plaid pajamas. Use more obscure verbs and phrases, like

“mediate our identities”. So, the final statement should say, “We

should listen to the intertextual, multivocalities of postcolonial

others outside of Western culture in order to learn about the

phallogocentric biases that mediate our identities”. Now you’re

talking postmodern!
Sometimes you might be in a hurry and won’t have the time to muster

even the minimum number of postmodern synonyms and neologisms needed

to avoid public disgrace. Remember, saying the wrong thing is

acceptable if you say it the right way. This brings me to a second

important strategy in speaking postmodern, which is to use as many

suffixes, prefixes, hyphens, slashes, underlinings and anything else

your computer (an absolute must to write postmodern) can dish out.

You can make a quick reference chart to avoid time delays. Make

three columns. In column A put your prefixes; post-, hyper-, pre-,

de-, dis-, re-, ex-, and counter-. In column B go your suffixes and

related endings; -ism, -itis, -iality, -ation, -itivity, and

-tricity. In column C add a series of well-respected names that

make for impressive adjectives or schools of thought, for example,

Barthes (Barthesian), Foucault (Foucauldian, Foucauldianism),

Derrida (Derridean, Derrideanism).
Now for the test. You want to say or write something like,

“Contemporary buildings are alienating”. This is a good thought,

but, of course, a non-starter. You wouldn’t even get offered a

second round of crackers and cheese at a conference reception with

such a line. In fact, after saying this, you might get asked to

stay and clean up the crackers and cheese after the reception. Go

to your three columns. First, the prefix. Pre- is useful, as is

post-, or several prefixes at once is terrific. Rather than

“contemporary building””, be creative. “The Pre/post/spatialities

of counter-architectural hyper-contemporaneity” is promising. You

would have to drop the weak and dated term “alienating” with some

well suffixed words from column B. How about “antisociality”, or be

more postmodern and introduce ambiguity with the linked phrase,

“antisociality/seductivity”.
Now, go to column C and grab a few names whose work everyone will

agree is important and hardly anyone has had the time or the

inclination to read. Continental European theorists are best when in

doubt. I recommend the sociologist Jean Baudrillard since he has

written a great deal of difficult material about postmodern space.

Don’t forget to make some mention of gender. Finally, add a few

smoothing out words to tie the whole garbled mess together and don’t

forget to pack in the hyphens, slashes and parentheses. What do you

get? “Pre/post/spacialities of counter-architectural

hyper-contemporaneity (re)commits us to an ambivalent

recurrentiality of antisociality/seductivity, one enunciated in a

de/gendered-Baudrillardian discourse of granulated subjectivity”.

You should be able to hear a postindustrial pin drop on the

retrocultural floor.
At some point someone may actually ask you what you’re talking

about. This risk faces all those who would speak postmodern and

must be carefully avoided. You must always give the questioner the

impression that they have missed the point, and so send another

verbose salvo of postmodernspeak in their direction as a

“simplification” or “clarification” of your original statement. If

that doesn’t work, you might be left with the terribly modernist

thought of, “I don’t know”. Don’t worry, just say, “The instability

of your question leaves me with several contradictorily layered

responses whose interconnectivity cannot express the logocentric

coherency you seek. I can only say that reality is more uneven and

its (mis)representations more untrustworthy than we have time here

to explore”. Any more questions? No, then pass the cheese and

crackers.
{Posted to news:alt.humor.best-of-usenet by Andrew C Bulhak on 20

June 1995, found in news:alt.postmodern. – It is also reprinted in “The

Truth About the Truth” (Putnam, $13.95, 1995)}

Laughter is the best medicine… part two

If you have not heard of Cassetteboy then you are missing out. From the Cassetteboy site comes another gem of a video, this time it is what Nick Griffin should of said (or more accurately, what he and very one else knew he was thinking). Please sit back and enjoy these 60 seconds of bliss:

This is how to protest the BNP, not through anger but through satire and with the intention of making them look like the clowns they are.

In the wake of fascism… part two

Whether you like it or not, the BNP have now been on Question Time; unfortunately, the reaction to the show after it was shown maybe a bit ill-judged and short-sighted.

Of course Griffin made a right idiot of himself. When asked about why he used to say what he said about the Holocaust he mentions that ‘I can’t explain why I used to those things’, when discussing with Jack Straw the Second World War and the different ethnic backgrounds fighting for Britain, Griffin launched into a personal family attack on Straw. The panel were dumbfounded by what is a schoolboy tactic by resorting to personal attacks when threatened by a tangible attack on your ideology. Nearly everybody on the panel and in the studio were prepared and firmly against Griffin. And this is the problem.

Griffin knew what he was going to be facing. Sure, he looked like a dimwit, but at the same time he has come across (in the eyes of BNP supporters at least) as misrepresented. The BNP will turn what happened and Question Time as a personal attack on Griffin, the BNP and the ‘indigenous’ British public. They will argue that Griffin never really got to represent what his party stood for. They will argue that he will look like a martyr. And looking back over the show you can see their point. For example, when asked a question not about race or immigration, Griffin said that the sight of two men kissing is ‘creepy’ – we could argue for days on end the extent to which this comment was homophobic, but as soon as he said that there was heckling from the audience. Now I understand this reaction to Griffin, but at the same time this plays into his hands.

What also play into his hands are the protests outside the BBC and the build up to the show. It has to be said that the BBC will, and did, exploit the publicity surrounding the show in order to increase its viewership (around 8 million according to the Guardian). This at the same time gives the BNP so much more publicity than they would of if it was just the show and nothing else. It does not matter that the publicity surrounding the show was opposition to the BNP, as the saying goes, any news is good news. The BNP grow support from exploiting the idea that politicians and elites are out of touch with the ‘common folk’ in Britain, and the strength of opposition will be used by the BNP as examples of how the BNP are the only party that stand for what the ‘common folk’ believe. This is not to say that the ‘common folk’ they are appealing to are racist as you’d notice from last night that issues of race stemmed fully from the panel and the people asking the questions – Griffin, as I have said previously, is a PR man, he knows focusing on race will not win him support. This is supported by a video from YouTube I posted on this blog a few months back which was quoted last night; talking with members of the KKK, Griffin explained that you have to focus your efforts on things such as security and democracy, that if you go out publicising your ideas on race then you will never gain mass support.

Now, I am not suggesting that protestors should stop. I like the idea of wherever the BNP are, UAF or some other group will be as well. However, there was a very interesting interview on BBC News 24 during the day yesterday from the President of YouGov. He suggested that protests should not be based around anger (despite anger being the obvious emotion in this case) but that protests should be based around showing people that Griffin is a pillock. They should be based around custard pies and eggs. They should satirise and embarrass Griffin. This he would argue will make it harder for the BNP to turn the protestors’ anger around to their advantage.

So whilst many of the Twitter and Facebook generations will rejoice at how ridiculous Griffin came across (Twitter and Facebook are not the BNPs target audience), we have to proceed with caution before declaring a victory. It’s too soon to say a battle has been won, but it is safe to say that the war is far from over.

Eric Hobsbawm, Age of Extremes – A Short Twentieth Century – MA Level Review

With this work, Hobsbawm tries to guide us through the history of the twentieth century through his own eyes. This, a period of time other commentators have described as the end of history, has otherwise been acknowledged by Hobsbawm as not his specialist area and as such he notes that not only his, but other historians works on the topic would be influenced by their own life experiences during the period.

It is with this introduction to his work that we can catch a glimpse of the direction this book will take. Hobsbawm was an active member of the Communist Party, and as such it would not be naive of us to assume that this book will focus heavily upon the USSR, the development of communism and a constant attack on capitalism – and this is exactly what this work does.

It is interesting to look at the period that Hobsbawm has chosen as his Short Twentieth Century, starting in 1914 with the start of the First World War and ending in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. This ensures that the whole work is written in the pretext of the USSR being in existence and the ability to parallel capitalist and liberal democracy throughout the period with communism in the USSR.

Divided into three main sections – Age of Catastrophe (Hobsbawm likes to categorise periods of history into ‘Ages’), The Golden Age and The Landslide.

The first third of the book looks at the two world wars, the rise of communism during this period and to a lesser extent the rise and fall of fascism – both of which have been tied together with a chapter on the crisis of liberal democracy. Hobsbawm brushes aside socialism and social democracy in favour of focusing fully on communism, and especially Soviet, Marxist and Leninist communism – Hobsbawm even goes as far to mentioning the role of Trotsky and Trotskyism in the development of communism only in passing.

Hobsbawm within his introduction to this work correctly makes the point that history should be all encompassing, this means that history should not just focus upon the elites and what did happen, but also upon how decisions and events effected the society as a whole.  It is therefore surprising that this first third of the book is highly a narrative of events and the development of ideology. Hobsbawm notes how the First and Second World Wars were the first truly total wars that effected all aspects of a society (there is room for debate here as a civil war would effect all of a countries society as well), however, he does not examine the extent of the impacts of war upon the people in a country. Take for example the effect of the Luftwaffe’s Blitz upon the peoples of London. There is still a debate here as to whether the war had a unifying impact upon London’s citizens, or whether this united front perpetrated during and after the war was essentially a myth.

But this would go against what the book is really about. Hobsbawm seems to have not gone out with the intention to add to the historiographical debate on twentieth century history – he is, as he mentions, a historian who specialises mainly in nineteenth century history. It is with this context that an examination of the further two sections of the book can be taken. Furthermore, this book is a study of the economical ideological history of the twentieth century, so there is no room for Hobsbawm to talk about world changing events such as the Holocaust, the Civil Rights movement in the US or apartheid in South Africa. Although, perhaps inclusion of events such as the Holocaust would lead Hobsbawm to look at Stalin’s own purges and as such question a Stalinist and Soviet system that Hobsbawm appears to be loyally defending.

The following two parts, The Golden Age and The Landslide are very dependent upon each other in order to piece together Hobsbawm’s train of thought. Whilst the Age of Catastrophe set the background to the later twentieth century, these two parts paint the picture of the state of the world in 1991.

The Golden Age is the period of time, 1950-1975, that Hobsbawm sees as the glorious period of capitalism and also the stability of Soviet communism. Far from living in harmony, both systems – assured of mutually agreed destruction – flourished during this period (this applies mainly to capitalism). The Landslide looks at the beginning of the end of the USSR and communism, the faults of capitalism and the rise of social democracy as an attempt to find the ‘middle way’. As we would have come to expect from Hobsbawm the Landslide begins and ends with the fall and collapse of the USSR as a world power.

Throughout the work, Hobsbawm has attempted to bring into the history of the twentieth century the impact of ideologies on other parts of the world, from Asia to the Far East, to Latin America to the Third World – although it is firstly within Europe and then later in the USA and USSR that key movements and ideologies in the world develop, and it is the combination of these three entities that shape the period. Going back to the Age of Catastrophe, Hobsbawm seems strained to include ‘the rest of the world’ in his chapters, often as a side section towards the end of a chapter. He does pay more attention later in his work to the Third World (Africa) as he devotes whole chapters to this topic.

The other aspect of Hobsbawm’s work is the devotion given to art and culture by assessing art during 1914-1945 and then 1950-1991. Even here however, Hobsbawm cannot get away from his commitment to Avant-garde as he seems to bemoan its demise in the later half of the twentieth century. As this work focuses heavily on ideology and economy, the inclusion of the arts is a rather peculiar one. I have previously mentioned that focusing on economics allows Hobsbawm to sugar over sociological issues such as the Holocaust, but then this narrative of the development of art and culture seems to contradict this.

Hobsbawm also gives attention to the developments in science and technology during the Short Twentieth Century, as even Hobsbawm acknowledges that technology has shaped the world by the date his work was published.

It should be said, that despite his attention to communism (which of course played a huge role in twentieth century politics, economics, culture and society), The Age of Extremes is an extremely good starting point for historians interested in the twentieth century, or for anyone interested in what factors have shaped the world that we currently live in. Although I have only briefly suggested discrepancies in Hobsbawm’s analysis it would be ridiculous for Hobsbawm to try and assess every sociological aspect of the short century in what is already an extensive piece of work. That would be more relevant to multiple volumes. But Hobsbawm’s extensive use of reference material and the powerful construction of the narrative and his arguments are merits to the long career of this esteemed historian.

Mattism

The only way to understand the present is by understanding the past, as Tertuliano Maximo Afonso (or should I say Jose Saramago) explained “the only serious discussion to be taken as regards the teaching of history is whether we should teach it from back to front or from front to back”- in that from studing history from front to back you can start to unravel why today’s world is the way it is. That is why I study history. I did so at degree level and I am doing so at masters level. I do this to understand, to learn, to develop, and this is how I see my politics.

Although I consider myself ‘of the Left’ and I full-heartedly disagree with those policies that are associated with those ‘on the Right’, I detest the notion of ‘party line’. As with Orwell, I am unable to find my positioning on the Left, although I am a supporter of the Green Party. I dislike the terminology of ideology, although I believe that ideology is the most important aspect of world development and politics.

It may seem from these comments that I am confused as to my place in the world, but let me assure you I am certain in my standing. We should not be bound by the terms of ideology and the party line. As described I see myself ‘of the Left’, but then the Left can be considered within the bounds of the Communists and Anarchists, to New Labour and arguably (and very loosely) to the BNP- and I feel no affiliation whatsoever to any of these political groupings, especially the later two. My beliefs and political understandings are continuously evolving and will continue to do so throughout my life. So please don’t assert upon me the same views as those on the Left are ‘supposed’ to believe. There is no correct party line to follow to utopia.

Any of those who consider themselves firm in their beliefs or believe they are ideologically sound are denying themselves. They are denying themselves the joys of knowledge, of ideological evolution. They are also denying everyone else of a better life, although this only really applies when in power. Beliefs and ideology should evolve from the ability to learn and to the benefit of society. Of course this does not open the doors from being a Communist one year to a Fascist the next then to a religious fundamentalist the year after. Principles and belief can still evolve along the ideological path you wish to take, but they should not be bound by a particular party line or for what you believe you should believe.

I am forever leaping through spouts of political activism and ‘normal’ life, desperate for things to change but then longing for a simple place in the world I can call my own and live undisturbed by the most serious of stresses of the outside world. I join political activism groups that interest me in which I am mostly active but sometimes dormant but then the affiliation at least feels me with hope in that there are some people out there fighting for what I consider to be right and I am not alone.

Politics is of course about improving the lives of the population and finding the best path to which to do that, so in that sense I believe that the main difference between the left and the right is the disagreement in that path we should take. I do not believe that New Labour and the Tories serve only by self-interest, but at the same time I believe that the electoral system and the attitude of voters (or should I say non-voters) has dramatically changed the shape of what is the majority. Of course it is the voters voice that shapes the country and the less who vote the more direct line the country takes which of course may not suit the population. This is where the self-interest in human nature takes its shape and distorts the reality of the way people really feel.

I also don’t see the country as ‘going down the pits’, this is only the reaction of the right-wing media to issues that are indeed mishandled but not to blame such as immigration and political correctness for example, the later of which I believe is a consequence of right-wing affluence.

I will continue to fight my corner and develop my understanding of the world and what I think needs to be done, but I do ask, before you tell me what you think I believe to ask me first and I will bestow upon you the same graciousness of the absence of ignorance that people tend to forget when discussing politics with a ‘Leftie’.

But until then, please consider my belief’s, my ideology, my understanding as ‘under construction’ for the long foreseeable future.

[Taken directly from the page 'Mattism']

What’s Left; What’s Right

“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.” – J. Krishnamurti,

An interesting debate has ensued from the corners of the Liberal Conspiracy website and the BNP’s two European election successes that have led to me to question my presentation of political understanding. That is; what is left, what is right?

It is true that when talking about the BNP we (that includes me) correctly use the term far-right (ultra-nationalist, fascist and racist are also accurate). But then again, are they? Tim Montgomerie, a conservative, has written a letter to the BBC to ask them to properly reflect the BNP’s ‘true’ ideological position on the political spectrum. He argues that instead of being classed as far-right they should be considered far-left. And depending on which way you look at it and the level of your political ignorance, he could have a point. Economically the BNP are a party who believe in big state, in nationalisation, in government intervention and protectionism- traditional positions attributed to the left and socialism. (In essence, their ideology stems from Strasserist economics- that money and big companies are being controlled by the Jews, but then also remember that Karl Marx once wrote: “Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand… The God of the Jews has become secularised and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange”).

On the flipside, the left (including general liberalism) have been more open to encompass ideologies such as freedom of movement and expression, civil liberties, human rights. These are certainly not what the BNP stand for. Contrary to this we see New Labour who is considered as centre-left bringing about the destruction of civil liberties and the Tories have become the self-proclaimed vanguard of them. Is this left/right wing politics getting muddled? (Maybe the Tories are just fighting ‘big state’?).

One way of looking upon this is the humble evolution of the political compass. During the Cold War it was a case of you being left, right or centre. Now when you take a simple online quiz to find out what you are you have a Z axis, Y axis, X axis and the other one that no-one can remember the name. You still have the typical left/right wing axis, but now you also have the social axis – authoritarian and libertarian.

Perhaps this is a consequence of the troubles with Stalinism. He was supposed to be left wing, communist in fact, which places him traditionally on the far-left, but the repression he placed upon his people and even his own party members makes him extremely authoritarian. So socially links could be made between the BNP and Stalinism, but they can also begin to be made when it comes to economic policies. But if Stalin was indeed a communist (open to debate but I say no) then does that mean the BNP are?

The fact that the BNP are touted as pulling in a lot of the New Labour vote looks like it supports this idea. The left look towards the working class as the majority, they say the working classes represent the repressed majority. The BNP are directing policies towards the working classes and are also saying they are representing the repressed majority, albeit in a racist way by describing the ridiculous notion of the repressed ‘indigenous’ white majority.

Nick Griffin himself describes the BNP as being outside of left/right wing politics. They choose (sick) issues and (sick) policies that they believe in and to them they don’t fit anywhere on the spectrum.

However no-one wants to be associated with the BNP. Even though some of the centre-right are calling the BNP far-right they are much more in favour of pushing them off to the far-left like Montgomerie is trying to do. One example you can find on comment sections on blogs is by using the name ‘national socialism’ (Nazis) as an example of them being socialist (obviously the same way that the German Democratic Republic was indeed democratic…). In turn the left are pushing them to the far-right. Neither side want to be associated with them, but both sides want the other side to be. To have the BNP be on ‘your’ wing is to announce to the world that what you believe in is only a few doors away from them.

Perhaps Mr Griffin is actually right for a change. Perhaps they don’t belong on either side. Perhaps there is more to politics than left and right. Why is it that people are always classed as left/right/centre?

I personally do class myself as left wing, most things I believe in stem from the left wing ideology. I am proud of ‘belonging’ to the left. However, I don’t associate myself in anyway with New Labour, Stalinism or if they can be considered to be, the BNP- even though they are supposed to also be on the left. Perhaps what we need is this scraping of the left/right associations. The world and politics existed before left/right wing terminology was used, indeed the terminology first evolved with in France and then through Marxist ideology. It also stems from a Cold War positioning, us and them. A way to explain what is happening and what you believe. But why do things have to be so black and white? Even with the new direction political compasses’ are taking people still want to place you on either the left or right with the only alterations being ‘far-‘ and centre-‘.

Taking away these associations is not going to lead to the destruction of left/right ideology and everything in between. Instead it could lead to increased political freedom and understanding. If you are on the left and you like one specific policy from the right, you no longer need to try and ‘reclaim it for the left’. You won’t be bound by thinking ‘I can’t believe in that because it’s a right wing position and I’m on the left. In essence you can pick and choose policies that fit the world or your country best without fear of ‘selling out to the left/right’. These theoretical positions bind us down. Removing the word ‘left wing’ from my thinking is not going to mean that I don’t believe in nationalising the banks anymore, nor does it mean that I think we should tax the rich less, but what it does mean is that it takes away a mental wall that allows others in. Go round telling people you’re left wing then half the world won’t listen to you because they’re right wing, but tell people that your policies and beliefs develop to the needs and best interests of the people you serve then people are more likely to listen. As Krishnamurti said, “When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence”.

[this piece is intended for discussion, debate and evolution]

In the wake of fascism…

So now the dust has settled on a night labelled as ‘a punishment to the left in Europe’ and we find ourselves with two ultra-nationalist fascist salesmen ‘representing’ us in the European Parliament.

The first reactions from anyone on the left are going to be one of disbelief and shock; I am guilty to early morning bouts of hysteria. However, as the day has passed and the events of the previous night have sunk in my understanding of the future of British politics has developed into a new kind of comprehension and hope.

Let me start with the cons of having Brons and Griffin as MEP’s. The first is that they are there to represent us. Unlike UKIP who deliberately vote ‘no’ to every motion regardless of its benefit to the UK (including to EU plans to track child molesters), the BNP representatives in the name of indigenous British people (am I apart of this?) will happily vote on motions to put towards the European Commission that help bolster their racist message. On the upside, they are only two MEP’s out of a parliament of 736, but the diarrhoea will still be coming out of their mouths “on behalf of the indigenous British people”.

The most serious damage coming from the BNP result is that which is inflicted upon New Labour.  Their wins came at the expense of New Labour and their votes which will give New Labour the belief that they can win these voters back. New Labour Minister Andy Burnham has already said that “There are concerns about immigration… the Government have to get a response to those concerns”. As if the UK government’s immigration policy is not strict enough, it seems it will get ignorantly stricter to appease former New Labour voters.

Furthermore any hope of effective electoral reform is bound to be dashed now. Despite its flaws Proportional Representation is often touted as the best alternative to replace First Past the Post as the most commonly used system in the UK. However, as it was PR that allowed the BNP to win their seats the main parties can use this excuse to dismiss PR electoral reform. Here’s to the status quo, New Labour, Tory and LibDems leading the majorities in Westminster far into the future, all in the name of stopping the rise of fascism.

But then it is not all doom and gloom. Having two MEP’s is very much likely to destroy the BNP. By being forced more into the political mainstream their actions can be more widely scrutinised without the claims of ‘fringe party’ and ‘left-wing hysteria’ being thrown at them. During the BBC coverage of the EU election results Jeremy Vine suggested that current BNP councillors in places like Burnley had lost some of their support because the public could see how awful they were in local government. Times this with non-stop scrutiny throughout most of the major press for the next five years and we could well see the implosion of the BNP vote come 2014.

Importantly, it is a safe bet to suggest that a huge majority of those who thought about voting for BNP actually did so. The passion of racists who actually believe in the BNP’s message or those who just want to perform a serious protest vote would have voted. Any remaining votes the BNP would have got if everyone had voted will be small in number and so they will have to rely on selling their brand of racism even more effectively than they already have, unless the left are even better prepared.

Perhaps another plus point is that this could actually help destroy a part of the British public’s apathy. There are people I have spoken to who have accused me of hyping up the BNP threat, suggesting that people will not really vote for them to the extent to giving them any kind of serious representation. Well now that opinion will change, helped by the media hyping up the story. It may force people to go out and vote in the next elections because they are now recognised as a threat.

This could transcend to other ‘fringe’ parties who are considered too small to make a change, too small to vote for. Well now we see that the smaller parties do attract enough votes to win seats in elections. Granted this is a consequence of Proportional Representation, but it could offer that glimmer of hope, a glimmer that will benefit parties like the Greens. For too long the Greens have been pushed to the dark corners of the newspapers. Despite already having two MEP’s, their support ever increasing and the prospect of national electoral breakthrough in places like Brighton, the response of some mainstream media to the party is one of blankness. It is if they are too nice to really attract voters or of the ignorant belief that voters are bored of the ‘go green’ message, as if that is all the Green Party stands for. You can already see that the party to gain the biggest percentage increase in votes in the EU elections is the Green Party, going up 2.4%, much more than the Conservatives (+1%), UKIP (+0.3%) or the BNP (+1.3%).

The most important result of the BNP’s success is that this is going to re-energise the left and British politics. Brons and Griffin are now the biggest indication that ideology politics can still lead to success. The transparency between politicians, New Labour and the Tories has become so diluted that people are searching for an alternative and the only effectively marketed alternative has come from the far right. Well now is the chance for the left to learn from the BNP. Throughout the election campaign I heard nothing from any serious left-wing party (accept the Greens) without going out there to find out about parties myself. For those who are not interested in going to find these parties but still would vote then what chance do they have?

It is also a chance for the left to properly ‘unite’ against the BNP. Sure there are superb campaigns such as Hope Not Hate and Unite Against Fascism that have helped to do this to some extent, but there were still those on the left who did not believe that the BNP were any sort of a threat.  It is going to force the left together, it will be a case of unite or die, especially if the left really did take the sort of pounding around Europe that the EU results have suggested. (Here is a good article that suggests that across Europe the left did score more votes, but because there is more apparent unity on the right the vote was split between the different leftist parties- already one anarchist commentator has suggested that the Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party are looking at some kind of ‘agreement’).

The next 5 years are going to be exciting, especially if the BNP win a few MP’s as well (I’d rather they do not), as British politics is going to be revitalised- ideology is going to start to rule again. Come the next election when New Labour get kicked out they are going to go through some soul searching to rediscover their leftist routes, far right politics is going to be acknowledged (if not accepted), and the need for a serious alternative is going to allow space for the left to speak up and be counted again.

All you fascists (are bound to lose)

All You Fascists

I’m gonna tell you fascists
You may be surprised
The people in this world
Are getting organized
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose

Race hatred cannot stop us
This one thing we know
Your poll tax and Jim Crow
And greed has got to go
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose.

All of you fascists bound to lose:
I said, all of you fascists bound to lose:
Yes sir, all of you fascists bound to lose:
You’re bound to lose! You fascists:
Bound to lose!

People of every color
Marching side to side
Marching ‘cross these fields
Where a million fascists dies
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose!

I’m going into this battle
And take my union gun
We’ll end this world of slavery
Before this battle’s won
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose!

Song by Billy Bragg on Mermaid Avenue II, words by Woody Gunthrie

Ecosocialist

I am unashamedly an eco-socialist, and I would like to share with you two pieces that make interesting reading and which help frame my mind set. Saying that, my political mind set is a hectic place, so over the next few weeks I will hopefully show you what I specifically belief in and what I would do if I had the power on the page ‘Mattism’. Enjoy.

The Ecosocialist Manifesto

By Joel Kovel and Michael Lowy (September 2001)

The twenty-first century opens on a catastrophic note, with an unprecedented degree of ecological breakdown and a chaotic world order beset with terror and clusters of low-grade, disintegrative warfare that spread like gangrene across great swathes of the planet—viz., central Africa, the Middle East, Northwestern South America—and reverberate throughout the nations. In our view, the crises of ecology and those of societal breakdown are profoundly interrelated and should be seen as different manifestati

ons of the same structural forces.

Vote Cock!

Are you feeling the Tory blues? Do New Labour make you turn red? Are the yellows way too mellow? Do the Greens make you queasy and do the BNP and UKIP actually make you spew? Well, have you ever considered writing ‘COCK’ across your European Election ballot paper?

With too many parties not representing what you believe and politicians becoming more distrustful by the day, it is an attractive option not to cast your democratic vote and to throw it into the bin out of a matter of protest.

But have you considered the damage you are doing to society?

Imagine today’s political landscape with New Labour in power and the Tories waiting outside Number 10 with a sledgehammer, the LibDems are far behind, with the Greens and ‘the others’ lurking nearby. You feel that none of these parties represent you, so you refuse to vote, or you feel a party like the Greens does, but you refuse to vote because ‘they are never going to get into power’. Well a refusal to vote is only going to strengthen the New Labour/Tory dominance of government and they will never ever represent you or do things in your interest. Why, I hear you ask.

Look at the situation like this, in this example there are 210 voters in total:

Party A have 100 diehard voters who will always vote for them.

Party B have 80 diehard voters who will always vote for them.

There are 30 voters who don’t know who to vote for, or are thinking of not voting.

Who are the party’s going to target policies towards? That’s right, the 30 voters. If parties already have their diehard voters then they are much more willing to create policies for the other 30 voters to encourage them to vote for them, either to get into power (Party B) or to consolidate power (Party A).

Now if the 30 didn’t vote at all because they didn’t like any of the parties or felt the party they wanted never will get into power then Party A will create policies that benefit their own diehard voters and Party B will have more policies like Party A in order to attract Party A’s voters and get into power. They become the same, and politics/democracy becomes diluted.

Let’s now say for example that Party A and Party B are both right-wing, both still with 100 diehards and 80 diehards respectively. A new party, Party C, comes along who are left-wing, and those 30 turn to Party C because they are different to Party A and B. In an attempt to win back those 30 votes, Party A and B will create a few more left-wing policies in order to turn those 30 towards them, but still keep policies that are right-wing in order to keep their diehards voting for them instead of switching between Parties A and B (because they are the same). There is therefore a lot more choice and parties are becoming more representative.

That is why it is important to vote.

But still you may argue there is no party that represents me!

That maybe true, but did you know that in the UK spoilt ballot papers are still considered as part of the voting turnout. That means if 100 people vote and a Party has 20 votes (diehards or not) that Party will look at winning over the other 80 voters- even if those 80 put in spoilt ballot papers because it is shown that 100 people will vote.

Party’s will only direct policies at those who do vote. Why should they worry about those who don’t vote, especially when things like SCOPA stop you protesting.

So even if there isn’t a party that tickles your fancy still cast your vote, but just make sure across the ballot paper in big bold letters you write ‘THE BNP ARE SICK DISGUSTING RACIST COCKS’