OK, so that human sacrifice post didn't work 'cos none of you have read it. May update at a later time, this is just to remind myself really. Things are sunny, just about.

Turn off your TV http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/368562.html

Howard's end http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/368559.html

No borders, no limits http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/368569.html

(oh, can change fonts now!)

9/11 "Truth" stuff-not watched the video in library, but should prolly pass on.
Here's the link http://mparent7777.blogspot.com/2007/04/senator-john-kerry-wtc-7-was-controlled.html

The Question of Violence

The organised use of violence cannot be justified, especially for offensive or “proactive” purposes. Organised violence can only be combated by passive means or by spontaneous, disorganised, individual violence. The reason for this is that the use of organised violence, as a method of struggle and even if this does not lead to tyranny, always provides an excuse for opponents to use the same tactics, thus leading to tyranny and arbitrary violence.

Of course, in any war both sides usually claim their cause is just, but if this were always true, this would be obvious to all non-participants. In this case, and especially in industrialised warfare, the non-participants would be able to enforce the peace in favour of one side by peacefully denying support to the other. If one side is right, everyone will see this and the wrong sides ability to make war will be defeated by organised labour. In this fashion, the threat of wildcat strikes may have kept Spain’s neutrality during WW2.

Although disorganised or unsupported violence can be a useful method of struggle, it cannot be an end in itself. However, it can be combated by peaceful means, such as strikes and other forms of Non-Violent Direct Action.

£100 billion Deficit=Command Economy

According to the “UK Independence Party” Website £100 billion is “wasted” on benefits. With the amount spent on Social Services (i.e. benefits, pensions everything) totalling £150-£180 billion each year, to remove more than half of this amount would likely result in the closing of every Social Services department in the country and massive pension cuts at the very least, affecting the most vulnerable members of society. This in of itself does not give any indication of UKIP tax policy, but if we can assume that the £100 billion deficit would result in the same amount of tax cuts, for the NHS or Social Services or Pensions to continue or survive the most likely result in massive increases in Council Tax to pay for this.

If we look at the “policies” of both the Daily Mail and the British National Party, who both want a removal of the Income Tax burden by abolishing Income Tax entirely (and, in the case of the Daily Mail, Inheritance Tax as well), we can see that a similarly radical reduction (or elimination) of public and social services would result, with an end to the NHS being most likely.

What would be the likely effect on other aspects of the state with such, apparent, tax cuts? As far as Housing Benefit is concerned, I would expect, radical as it first sounds, getting rid of the Police would be the more likely option (the State would always keep the Army in case of Civil Crisis or Unrest). Most people taking up Housing Benefit are in work but are not paid enough to pay both their rent and support their children; they are pensioners; or they are on sickness benefits. In other words, more than the number of unemployed of working age or single mothers in the country receiving Housing Benefit. This adds up to over seven million people (an educated guess). It would be impossible to evict all these (potential voters) over a short period of time without massively increasing the number of Police to do this as such a task could never feasibly be done privately. This point also shows up the reluctance of both the main political parties and the right-wing press and fringe parties to increase real wages and pensions.

The alternative with these radical tax cuts would be either to abolish Representative Democracy (in order to abolish Housing Benefit without effectively abolishing Private Property as well) or to abolish the Police (here is where the BNP ’s position is exposed)!

In modern Britain there is a tension between maintaining a façade of Law and Order, the Dictates of Capital which keep real wages down (hence the need for effective wage subsidies in the form of Housing and Child Benefits and the NHS) and the demands of property owners to preserve the antiquated notion of Private Property (which now conflict with Capital as it demands such low wages for manual and unskilled workers and which cannot be met entirely by Imported Labour). It is important to mention Immigrant Labour (as well as refugees, foreign students etc), as simply limiting “the franchise” (voting) to property owners would place the property-less on the same side as the state-less, making it in the direct interests of both to destroy the institutions of State and Private Property! The relationship between wages and private property is a simple one: if one works, one must provide more labour than is required to simply put food on the table.

The cost of the Police is about £30 billion a year, while Housing Benefit (at a guess) cannot be more than £50 billion a year. The cost of getting rid of Housing Benefit would be much more. To employ enough Police to cover the inevitable evictions would easily be another £30 billion. To provide Work Camps, National Service or similar measures would cost even more and turn Britain into a Police State. To not evict the numbers required in a specific amount of time could mean that only select groups would be evicted (or only some groups would receive Housing Benefit). In other words: discrimination. The alternative would be to allow people to stay in their homes without having to pay rent, which would put landlords out of business. As people renting would refuse to pay, Private Property would become meaningless!

To preserve the interests of the Middle and Property-Owning classes, I would expect Housing Benefit never to be abolished, even if all other State Benefits were to go, along with the NHS. This would allow real wages to continue to decrease for the low-paid, so long as Housing Benefit is a universal guarantee unless the recipient is single and earning over £150 per week.

This shows how less-statist measures like State Benefits prevent, effectively, National Socialism: an Undemocratic Statist Command Economy in the Nation’s (read: Capital and Property) Interests. It also shows up the ridiculous concept of limiting a possible “minimal state” to only having a Capitalist Mode of Production.