Censorship and Extremism

With particular reference to the five individuals who were nearly imprisoned for five years for accessing ‘extremist’ material on the web and right-wing think tanks claiming not enough is done to combat ‘extremism’ in immigrant communities, one has to ask: how far will the pursuance of Thought Crimes go?

Maybe fortunately for people such as myself, who feels justifying accessing material from http://www.brightonabc.org.uk/index.htm - headlines http://www.earthfirst.org/ http://www.londonclasswar.org/ which would all be considered ‘extremist’ but an understanding of different beliefs is a mark of a mature civilisation.

Except ‘white’ extremism is almost never mentioned; some of the things I’ve read on the Green Anarchy Facebook group would be considered offensive to say the least, and at least as provocative as promoting ‘Jihad’, but ‘Green’ terror is almost never mentioned in the media over here and, in a way, this is racist as it basically assumes that all white/indigenous people think in the same way or are only influenced by outsiders. They cannot make their own decisions about things, which is precisely what censorship assumes. So, basically, we’re all too stupid to make rational choices on our own (but not too stupid to vote, I’ve often wondered about that).

Back to the proposed five year prison sentence (the individuals were let off), I can guarantee you that someone convicted of Death By Dangerous Driving would get a more lenient sentence. I bet if someone got into their car and just started reversing deliberately until they hit someone, the most they’d get’d be maybe eight years, less if good behaviour inside. The only way a motorist would get a more severe sentence would be if they’d stolen the car they were in when any offences were caused, which almost makes a driving licence a licence to murder.

Immigrant communities. All the 7/7 bombers were born in the UK, the problem, if there is one and surely 7/7 is a wake up call, is in/with the UK.

If politicians were sentient starships.....

David Blunkett: Knee (Jerk)-class "Tunnel Vision"

Gordon Brown: GSV "Prudence Through Poonds"

Tony Blair: ROU :"Don't worry, there won't be a War Crimes tribunal"

David Cameron: Chameleon-class "Anything you can do....."

http://www.gopetition.com/online/16745.html

"There's Black people..and then there's..."


CLASS-the forgotten taboo.


Quoting some Chris Rock there, I wish idiots like him would ask themselves WHY *******'s 'shoot up' cinemas, refuse to take responsibility or get a job or are generally ignorant about seemingly anything instead of just blaming them for doing so.
The same attitude exists in this country re. 'chavs'; they do this and that but there is no analysis and no-one asks 'why do they act so alienated?'
Has everyone forgotten abut CLASS or the fact that 1 millon blacks are in US jails?
Or how some sections of society/in some areas find it very difficult to find decent work?

Hope this flows OK..

How do you react as an anti-authoritarian when people claim you are being "authoritarian" or "statist". Or when people claim,well, that people like us are "being preachy".


Do they even understand what authority is? or do we need to redefine it? Or do only anarchists understand the difference between your boss exploiting you and, for example, one pulling a child out of the road if they are about to be hit by a car (or simply shouting out).


Is it the non-spontaneous nature of Authority that they are somehow blind or addicted to, as if they can't make decisons on their own?Or are people so sick of being told what to do all the time they are unwilling to differentiate between orders and advice?


I think the point is that because some people are so selfish, to the point of living in their own world and understanding everything from their perspective only, and because there are so many of them that a kind of self-aware individualism is inevitable in some people,such as myself.


This is different from selfish-objectivism or the lack of self-awareness that
results from/ leads to worshipping a fictional entity, such as money and nation states, or the Queen of England.


Wage slavery is hardly individualistic in any meaningful way if you have to work every waking hour in a job you hate just to keep a roof over your head. Surely respect for one's own individuality requires one to have the self-awareness to respect that of other's?

What is the point of a 'free market' if houses are left empty?

The whole idea of a free market is a complete lie:
surely the laws of supply and demand apply to housing,
so that if a house is empty its (rental) price should go
down until it is occupied.

This won't happen partly due to greed but also
because it would make enfranchise the very
people at the bottom of society-a homeless
person could pay a months rent for two quid.
If there are fewer homeless this way it may
be more difficult to evict people/they would
be paying much less than anyone else does
for a mortgage so the people least likely
to own a home can have virtual ownership
of one!

The reason this doesn't happen is the need
by capital for continual exploitation: workers
have to earn more money and work full-time even if
they live in poor housing.

The stuff about Zionism may or may not be true, but there is a history of both anti-Semitism
and conspiracy theories in the footsoldiers/voters of the US Right.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/390828.html

America has a strong history of Individualism from before
Benjamin Tucker (the Founding Fathers are often quoted
by Libertarian types) and maybe would have genuinely
gone that way (especially considering
the lack of real difference between the corporatism of the
US and the State-Capitalism of the 'Soviet' Union) without
a mythical enemy to fight against (again, any real analysis/
comparison of US/USSR would reveal that the only difference
is the strength of the military-prison-industrial complex in the
US versus the One-Party nature of the USSR

http://youtube.com/watch?v=j1fH3YpQciQ&feature=related

23 Theses on the Unconditional Basic Income
Author: Theophil Wonneberger

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/390637.html


11. Financing from a resource tax is another sensible possibility
with many advantages.

This would be the most elegant way of simultaneously establishing
social justice and protecting the atmosphere.

Environmental pollution and resource consumption decline
when they are taxed. If the tax revenues were distributed evenly to
everyone, excessiveconsumers would be automatically penalized
and environmentally-conscious behaviorrewarded. Such an eco-tax
would be accepted by the people.


21. That the basic income should be paid out without return favor is
often criticized.

Whoever is against automatic income should take offense at the
capital incomes that are also without return favor. While the
unconditional basic income is democratically resolved,
distributed evenly to everyone and covers existential needs, capital
incomesare undemocratic, distributed extremely unequally and grow
ever more quickly.


23. Introducing an unconditional basic income certainly does not
mean the end of allexploitation. However it can be the foundation
on which people can free themselvesfrom coercions and create
possibilities for the further development of the whole
society.

The Dehumanisation of the Underclass

This isn't meant to be a stereotypical view of w/c Brits, it is a critique
of the way elements in and influencing the Labour Party have used the
two issues to divide and alienate the working class.


If we take the fact that 800,000 people voted BNP in the 2004 European
election and that there are 300,000 heroin addicts in the UK, imagine
what would happen if a political movement as strong as these numbers
were to combine?

and I'm not talking about STWC, although it may have ruffled some feathers
in the more reactionary elements of the elite


Its often stated that increased BNP votes is a reflection of increased Labour
failure. But what if 'the people at the top' wanted this to happen?
It's similar to heroin use, which is why
I included it: the exact situation doesn't matter, what matters is that people
are fed up enough and want change enough to have the power collectively
to change society but are so alienated that they are diverted with anti-social
tendencies, and more importantly this is deliberately accelerated.


Drug prohibition doesn't work and imprisoning addicts (and the mentally ill,
children etc) certainly doesn't work. Prohibition in fact seems to increase
the number of addicts, most of whom are trying to deal with childhood trauma.


A further (well, worse than) patronising attitude to working class people
was revealed in a short reading of "Wasting Police Time". The chapter
on "the underclass" seemed to imply that you can tell if someone is "scum"
if they watch "Trishia". The numbers of "scum" apparently amount to two
million, presumably revealed by the viewing figures
of "Trishia". Apparently a very small number of students etc watch "Trishia"
for ironic reasons, the majority are still scum, presumably because they
have small children to look after.


Shows up the "high reasoning abilities" of British Pigs!


He then went on to blame women for being victims of domestic violence,
because "when you come round they've got bruises on their knuckles".
Aren't people allowed to defend themselves? And not to sound patronising
myself, but couples can and do have some quite vicious arguments.