This is part 3 of my Blogging with pop-culture references saga. In the time-honoured tradition of trilogies, Godfather III, Matrix Revolutions, Pirates III, Rush Hour III, this one should be shit. So, I'll try my best... (besides, Rush Hour was shit anyway)

Unless you've been living in a cave on Mars for the last week and a half (and if you have, bravo!) then you've probably heard all about this bail-out business. Basically the American taxpayer is going to "bail out" the financial institutions in their country to the tune of 700 billion dollars. (Side note: I don't know what the tune of that much money sounds like, but I'm guessing somewhere near "Money, Money Money" by Abba, or Ted DiBiasi's entrance music)

Anyway, that’s a lot of money. In Michael Jackson terms, that’s 31, 318 kids worth of out of court settlements. As Neo would say, “Woh”.

My understanding of the term "bail out" is that its derived from bailing out water on a sinking ship. As such, its only a short term measure, the boat still sinks, just more slowly. Now, if there’s a hole in your boat, you have 2 options. Get to shore. Or die. Shouldn’t we let the banks die, I mean isn’t that the whole point of free markets? Its a dog eat dog, “it’s a jungle out there” mentality, right? Right?

Of course if the banks did go under, then everyone would lose in the short term. At least this way, everyone loses in the long term. And Bush has only got like 1/16 of a term left, so, he’ll be laughing all the way to the…well, the place where the bank used to be. It’ll be Obama/McCain/Palin/Other Guy who’s left to pick up the pieces.

Forget about all that though. Its all the way across the pond, miles away. Its not affecting us. Problem is, just like Desperate Housewives, American shit seems to find its way over here way too easily. We’ll all be looking at something similar soon. And then it gets really complicated. Bailing out a bank, or indeed nationalising one, stinks of socialism, something Republicans in the states are already struggling with. Its enough to make Dave (‘call me David’) Cameron’s head explode. He’s already had to announce an ingenious sitting-on-the-fence measure whereby the Bank of England would take over failing banks. They’re independent you see, so that’s fine. He’s neither pandering to the left or the right, just teetering in the middle. Classic Cameron.

Aaah, I’ve had enough. This financial doom and gloom is too depressing, and complicated. Don’t you just yearn for the days when Credit Crunch was a breakfast cereal? And the front page of the newspaper was devoted to Jordan’s latest footballer love slave? Simpler times, when Northern Rock was what you bought when you went to Blackpool, and bankers were only suspected of being immoral, money-grabbing jerks? I do. But it seems those times are gone, disappearing from view like Arnie dissolving into the acid at the end of Terminator 2. Although there’s a thumbs up, to give you hope, you know anywhere the franchise goes after this is downhill. Terminator 3? Now that really is a disappointing 3rd instalment.

---The Doctor is being struck off. Bye. He has been selling prescriptions on the side to pay for his HBO habit. Besides, the hero usually dies at the end of the trilogy anyway.---

II

The history of all hitherto society is the history of antagonisms. These antagonisms have taken many shapes. They are historical and contingent articulations of discourse but are no less ‘real’ for it. The frontiers of antagonisms that separate ‘us’ from ‘them’ can be moved, displaced, deconstructed. It is not one class against the other. Class is but one articulation. The nature of the groups that oppose themselves antagonistically, their very identity is resultant of these frontiers. These frontiers can never be dissolved in a final Hegelian synthesis; but will remain with us always. Some frontiers however are better than others. Who decides what is better? We must all have a role to play here. Suffering must be our benchmark! Suffering is our enemy. We may never eliminate frontiers but we must contest the most insidious ones in the name of constructing better ones. The frontier between the citizens of a nation and immigrants, if antagonistic must be challenged, its contingency exposed. These frontiers exclude. We must pay attention to who is excluded and construct international democratic frameworks which are sensitive and critical of these exclusions. These exclusions may be constitutive of what is included; but this simply means that contestation must be ongoing and that history (in this sense) can never end. We must continue to contest and be critical of all exclusions even down to the animal kingdom. For if human rights why not animal rights too?
The advanced societies that go to war and preach peace have seen the reaction against their views as those without planes or guns, those called terrorists, fight back. Peace is the privilege of the rich and not a right. All politics is violence in the last instance. We must not be afraid of challenging the suffering of many through violence. The state will always use violence and violent resistance to the state is no less legitimate. However violence can often increase suffering as with many of the modern ‘terrorists’. We must therefore remain highly critical of the use of violence but not preclude it from our strategy as nation states will never be afraid to use violence both internationally and domestically. Peaceful protest is not likely to achieve very much when faced with police and armies.

We will fight to decrease suffering. The fight will be ongoing. There will be no end of history - no utopia; but that must not stop us from fighting for it. We will always be aware of the great danger here - The danger that the fight will further increase suffering. This is a real possibility. But still Justice calls us to arms and fight we must! Fight to take control of capital of resources of the means to feed the hungry of giving medical care to those who need it most, we must fight to make every voice heard; but remain critical of our methods and tactics. Who are we excluding? Who do we make suffer? We must listen to their voices and put ourselves before them and humbly accept their criticisms. Those who are the richest no doubt must be stripped of their wealth. We cannot allow such wealth in a world of such suffering. All the Kings, States, Police and Guns will be on their side. We will fight. We may lose. The question is this. Can we go on like this? Allowing the world to ‘progress’. Progress into more and more pain, suffering, starvation and hatred. Have no doubt that suffering is getting worse. We must challenge the global hegemony and strive – always strive – always as the fight can never end – for an alternative way to construct the international. The infinite call of Justice and Democracy to come must be heard.


All Individuals of the world unite in the call of a Democracy to come, that will always remain to come.

Preface

What should the left mean today? A well known question, one that has been asked repeatedly, especially since the collapse of the USSR. A question for which, I contend, there is no single answer. Much of the left have retreated into the safe haven of the academy. This has been positive, as left wing ideas have been developed and have become more sophisticated than ever. This has however been to the determent of the left as a political movement. The left is now so intellectual it ceases to able to engage with ordinary (non-academic) people. This has allowed a bourgeois hegemony (in the sense of the expansion of ‘common sense’) to take a very strong hold in much of the popular imaginary. This hegemony must be challenged by the left. Not in terms of a complicated theoretical critique but in the form of rhetoric. However we must not seek to over simplify our arguments and must retain the theoretical sophistication that has resulted from the left’s long exile in the academy. This manifesto hopes to be a first step in this direction. It is a skeleton. The bear bones of what I feel the left should be about today. We should not be ashamed of being radical for radicalism is what we need. It is not a set of concrete proposals nor is it a theoretical paper. It aims to draw on the theoretical complexity of the new left in order to make a statement of intention for how the left should proceed today. First and foremost it is a discussion piece. It is not and can never be a finished work. It is instead an opening move to invite others to criticise and comment. All statements in this pamphlet are contestable simply because all social facts are contestable and are thus not really ‘facts’ at all. Our argument and discussion is the basis for determining what may count as a ‘fact’.

This manifesto is most of all influenced by Marx and Engels’ famous 1848 manifesto. It could be seen as an attempt to update this project for the 21st century. The 1848 manifesto was a product of its times (it could be nothing else) and requires rethinking in a modern context.

This manifesto also takes on board critiques of Marxism at the level of ontology. I am thinking here in particular of deconstructivist readings of the Marxist tradition such as Derrida’s Spectres of Marx and the works of Laclau and Mouffe (1985; Laclau 1990, 1995). There are however a number of ways one could proceed form these insights and this manifesto represents but one of them and thus there is no reason to expect authors such as Derrida or Laclau to subscribe to the (ontic level) arguments in this pamphlet.

This manifesto seeks to construct equivalences across national boundaries and for a common construction of ‘humanity’ as equal. It is a call for a new internationalism that seeks to limit suffering and challenge current liberal conceptions of ‘globalistation’.

I

There is a spectre haunting the world. This is the spectre of globalisation. It is one of many spectres. The spectre of communism still looms large and this is evidenced rather than dismissed by those who declare the Marxist project dead or that there is an ‘end of history’. However the spectre of globalisation is the closest to assuming a body and incarnating itself as a ‘fact of life’. Indeed it is presented as such. Governments are prevented from progressive tax policies that attempt to re-distribute wealth due to the ‘fact’ that the rich will leave the country to avoid tax. National governments have little power to limit the international flow of capital. However as capital and the owners of this capital enjoy a free movement across national boundaries we see nationalist parties (in the West especially) call for border control and limits to immigration, not to the rich but to the poorest, to those whose suffering has been the greatest – to refugees and asylum seekers. These parties gain more and more support, it would seem. They are often successful in constructing national populist frontiers based in the contingent historicity of the nation state. This history, this recent history at least, is a bourgeois history. These nation states are owned by the richest, by big businesses, capitalists and in short the rich privileged few that surpass their boundaries and to whom they depend on for their very existence. Business is beyond the scope of any nation but every nation feels the weight of its debt to business and the rich. They own its land, its services and its workers. These groups - call them the ‘bourgeoisie’, call them ‘big business’, call them ‘capitalists’, call them by whatever name, are who these nations protect. The police and the army are not there to protect the poor. Their purpose is to protect business interests or the interests of capital and only when the interests of the poor coincide with (or at least do not contradict) those of the rich do the army and police protect the poor. They would never protect the poor against the rich, at least I can think of few examples of them doing so. Have no doubts about this – Marx was and is still correct, capitalists are the creditors of the nation state. This is not an equal democracy where the poor have an equal voice within national boundaries. Poverty exists even within the richest nations. These nations may not be simply the puppets of big business, things are more complex than this and I demaractye between rich and poor for clarity whilst accepting that the picture I pain is somewhat simplistic; but it is not however at all inaccurate. It is primarily the interests of big business that Western nations defend, one need only look at USA or UK tax policy to see the truth of this. Tax breaks for business, tax breaks for the rich, oh but this is not to help the rich (or not only to help the rich) so they say. They do this in the name of the poor. This is the most insidious aspect of the modern Western nation. ‘Big Business’, they say, are the ‘great givers, they provide jobs and improve the economy to the benefit of all’ – well all those within the nation. History as well as the continued poverty of many within these nations betrays the fallacy of this ‘evident truth’. If the wonders and generosity of big business cannot eliminate child poverty (for example) in the most ‘advanced’ countries (Like the UK and USA) after over a century, then we must ask ourselves if ‘big business’ is really for the benefit of all? They have been given all the chances, tax breaks and benefits of the doubt, they have had every opportunity to fulfil the role one may even think is governments’ - to help the poor Have no doubts – they have failed. They have failed within the boundaries of the richest nations and failed even more spectacularly on the world stage. The nation state is not a necessary evil, but for many – the many poor -it is still an evil albeit contingent evil. We must expose this contingency as contingency! Expose the lies that masquerade as common sense, facts or evident truth. For example the ‘fact’ of globalisation could lead to tighter borders and re-enforcing of national boundaries as a result of the increasing scourge of national populism. We must control big business at its worst and the nation state as the principal worshipper of big business can never be in a position to do this.

Nationalism must not be our response to globalisation. Worse they mask over a history of imperialism and bloodshed – of violence and conflict. Our great western peaceful nations such as the Lady Britannia are like Lady Macbeth, never able to clean the blood from their hands. Nationalism and patriotism are also out dated and not suited to the future of an increasingly globalised world. It is the wrong response to the challenges of globalisation. Instead we need to think of globalisation not as the liberal model of global capital but as a political construction of the international as a community. Technology makes this easier but is not available to all as is often forgotten. We need to take control of capital and its movement in order to best look after those who are suffering most.

Those who are suffering most, indeed. There have never been so many of them! Poverty, war and famine all rage rampantly across the globe. National leaders profess impotence when faced with global problems of capital. They must become the past. International strategy to combat this suffering cannot be constructed only through the coming together of national leaders but must surpass the unit of the national. Organisations, individuals communities must unite to face these problems. There exists the technology and wealth to feed everyone in the world. The ‘reality’ of the spectre of globalisation must not blind us to this. We must not be constrained by it; but think outside of it. Nations are the principal barriers to this.

We must come together, not as nations but as the people of world, people who can no longer tolerate bearing witness to the greatest degree of suffering in our history. We must fight for a minimum standard of living for everyone on the planet. It is a simple but noble goal that is enabled rather than foreclosed by globalisation.

Nations must be the other. The other of which we are the ‘we’. We must construct a frontier against the very notion of nations. The popular international ‘we’ must cry out so loud as to shake the historical foundations of the nation state. We see you leaders for what you are, it does not have to be like this and we will not let it continue, your laws, your words, your sham democracies are illegitimate when faced with the democracy that is always to come and justice as deconstruction. The suffering of others must not be dismissed as the fact that hides national interests or as the will of the great God that is capital.

.....

part2 to follow

Wow. Where to start? Do you want an ID Card? Do I? I don’t know. Maybe if I give the government 27 different pieces of information about myself I can ask them if I want one. I mean, that is the point right? To get to know me better? To know if I’m the type of person who pays his taxes, or owns a dog? Maybe I’m the type of person who swindles his taxes, and kills dogs, for fun at weekends with work colleagues. Does the government have the right to know that about me? Isn’t all of the things you do your identity? Is the point of all this just to know everyone better than they know themselves? Is that what they want!? Ah police state, surveilance, its all going a bit V for Vendetta. And no one wants the future to turn out like that. Stephen Fry gets killed in that movie. And its shit.

Besides, it doesn’t seem like such a big deal. ID Card? As Andre 3000 would say “aint no thing but a chicken wing”. I have to take my Driving Licence everywhere already (well, pretty much) whats another card gonna change? It’ll just slide right into my wallet, no trouble, right next to my Donor Card. One for life, one for death. Its like my whole freakin existence right there in my pocket! How cool is that? I would be thinking…If I was a mugger.

Come on! Stop being so paranoid. All they want is a little info on ya. That’s all. Just a bit. In effect you just sum up your identity in 27 different ways and then give it to the government. That’s seems okay. You probably do that already on Facebook. They’re not asking for that much either, its just a small gesture. Like watching Deliverance when you’ve only ever heard about it, its seems a perfectly pleasant suggestion, going down a river with your friends. But you know where this is heading.

Now I’m not suggesting anyone in the government wants to sodomise you. Or call you a pig. Most of them are in opposition.

I guess if you’re planning to kill someone, or lots of people, or God forbid, not pay your TV licence, (here’s looking at you Noel) then you should get caught. All of those things are against the law. We should be catching those people. And ID Cards will make that easier. But the one reason for ID Cards that is banded about more than any other, is the T word.

Its going to stop the Terrorists. **** yeah. Freedom is the only way, yeah.

I’m sure it will. Stops the terrorists, that is. I mean they’ve already said that eventually, the ID Card will be used to ‘swipe’ in at government buildings, hospitals, airports. I guess if they want to stop terrorists, then you’ll also ‘swipe’ when you get on a bus, or a train? What, no? Oh. Seems a bit weird. Its like they are saying one thing but meaning something completely different. Its like Tobias in Arrested Development.

But not gay. I’ve covered this already. No one in government wants to sodomize you. I can’t make that clear enough.

The other thing about ID Cards is the cost. It’s a lot. They make Waterworld look like an episode of Hollyoaks. And we’re all paying for them. Well, unless you fiddle your taxes that is. But even then you’ll still be forced to pay for the privilege of carrying one. And the fines for not being able to produce one when asked, or for lying about information, or not disclosing information, are all in the region of thousands of pounds. As Fagin said about the Artful Dodger “That’s a nice little earner”.

So Labour are for them. The Tories are against them. The Liberals are…wait, something about orphanages and nuclear power plants? Strange. The Dr is undecided. A second opinion is needed. Its either a swindle, or the whole idea should be put down. Like taxes and dogs. Indeed.

In attempting to explain the ongoing battle between Gordon Brown and David Cameron, I’m going to employ a Star Wars metaphor. Because, as we all know, Star Wars seems to speak more to the hearts and minds of the average person than politicians do. In 2 years time, in this country, we’ll be electing a new Darth Vader. Now Darth Vader is powerful, agreed. He blows up a whole world just to test out his new gun. That’s pretty hard core.

Problem is, in America right now they are in the process of electing our new Emperor. And Darth Vader aint got shit on the Emperor. He’s the big boss. He’s the one who declares war on the Republic (or Iraq, you know, whatever). He’s the one that can electrocute and kill Samuel L. Jackson from 30 paces.

And that joke in no way implies the President doesn’t like black people. I’m not swimming in that shit. Although when Kanye West said that, ironically enough many people were doing just that.

Anyway, our new Emperor is pretty important. That’s why people seem to be more interested in who the next President is than who our next Prime Minister will be. And I don’t blame them, in America, they have the choice between a young, outspoken, advocate of change in Barack Obama, or a world-hardened not-bad-for-a-Republican war hero John McCain. Now that’s a battle with some real drama. Whether Barack Obama would actually achieve the change he calls for (or even knows what it is) is besides the point, as is whether Maverick McCain would bow down to the Christian Right if he ever got into office. On a separate point, if McCain is Maverick, what does that make Sarah Palin? Goose? Iceman? Meg Ryan? I don’t know…

Point is, in this country our choice is between Gordon The Almighty or Dave (‘call me David’) Cameron. One wears a pink tie to show his ‘softer’ side, the other does the washing up on the Internet to prove he’s too pandering to use the dishwasher. As match ups between two heavyweights go, its not exactly Rocky III…

Also knocking about on the British political circus are David Milliband and Harriet Harmon. I always think of these two as like the Korean couple on Lost. I get why they’re there, and I’m sure some people like them, but really, what do they have to do with the larger storyline?

Harriet Harmon has an unnatural ability to never answer a question directly, so I can see how she has got so far in politics. The last thing you need in New Old New Labour is a handle on truth-telling. And wearing a stab-proof vest to walk around your own constituency has got to be a big turn-on for the voters. Then there’s Milliband, who reminds me of one of those pre-teenage girls singing Spice Girls songs into the mirror with a hairbrush. Except I imagine a young Milliband impersonating Tony Blair’s mannerisms and hand gestures while listening to U2, again in front of a mirror, and fantasising about the day he gets to ‘put it all into action’. One day David, maybe…

We don’t have anyone in this country who will really engage the public in the way Obama can. With our political system, I’m not sure its possible. Nick Clegg tries, but being a Liberal, he could announce next week a policy to burn down orphanages to make space for new Nuclear power plants and no one would bat an eyelid. Keeping up the Lost analogy, his party are about as relevant as Boone and Shannon.

But back to Star Wars, because the Gordon Brown-as-Darth-Vader metaphor doesn’t quite end yet. Like Vader, his intentions start out noble, but he falls under a bad influence (Blair), tries to fight against the current way of doing things (The Jedi Council), but just finds himself sidelined. In Gordon’s case this lasts ten years, in Star Wars, it lasts about 20 mins in Episode 2. Okay, so those comparisons are a bit hokey, but you get the drift. Vader has great potential, but when he gets into power, well it all goes a bit wrong doesn’t it? And then up steps some young apprentice, bit of a swagger about him, and Vader is defeated. If Cameron does pull a Skywalker, and we are calling him ‘David the Prime Minister’ in two years time, he needs to remember one thing.

You still have to bow down to the Emperor.

And consolation prize to Labour if Cameron does win – we all know what happened to Luke Skywalker’s career after Star Wars. Can you say Mark Hamill? No, thought not.

Ok, So, am I alone when I say that I am fed up with the governing of this government?.....no i am not. Rest assured that the people I have spoken to are fed up to the back teeth of this new found liberal lefty attitude that now stands before us.
We are not a racist country nor should we be portrayed as one. We are a tolerant nation of hardworking people who once ruled the world, I personally, and i know that i am not alone when I say that our Grandfathers and Grandmothers did absolutely not lay down their lives for the sake of their country in order for the suit wearing Mps of today to throw away as they see fit. I never expected to be here writing this "blog" looking for support but it seems that not too many people are willing to see what support they can find.
I am sure that if you are continuing to read this then you must emphasize with the message i am trying to relay. The indigenous people of this country are being singled out as easy targets by our government and the support given to the non indigenous people of this country seem to be welcomed and supported....it just seems so wrong to me.
Now don’t get me wrong i believe in issues such as immigration but it must be managed, it must be controlled. We need doctors from India or Pakistan, we need nurses to help get the NHS on track but we do not need another thousand Polish self proclaimed builders taking away jobs from the people of The Uk. Now this is just one of many many issues i have with this government, don’t get me started on this new found tax that we are being hit with i.e. the green/ recycling issues we have all been bombarded with in recent times. Recycling has a positive purpose but come on there are more important issues that must be addressed and mastered before we go down that road.
My issues:
Immigration, not enough real police, scrap the CPO'S (what do they do)
easy revenue making i.e. traffic wardens, car taxation (to name but a few) Preachers of hate, kick them out. They hate the Uk? Great because we hate them too, they either get their heads around the fact that they are living in OUR country or they ship out back to their motherland and hate us from over there.
The human rights act, rip it up. Oh yeah and the other day i learned that a prisoner gets more in state handout that an elderly disabled man or lady......its ridiculous, i mean whoever makes these laws up needs to be held accountable.
Lets keep the OAP'S of this country warm in the winter, lets pay for them to be able to heat their homes in the Winter.....now i am no sure about you but i would pay more tax for issues such as that. Fat cat companies such as British gas, one minute they are announcing pay increases (up to 35%) and the next week they are announcing record profits!
They army, if were going to send them all around the world fighting battles that governments cause then lets support them, lets increase the pay and more importantly their conditions, lets give them the proper equipment to do their jobs properly. The American forces nickname our troops the borrowers .....say no more. Its a disgrace.
The congestion charge London......nurses have to pay, fireman have to pay, school teachers have to pay, MP'S nope you’ve guessed it not applicable to them, how, why?
I’m a smoker and this is maybe a grey area for some but the smoking ban has taken peoples lively hoods away, oh and not only that, i am pretty sure in saying that there somewhere in London you can smoke, yep the smoking rooms at the houses of commons, there’s a rule for them and a rule for us, its a joke, a joke that’s just not funny and must be addressed. The Mp’s look after themselves and their own, they couldn’t give a toss about you and me….its got to stop. They are accountable so lets remind them of that!
I think you get what i am trying to say here, we have been taken advantage of for far too long so why are we all sitting back and taking it up the backside?
I’m not looking for anything other than your support in what i am saying.
People i speak to have the exact same issues as me but yet we just don’t seem to talk to each other to recognise this. I want this blog to snowball, i want it to snowball to the top if possible, i want the MP'S to know that we not going to take this negligence governing anymore.
This isn’t just a dig at the labour government by the way the Conservatives are no better....ever seen them having a debate in the houses of Parliament, their like little schoolboys in the playground, its embarrassing.
These are just a few of my issues, believe me I would keep on writing but I just wanted to point a few out in the hope that you would agree.
Please show your support, its time for a radical change and the internet seems to be the best place to start the ball rolling.
Lets keep Britain British and lets DEMAND a change in how governments are formed and run. They must be managed and held accountable by us the British public, they work for us lets not forget that.
I want this to be a kind of petition so please add your name, county and comment when replying to this post. There approx 60 million people in this country probably 65 million if you include the illegal’s so please tell your friends and family to sign and show there support.
At the risk of sounding like some kind of hippy, POWER TO THE PEOPLE. Were not happy so lets prove it!!!
Thanks for reading.

Time Master wasters TMw tm tmtmtmtmtmtmtmtmtmtmtmtm

Sir,

Apropos of the Nuclear Deal latest controversy, the Nation needs to know the reality at least now, since the Hon’ ( Read The Honest) PM, in association with his coterie led by Sonia Gandhi has revealed that they can misuse the democracy, and befool the Nation, destabilize the Government, in a selfish, self promoting manner. This is another severe blow to the image of Sonia Gandhi clan, preceded by Bofors, Volcker ( Money for Oil) scam. The assertion that the Indian side didn’t know about the Controversial Letter is a farce and scar on the faces of purported honest mates. Singh is King of deceit and deception.

PRAMOD GUPTA
8/3, ROOP NAGAR,
DELHI-110007
pkgfca@gmail.com

There is perhaps a need to clarify where I stand in relation to the history of Marxism and Socialism. Calling myself 'Marxist Nutter' has led to some understandable confusion on the matter. I will attempt to remedy this with a very brief sketch of the Marxist tradition with which I empathize.

Marx's thought is contested and arguably inconsistent. His superb critiques of capitalism were offset by his lack of clarity with regard to what a communist system would look like - especially higher communism. This problem was best exposed histrionically, in the two Russian revolutions of 1917. The putting of communism into practice proved to be far less simple than a certain reading of Marx may suggest. Of special importance was the interpretation of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. The authoritarian elitist and Bolshevistic understanding of this term rose to dominance....

To briefly summarize what many will already know:
Having cast off the yolk of the Tsarist regime and the provisional gvt that followed . Russia was in a mess (as it had always been - have a look at pre communist Russia - not very nice either!). Savaged by war and the treaty of brest litovsk Lenin was unable to deliver on his promise of peace (civil war that was far from civil as many countries got involved), Bread (Russia has always had problems here) and Land (the treaty gave away much of this too). War communism took hold. This eventually led to many factions having very different ideas around what a worker's state may look like. The death of Lenin made matters worse and led to a long dispute between Stalin and Trotsky of which I am sure you are all aware.

The reaction of the European left to this is what concerns us here. Many supported Stalin. This cannot nor should not be denied. The European communist parties did not start to de-stalinise until sometimes as late as the 1960s. This de-stalinisation and 'rediscovery' of the humanist Marx, was opposed by even some very noteworthy and insightful intellectuals such as Althusser in France. However the left began to re-think on a massive scale. While communist parties became more and more confused and would often fight heavily amongst themselves (as in Italy), the academic left began to question why it had taken such extreme authoritarianism to bring communism about in Russia. A common answer was 'uneven development'. This put into question of the necessary nature of Marx's thought. The idea that communism was inevitable. This implication was not however seen straight away. Another factor was crucial. This was the development of 'late capitalism' - the fact conditions had got much better for the working classes under capitalism. Capitalism had not simplified as Marx predicted and become divided more and more into hostile camps. The reality proved to be very messy. The rise of Fascism posed a huge problem for the left as such a regime is unthinkable in orthodox Marxist terms.

By the 1970s the category of class itself was in decline. New social movements bore witness to issues of Race, Gender and Religion coming to the fore. The practical left became more and more confused as the writings of Marx offered no answers to these problems. The left wing project was in crisis. This was actually made worse by the Collapse of the USSR and subsequent declarations of the 'end of history' (Fukuyama) and therefore of Marxism.

However all these developments led into a massive re-think of the Marxist project (the theoretical side of socialism). Fascism was understood by Gramsci through his novel understanding of hegemony, and the idea of transformism. Althusser's Ideological state apparatus theory helped too in this regard. A certain tradition of the intellectual left (what I have called elsewhere 'the best of the left') began to rid Marxism, not only of its authoritarian interpretations under Lenin and Stalin (subsequent soviet leaders helped here as well by moving albeit far too slowly away from these ideas) but also its economic determinism.

We are now in the world of the Post-Marxists. Post-Marxists who have come from the Marxist tradition such as Ernesto Laclau (from S.America famous for his explanations of Fascism in the 70s) and Chantal Mouffe (former student of Althusser) attempted to understand the modern society of late-capitalism through the deconstruction of Marxist categories (in particular that of hegemony). The project they called for is one of 'radical, plural democracy' - The deepening and expanding of the democratic logic. This is still connected with Marxism as it challenges exploitation and suffering where ever it may occur and remains critical of capitalism in this regard. It is also freed from the notion of the centrality of the working class. The working class is no longer seen as THE agent of history; but as one of many exploited groups. Others may included ethnic minorities and refugees and is always context dependent. There is no universal struggle but lots of micro struggles each one contingent and can be understood through the examination of its discourse. This is the tradition of post-Marxism to which i belong; but i remain critical of it for many reasons that I have not the space to enter in to here. The main one however being its intellectualism that I dislike enormously. I hope to bring these insights into the world of practical politics.

Appologies for my far too quick and simplistic history, here, this blog is already far too long. My aim was not to give a definitive history of Marxism - I am not qualified for that and I also assume many intelligent people on this forum know much of this stuff already. I just hope I have now made my position clear and have dealt with all confusions with respect to my relationship to the Marxist cannon. Thanks for reading. MN

This post got pretty much ignored in the Forum and perhaps more properly belongs in a blog:

Many debates I have had on this forum about socialism, tend to drift very quickly to national concerns. Now avoiding the obvious and unhelpful puns we could make about national socialism, I would like to pose a question.

Does socialism mean caring only about the working class in your own country? Surely questions of poverty and fairness apply outside national boundaries. Marx was unquestionably an internationalist. 'Working men of all countries unite....'

There is a bigger point here tho. The world we live in is increasingly globalised and the working class of any or every country are at the whim of international forces. I think any true socialism for the 21st century needs to follow the long tradition of international Marxism. For me nationalism is an outmoded way of thinking. Netherless it is still very strong on this forum (not just the BNP either). There is nothing wrong with loving the people of your country, of course. I think British people are on the whole moderate and tolerant of difference. Britain is still a great place live compared with many countries I have visited. This is not the same however as loving your country as a historical actor. To love one's country in this way is to privilege a certain contingent formation - the nation state. Such a bias allows us to somewhat ignore the plight of much of humanity and say 'our hospitals and schools are more important', than world poverty. There is nothing wrong with thinking this, per se. However as a Marxist I think every life is of equal value regardless of nationality . Nationalist thinking can often lead to racism and bias against asylum seekers, who for example are closer to the old notion of proletarians, than many working class British people. More to the point however, is that in a globalised economy, a world facing environmental challenges and international terrorism, nationalist thinking simply does not cut the mustard. We cannot face this new globalised world whilst focusing entirely on national concerns. For a start it will do this country and its working classes no favours. The old notions of the bourgeois and working classes do not fit this world anymore. What Marxists need to do, in my view, is challenge poverty and suffering, no matter where in the world it occurs.

Now awaiting an onslaught of people calling me a traitor to my nation... :eek:

Even the mention of the idea of legalizing drugs starts many people frothing at the mouth, :eek: quick to scream and shout about the dangers of drugs. But these are the very people that should be interested in some arguments for legalization. I am not going to dispute that drugs have a harmful affect on many people's lives - they do. I would however submit for debate the opinion that our drugs laws (UK)in fact exacerbate the problem, by obscuring its true depth, arbitrarily classing drugs with scant regard for the actual relative dangers of these substances (thus confusing the public on the issue) and spending huge amounts of money in arresting and locking up addicts who never change their ways.

The case I wish to make starts from the following premises:

1.Drugs policy up to now has failed. More people die of drugs (be they alcohol, tobacco or heroin) than ever before. Thus the need for the re-think
2. We need a policy that can deliver treatment to those that need it and put drug dealers out of business once and for all.

Thus I would propose that we legalize all drugs; but keep them under varying degrees of regulation based on a logical coherent system, informed by both addictiveness and toxicity.

Thus Heroin would be tightly controlled, requiring a registration with a qualified pharmacist. This would give us an excellent idea of the scale of the problem and a way to target treatment earlier to those most in need. We could entice users away from the black market through price competition (a good liberal/ free market solution if I ever there was one) . Black market sale of drugs would still be illegal and the risks involved would (and do) drive prices way above what the state would be able to charge.It may even be possible to put pressure on foreign (criminal) cartels by insisting on 'fair trade' drugs! Not only that but we could levy a 100-200% tax (depending on what drug) on drugs and still undercut the black market. Using the tax money for treatment and education centers; so essentially addicts would pay for their own treatment.

The relief on the average tax payer would be huge. The illegal drug trade would get the biggest kick in the teeth ever. We would have better data about the problem and hopefully prevent many from going to prison.

Whatever you think, people will always take drugs! The law has not nor will it ever be able to stop people. If people are going to take drugs is it not better that it is tightly controlled and regulated - so it would be harder for kids to obtain drugs, so criminals cannot make huge profits, and so the issue of drug use could come out of the shadows and into the light where we can truly see the problem for what it is?

There are many more arguments i could add here. My principal aim in this blog, however, is to show that the case for legalization is a good one, and not informed by loony leftism; but if anything a mixture of liberal philosophy and common sense!

The education system in this country is turning out an underclass in which the black youths of this country align themselves believing there is not much hope.They soon rebel and start antisocial behavior as in the killing seen on the streets today.
The outlook of an individual can hardly be broken after the early years.In my experience of the education system here it is easy for me to see why the black youths feel so disenfranchised.
I was quite well grounded from an early age starting off with my parents to try my best at whatever I do.I was similarly encouraged by my teachers at primary school to see education as an essential tool of personal development.The rest was basically up to me but the grounds on which this development takes place is a function of
government bodies.
This is the clarity of mind on which I entered this country in 1967.I had attended a select type school which was quite comparable with the technical high schools of the day.There was not much difference between them and the grammer schools then.On entering the school system here,I was mistakenly placed in a secondary modern school and it alarmed me when I saw the undermining and mental abuse that was taking place in the system at that level where the majority of black children were grouped.
The secondary modern was geared around providing the manual and trades people.It was in this narrow window black children were placed and not much has changed today.They do not see themselves or others of the same race or familiarity attaining any thing more diverse.
Now unfortunately for a lot of people around that time,they dropped out the system and a part of this reflected in the environment on which their children were brought up.We are now seeing a rebellion of the third generation.They are feeling aggrieved because they belong an yet they feel excluded from attaining the normal things in life.
You need to look no further than on the building sites around the country.The representation here has been dismal over the years and yet the relevant bodies do not see it when it is right in front of their eyes.It is time they stop taking about it and fix it.These are the bread and butter jobs and the black man is vastly underrepresented.
It is not only the misrepresentation at the top ,it is also the mis representation at the bottom hence the underclass.

Trumpeter.

Should Bristol have an elected Mayor? what are your views? Debate the issue of elected Mayor`s do they provide value for money.

Being concerned about the continuing news of oppressive regimes, rigged elections, and people dying in the struggle for freedom and democracy, I think that a new world order should be contemplated and debated. My suggestions for improving the world are in essence both simple and attainable.

I have written my views under the heading of A World Without Tyranny, a copy of which follows.

A WORLD WITHOUT TYRANNY

With the increasing threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction we need a new world order where good will prevail over evil. Although the United Nations is better than nothing, it is flawed, unwieldy and often ineffective. It legitimises the existence of tyrannical and oppressive regimes and thereby condones them. The vote of each of these regimes carries the same weight as that of a democracy. Throughout the life of the United Nations, oppression and wars have continued to desecrate the world.

Although most people are good and respect the welfare of others, the present world, politically, is still a mess. The main troubles are caused by a small but evil group of people who are capable of repressing, inflicting pain and killing others in order to attain wealth or power or position, or all of these goals. These people in general are nothing but gangsters, the top ones being those who acquire total control of countries, such as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Mugabe, etc. They personify the deepest evil, having power to create repressive state laws and brutal state police to enforce them. Some revert to war to extend their power. More would do so if they thought they would prevail.

It should be the right of every person on planet Earth to live in freedom with the right to express thoughts and opinions without fear of persecution, and the right to vote on an ongoing basis for representative government. This can only be achieved within a democracy and it should be the aim of all good people to bring about a world where all governments are democratic.

I think that the democracies should form a new world body with the purpose of establishing democratic governments throughout the world and the exclusion of totalitarian regimes forever.

This should not be too difficult to accomplish within a reasonable period of time as it is what most ordinary people desire. Oppressed people, the world over, yearn for democracy, and given half a chance will destroy or otherwise remove their self appointed rulers, as happened so dramatically in Eastern Europe when the first cracks appeared in the Iron Curtain.

The new world democratic body should provide all means of assistance, including armed forces as necessary, to topple self appointed dictators such as Mugabe. Naturally there could be no question of conflict with China, for instance, and democracy here can only be encouraged to evolve in other ways, such as by world opinion, persuasion, economic pressures etc.

Probably the most important first step would be a declaration of basic rights of freedom under democracy for every world citizen.

Honestly, I am very confused. I can't tell if the general public are aware of how readily available drugs of all classes are to teenagers and younger. Do people even care? There seems to be very little done to discourage them after the Junior School DARE programmes. Personally, this bothers me because of the immediate dangers associated with many of these drugs and the long-term health problems they can cause.


I know people who have smoked cannabis from the age of 11, have been shown MySpace pictures from the huge scene of middle class teenagers (13+) who frequently enjoy pill parties watched as GCSE students are expelled for dealing marijuana in school and wondered how people in my year at school (then 14, 15, and 16 year old) could possibly get away with growing weed in their own homes. The school, and clearly their parents, did nothing to stop this due to, at least in the school's case, having no idea this was even going on.


From what I see, it is not the “chavvy” teenagers who use these more dangerous drugs. Not the state-funded cast of Shameless we would like to believe need drugs to help them deal with their crime-filled lives. But bored 'scene kids'. Trendy clothes. Posing in MySpace photos. Taking class A drugs, especially ecstasy. They even deal to one and other - most are well off enough to be able to afford to buy the drugs in bulk from dealers and sell to friends and other teens.


I have seen pictures of parties where, without exception, literally everyone has taken ecstasy. These are mostly 13, 14, and 15 year olds. Without meaning to sound like I exaggerate, there were in excess of 100 of them, crammed into a friend's house for a night of hard partying. And no wonder these drugs are so popular - each hit of the clearly impure drug is around £2 and people take as many as 15, just for the kicks. But what else is in them for the price to have sunk so low? You can say this is an isolated incident, but to me, this screams naivety on behalf of the police and parents and a failure of the education system. If this happens in my reasonably quiet suburb of a 500,000 strong city, what happens elsewhere?


While ecstasy may be the drug of choice, I know for a fact that I would have no trouble, even years ago, acquiring any drug. Ketamine or speed (£10 for half a gram), cocaine, heroin, LSD (£5-£10 per tab), mushrooms (£20 for 30-40), weed (only skunk is available), pills (anywhere from £1.90-£3). Everyone knows someone who knows someone and with instant messaging, MySpace, Bebo, Facebook and mobile phones a must-have for all teenagers, contacting that special someone is becoming easier and easier.


The reasons behind this phenomenon?

1. Boredom – the classic “what else is there to do?” is the answer from concerned friends.
2. Ease of access - It's quicker to meet up with a dealer and buy drugs than invest in a fake ID, get someone else to go into a shop and buy alcohol for you or to risk being 'ID'ed yourself.
3. Cost - Compared to the price of alcohol, which the government seem so keen on raising, drugs are relatively cheap, and all teenagers are capable of calculating a cost-benefit ratio.
Which is more 'value for money'?.
Which lasts for longer?
Which is stronger, feels better, is new, exciting, and seems safe (because EVERYONE does it...)?

It's not hard to see why teenagers subscribe to the ecstasy-ridden subculture of the middle class scenster. But what can we do? What should be done?

Get kids off the streets, of course, maybe by encouraging exercise and thus endorphins through less artificial routes. We need tougher policing on drug dealers. How can that car which keeps parking outside Domino's Pizza have gone unnoticed for so long when so many people hop in and out of it on an almost daily basis, exchanging money for skunk?
Don't lie to children. Don't tell them drugs will kill instantly. Don't exaggerate their effects. Don't contradict statistics that are easily found on the internet. One look at the presumptuous, laid-back, fact-based Frank.com can contradict many things teenagers have been told in the past by paranoid parents about the extreme dangers of drugs which, because of the common teenage superiority complex, will lose them all faith in what they have been told and, in many cases, translate as: drugs can be safe if used properly. This may be true. But it is not what our government believes, yet I know so many people who ignore the illegality of drugs based on this philosophy. This isn't right when the general consensus says they are wrong.

Apologies for the drama but I'm fed up of pictures of gurning 14 year-olds on MySpace, I, for one, am not enjoying it . . .

Any thoughts?

- The Headtwister x

Whilst the current war against terrorism is being waged,a far more entrenched war on the horizon will be the war of rebellion by young people across the world.It will not be one where sophisticated equiptments will be used,but the destructive potential of unruly conducts and defragmentation of society.We are moving away from normality and justifying homosexual relationship as normal.The head twisters of the world is having a field day ,morality HAS GONE DOWN THE DRAIN .GOD HELP US.

tRUMPETER

www.thepatriot.co.uk
[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']hello All Pariots i am looking to start a crusade for this great counrty by way of a new political party and i need help your help to make it work! please read below and if you would consider this option and would like to join and help start this crusade for us and our families please mail me at stevemax@blueyonder.co.uk[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']if not good luck but be warned![/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']1) Patriot; As a P we believe in the ‘One’ concept –[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']One Nation[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']One Culture [/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']One law[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']This is because this view promotes stability within the social frame work of a nation by standardising all within, both socially and culturally. Promotes the national effectiveness when dealing with social and criminal issues, cuts out any dilution of national identity as happens when introducing a ‘Multi’ approach (the biggest effect of Multiculturalism is the diluting and changing of the indigenous cultures/laws to accommodate other beliefs / traditions).[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']In essence One Nation serving One Culture under One law[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']2) Law: [/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']As a P we believe that the law of this land cannot be compromised or bargained with, crime must be punished appropriately when committed. No more can we allow the ‘human rights’ of criminals supersede that of the victims rights to justice or more over, that of societies need for the crime to be punished and justice done. No more can the rights of the individual override that of the masses. Punishment must be swift and harsh to set example and to deter the criminal. [/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']As a society living within a social network we shall afford the rights and safety of every individual that chooses to live within this society and uphold their rights jealously, those who choose not to will not be afforded such treatment or rights…… [/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']3) Culture;[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']The Most defining attribute of any nation! Our culture will be promoted at all times, without conscience or fear of offence or retribution. No longer will our historical gains and achievements be a cause of embarrassment and ridicule, we are Great solely because of this and our aim is to zealously and fanatically celebrate this. WE SHALL NOT dilute our culture for any thing or any one! we as a free country do not have the right to give away what has been given to us through our forefathers blood and toil. [/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']We will actively promote the traditions of our culture through education, brining into line the forgotten values, values that have taken hundreds of years to learn cultivate and hone into what has made us Great! We must implement these well earned values onto our children so that they can benefit from these experiences and be valued members of our society. These values are being eroded in favour of quick gains and ease of life.[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']We as P also need to inject the subject of Morales and morale behaviour in to the mix so as to ensure some area of respect within our society; from the highest places of power within the country to the children’s play ground we must ensure we are morally just and not lacking morality.[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']We as P will start a long road of ‘example setting’ we will live by the same sword as we yield, we will endeavour to act in accordance with our conscience and the nations conscience we will not say one thing and do another for the sake of personal gain or sound bites the essence of today’s politics will not be carried in to the P’s manifesto or behaviour so we will not be adopting the current way of life within politics but creating a new one![/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Come and help the fight[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']www.thepariot.co.uk[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'] [/font]

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']new political Party[/font][FONT='Arial','sans-serif']

hello All Pariots i am looking to start a crusade for this great counrty by way of a new political party and i need help your help to make it work! please read below and if you would consider this option and would like to join and help start this crusade for us and our families please mail me at stevemax@blueyonder.co.uk

if not good luck but be warned!

1) Patriot; As a P we believe in the ‘One’ concept –
One Nation
One Culture
One law

This is because this view promotes stability within the social frame work of a nation by standardising all within, both socially and culturally. Promotes the national effectiveness when dealing with social and criminal issues, cuts out any dilution of national identity as happens when introducing a ‘Multi’ approach (the biggest effect of Multiculturalism is the diluting and changing of the indigenous cultures/laws to accommodate other beliefs / traditions).
In essence One Nation serving One Culture under One law

2) Law:
As a P we believe that the law of this land cannot be compromised or bargained with, crime must be punished appropriately when committed. No more can we allow the ‘human rights’ of criminals supersede that of the victims rights to justice or more over, that of societies need for the crime to be punished and justice done. No more can the rights of the individual override that of the masses. Punishment must be swift and harsh to set example and to deter the criminal.
As a society living within a social network we shall afford the rights and safety of every individual that chooses to live within this society and uphold their rights jealously, those who choose not to will not be afforded such treatment or rights……

3) Culture;
The Most defining attribute of any nation! Our culture will be promoted at all times, without conscience or fear of offence or retribution. No longer will our historical gains and achievements be a cause of embarrassment and ridicule, we are Great solely because of this and our aim is to zealously and fanatically celebrate this. WE SHALL NOT dilute our culture for any thing or any one! we as a free country do not have the right to give away what has been given to us through our forefathers blood and toil.

We will actively promote the traditions of our culture through education, brining into line the forgotten values, values that have taken hundreds of years to learn cultivate and hone into what has made us Great! We must implement these well earned values onto our children so that they can benefit from these experiences and be valued members of our society. These values are being eroded in favour of quick gains and ease of life.

We as P also need to inject the subject of Morales and morale behaviour in to the mix so as to ensure some area of respect within our society; from the highest places of power within the country to the children’s play ground we must ensure we are morally just and not lacking morality.

We as P will start a long road of ‘example setting’ we will live by the same sword as we yield, we will endeavour to act in accordance with our conscience and the nations conscience we will not say one thing and do another for the sake of personal gain or sound bites the essence of today’s politics will not be carried in to the P’s manifesto or behaviour so we will not be adopting the current way of life within politics but creating a new one![/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'] [/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Come and join the fight[/font]
http://www.thepatriot.co.uk/

However, before sending it to Cardinal Bertone, and in order to give my arguments more weight, I should appreciate it if anyone who agrees with this article, could please send me an email giving his or her full name and nationality by clicking here. Please add any comments which you may have.

Thank you.
Peter Paul Hauschild
25th May 2008

I watched half an hour of Parliament Live last night... never again. There seem to be a large number of fully elected - and I curse Russell Brand for nullifying this word's meaning - swines in that room. The types who swear they aren't homophobic: they have gay friends...

The subject? An amendment to a bill which would exclude lesbian couples from IVF treatment. Sanity? Flushed down the drain.

A pompous old fool, along with others, declared that, while he applauds single mothers for their efforts in bringing up children and fully endorses this (could his constituency - dare i say it - have a significant number of single mothers in it?), for two women, such an act is impossible and immoral. I wonder... how could two women possibly bring up a child better than one? Wouldn't their combined effort surely pale in comparison to that of their singular equivalent? They'd just end up tripping over eachother's dungaree straps.

As I looked on in horror, I honestly thought we were close to another Rivers of Blood speech, especially with references to "normal" and "natural" being so casually thrown around.

Why do people still confusedly associate deviations from the norm with detriment? It is different and less common to have two women parents, yes, that is granted, and there may be some downsides from the lack of a male role model, but there are certainly numerous upsides from the love and affection given by two parents such as that from cohabiting lesbians.

The problem here is that a woman's sexuality, not her capability as a parent, would exclude her from the treatment as two lesbians do not constitute a mother and a father, and alone cannot conceive, forming the argument that it is unnatural. But why should that matter? What is natural? It is possible, and that's what should matter and be celebrated. One simply cannot discriminate based on the grounds of gender when it is perfectly acceptable for a single mother to bring up a child - it's frankly hypocritical and a thinly veiled attack on the lesbian sexuality.

However, there was some satisfaction to be taken from that evening's viewing as what can only be described as an intolerant, batty, middle-aged Christian took to the stand and spoke poison on the matter as others laughed at and mocked her old-fashioned, somewhat extreme views on the matter. Brilliant. Furthermore, the fact that there was a majority, if only by 75, for the discriminatory amendment not to be made, goes at least some way to making me believe that there is, however faint, still the hope that civilised society will prevail for the foreseeable future.

My blog is available at:
http://musingsonpartylessdemocracy.blogspot.com

INDIAN SECURITY AND KATCHA THEEVU

There is an urgent need to sue Srilankan Government in the International Court of Justice for compensation to 980 Indian fishermen killed in the International waters, as well as retrieval of the Katcha Theevu. It is will be appropriate to recall the words of our Present Prime Minister in the Parliament on 23 rd July 1974 (cols 186-201), when the then External Affairs Minister Swaran Singh made a statement on the Re Agreement between India and Srilanka on the boundary in the historical waters between the two countries and related matters.

Hon'ble Atal Bihari Vajpayee who strongly condemned the bartering away of Katcha Theevu, had said that the old mythological name for Katcha Theevu is VALI DEEP, the island where legendary Rama fought a mythological Vali.

The lives of 980 of our fishermen is lost due to this agreement imposed during the darkest days of emergency and it is time that we scrap this agreement or take it to the International Court of Justice to get due compensation for our fishermen.

There has been precedents in international inter country matters where issues have been taken to the International Court of Justice.1). In the English Channel there is a rocked island known as Minquires-Enrou. They are far way from the British coast and were closer to the French coast. Since it was near its international waters France staked the claim over that island. Britain showed the documents in its possession and the basis of the documents in 1953 the International Court of Justice decided that this island belongs to Britain. As in this case the documentary proof will be in our favour and we will retrieve Katcha Theevu, is we approach the Court.2) An island Clipporton which was closer to Mexican coast actually belonged to France, and since it was far away from French soil no one visited there and hence Mexico claimed right over these islands. But the International Court of Justice decided in the favour of France.

3). Near Philipines an island Palmus Mianjus was in the possession of Spain. Spain one fine morning handed over that island to America. But Netherlands had rights over that island much before Spain had, and in view of this when this matter came before the Court, the Court decided in favour of Netherlands.

These are past precedents. We have recent judgements too wherein decisions by International Court of Justice had been impartial and in the interests of natural justice. Let me quote about a recent judgement in 2002.

The International Court of Justice, principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has today given (17.11.2002) Judgment in the case concerning sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia). In its Judgment, which is final, without appeal and binding for the Parties, the Court finds, by 16 votes to 1, that "sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belongs to Malaysia". Ligitan and Sipadan are two very small islands located in the Celebes Sea, off the northeast coast of the island of Borneo.

Reasoning of Court: The Court begins by recalling the complex historical background of the dispute between the Parties. It then examines the titles invoked by them. Indonesia's claim to sovereignty over the islands is based primarily on a conventional title, the 1891 Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands. Indonesia, thus, maintains that that Convention established the 4° 10' north parallel of latitude as the dividing line between the British and Dutch possessions in the area where Ligitan and Sipadan are situated. As the disputed islands lie to the south of that parallel, "[i] t therefore follows that under the Convention title to those islands vested in the Netherlands, and now vests in Indonesia". Malaysia, for its part, asserts that the 1891 Convention, when seen as a whole, clearly shows that Great Britain and the Netherlands sought by the Convention solely to clarify the boundary between their respective land possessions on the islands of Borneo and Sebatik, since the line of delimitation stops at the easternmost point of the latter island. After examining the 1891 Convention, the Court finds that the Convention, when read in context and in the light of its object and purpose, cannot be interpreted as establishing an allocation line determining sovereignty over the islands out to sea, to the east of the island of Sebatik, and as a result the Convention does not constitute a title on which Indonesia can found its claim to Ligitan and Sipadan. The Court states that this conclusion is confirmed both by the travaux préparatoires and by the subsequent conduct of the parties to the Convention. The Court further considers that the cartographic material submitted by the Parties in the case does not contradict that conclusion.

Having rejected this argument by Indonesia, the Court turns to consideration of the other titles on which Indonesia and Malaysia claim to found their sovereignty over the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan. The Court determines whether Indonesia or Malaysia obtained a title to the islands by succession. The Court begins in this connection by observing that, while the Parties both maintain that the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan were not terrae nullius during the period in question in the present case, they do so on the basis of diametrically opposed reasoning, each of them claiming to hold title to those islands. The Court does not accept Indonesia's contention that it retained title to the islands as successor to the Netherlands, which allegedly acquired it through contracts concluded with the Sultan of Bulungan, the original title-holder. Nor does the Court accept Malaysia's contention that it acquired sovereignty over the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan further to a series of alleged transfers of the title originally held by the former sovereign, the Sultan of Sulu, that title having allegedly passed in turn to Spain, the United States, Great Britain on behalf of the State of North Borneo, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and finally to Malaysia.

Having found that neither of the Parties has a treaty-based title to Ligitan and Sipadan, the Court next considers the question whether Indonesia or Malaysia could hold title to the disputed islands by virtue of the effectivités cited by them. In this regard, the Court determines whether the Parties' claims to sovereignty are based on activities evidencing an actual, continued exercise of authority over the islands, i.e., the intention and will to act as sovereign. Indonesia cites in this regard a continuous presence of the Dutch and Indonesian navies in the vicinity of Ligitan and Sipadan. It adds that Indonesian fishermen have traditionally used the waters around the islands. In respect of the first of these arguments, it is the opinion of the Court that "it cannot be deduced [from the facts relied upon in the present proceedings] that the naval authorities concerned considered Ligitan and Sipadan and the surrounding waters to be under the sovereignty of the Netherlands or Indonesia". As for the second argument, the Court considers that "activities by private persons cannot be seen as effectivités if they do not take place on the basis of official regulations or under governmental authority". Having rejected Indonesia's arguments based on its effectivités, the Court turns to consideration of the effectivités relied on by Malaysia. As evidence of its effective administration of the islands, Malaysia cites inter alia the measures taken by the North Borneo authorities to regulate and control the collecting of turtle eggs on Ligitan and Sipadan, an activity of some economic significance in the area at the time. It relies on the Turtle Preservation Ordinance of 1917 and maintains that the Ordinance "was applied until the 1950s at least" in the area of the two disputed islands. It further invokes the fact that the authorities of the colony of North Borneo constructed a lighthouse on Sipadan in 1962 and another on Ligitan in 1963, that those lighthouses exist to this day and that they have been maintained by Malaysian authorities since its independence. The Court notes that "the activities relied upon by Malaysia ... are modest in number but ... they are diverse in character and include legislative, administrative and quasi-judicial acts. They cover a considerable period of time and show a pattern revealing an intention to exercise State functions in respect of the two islands in the context of the administration of a wider range of islands". The Court further states that "at the time when these activities were carried out, neither Indonesia nor its predecessor, the Netherlands, ever expressed its disagreement or protest".

The Court concludes, on the basis of the effectivités referred to above, that "sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belongs to Malaysia".

There are many cases, which can be quoted. But the need here is to stress that India must revoke the Katcha Theevu agreement with Srilanka since it was imposed during emergency and take it to the International Court of Justice to establish India’s right over this island. Also As per clause 76 of the International Law of Seas 1982 “ The coastal state shall establish the outer edge of the continental margin wherever the same extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the base lines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured on sub marine ridges. The continental shelf shall not exceed 350 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.” Inview of this clause there is a necessity to redraw the territorial waters between India and Srilanka. So we have compulsions as per UN obligations to carve out our Exclusive Economic Zone, and while such opportunity is at our doorstep we must reopen the Katcha theevu issue with Srilanka and get it back.

I wonder if I could have some opinions on this, it is a little involved but I think is indicative of how our government conducts itself, in this case, with regard tackling benefit cheats.

Essentially, my Parent's next-door-neighbour has recently been acquitted of benefit fraud.

My Parents are somewhat elderly and I am not well acquainted with their neighbour so I can’t really vouch for the accuracy of all the details. Nevertheless, even if the story as relayed to me is slightly exaggerated it still represents a harrowing account of how a middle aged disabled woman was mistreated at the hands of the Police and the DWP.

The Woman in question is in her 50's and physically disabled due to having lost the lower half of one of her legs. She therefore relies on a prosthetic replacement.

She is also a carer to her severely disabled Son. She has been involved in a relationship with a man and he has recently moved in with her. They plan to get married in the near future. Her benefit arrangements have been adjusted accordingly because her Husband-to-be has a reasonably well paid job.

She was arrested some weeks ago for alleged benefit fraud, escorted out of her home in handcuffs in full view of all her neighbours and taken to the Police Station. At the Station she was scanned for metal objects, a not unwise precaution given the propensity for some to be carrying a blade, but one that would depend on the circumstances and the person arrested, or so I would have thought.

Of course, the metal joint in the prosthetic leg registered with the metal detector. She was asked what it was and when she explained she was mockingly disbelieved in spite of the fact she walks with a profound limp. She was made to remove her jeans and then made to remove the prosthesis in order to prove that there was no weapon. She then had to give the ubiquitous DNA sample and was held in a cell awaiting interview.

At the interview she had been charged with the general crime of benefit fraud but the Police did not present any details of the alleged fraud itself. There was no tangible, documented evidence that could indicate exactly what she was supposed to be guilty of. The Police seemed out of their depths and no one from the DWP was there to explain the case against her. She was nevertheless warned, that if found guilty she could expect a custodial sentence.

On release from the Police Station she and her solicitor had the task of trawling through the pile of various documents that thankfully she had kept in order to build an auditable history of receipts and payments.

Neither she nor the Solicitor could find any evidence that the information she had given the DWP either didn’t reflect her present or past circumstances or didn’t match the benefits she was in receipt of and entitled to.

At her trial the DWP failed to make any coherent case against her alluding instead to some overpayment that they had made in error. The case against her was therefore dropped.

This is the sort of thing that would normally be dealt with by DWP staff by letter or perhaps by interview. I can understand the need to prosecute fraudsters and so can appreciate the need for the Police to be involved when there is clear evidence of wilful wrongdoing.

What I can’t get to grips with is how someone can be arrested and charged and then leave custody without a clear idea of the exact nature of their alleged offence. This seems to me to be a departure from the norms of legal process.

I am also concerned that an obviously disabled woman could be so humiliated by having to remove clothing and her prosthetic leg because of a procedure designed to protect the Police from fit, young, violent men who may be carrying a gun or a knife. Moreover the relevant details of the case would have clearly indicated that she was in receipt of benefit partly because of her disability.

At the time of arrest there were a number of other people arrested for benefit fraud. It would appear that this is part of a concerted and well publicised campaign that the government are mounting at the moment. I think that the DWP allowed this case to proceed to arrest because they had been given a target to meet in terms of numbers arrested for cheating the benefit system. This, I feel is why the DWP didn’t intervene by informing her that there was a possible mismatch between her benefit entitlement and her circumstances.

The Taxpayer has had to foot the bill for a trial that could never have resulted in a successful conviction. The DWP could have saved public money by intervening earlier. It seems to me that the present government tackles every problem with one eye on the need to be seen to be doing something rather than the need to achieve a fair and successful result.

Apropos the news item of Danish protests over Prophet cartoons, Indian painter M F Hussain and his supporters needed to be hanged in full public view for daring to paint, and support BHARAT MATA (Mother India), GODESS SARASWATI and LAXMI (The Hindu Goddess and Deity) in nude. NDTV (An Indian TV Channel) should feel shame in orgainizing support for awarding Bharat Ratna for M F Hussain for the honour done to Bharat Mata (painting nude). NDTV has lost the image of rationality.

Apropos the news item of Danish protests over Prophet cartoons, Indian painter M F Hussain and his supporters needed to be hanged in full public view for daring to paint, and support BHARAT MATA (Mother India), GODESS SARASWATI and LAXMI (The Hindu Goddess and Deity) in nude. NDTV (An Indian TV Channel) should feel shame in orgainizing support for awarding Bharat Ratna for M F Hussain for the honour done to Bharat Mata (painting nude). NDTV has lost the image of rationality.

Hello, I am interested in starting a general discussion on the under-representation of women, in particular BME women, within central and local government authorities. I would be grateful if people could post replies to one or more of the following questions. Q1. Do you think there are an under-representation of women, in particular BME women, within central and local government? Q2. Do you think it is important to have female representation within the more prominent roles of both central and local government? If yes, why do you think it is important for women to be represented within central and local government structures and affairs? If no, please explain why you think women do not need to be represented within central and local government affairs. Q3. Do you think female participation within central and local government makes a difference to political issues? Q4. What factors do you think contribute to the lack of female representation? Q5. What strategies do you think central and local government authorities should adopt to promote female representation and help BME women to proceed into more prominent roles? Q6. What do you think women in general can do to help themselves achieve more prominent roles within local government? Any views or general discussion around the topic would be much appreciated.

I produce short reports on human rights abuses in China,Burma, Iraq and even in America. Video Channel www.youtube.com/politicalvideos has a range of accurate reports.

European and U.S.countries encourage business growth and development in countries like China,knowing that these countries are fascist dictatorships who are opposed to democracy, who use violence against civilians, and do not support fair wages or the right to legal representation.

Politicians are busy shaking hands over resources and money,while they ignore shocking systematic human rights abuses. It is up to civilians to take a stand against oppression, fascism and slavery, because politicians consider profits and taxes from industry more important than combatting the evil regimes.

Human lives are more important,not politics and economics.
Visit www.youtube.com/politicalvideos.

Hey could anyone give me their opinions on the following please;

Do politians care more about their image then the content in polictical broadcasts? Any examples?

Do you think voting is now a social thing (i.e. everyone choosing labour because they think everyone else will) or an individual choice?

Do you feel manipulated by politians, do they lie?

Message me back i'll love ya forever

NDTV deserves worst condemnation for toying the idea of M F Hussain being awarded Bharat Ratna- a person responsible for painting Bharat Mata in nude besides goddess Saraswati, Laxmiji and others. Singhviji your clan was responsible for forceful ashamed evicition of innocent Taslima who just exposed through her novel LAJJA the tyranny and havoc of rapes inflicted on Hindu females and girls in Bangladesh and elsewhere in India. A fallacy indeed.

APROPOS THE NEWS OF CONVICTION OF 13 PERSONS IN GUJRAT FOR GODHRA BURNING AND RAPE- While the decision is apparently laudable, it seems the justice is never meant for Hindus, victims of similar agonies. Taslima has written LAJJA, a true story of the Hindus victimization perpetually done in the alien lands in the neighborhood, bordering areas that are controlled by Muslim terrorists in particular, and still donot find any voice, leave the justice alone. The worst treatment meted out to Taslima Nasreen who dared to expose the tyranny, through the acclaimed secularists, and Muslim clergies have exposed the myth. Innumerable Hindu women and girl Childs particularly in J & K, North Eastern states, and land in and around Bangladesh, victims of similar havoc are waiting for this nation, judiciary, the Military and para military forces, media, human activists, Shabanas, Teesta Seetalvads to take care and raise a voice for their causes. SIMILAR JUSTICE IS AWAITED FOR THE MUSLIM CRUELS WHO BURNT THE TRAIN OF RAM BHAKT KAR SEVAKS, MAINLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE MOST GHASTLY AND UNHEARD INHUMAN DARING. LEST THE WAIT END…………….???????????????????

Modern World has been under threats from Terrorism. We must understand its various aspects:
1. Mistakes of Modern World: There is some mistakes in Modern Civilization, in its socio-economic structure.First, its Enemy from within was Communism and now it is Post-USSR Islamic Terrorism.If it had not been Islamic Terrorism then some other monster had been born from its own womb.
2. This package of 20th Century Islam has nothing to do with original Islam as 20 th Century Christianity has nothing to do with values preached by Jesus.
3. All Religions have failed in making good homanbeings. Inquisitions and burning of witches prove this in case of Christianity. The Tragedy of Karbala within 50 years of death of Prophet of Islam proves so for Islam.This History must be clearly shown.
4. The history of Muslim States ( also all Theocracies)show their non-sustainability in this World. The people are subjugated, freedom of Thoughts crushed,liberals are killed. The Caliph-Clergy combine indulge in vices. Finally they are over-run by less civilized races.This History must be clearly shown.
5. The Muslim asserts their rights to practice Religion in Modern States and meekly submit to so called Muslim State where the ruler may attack Mecca and Kaaba and may plunder Madina and desecrate grave of Prophet of Islam as done by Caliph Yazid in 61 Hijri.This History must be clearly shown.
6. The TRUTH must be asserted that we do not know what is beyond this World and after this Life. We fathom a God in image of Human Values-One who is All Truth,All Good and All Beauty. We must adopt Universal Sibhood and Love as our creed.
7. We must eradicate Poverty and arrange Jobs for everyone.
8. Thus inherent sicknes of Modern World must be cured and thus Monster can be defeated.

7. We must eradicate Poverty and arrange Jobs for everyone.

Hi new to this site hope it is as good as it looks :confused:

An Oxford Union debate became an item in the news last week. This was because a large crowd of students, as well as outside groups, gathered to protest against the presence of the Holocaust denier, David Irving, and the the leader of the British National Party (BNP), Nick Griffin.

The irony of all this was that it turned these 2 individuals into champions of free speech. However, what was disturbing was that the crowd, largely made up of students, were trying to prevent to prevent free speech and a free debate from taking place. A university is meant to be, of all places, a forum for debating, thinking, learning and asking challenging questions.

This reminded me of many years ago as a student at the University of Kent when David Irving was invited to a debate. Groups of students were determined that this would not take place, and some warned that violence may be used against anyone who turned up. The debate was subsequently cancelled and people like me were denied an opportunity to ask tough questions. This was one of many factors that put me off left-wing politics for good.

Can't any of these people see that when you use force to stop such speakers and audiences attending, you end up giving them a veneer of respectability? I say give them freedom to speak, but also give decent people the chance to question and hold them to account. Then we will see the likes of David Irving and Nick Griffin for what they really are. If we don't, we eventually end up like those disturbing scenes this last week in Khartoum where a British schoolteacher is imprisoned over what she happened to call a teddy bear.

Top Letters

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 is an issue that has sharply divided opinion in the UK since. We were originally told that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled WMDs and that some of these were finding their way to Al Qaeda. Did George W Bush & Tony Blair take us to war on a false premise? After all, it has been said that WMDs have never been located in Iraq since the invasion.

Has anyone read an interesting book by Georges Sada entitled, Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied & Survived Saddam Hussein (Integrity, 2006)? An ethnic Assyrian, Christian and not a member of the ruling Baath Party, he was an Iraqi air force general who proved exceptional skills as a MIG fighter pilot and knowledge of the functioning of military aircraft. He managed a few times to tell Saddam the truth without paying the ultimate penalty.

It has often been said that no WMDs have been found because Saddam had no such programmes to pose a threat. Sada argues otherwise. He claims that before the 2003 invasion, Saddam made clandestine deals through high-ranking Syrian officials to hide the WMDs at secret sites in Syria by using a front company to transport materials in large trucks across the border. Whether or not Coalition sources have knowledge or suspicion of such sites, is unknown. However, if true and revealed as such, it would have massive implications for the whole debate. Is Sada not better qualified than many to comment? Will mysteries such as this be well documented in the Western liberal media?

We do not as yet know the full truth. We all know, however, Saddam's record during his reign of terror. We can so easily forget that while he wanted to been seen as a father figure of the Arabs, it was Arabs who were his victims - whether Shia or Sunni - along with other ethnic groups such as the Kurds (remember Halabja in 1988).

Where the political leaders in Wahington D.C. or London failed the Iraqi people, and their own armed forces, was the absence of properly planning the peace long term. We can only hope that attempts to build some form of democracy in Iraq prevail.

topletters

Sonia is right in brandishing Modi as "dishonest and a merchant of death". Displaying her mental status. But she must coin a befitting adjective for her FOUR FATHERS who have been responsible for a mass murder of innocent people in 1947, an unparallel turbulence in J & K ( inflicted by Nehru under the intoxicated influence of lady Mountbatten, and Naxal infected India, mass exodus and forced conversion of Hindus from north east regions….the nation wish eagerly to have a word from this beloved leader of immense knowledge. And her great wisdom…..! ...”Sonia Ji, If you don’t know then read LAJJA”.

If M F Hussain (The real Hero and only Statesman and Artist of prominence in the eyes of Communists, and Congress combine) would have painted The Prophet in the same colour (shown generosity towards Prophet as he had shown by painting Bharat Mata and Goddess Saraswati in nude) , the Muslim Fundamentalists would have certainly not allowed him to fly but beheaded him. HAI NA LAJJA KA SUBJECT. It is due to generous Hindus he is surviving as yet. How would you define this tolerance…. Hindu fundamentalism.

Apropos of the news of Taslima Nasreen’s forced ouster from the so called Communist (read secular) state is the planned phenomenon, as is out by now. In India the well written definition of Secularism is- being Anti Hindu, or being anti national, in its real parlance. If we analyse the conversion of Hindus in North east and elsewhere in the C Country through the hands of Missionaries, it has turned out to be a case of change in national loyalty, treating National prides- Anthem, Vande Mataram etc. as anti – Islamic, and getting supported by the so called Secularists in their heinous design( read anti national) is a visible sign of it. Communists sought Madhani’s ( the dreaded terror master, whose bail was continuously rejected even by the Apex Court), support in Kerala elections, and now Taslima’s ouster is the ample proof of the thesis, a subject of LAJJA.

The free world needs a leader like this!!


The free world needs a leader like this!!


Prime Minister John Howard - Australia

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. 'If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you', he said on National Television
'I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia : one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option', Costello said..
Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should clear off. 'Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off', he said.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have