Chomsky: Business Elites Are Waging a Brutal Class War in America @alternet http://www.alternet.org/economy/chomsky-business-elites-are-waging-brutal-class-war-america
Chomsky: Business Elites Are Waging a Brutal Class War in America @alternet http://www.alternet.org/economy/chomsky-business-elites-are-waging-brutal-class-war-america
Turning immigration into a tool of social engineering | Essays on the 2010 election | Immigration | Open borders campaign | Social policy and the welfare state | spiked http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/8335#.VYjSknx6eGM.twitter
An excellent essay on the Blair government agenda, which was rather devious. The oft-quoted aim to “rub the Tories faces in diversity” in the light of this article could be re-interpreted as “rubbing the working class’s faces in diversity”.
This is how I unravel it.
Thatcher pulled the rug from under Labour by appealing to the aspiring working class. That is all who under our supposedly meritocratic, free, fair-play, Western democracy, unlike totally rigid other cultures, had the option to raise themselves out of the godawful living and working conditions of the working class, into a reasonable, decent quality of life. Labour saw those who did, then voted Tory.
Open doors immigration, alongwith favouring migrants over the native working class, was Labour’s revenge against the working class for not supporting them. The logic appeared to be – let working class people improve their conditions, then they won’t vote for you. Keep the working class in the gutter – and they will. A win-win situation.
Where Thatcher won the working class voters with the promise, though not necessarily the fact, of personal betterment, Labour’s migration policy told the working class Labour’s intention was to “keep them in their place”. Not so different from the Tories then.
But Labour got their sums wrong. Labour’s own middle class bias is revealed in the class prejudice that the working class are comprised of useless, idle dummies, not a majority of actual “hard working” people, working hard, getting very little for it and desperately trying to improve their conditions.
Possibly Labour lost this last election precisely because of their patronising, condescending and ignorant assessment of the working class and their clear abandonment of working class interests. Their appeal was only to fringe groups – all minorities, migrants and the unfortunates that the working class is represented by in the media. They may also have miscalculated the migrants vote. Hard-working Poles do not aspire to remain in the gutter. And Muslims are repelled by gay rights.
The migrants as far as bettering themselves have identical interests to the working class. So they are not going to vote for a party whose policy is to keep everyone at the bottom – at the bottom.
Blair’s Labour was less “New Labour” than “New Tory”, but without the hope (although her policies did the opposite) of Thatcher’s appeals to self-betterment.
Regarding open-doors immigration, I cannot see that this is a policy that can do anything other than reduce these small and already over-crowded islands, into a 3rd world slum. People will naturally migrate from bad to better, from poor to rich, from anarchy to order. Considering the state of much of Africa, the Middle East, India and China, there are billions of people who would come to Britain if they were allowed. And the people whose work and living options will be reduced if the numbers increase will be the working class, not the wealthy elite who will benefit from ever cheaper labour and ever higher rents.
After the election the post-mortems start. Labour was it’s own worst enemy in this election. Historically the Labour Party was the party that represented the interests of the ordinary working man, whose concerns are simple and straightforward. The availability of good, decently paid jobs; the availability of decent affordable housing; secure pensions; education and training are good too as offering the opportunity to better themselves.
But we are now living in the new global economy, where the world’s multi-nationals and elites see no reason to pay higher wages than they need in a world surfeit of manpower. Drop all national borders, allow free world-wide movement of labour and you can get a desperate African, Indian, Chinese or Eastern European to work for a fraction of the wages, live six to a room, accept any dangerous and exploitative work conditions and be completely happy because their wages are multiples of what they would earn at home.
The message of all the main British political parties to the working class might as well be – drop dead. We don’t need you anymore.
Under Blair, Labour divorced itself from its roots, as if it was ashamed of its origins. It became hard to distinguish between the policies of the Conservatives and Labour as they both competed for the middle ground among the electorate while applying the same neo-liberal, globalist policies. The working class was effectively disenfranchised.
Sadly, Bob Crow passed away last year at a too early age. He spoke for the interests of the working people – something which the Labour Party has abandoned in favour of posturing on the world stage.
Despite surround-sound propaganda vilifying marked out sections of the populace for persecuting vulnerable groups, the major orchestrators of persecution – scapegoating – have always been governments. The process enables governments to direct attention away from what they are doing, create for the populace a legitimised target for frustrations – often frustration caused by those self-same governments, and by the way get rid of a section of the populace the government finds inconvenient. Scapegoating is a strong indicator of government corruption and that government has something to hide.
The greatest fomentor of hatred in Britain over the last decade have not been the tiny and in real terms useless fascists – at least not among the populace. Fascism has never been a British fashion, although it seems to be becoming one among our ruling elite. The fomentors of hatred in Britain are principally our government whose totally incompetent – unless intended to be malign – foreign policy comprises stirring up trouble overseas; where there is a problem pouring on petrol and fanning the flames; meddling with total incompetence where they are neither needed nor wanted, and having stirred up the maximum amount of trouble, thrown our borders open to the millions of migrants who quite naturally want to leave the chaos the British government has been so active in contributing to. In a lot of ways the behaviour of our British government resembles the opportunistic and double-dealing of Hitler prior to the 2WW.
Of course governments never take responsibility for their actions. When scapegoating is a large part of government behaviour you know honest government has been abandoned.
The classic example of scapegoating was that of the Jews by the Nazis. The Nazi propaganda was wholesale garbage, but it is human nature to heap hatred on the “out” group when under pressure, so the Nazis set the Jews up for attack. It allowed the populace to let off steam, granted opportunists plunder at the Jews expense, and served as an example of what the Nazis would do to YOU if you resisted them. Very politically convenient.
So why are our British government now fomenting hatred against their own working class?
Our government are making a bollocks of government, and I am one of those who subscribes to the idea that nothing in politics happens by accident, so I do not believe their policies causing so much harm to the populace are accidental – they are deliberate.
Our elected representatives are no longer representing the people but narrow monied vested interests who appear to be designing the policies which our government then rubber-stamps with as little discussion or attention as possible.
What the people in the country NEED as opposed to want, is access to the means of having a reasonably decent standard of living – living wage jobs with decent conditions – not 3rd world pay and conditions; accommodation likewise; the security of reliable medical care, welfare and pensions where needed. The government seems determined to cut all services – I notice they haven’t stopped collecting taxes, in the UK nearly half your income.
These are not extraordinary requirements. In the immediate aftermath of the 2WW when the country was bankrupt and the infrastructure was in desperate need of repair, our government somehow managed it. What possible excuse can there be for failure in the 21st century?
Our small country, now the most densely populated in Europe with the exception of Malta, has a population of over 60 million, the actual figure unknown thanks to government disinterest in keeping an accurate record. Compare our land mass with USA with its population five times greater. One third of our land mass are mountains. When you add in flood plains, lakes, marsh lands – the total uninhabitable areas and accept that some areas while inhabitable are remote – to continue to usher more people in is insane. As a country we are not self-supporting in food nor power. Before mass migration there was a shortage of decent affordable housing. We have neither sufficient jobs nor accommodation for the population who are already here. The beneficiaries of population increase are landlords in increased rents, and employers in reduced wages and getting more bang for their buck. Everyone else loses.
It is very good of the government to insist that the populace does not scapegoat the immigrants for the growing catastrophic conditions which our government are deliberately creating. That was an invented issue in any case. The British are known to be the most tolerant and accepting of outsiders of every nation in Europe – possibly the world. So why does our government feel a need to scapegoat the poorest sections of the native residents for the bad conditions the government has been instrumental in creating? It is not the fault of the working class that the government has kow-towed to trans-nationals – not mandated by the people – and been complicit in tax avoidance and off-shoring jobs to 3rd world countries where the labour force are exploited and some are actually slaves. We pay half our taxes to support the country’s infrastructure and social obligations in terms of medical care, pensions and welfare, not to be poured down the black hole of the EU, and then told – sorry, the government does not have the money. They took the money in taxes – not a penny should go out of the country until the needs of the people in the country have been satisfactorily met.
Now the reason for scapegoating of the working class, the elderly, the unemployed, ill and disabled becomes clear. They have wasted our taxes, they have bled our money away into the pockets of unelected Eurocrats and trans- nationals, so all that remains is vilifying those sections of the populace who are now in greatest need as the direct result of their policies and actions. People are dying as a result of their policies. The rhetoric of hatred – just as the Nazis did with the Jews – is being used to distract attention away from our government’s direct responsibility.
Growing up in the fifties/sixties, white, healthy working class woman, before reliable contraception, legalised abortion, when having an illegitimate child trashed any prospect of a respectable career or good marriage as you were stigmatised for life, you knew the cost of any “mistake” resulting from an interaction with a man, concensual or otherwise.
Bear in mind I grew up in Northern Ireland, just north of the border of Magdelene Laundry country.
You knew what happened if you had a healthy, white, illegitimate baby. Forced adoption. On the other hand if you had a handicapped or coloured baby, they would pull out all stops to enable you to keep it.
Then the culture changed. Reliable, available contraception, even for the unmarried; legal abortion; the stigma of illegitimacy removed so that women could get and keep their jobs = the supply of healthy, white babies, from good (not criminal nor insane) backgrounds dried up.
But they still want those babies. But now women can no longer be forced or tricked into having them just to give them up, where can they be found?
Working class MARRIED couples. Normal people who were married, in the fifties and sixties never worried that someone would take their baby away from them. That only happened to single women.
But times have changed. Single women are no longer producing free babies, and somebody has to provide them. So now the baby-snatchers are going after married people .
Growing up in the fifties/sixties I realised the biggest social threat I faced was being tricked into having a baby I could not support, so remaining childless became an over-riding priority in my life. (And I succeeded. Not having children is the best thing I never did).
But now marriage is no protection, married people are going to have to think the way single women had to think, decades ago, for their own protection. Perhaps choosing a marriage partner of a different colour?
(Ladies, there is a lot of variety out there and some of the colours are very nice!)
– and where honest, working people are treated as criminals, where the sick are treated as frauds and the elderly are treated as shirkers.
In the fifties and sixties Great Britain had a world-wide reputation for being law-abiding, for its reliable institutions and courtesy of its people, which included working class people. Before mass immigration. With a very low level of unemployment working class people did a major part of society’s essential work ( surprise!). Building, skilled trades, manufacturing, heavy industries, mining, farming and small businesses. With education some entered the Civil Service, nursing, teaching and journalism. Unemployment was low, in part because traditionally, middle class women did not go out to work. There was little crime and it was an uncommon and newsworthy event. Crime was a fringe element and criminals were marginal people. Ordinary people, working class and middle class alike rarely encountered crime.
Education for working class people gave access to grammar schools and all universities, including the top ones. Secondary modern schools provided an excellent education for girls. Many of my friends at girl’s secondaries got an excellent grounding in commercial subjects, leaving with qualifications in shorthand, typing and book-keeping, which made them highly employable in offices world wide. Others went into nursing and teaching. A University Lecturer complained to me that skilled tradesmen were paid more than him ( and he also said people were working class because they were too stupid to become middle class – this in a University which had the highest percentage of working class students in the entire UK – Ulster University).
Gypsies were not viewed as particularly criminal. Until the government changed the law in the late 1960’s, creating problems for farmers having caravans parked on their land, gypsies had legitimate employment with farmers as casual farm workers. They arrived when the work was needed and they brought their own accommodation. This made the notoriously low wages that farmers paid acceptable. Living in the countryside we saw gypsies on a regular, though not frequent basis. Nobody feared them. You didn’t rush home to lock up your toolshed. They didn’t trouble us and we didn’t trouble them.
I am not saying that gypsies or immigrants SHOULD be stigmatised. What I am saying is why is it happening that gypsies and immigrants must be always assumed to be honourable, honest working people, while at the same time, honest working people are treated as criminals. Why has it become normal and acceptable for an honest, working large section of the populace, who, as it is the human condition, also suffer sickness, aging and in the present government-manufactured conditions, sometimes also cannot find full-time jobs giving a living wage to be treated as if they, and they alone, are criminal class?
Working class people, en masse, are being treated to propaganda specifically directed against them very similar to that which the Nazis directed at the Jews in the 2WW, and we know where that led.
The working class has always been treated with smug superiority by the middle class. This turned into anger and resentment when competitive entry into grammar schools and universities resulted in children of working class origin out-competing middle class children, with all their advantages, into grammars and universities.
Working class girls with excellent qualifications were entering traditionally middle class areas of employment, offices, nursing and teaching, previously a middle class preserve. From there some went on to marry middle class men, another competition the middle class women did not welcome.
Sporting clubs were another area where working class girls and boys distinguished themselves. The school my sister attended, Greymount Girls Secondary produced the athlete Mary Peters. My sister went on to become a champion Irish swimmer, and her daughter swam in the Atlanta Olympics.
One by one, the ladders of upward mobility have been dismantled, but that does not explain why a continuing major law-abiding and able group are being falsely stigmatised wholesale, as criminals. The stigmatisation of the Jews preceded them being robbed of all their wealth, homes and businesses, reduced to slavery then slaughtered. Having been accused of all the crimes of which their accusers were guilty.
In UK today the honest are labelled criminals and the criminal are labelled honest. Nothing in politics happens by accident. While migrants are ushered into the country and held to be above reproach, the native population is being labelled criminal,useless and lazy. Like the German Jews, being scapegoated for the governments failings.
The process is not accidental. It is deliberate and it is leading somewhere. Every working class person in the country needs to wake up and ask, where is this leading. Before it is too late.
When someone says something derogatory about someone they might be being discriminatory or they might just be merely descriptive. If what the person is saying is true – after all we have libel and slander laws which recognise the difference between people who tell the truth about someone and people who tell lies – then the statement is justified. No person nor group of people should be allowed to hide their criminal and/or anti-social behaviour behind a claim that telling the truth about them amounts to discrimination.
For example if someone said – gypsies are criminals, blacks are drug dealers, men are rapists – that is discriminatory and prejudiced. However to say that gypsies are disproportionately involved in the crimes of pick-pocketing and vandalism in comparison with other groups. That black people have more people involved with selling drugs at street level, that young white males are the major category of burglars and that most people who rape women and sexually prey on children are men rather than women, that is simply describing what is happening and the people engaged in it. In factual terms it should be no different than saying more men than women engage in mountain climbing and more women than men wear make-up.
The problem is politics, political power, and closely bonded groups with xenophobic attitudes towards other groups, soon muddy the picture. Then we see such arguments as to why there are not equal numbers of shelters for battered men? The answer is for the same reason we don’t have an equal number of prison places for women – because men as a class commit approximately eight times the numbers of crimes than do women as a class. However, this is not reflected in general lower status for men, because their greater social and political power relative to women counteracts that effect.
Criminals as a group are hyper alert to threat and aggressively defend themselves, so it is not surprising that closely bonded social groups with strong involvements in criminal activities, are aggressively defensive when accused. My group right or wrong is also a factor. Even if the entire group is not involved in crime, often they shelter the guilty and partake of the plunder.
Censorship of free speech, by which I mean the right of anyone to describe a factual event as it happened needs to be upheld. The alternative is criminals force the populace to wear blinkers increasing the blind areas in which they can freely commit their crimes.
And given that an entire social class is stigmatised with the continuous suspicion of criminality when they are no more engaged in crime than anyone else – the working class – and the innocent are not granted the politically correct protection of the many groups who are guilty – the right idea of removing unjustified social stigma from those irrationally discriminated against has clearly back-fired. Now we are not allowed to point the finger at the guilty, but prejudice against the innocent is totally accepted.
So, the public are expected to believe that the criminal who threw a brick through Mr Din’s window, was so offended by the sign Mr Din displayed over the broken window, that on his own initiative he went to the police to complain that his feelings were hurt? And it didn’t occur to him that admitting to the crime would result in him being caught?
Let me suggest a more likely course of events. When the police ignore crimes against ordinary people, they don’t like the victims of crime drawing attention to a crime they couldn’t be bothered solving. It wasn’t the victim who was offended by the sign but the police who were losing face.
It is not then a surprise that having found the perp they didn’t prosecute him, but prosecuted the victim. And it is not a surprise that it looks like they couldn’t be bothered finding the perp until Mr Din publicly embarrassed them.
And the police wonder why people think they are on the side of the criminals.
Mr Din was on the right track. Perhaps if every victim of crime posted a notice in their window explaining the crime and how it hasn’t been dealt with, they would get a response. (Hopefully not along the lines of grass-up police failures and you’re nicked).
My parents were working class. My father, born in rural Northern Ireland in 1905, finished school aged 14, then worked at a number of jobs acquiring skills as he went, until he finally went to night classes and passed his radio exams and became a Radio Officer in the Merchant Navy. By which stage he could do plumbing, brick laying, tiling, plastering, wiring, and some mechanics. Basically he was a mechanical and electrical genius. If it was a machine or used electricity he could fix it.
My mother’s background was mixed. Her father was a brick-layer, and had also been a policeman. But her mother came from an upper middle class family, where the daughters had been disinherited, and therefore de-statused by their brothers, a not uncommon occurrence in the 19th century. She was one of the most intelligent people I have ever met, coldly analytic, never overlooking a detail. She became a Head Librarian.
I was raised in the countryside. We had few relatives, as my mother’s family lived in Australia and my father, marrying late, many of his relatives had already died. So I was raised in near social isolation, and grew up with no awareness of social class. Nor was I taught to have any. My parents view was life, and your status, was what you made it. Get educated, work hard, and employers recognising your merit would promote you. A naive view that I entirely believed. But a view I soon found was not shared by the peasant (anthropological term) culture, that I lived in. Not having any recognition of social class distinctions I accepted people as I found them. I liked people who were intelligent and creative, who were interested in doing things and thinking things. And this was the basis on which I accorded other people respect. But peasant society’s do not work like that. People are accorded respect according to their birth, the status of their parents. You are supposed to grovel to the higher-ups and you can treat as you like anyone you perceive as being lower-status to yourself. If you are perceived as lower rank, but have higher ability, you will be shunned and treated as an “upstart”, someone with views ” above their station”. So, I didn’t get on with Irish culture, to say the least. I had arrived at the conclusion that the entire human race were witless ass-holes by the age of 30, when I moved to England for work, and discovered everyone was not the same.
I had rejected the peasant model of rigid social class stratification, but I still held the view that social status was something that you worked for and could achieve. I still lacked any sense of class identity both in myself and others. You know the expression “colour blind”. Well, I was class blind. I still accepted people as I found them, without prejudice but having a preference for associating with intelligent, creative and active people. I had had an excellent Northern Irish education – alongwith the Scots, the Nth Irish working class placed a high value on education, and I supposed now I was living somewhere where I could find work, it would be onwards and upwards from hereon in.
Perhaps it does work that way for men. But I soon found out working in offices that just because I had no awareness, nor interest in anyone else’s supposed social class, only being concerned with getting the job done in as harmonious way as possible, for other people social class was a major preoccupation. A bit like race, but without the colour. And apparently, both my parents being honest working people all their lives, well-read and well- educated, meant that I was somehow inferior to the daughters of the shop assistant’s, whose qualifications were inferior to mine, that I was working with. It soon became clear that my role in the office setting, on the lowest grade, was to be the office donkey. That neither my qualifications nor hard-work were ever going to gain me a promotion over the middle-class wives. When I found other well-qualified, experienced working class women, running offices virtually on their own, on the point of retirement, and still on the lowest clerical grade, I realised I was wasting my time. I moved out of office work to become a postman, with a large increase in pay, a pension, good holidays, a fair work distribution, and after dealing with neurotic, obsessed, narrow-minded bitchy women, dealing with sexism from the men was child’s play.
But I digress. I was starting to learn about social class. That no-one is going to support meritocracy, except for themselves. That everyone’s fall-back position when faced with anyone with higher ability but lower status, is to pull rank. And the barriers go up alongwith all the ammunition, that we, the middle class are the sole owners of law-abiding ness, morality, sanity, decency, and a work ethic, and if you are lower class and present with qualifications and good work you must be a fraud, as you belong to the work-shy, skiving, criminal classes, who need to be kept out of middle-class venues for middle class protection.
As an aside I have to add that it is more than a tad irritating being treated as a criminal by the society you live in when you are not one. As I am not a criminal I would never lift my hand against these people, but after a lifetime of gratuitous abuse if, or when, they all go down in flames, I will not feel one iota of concern. Humanity has lost my good will.
I was slow to learn, but classism was not a one-off invention for my benefit. I have been surrounded by honest, hard-working, law-abiding, enterprising, working class people my entire life. They are the antithesis of the criminal classes. Everything they have, they worked hard for. And those that succeeded mainly did so by avoiding social structures controlled by the middle classes. They either were promoted on the basis of merit in working-class settings, either factory work or became self-employed and ran their own businesses. And I am talking about success by any standards. People reaching top management positions, people building up businesses worth millions.
So much is self-evident. What is not obvious is what I discovered last year after being subjected to bizarre behaviour from a relative. Totally baffled, I enquired on Wiki what the behaviour meant and they told me it was “gaslighting” a term I had never heard of. When I researched “gaslighting” I found ” gang stalking” which described the kind of events that had been happening to me since attending Ulster University ( Coleraine campus) in the 1970s, and ever since.
And a startling pattern became clear. Working class and ethnic people associated with me – people who had made good, mainly by building up businesses so they had substantial assets, had been stripped of their resources – conned or swindled out of their savings, houses or businesses.
The only conclusion I can arrive at is meritocracy is a sham to disguise the fact that our class system is in fact a rigid caste system, where those in charge fully embrace the peasant culture ideology that people must be confined to the social class they were born to and any who dare to lift themselves from the gutter are fair game to have the proceeds of their work stripped from them and pushed back into the gutter where they belong. That the ruling class view everyone not ruling class as slaves, who are expected to work for nothing, accept any and every abuse, and all that belongs to us, belongs to them, that they can help themselves to at their leisure.
agent provocateur, Channelling crime, classism, crime, Crime as a political weapon, framing, gang stalking, life sabotage, prejudice, racism, Scapegoat class, sexism, stigmatisation, women in prison, working class
As a child I read two books about the same time and with a curiously similar theme. One was Jean Genet’s “Our Lady of the Flowers” and the other was Violette Leduc’s “La batarde”. Both were autobiographical and described their lives with great gusto. And both appeared to me to be making the same excuse, namely ” society made me a criminal”. The authors shared great writing talent. These books are enjoyable reads. But even as a child I was not impressed by their arguments. I can remember thinking – who are you trying to kid? You are telling me you are so spineless, so passive, so weak that as a result of circumstances you just fell into criminality as a result of other forces? I mean, criminals may be lazy, but are they passive?
Growing up rural working class I was taught to respect everybody. And also, nobody. This was the Scots/Irish tradition of ” not being a respecter of persons”. Unlike the Irish peasant culture surrounding me where the social norm is to grovel to the higher-ups and happily trample anyone viewed as socially inferior, my family carried the Scots and rural culture of you respect a man or woman on the basis of their merit. Social status is disregarded. But at the same time you are under a requirement of respecting everyone. Only one exception was allowed. Criminals. Criminals deserved no respect on the basis of their immorality, parasitism and being predators on our class.
So, from an early age I entirely rejected the premise “society made me a criminal” and there has only ever been one class of human beings I despise totally, and that is criminals.
However, there were aspects of my early life experiences which tallied with Jean Genet’s and Violette Leduc’s descriptions of their childhood. My parents were poor. My father worked from the age of 14 to past 70. He didn’t smoke, drink, nor gamble. He married late and only had two children. He never got into debt. He was a highly skilled man. But most of his early working life when he was a sparks in the Merchant Navy all his spare income had gone to support his mother and youngest sister. As a result when I was growing up, we were poor, and the community that surrounded us viewed us with suspicion and I experienced being treated like a criminal because of being poor along with social rejection throughout my early life. But I didn’t see anything in that to be an excuse for criminality. I discerned that people were obnoxious, didn’t live to the same standards of my parents which I also subscribed to, and I didn’t need them. I expected to be self-sufficient, like my parents.
However, now in my sixties and looking back over my life I have to admit that Genet and Leduc had an argument – but not in the way they presented it.
If you are a law respecting person, you not only do not commit crimes, but you also make a point of avoiding crime venues. Especially as a working class women which as a category society can’t be bothered protecting. You avoid venues where you might become a target of crime. You don’t dress nor act in a provocative manner. You avoid going to places where men go to pick up women, because you know men with criminal intentions will be there. You guard your reputation because a bad reputation is a bad-man magnet. All this was second nature to me. Logically, following this choice of behaviour I should have been as safe as it is possible for a woman of my social class to be, from crime and criminal elements. I avoided bad company.
If only it had been that simple.
When I went to Ulster University (Coleraine campus) in 1976, to study the non-controversial, rather conservative subject of Philosophy, with a focus on religion and ethics, I became the target of gang stalkers. An English policeman went out of his way to make my acquaintance. He asked me inappropriate questions about my sex life and gave me a large pile of porn magazines which had been confiscated from students. Strange men started hanging around my remotish cottage, frightening the single lady on one side to sell up and go back to England, and frightening the old man on the other side who had lived there all his life without any trouble. I was rejected for further study before taking my final exams even though I was getting high grades. Due to poverty I met few students or staff at University, but somehow the ones I did meet were communists or republican sympathisers. (My politics are middle of the spectrum and strongly opposed to both extremes of communism or fascism. I was a volunteer for the non-sectarian Northern Ireland Alliance Party at a later date). And the whole gang stalking package from then on. Which included putting opportunities to commit crimes in my way. And also, when I moved into accommodation with perfectly normal neighbours, in a short time those neighbours would move out to be replaced with anti-social and criminal tenants – exactly the bad company that I tried to avoid. You can avoid going to venues where bad people hang out, but if you are living at a multiple-occupancy address, how can you prevent criminals from moving in? This happened repeatedly.
One theory of gang stalking, which has traction, is that it is caused by corrupt police and security service personnel. The people who are supposed to be catching criminals and protecting the law-abiding. They are not supposed to be inciting crime, and setting up situations where crime is likely to happen, nor acting in a way which increases the risks from crime for ordinary citizens.
It looks like an alliance of criminals at the top of society combining with criminals at the bottom of society, to use crime to attack lower status people.
So, Genet and Leduc had a point. There are very strong and heavily financed powers in society who have the active objective of promoting crime, both in terms of crimes being carried out and also crimes directed at people. It appears to be for the socio-political purpose to on one hand, persecute lower class groupings in society, such as working class and people of colour by making them targets of criminals – channeling crime in their direction. And also to justify this process by trying to get them involved in crime directly. The objective being to stigmatise lower class law-abiding groups as criminal class. A handy, ever-ready scapegoat class. A large percentage of women (mainly lower class) in prison, I am told, are furious because they maintain they are there because they have been set-up by men, who actually committed crimes but got off scott-free.
On the back of my experience it could well be true.
My Dad was a mechanical and electrical genius. Not only could he fix anything that had moving parts or ran on electricity but he could make it too. And even if the item did not exist if you had said to him I need a machine to do this – he could have made it for you. Understanding energy transfer was wired into his brain. But he didn’t do inventions. He just said – if you invent something, they (somebody higher up the food chain) will steal it from you.
My husband had a technical expertise but he also had business savvy and was a genius with people. When my Dad and husband met they were like long lost brothers. They disappeared into the garage where my Dad proudly showed off all his tools suspended in orderly fashion by hooks to the wall – the exact same method my husband used. My Dad talked more than I had ever known him to talk to anyone. He had found someone on the same wavelength. He was in his eighties then. You said – I wished I had met him thirty years ago – we would have been a great team. You were right. At one stage Dad had tried to start a business – electrical repairs.This was before televisions and the radios were as big as tv’s and any electrical item was a large household investment. But neither he nor my mother were business minded and didn’t know how to handle people. But you and he could have worked together, you providing the business and people skills. Together you could have been millionaires. No kidding. Dad was an expert and you made millions for the firm you worked for.
Two beautiful, intelligent, honest hard working men. But as John Lennon said in “Working Class Hero” (as far as the patrician elite are concerned) “you are all fucking peasants”.
If someone said to me – would you like to have been born to the ruling elite – I wouldn’t even have to think to say NO. My sense is the universe runs on work. It is the people who make and do who get things done. The structure has to be built, then maintained. That is the foundation. Nothing is, without work. If you don’t want to work and are prepared to do without, there is nothing wrong with that. If you don’t want to work but think because you are so superior you have the right to live the life of Riley on the back of other people’s work – you are no more than a parasite. If the workers left the planet human society would fall. If the ruling elite left, not only would no-one miss them – everybody would be better off.
You can keep your kings. We are better.