About The Author

Welcome to my blog. 

"I Intend To Escape......." has no great aim except to promote some of the issues and struggles I believe in, and to give a platform for my own writing and research. 

Anarchy In the UK?

I am an exhausted Anarchist, having been involved in the UK Anarchist movement since the early 1990s. From 1997 to 2007 I was one of the editors of the Class War newspaper, and I have published work in a whole host of publications including Freedom, Black Flag and Notes From the Borderland, a magazine of parapolitics. 

In 2008 I began a PhD, "From Black to Green?" comparing contemporary Islamist terrorism with historical Anarchist terrorism. The difficulty with such a proposition is that whilst it is comparatively easy for writers such as James L Gelvin or Tariq Ali to dismiss certain attacks or groups as 'anarchist' few credible, weighty descriptions emerge from such narratives.

 My academic wonder wall 

In time, writing 100,000 words disagreeing with Gelvin and Ali began to lose its appeal. So my research changed focus and is now entitled "British Jihadism: History, Theory, Practice". It concentrates on the involvement of a small number of UK Muslims in Jihadi violence over the past three decades. I seek to answer questions such as whether a distinctly British Jihadism can be ascertained, what the backgrounds of such activists are, what they do and why so many differing responses have emerged to this threat.

Its A Mad, Mad World

For several years I worked with the writer Larry O'Hara on exposing the 9/11 'truth' movement - the collection of oddballs, Jew baiters and  fantasists who will tell us everyone and anyone was responsible for 9/11 - except for Al Qaeda.
I am proud to say I was given the title "relentless limpit shill" on one of their web forums, whilst over on the Respect supporting Socialist Unity blog editor Andy Newman denounced me as an 'unsavoury character' for exposing some of the more unpleasant Islamists attempting to operate in left leaning political circles today. Praise indeed!

The 9/11 Cultwatch blog provides an occasional insight into the machinations of the 'truth' movement

You can follow me, this blog and the 9/11 Cultwatch blog on Twitter at http://twitter.com/#!/MrPaulStott

The Future

I am the author of two forthcoming books:"Bugger Bognor - A Guide For Gay People in East Sussex" and "Eat Your Dinner, You Silly Cow" - a manual for parents whose daughters have eating disorders.

  

 Paul Stott
10 June 2010

 

Comments

[sort it out frosty]

Hi Paul,

Thought you might find this interesting:

"We hereby request all Muslims in the United Kingdom, in Manchester, Leeds, Cardiff, Glasgow and all other places to join us and collectively declare that as submitters to Almighty Allah (SWT), we have had enough of democracy and man-made law and the depravity of the British culture. On this day we will call for a complete upheaval of the British ruling system its members and legislature, and demand the full implementation of Shari'ah in Britain."

http://www.islam4uk.com/current-affairs/uk-news/46-uk/352--procession-march-for-shariah

[Paul Stott]

Thanks.

One of the problems with the Islam 4 UK website (apart from the content) is that it keeps going down, so I can't at the moment read the link!

I suppose the other possibility is that they have installed kufr sensitive software that is blocking me..........

[Northern Sole]

I bet I'm not the only one who can't help but think of those 'Accident Lawyers for you' tv adverts whenever I see the name Islam 4 UK.

Just wanted to say I am really enjoying your writing.

[Paul Stott]

Accident Lawyers For You are extremely unlikely to be interested in Islam 4 UK.

One of the hobbies of Britain's Islamists is attempting to use the Qu'ran as a document to legislate on issues and circumstances that the Prophet Mohammed not only never encountered, but surely never even envisaged.

Out of this comes a whole series of contentious propositions such as Islam being opposed to intellectual property - I do hope those marking essays submitted by the heads of the various Islamic Student Societies across the UK are looking at their work carefully!

In the case of Hizb Ut-Tahrir members in the UK, their scholarship led them to conclude that insuring your car is haram (forbidden) That's certainly a way of saving a few hundred quid a year, but perhaps leaves you unlikely to be too attractive for any company operating on a no win no fee basis.....

[Paul Stott]

Hi Joe - I'll get your number of your dad and we can perhaps have a drink over Easter? I do think its good someone is standing against Diane Abbott.

On the boxing - your sister looks in better shape than you!

[Loving Dalston]

We're used to foxes in Hackney, but I was surprised to see a pheasant in my Dalston garden. I've posted a few pix I took on 11Mar10 at www.lovingdalston.blogspot.com

[merlin press]

Merlin Press will be selling this book at £19.99. It will be available also from bookshops - like Housman's -- shortly.

[HackneySteveE9]

Your 'cross post' at 'Harry's Place': http://hurryupharry.org/2010/08/06/human-rights-the-gaza-protests-and-the-future-of-afghanistan/
is not only inaccurate but highly suspicious.
That the Metropolitan Police have been involved in proactive violence, bullying and intimidation of demonstrators is well known to you, and everyone else.
Your irrational and thoroughly reactionary islamophobia actually makes you a friend of the West's establishment, its security apparatus and, in this case, of Israel and Zionism.
Anything else you say of a remotely 'enlightened' nature is meaningless.
Of course you share, in your Class War involvement, a history of thoroughly reactionary groups - most Anarchist groups, Class War, Living Marxism/LM/RCG and a rag bag of individualist petty bourgeois bores.

[Paul Stott]

So Anarchists should be promoting the work of Taliban supporters such as the Islamic Human Rights Commission then?

On Islamophobia Steve, it is time for some straight talking. I fear all religions - first of all because they are irrational (they cannot all be right!) secondly because of their association with injustice and thirdly because of their treatment of women.

As a life long Socialist, former trades union official, someone who drinks and has an open attitude to sexual matters, I know that if I lived in many of the Muslim countries in the world I would be in prison or dead. Why the bloody hell should I not fear Islam? Especially when, as I wrote in the article you link to, Anarchist comrades have been silly enough to promote the work of London Islamists who are vocal supporters of the Taliban.

If anyone round here is reactionary and irrational Steve, it is you.

[Rasta]

All the above is fair enough, Paul - but if a link to a website counts as "promoting" it, then you are certainly guilty of promoting the work of London Zionists who are vocal supporters of the Israeli establishment (even if they may mildly criticize some of its more openly frothing-at-the-mouth fascist elements, like Avigdor Lieberman). What's the difference? I see none whatsoever, other than that zionists and Israel are (at the moment) more powerful than Islamists and the taliban.
If your logic of "they are the best source on this particular subject I'm interested in regardless of unsavoury views they might hold" applies to Harry's Cesspool, oh sorry "Place", then Fitwatch is equally justified to link the IHRC report, by that criterion. Or if anyone else published a detailed report about the police brutality at the Gaza demonstration, let me know. Of course, *you* could have done, but that would have entailed actually going to the fucking demonstration, which would have entailed making the decision that you objected a bit more to innocent people, including many children, being blown limb from limb and having white phosphorus dropped on em as a little favour to the yanks so they could test out their product, than you did to hearing the words "allah u akbar".
Personally, if I was you and Fitwatch, I would've either not linked the two websites in question, or else done so with a very explicit caveat that because I may have some common ground with them on this particular issue, I wholeheartedly condemn their stance on other issues.
But I'm not you or Fitwatch, and nor am I Internationalist so I'm not going to issue you with ultimatums of what to do - but if you have a valid argument against what I just said I would really like to hear it.
PS to Hackney SteveE9 - the whole "anarchists=petty bourgeouis" thing is really tiresome, not only that, it is not true, and not only that, most of the people who claim that seem to be petty bourgeouis or "above" in my experience. For all the faults of those who proclaim it, anarchism (ie. anarcho-communism) remains the most common sense and reasonable and desirable political ideology to improve the lot of the human race, in my opinion.

[Paul Stott]

Rasta - I am perfectly capable of having my own opinions on the Israel/Palestinian question without recourse to Harry's Place. So are the readers of this blog.

What I am saying is that currently it is not possible to be up to speed on UK Islamism without keeping up with Harry's Place. That is why I link to Harry's Place, and that is why I encourage others to read it regularly. I don't think many Anarchists will change their views on the Middle East question as a result (some of the HP stuff is just too rabid, e.g. its attacks on the Goldstone report) but people will wise up to the threats posed by Islamism in the UK. That is what I do want to see happen.

I have stated before I disagreed with Israel's actions in Gaza. I am not however going to march with Islamists, because they are as much (if not more?) my enemy as Zionists, Neo-Conservatives, New Labour or the Con-Dems. The only difference is that living in east London I am not very likely to find Benyamin Netanayu running my local Council - the chances of me having a Muslim Brotherhood or Islamic Forum of Europe supporter is sadly another matter.

What I was keen to prevent in the instance of Fitwatch is Anarchists making the same disastrous mistake as the left has made with Islamists. Fitwatch are perfectly capable of drawing up their own analysis of police tactics on the Gaza protest (which to be honest were no different from what we have seen on countless demonstrations in London over the past two decades) the good work Fitwatch does is endangered if they are in bed with Taliban supporters disguised as human rights activists.

[Rasta]

Bruv - Zionists (by which I mean the current prevalent version of Zionism, not any leftist and even anarcho-leaning variants that may have existed prior to the creation of the state of Israel) don't need to infiltrate your local council to gain influence, as they already have influence at the highest levels of power in this country (and no I don't mean some kind of Jewish conspiracy nonsense - not that I should have to explain myself there, as you don't feel you have to explain yourself when linking to harry's place).
By the criteria above, you wouldn't attend any march anywhere unless you had vetted who was attending. "...march with Islamists..." What, it was only, or mainly, Islamists marching? How many of the Muslims marching were "Islamists"? A bunch of my Muslim friends went to that march, not a one of them is an "islamist". Trust me, if there's a problem with Muslims around here (Swansea) it's that they're not radical enough, not that they're too radical. For instance we had one of the EDO de-mobilizers here on a speaking tour which I was trying to help advertise, I remember trying to hand a flyer to a couple of the local Muslim youths (I know they're Muslim cos I've seen em coming out of the mosque, not assuming they are cos they're Bengali) and they were much more interested in drinking their booze, asking if I had a spliff, and quoting the [Jewish] Beastie Boyz by chanting "heyyyy, we want some pussaay!!"
Anyway, I'm not Internationalist and I have no vendetta against you so I'll leave it at that. I don't think you provided a valid answer to my question, as Fitwatch readers are also perfectly capable of making their own analysis of the politics of the IHRC.
As for "more than?"... so the amateur terrorists are (possibly with a question mark) more your enemy than the professional terrorists? Don't see the logic there bruv.
The Rasta slogan "death to white or black downpressors" has more common sense to it than a thousand pages of leftist analysis, the only way you could go wrong by that philosophy, was if you failed to apply it to self-proclaimed Rastas as well. I apply it to all, including myself if I were to ever slip into the role of oppressor, so I really don't feel I could go wrong with that guidance.Non-partial.
Hope the twins are doing good.

[HackneySteveE9]

Rasta

The political characterisation of 'anarchism' and the ultra-left generally, as 'petit bourgeois' actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the class from which its adherents came/come. (Even tho' most do come from the middle and upper middle classes). It is an analysis made from a Marxist standpoint.
It is based on their failure to see the role of class, and class-based organisations, in a Capitalist society and their role in its overthrow.
You need to at least familiarise yourself with the meaning of the term first.
I happen to be working class, live in a working class neighbourhood, on a council estate, not a property owner, and work in a job where all the other posts are occupied by working class or lower middle class people, most of whom are memebers of a trade union.
But even that is irrelevant.
It is my POLITICS that determines my attitude to class, not necessarily my own class.

The one thing that anarchists, and the whole rag bag of ultra left petit bourgeois dilletantes, have in common with the social democratic right (and fallen by the way side ex social democrat 'lefties', SWPers and their ilk) is that they *often* come to the same conclusions about issues such as 'Islamic Fundementalism' - just like many of them did about the alleged 'Serb' ethnic cleansing and why they ended up supporting Western military intervention. Their bankrupt petit bourgeois lack of understanding of Class leads them to support Western Imperialism.
Stott can't see for the life of him that 'Islamic Fundamentalism' is a product of Westren Imperialism - after all who brought down a secular regime in Iran and foisted the Shah on them? Who keeps Mubarak in power, and in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait.....????
Where did Hamas come from? Stott is such a pygmy he doesn't know about the actions of Israel and the US in having provided massive secret resourcing of Islamic Fundamentalism in Palestine to BREAK the power of the SECULAR PLO - and it was done at a time when Israel was in fear of REALLY having to do a deal with the PLO.
Everytime Israel is hemmed in to the possibility of having to settle, it finds a way to BREAK the talks, or momentum of talks, and the US has supported that every time.
Ignorance for the likes of Stott is bliss, but it costs lives in Palestine and Iran and Egypt and Saudi Arabia - especially when people like him on the 'left' are essentially supporting those deaths by aligning himself (Hitchens is another scum bag) with the West.

[Internationalist]

Islamism plays essentially the same ideological role as "Communism" did before the fall of the Berlin Wall. I.e. to keep the public afraid and confused and ensuring that they stay aligned to the needs of the bourgeoisie. It presents a false dichotomy. It says "you may be fed up with your job, in poverty, demeaned day in day out by your boss but hey, it could be worse - you could be living under an Islamist despot who would stone you to death for drinking a half of shandy or fancying your next door neighbour".

The reality is that hell will freeze over before Britain becomes a Caliphate. There is more likelihood that Roman Catholicism or a Russian Orthodoxy will become the state religion. I.e. no chance at all.

Therefore, the bourgeoise fills the tabloids with stories about infant schools banning Christmas, Switzerland sinking under the weight of minarets and Hate Preachers in Finsbury Park. The myth that we will soon be living in Londonistan must be nourished - because the evidence points the other way and even people with the meanest intelligence wonder why we are still occupying Afghanistan nine years after 9/11.

Harrys Place, though "just" a blog, is run by city slickers who have an interest in keeping this ideological project up and running.

It is very sad to see people like Paul Stott falling for it. If you read the newspapers from about 100 years ago, you will find similar scare stories about Jews.

[Internationalist]

>>> The political characterisation of 'anarchism' and the ultra-left generally, as 'petit bourgeois' actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the class from which its adherents came/come. (Even tho' most do come from the middle and upper middle classes). It is an analysis made from a Marxist standpoint.
It is based on their failure to see the role of class, and class-based organisations, in a Capitalist society and their role in its overthrow.

I agree.

Except in times of intense class struggle, most people involved in politics are middle class. This is a fact but it tells us nothing about whether a political opinion is pro- or anti-working class. If the Tories get most of their votes from working class voters, does that make them a proletarian party? Of course not!

Working class politics is about:

1. Understanding that society is divided between those who own and control wealth and those who create it through their manual and intellectual labour
2. Supporting the interests of those who create wealth
3. Opposing all of the ideological and physical barriers to the advance of the working class

Anarchism by contrast is an ideology that creates confusion by stating that "authority" is more important than class.

This might have had some validity in unsophisticated semi-feudal states but capitalism does not rely so much on "authority" as economic compunction. If you don't turn up for work and generally don't behave the way the capitalists want you to, then you will be miserable and "you'll only have yourself to blame".

The absence of a class analysis and obsession with authority means that when anarchism turns to questions like Islamism, it only sees the superficial stuff that you can read in the Daily Express. It does not ask whose material class interests Islamism serves in Iran for example. What is the class basis for Ahmadinejad's regime? What is the class basis of the opposition in Iran? Does the working class have an interest in supporting the opposition?

Same thing with Israel/Palestine. With a superficial anarchist analysis you could say (like the Blairite left) "Hamas is more authoritarian than Likud or the Israeli Labor Party. Therefore Hamas are the bad guys. Therefore I support Israel."

Instead, we should be seeing both Israeli and Palestinian societies as BOTH class-based societies and looking for ways to overcome the division between Palestinian and Israeli workers.

That means opposing BOTH Zionism AND Palestinian nationalism (of both secular and religious varieties) while supporting popular demands to demolish the wall and allow the right of return for Palestinians. These are physical and ideological barriers to class unity.

However, it also requires a clear recognition that it is the colonialist state of Israel that is first and foremost responsible for the sectarian division in the Middle East and the imposition of capitalist order.

Much of what you read in Harrys Place is an attempt to divert people from this fundamental fact.

[Rasta]

That would be a VERY superficial "anarchist" analysis, so superficial as to be a complete caricature of anarchism. It may or may not apply to Paul Stott's views (I had thought not, given his clear opposition to imperialist wars and support for militant direct action against such - hardly a "blairite" or "hitchenite" position as he's been characterized as - but after reading that truly cringeworthy post about Israel making a "mistake" in fostering the rise of Hamas, just like "Mrs Gandhi" appeasing the Sikhs (what, by slaughtering a bunch of em in their holiest temple and then being dumb enough to hire em as her personal bodyguards...?)... after that I don't know any more, you may be right. However it is a caricature of anarchism as a whole. Basically you're saying anarchists just want to rebel against their mommies and daddies by being obsessed with "authority". My overstanding of anarchism is an ideology which indeed challenges all illegitimate authority and hierarchy, of which economic class is a huge example, so it is automatically included and is a main focus, as anarchism arose out of the movements of working class and peasant people. But it does not limit itself to economic class alone or suggest that economic class society is the root cause of everything that is wrong with the world (it is the root cause of a lot). Gender, caste (depending where you live), race (a social construct, but nonetheless a very real factor), shade of skin and all kinds of other things come into play as well as class and they all need to be addressed.
Anyway the best common sense teachings I ever got didn't come from self proclaimed anarchists or marxists with a handbook of theoretical concepts, they came from the poorest of the poor and the blackest of the black people from the ghetto in the caribbean, some literate, some not, and were couched in the language of biblical metaphor, African folklore and other things that you "scientific socialists" probably consider primitive and backwards. Picking the bit of nonsense out of the sense, they still make more basic common sense than all the reams of theoretical jargon in Marx etc. that I've never managed to drag my eyes all the way through without them closing.

[HackneySteveE9]

"Anyway the best common sense teachings I ever got didn't come from self proclaimed anarchists or marxists with a handbook of theoretical concepts, they came from the poorest of the poor and the blackest of the black people from the ghetto in the caribbean, some literate, some not, and were couched in the language of biblical metaphor, African folklore and other things that you "scientific socialists" probably consider primitive and backwards. Picking the bit of nonsense out of the sense, they still make more basic common sense than all the reams of theoretical jargon in Marx etc. that I've never managed to drag my eyes all the way through without them closing."

That really is the most philistine hogwash.
The idea that sections of the most functionally, emotionally and intellectually illiterate in society - often imbued with the irrational notions of some other worldly-power - can somehow advance your understanding of the relationship of power more than the national vanguards of the working class, those that fight face to face with the owners and managers of Capital, is quite ridiculous. It goes against the actual history of class struggle and its victories and defeats.
It sounds so good though doesn't it?
So much less hard work than the reality.
That really is petir bourgeois - you have proven what a bankrupt, destructive and disruptive force it can be.

[Internationalist]

>>> Basically you're saying anarchists just want to rebel against their mommies and daddies by being obsessed with "authority".

No that would be a gross over-simplification and it is not what I am saying.

However I do not base my view of the world on hierarchy or who is poorest or blackest. As far as I am concerned, that is dangerous sentimentality.

My first job was in the newspaper industry. The workers were nearly 100% white, male and better off than many middle class people in terms of pay. Some of them were very socially conservative. Some even voted Tory. Some were definitely racist. Yet as a group they were also the best and most militant I have ever worked with partly because they knew they had industrial muscle and partly because they had a degree of class-consciousness that I have not encountered elsewhere.

That class consciousness came not from reading Marx (although some did) but from a long tradition of struggle in the UK print industry that built up an awareness of how the world works - who owns the means of production and who actually creates the wealth.

Though that era of militancy in print has gone, these are precisely the kind of people you will want and NEED on your side of the barricades when the day comes. Why? Because they have that muscle and that class consciousness, even if it is below the surface.

You will certainly lose them if you tell them that their experiences are less valid because they are not black, poor or gay enough to be "oppressed".

"Scientific socialism" essentially means understanding that economic relationships are what really matter rather than basing politics on hierarchy, race, gender, sexual orientation, nation and so on. If you ask a scientific socialist what the revolution is s/he will give you a clear answer: it's the working class taking power away from the ruling class and organizing things to meet our needs not theirs. Or, to use an unfashionable phrase, the dictatorship of the proletariat. You won't get such a clear answer from an anarchist.

If the follow-up question is "what about race and caste?" the answer is that will be resolved in struggle or else the revolution will fail.

What is very definitely wrong is when Leninists such as the SWP tell you these problems have to be resolved first, e.g. that Israelis have to "break with Zionism" and the Palestinians must win the "right" to be "oppressed by their own bourgeousie" (!) before there can be meaningful class struggle in the Middle East.

On the contrary, it is by waging their own class struggle now that Israelis workers are confronted with the fact that the real enemy is the Israeli ruling class, and NOT impoverished Arab kids, and Palestinian workers are confronted with the fact that their Palestinian bosses have more in common with the Israeli ruling class.

[Rasta]

Briefly responding to some points both of you made - not comprehensive as I don't have long on the internet today - Yeah Mr Big Whitey Scientific Socialist, the descendants of slaves who still live in modern day slavery do, all in all, have a better understanding of class, hierarchy and power than you do, and you have a lot to learn from them - not that arrogant-ass white people are ever likely to acknowledge that. What the fuck - we didn't, and don't, fight face to face with the owners and managers of capital??? The ones who used one section of us to mow down the other section when they went on strike in the canefields of the then-british guiana? White British newspaper workers (who you acknowledge had "racist views") have a higher degree of class consciousness than cane-cutters and ganja hustlers in Guyana? Fuck outta here with your "vanguard" bullshit. So the vanguard is white people in industrialised societies, is it?
By the way, just because I ain't managed to drag my way through an entire volume of Marx's turgid prose doesn't mean some of those same poorest, blackest people I'm talking about couldn't quote him chapter and verse.
I come from the land of Cuffy and Dr. Walter Rodney and we are perfectly capable of developing our own class, race, gender etc. etc. analysis based on our own struggles, inustrial and otherwise. (Yes we have industrial struggles too, or have you never heard of strikes in the caribbean)?
PS You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think the Israeli working class as a whole is going to realise that their real enemy is the Israeli ruling class any time soon. A minority have done so already but the majority are as far from that as most poor white boers in South Africa or Zimbabawe are.

[Internationalist]

>>> So the vanguard is white people in industrialised societies, is it?

No, that is a deliberate and malicious misintepretation of what I wrote, as is most of your post, as you know perfectly well.

>>> arrogant-ass white people

And that is racist shit.

Therefore I won't dignify it with a response.

End of discussion.

[HackneySteveE9]

Rasta

Calling someone (and you have used it about me in another post and probably apply it to 'internationalist' too) 'Mr Whitey' or 'Mr Big Whitey' rather proves the pointlessness of debating with you. You're simply a cretin.

[Internationalist]

>>> You're simply a cretin.

He's not a cretin but he does seem to think that the way to tell if a person is a racist is simply by observing the colour of their skin (white = racist); furthermore, he thinks telling everyone that he is black is a substitute for argument.

This kind of identity politics has crippled radicalism for the past 30 years or more.

[Big White Momma]

Have you lot forgotten to take your medication this week or what??? I think you should all shake hands and say you're sorry like big boys. Now get up them stairs and wash your hands. You can argue about the revolution when you've eaten your dinner!!!

[Rasta]

LOL @ big white momma
Internationalist: now you are one to talk about deliberately misrepresenting peoples' arguments... you really are one to talk.
Look at your post above for example!
SteveE9 Big Whitey: in your post above, characterised the Rasta elders who I had mentioned, many of whom have paid a heavy cost in blood, loss of freedom, police/army torture, rejection by family etc. etc., as "sections of the most functionally, emotionally {!} and intellectually {!!} illiterate in society" who need to learn from "the national vanguards of the working class" {i.e. you and your mates}. As we would say in GT "carry yuh scunt" with that shit. Calling you "big whitey" or "arrogant-ass white people" [I didn't say ALL white people, I said ARROGANT-ASS white people] I think is quite mild, compared to the level of naked disrespect and contempt that you show for my people with the above quote.

[Internationalist]

>>> "the national vanguards of the working class" {i.e. you and your mates}

I don't like the term "national vanguards" but clearly he does not mean himself and his mates.

He means the most class-conscious members of the working class who could be white, black, yellow or any other colour and could be of any religious or cultural background.

He is not showing any contempt for "your people", cane cutters in Guyana or whoever you claim them to be. (BTW my sister-in-law whose parents are both Guyanese by birth and who is a lot blacker than you are says that "her people" come from Streatham ... but that is another story.)

Like it or not, it is in the capitalist metropoles that the outcome of any revolution would be determined.

[Rasta]

"The capitalist metropoles", gotta fucking love it.
So saying people are "emotionally and intellectually illiterate" is not showing contempt??? What is??? Do you have to actually out and out call us "stupid, childish niggers" for us to be able to object???
Plainly the fucking idiot thinks that in places like Guyana we don't know anything about "industrial struggles" because we are a bunch of donkey-cart-riding, barefoot primitive god-bothering emotionally and intellectually crippled fools who need guidance from the "capitalist metropoles" (never mind that it was places like the then british guiana, JA, Haiti etc. etc. etc. that generated most of the raw materials and of course free labour that created the fucking capitalist metropoles in the first fucking place).
Your sister in law can speak for herself. I like the annual Guyanese new year's dance in Streatham, but it ain't Guyana. I spent the most formative years of my life in Georgetown, not Streatham. And you already know full well that I am not simple-minded enough to say that I automatically think people are more correct or righteous the poorer or more darker-skinned they are - despite your attempt to portray that as my thinking.

[Internationalist]

I suggest you calm down Rasta, or you will only give credence to stereotypes about excitable niggers (you used the word, so on this occasion I will too).

It's not a matter of what colour you are or nationality. It's a matter of materialist realities.

I have no difficulty in believing that my ancestors who worked as farm labourers in rural Worcestershire were intellectually and emotionally illiterate compared with the proletarian town-dwellers who came a generation or two later. They also did not have the power to bring capitalism crashing to the ground. Black workers in London and Birmingham have (collectively, with their white brothers and sisters) far more economic clout than landless peasants ever did. For example, a strike in the transport or banking sectors could bring the economy to a standstill.

I did not say you need "guidance". I said that if the revolution is to succeed, it must take root in the capitalist metropoles, above all the USA, because if it doesn't, your folks in Guyana are fucked whatever they do.

This is a fact of life and it's one of the reasons anti-Americanism is stupid and counter-productive.

Now, do you think you could try your best not to take everything so personally?

[Rasta]

"You used the word, so on this occasion I will too"
Try that in Brooklyn and see what happens, cracker.
Let me explain something to you and to the other twat if he's still listening. If you are "LITERATE" you would understand that the word "ILLITERATE", taken literally, refers to one thing and one thing only: whether or not you can read or write. Since "emotions" and "intellect" are not "reading and writing", I can only assume that Big Whitey - if he is indeed "literate" - was using the word metaphorically rather than literally. Now what would "illiterate" be a metaphor for? I can only assume "incompetent". So, ipso facto - "emotionally illiterate" = "emotionally incompetent" = {drum roll} EXCITABLE NIGGER!!!
And "intellectually illiterate" = "intellectually incompetent" = {drum roll} STUPID NIGGER!!! What the fuck else does it mean? What other interpretation is there of it?
PS I bet I would have had a much easier time getting along with your farm labourer ancestors in central Worcestershire. I bet they were not nearly as stuck up, pretentious and arrogant as you are.
The revolution has to take root worldwide or it's fucked everywhere. Of course there's truth in your third-to-last paragraph (in the sense that third world revolutions will end up crushed by first world troops unless we can convince the first world troops not to fight, or to fight on our side) but it certainly doesn't mean we should, or could ever afford to wait for the capitalist metropoles to kick off before we do. Now that the former British Empire is not as dependent on sugar, bauxite or anything else we produce as it used to be, you may be right that transport workers in Britain overall have a bit more clout than bauxite-excavators or sugar-cane cutters (both of which are INDUSTRIES, whatever twat face steve may think) in Guyana. But we have at least as much, and in many cases considerably more, class consciousness and will to do something than many workers in the U.K. PS re your newspaper workers: don't confuse class consciousness with simply recognising your self-interest. Class consciousness involves solidarity with the rest of your class, not only seeing what side *your* bread is buttered on and acting accordingly.

[Internationalist]

>>> cracker

>>> PS I bet I would have had a much easier time getting along with your farm labourer ancestors in central Worcestershire. I bet they were not nearly as stuck up, pretentious and arrogant as you are.

The generations I am referring to were semi-literate or actually illiterate. Though formally "free" they were little more than serfs who had no choice but to work for the local lord.

There was perhaps only one realistic escape from this situation and that was to join the army or navy, which one or two did.

Otherwise they had to stay deferential to the wishes of the lord of the manor and his younger brother/nephew, the village priest, doing whatever they told them to do.

It was only with industrialization and mass emigration to colonies abroad that this situation began to change significantly.

This was true for the majority of people in England.

So it's not a question of whether we would have "got along". The point is that their experiences and outlook were totally different. Would I want their less stuck-up, less arrogant and less pretentious way of life?

No way - and only a lunatic or a hopeless romantic would want it.

[Internationalist]

Come to think of it Rasta, if you could go back to rural Worcestershire in the 1800s, my ancestors would probably have asked to see your tail. If you'd been good enough to show them, I'm sure you would have got on like a house on fire.

Or if you'd chosen to visit them on a Sunday when they should have been in Church, they'd have run a mile, thinking you were sent by the Devil. They were that ignorant, though not through any fault of their own. They rarely met people from 20 miles away, let alone black people from Guyana.

By my great-grandmother's generation (she was born in 1882) rural England had become slightly more progressive. Though she once scolded me with the words, "Don't say that or your mum will run off with a black man".

It has taken two centuries of urbanization and industrialization to overcome such intellectual and emotional illiteracy.

[Rasta]

That would have been fine if they'd asked to see my tail - it would have been an honest question asked out of honest ignorance. Your ancestors didn't come up with those racist ideas, they were fed to them.
Since you haven't addressed my question about what steve e9 may have meant by "emotional and intellectual illiteracy" - instead you decided to go on and on about the ideas your ancestors may or may not have had (you don't have a time machine, and just because everyone went to church in those days doesn't mean everyone believed every word of it - most people go to church, temple, mosque etc. in Guyana, but trust me, the people "catching the spirit" ain't the only ones in there rolling their eyes)- I take it you have not been able to come up with any alternative explanation for "emotional and intellectual illiteracy" than mine. Also, contrary to your statement that mr. E9 was not suggesting that the "emotionally and intellectually illiterate" need "guidance" from their betters - re-read that post of his and you will see that that was exactly and precisely what he was suggesting.
I have every right to be pissed the fuck off at that, and at your snide and patronising comments as well.
And yeah - I really do invite you to try that in Brooklyn. Does it piss you off that there's that one word we can use but you can't?

[Internationalist]

>>> Since you haven't addressed my question about what steve e9 may have meant by "emotional and intellectual illiteracy"

I am not Steve's spokesman. I agree with a lot of what he says, in fact he is the most clued-up person I have come across on this blog, though I don't always agree with his choice of words. On the other hand, this is just a blog, and speaking for myself, sometimes after I hit the "Post" button I wish I'd used a different phrase.

With all due respect, I think I know more about my ancestors than you do, having spent a lot of time researching the subject.

White people also have "roots" and since there were a couple of illegitimate births in the family and changes in how surnames were spelt it was quite a struggle to trace back and find out where we came from, at least on my dad's side of the family. However, I have read some pretty good accounts about the way of life back then. That part of Worcestershire was very much a backwater and attitudes were pretty much still feudal in many ways until about the 1930s. I just find this interesting, especially as all of my parents and grandparents are now dead.

So ... the reason why I wrote about my ancestors here was to illustrate a point.

I was simply saying that they were - in today's terms - ignorant, though this was through no fault of their own, so to call them ignorant is not a slur.

I interpreted Steve's phrase "intellectually and emotionally illiterate" as essentially meaning people who are poor, ignorant, badly educated, rurally isolated and therefore unlkely to be in a good position to lead a revolution.

I think you - wrongly - jumped to the conclusion that he was saying they were ignorant because they were black. I chose my ancestors to illustrate that white people can be poor, ignorant and rurally isolated and likewise not in a good position to lead a revolution.

If I am wrong, maybe he will correct me. I will go back and check.

I don't intend to continue this discussion. I feel I have made my meaning clear but if not, I'll just say sorry and leave it at that.

>>> Does it piss you off that there's that one word we can use but you can't?

If you want to call yourself a nigger that's up to you. Likewise you can call yourself a coon, darky, kaffir, smoke, oreo, sooty, spade ... take your pick, it really doesn't bother me in the least.

Nor does it bother me in the least if you want to call me a cracker. However, the word is unknown outside the US so I won't be using it myself.

[Internationalist]

>>> That would have been fine if they'd asked to see my tail - it would have been an honest question asked out of honest ignorance.

This is true and it is precisely the point I was making.

>>> Your ancestors didn't come up with those racist ideas, they were fed to them.

This is not true or at best only partly true.

The real reason they thought that way was that they were not only ignorant, but had virtually no contact with the world beyond a small number of villages and a couple of market towns. They believed all kinds of superstitious nonsense about the world beyond the places they knew.

By contrast, nobody who has actually lived and worked alongside black people can be persuaded to believe that they have tails.

[Rasta]

All of that is besides the point. More to the point would be this question: what the flying fuck does rural Worcestershire in 1800 have to do with Guyana (which has both rural and urban areas) in the 20th-21st century? Do you think 20th/21st century Guyana is some kind of throwback to the time of your supposedly unsophistacated ancestors? BTW as Guyanese are Amerindian, African, Indian-subcontinental, Chinese, Portuguese and all combinations of the above, I would think we tend to be at least as cosmopolitan as U.K. residents. (Not to discount the sometimes extreme tension between [especially] Africans and Indians that was encouraged and exacerbated by our former colonial masters).
The so-called "third world" is not some version of the past of the "first world" in some kind of cultural evolutionary timeline.
BTW: nice little litany of epithets there, crackerjack.
I'm gonna have to show this link to some of the peeps back home when I get a chance. They'd like to have a laugh at some of you overprivileged white western ignoramuses who think you're soooo fucking smart.

[Internationalist]

OK Rasta you go ahead and do that! Although being a white ignoramus, I'm now a bit confused.

Are these peeps back home "the poorest of the poor and the blackest of the black people from the ghetto in the caribbean, some literate, some not" that you referred on December 7, or the sophisticated cosmopolitan set you describe above?

And no, I do not think 21st century Guyana is a throwback to 18th century Worcestershire. To repeat what I said above, I feel I have made my meaning clear but if not, I'll just say sorry and leave it at that.

[Rasta]

Yes they are. There is no fucking contradicti0on between being poor and illiterate and being cosmopolitan, you twat. Literacy refers to whether or not you have been adequately taught to read and write. Many people who may not be fully literate are nonetheless very intelligent and knowledgeable. Anyway I said "some literate, some not" didn't I. You really are a complete fucking idiot aren't you. Ask your sister-in-law (if she actually exists) about Guyana. You fucking ignoramus.
PS I didn't ask for any apology. I think it would be much more appropriate to apologise to the other 52-odd percent of the human race for your truly idiotic "feminist harpies" comment over on Ian Bone's blog.

[Cracker Jack]

I have no doubt that people who are illiterate can be very intelligent and knowledgeable. So I am wondering where you think I said otherwise.

My sister-in-law's family - and the other Guyanese people I have met - have all been friendly, warm human beings, and almost embarassingly polite. They would not dream of calling someone a twat, let alone a "white western ignoramus". Though they do say that some people from Jamaica speak like that.

And yes, she does exist.

I did not call 52 percent of the population feminist harpies. I called feminist harpies feminist harpies. Whereas you are presumably referring to women.

BTW a question for you, is it OK for a black employee to call the black director of his company "nigger"?

[Rasta]

You clearly implied otherwise in *the second paragraph of the post right above my last one.* Are you even stupider than I thought? Are you actually brain-damaged? An amnesiac? Do you forget what you did yesterday?
Why the fuck should I answer your stupid question about black employees and black directors and yadda yadda? And stick to one user name, the internet is anonymous enough without shifting online identities.
Yes - fake "politeness" was one the "virtues" beaten into us by our former colonial masters and those who adopted their mentality. Thankfully, not all of us adopted it.
In the words of a self-educated formerly-illiterate member of the poorest and blackest sections of society from the ghetto in the caribbean: "you can fool some people some times, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

[Cracker Jack]

"You clearly implied otherwise"

No I didn't. You inferred. There is a difference.

You called me Cracker Jack. I quite like the name. It reminds me of the days when my greatest ambition in life was to win a Crackerjack pencil. Thank you very much for giving me that monicker, I think I will now keep it.

It is rather disrespectful of you to suggest that the Guyanese people's politeness is fake. As I said, the people in question were warm human beings. There was nothing phony about them.

Perhaps the greatest and best known Guyanan ever, Clive Lloyd, was a great competitor on the field and then politeness personified off the field.

I was fortunate enough to see him play on many occasions.

So with all due respect Rasta, based on my experience I don't think you are representative of the people of Guyana.

[Cracker Jack]

>>> Why the fuck should I answer your stupid question about black employees and black directors and yadda yadda?

I guessed you wouldn't answer because the answer is too inconvenient.

Typical politician.

[Rasta]

A cricketer is the "greatest and best known Guyanese ever".
Shows your real feelings about us. Sports and music, that's what we're good at ain't it.
Ever heard of Dr. Walter Rodney? Cuffy (Kofi) and Damon? Wordsworth McAndrew? Entering into the realm of oral history and "legend" here, but I should ask if you've heard of Chief Kai of the Potomano nation...? and on and on and on... unfortunately not too many womnbmans' name I can mention, because under the white male supremacy capitalist system (and under the so-called "communist" or "co-operative socialist" parties who have run Guyana since independence), the foundational contributions that wombman give to the struggle tend to be unrecognized and discounted... but there are many many female freedom fighters in Guyana's history too... and many unknown heroes and sheroes who are unrecorded by history... like the Indian indentured labourer in my grandmother's home village of Skeldon who blew the head off the Scottish overseer of the plantation when my grandmother was a young woman in the 20s/30s, after that overseer had kicked his 10-year old son to the ground in front of him for not chopping sugarcane fast enough... many many heroes and sheroes in Guyana budday, not only cricketers.
When the fuck did I ever claim to be "representative of the people of Guyana"? "Guyana" is not a homogenous group. No one is "representative of Guyana".
Your question was stupid and meaningless. My refusal to answer it has nothing to do with the answer to it being "inconvenient". There is no meaningful answer to it because it is a meaningless question. If it's my uncle's company in New York, it would be perfectly OK, because my uncle knows all his employees very well, it's a small company and most of his employees are old friends of his, who might call him that in informal jest, although neither he nor they are big fans of the word and certainly use it less often than the average Black and/or Puerto Rican and/or Dominican New Yorker who tend to use that word like a verbal tic. The answer to your question would completely depend on the situation.
By the way "budday", do you care to name any of the so-called "feminist harpies" who supposedly are about to descend on Julian Assange and who supposedly justify the invasion and bombing of Afghanistan? Most self-described feminist or womanist or whatever groups and individuals who I know of are not baying for Julian Assange's blood and do not support the invasion and bombing of Afghanistan. I do not consider people like Hilary Clinton, let alone Sarah Palin, to be "feminists". So who exactly are these "feminist harpies" that you're on about?

[Cracker Jack]

No that's not all that you are good at, of course not, but it's what Guyanese are best known for in England at least. And on that point, sorry I almost forgot, Rohan Kanhai was one of the greatest batsmen ever.

Cuffy is I believe the national hero in Guyana but probably not so well known abroad. Maybe he should be but there you go.

My question did not refer to your uncle's family business in New York. I'm more interested to know if it's OK for (e.g.) a despatch clerk at Infor to call Charles Phillips "nigger"? Does Robert Johnson's chauffeur call his boss "nigger"? I doubt it.

When I made the comment about the feminist harpies I was specifically thinking of this article by Libby Brooks at The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/09/nobody-gains-from-misogynist-defence-of-assange

But there are other examples. Frankly, the rape charges are ridiculous and just a roundabout way of getting Assange into custody without inflicting even greater PR damage on the US and its allies.

There are plenty of examples of feminists using the plight of Afghan women to justify the invasion.

Here is one example that is fairly typical:

“This is a war of liberation and also a war to liberate Afghanistan’s women. So the aspect of women’s rights is crucial for me. For many years I have been greatly concerned about the extreme oppression of women under Taliban rule. Here in the West we close our eyes to the grotesque treatment women are subjected to because it does not affect us."

Marit Nybakk, then chair of the Norwegian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence, in a statement to the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet in August 2002, supporting the sending of Norwegian troops to fight in Afghanistan.

I'm sure Hilary Clinton regards herself as a femiinist even if you don't. Not sure about Palin though.

By "feminist harpies" I do not mean feminists per se. I mean those women who use feminism as ideological cover to pursue other agendas, whether these are personal career advancement or reactionary politics.

That said, not all women are feminists and many women (my daughters included) find the man-hating self-pitying variety of feminism simply nauseating.

[William Gladys]

Hi Paul, I would like to link my website www.fuggingmonarchy.co.uk to yours. If interested, would you do this? Thanks and regards, William.

[vic]

shallom , my little anti semetic buddies , i hope i will see you all at the next big london demo , please wear hard hats , black up , wear steel toe cap boots bring marbles and laser pointers , i have seen the future of peacfull protest and it aint pretty , i am getting worn out running the whole world cos of my circumcised penis , its greeeaaaat!

[Rasta]

Vic
Give the "anti semite" stuff a rest will you. Or else point out one fucking thing I've said that is "anti semitic".
BTW many people with experience of both Israel/Palestine and Apartheid South Africa would disagree with you about Israel not being an apartheid state. As would a very good Jewish friend of mine who, like you, spent some time living in Israel and is one of the most militantly anti-Israel people you could ever meet - and no he is certainly not a "self-hating jew", although he has no time for religion of any kind.
Stay safe and protected at protests and at all times in general.
I'm not gonna bother responding to International Cracker Jack on this thread any more - after all, this hasn't been "about the author" for about twenty-odd posts now. I'll just say quickly that the couple of examples he cites above seem very unrepresentative of feminists, that the "man hating self pitying variety of feminism" hardly exists outside of rape victims and etc. who may make some understandble, though wrong, generalizations about all males, and that I have nothing against politeness - politeness is a good thing, just not when applied to people who are not polite to you. I read between the lines and try to analyze what people's intentions are behind the words they say, and if I feel I am being disrespected I will respond in kind and not bite my tongue.
Nuff said - if anyone wants to respond then do it on a different thread, I am done here.

[Cracker Jack]

Shame you are backing out now, Rasta, because I felt we were getting somewhere. No disrespect intended, you're an intelligent guy and I do enjoy discussing things with you although I think there have been some misunderstandings. Take care.

[vic]

cool , i just dont want anyone getting hurt , mark my words , my misguided comrades , see you at the barricades ,shalom

[HackneySteveE9]

I'm glad I cam back to see how the conversation went. As I thought 'Internationalist/Cracker Jack' dealt remarkably well with every single point Rasta came up with, including Rasta's complete misunderstanding of what is meant by class-consciousness, and the varying levels of emotional and intellectual literacy among people who don't hold power. While it can be a serious handicap, functional illiteracy is not in itself any barrier to class-consciousness and the ability to form part of a powerful cadre. But imagining that groups of people (black or white or yellow) who live in great ignorance (often because of isolation and control)about the relationship of power in their own society and engage in pretty irrational rituals and hold quite irrational beliefs, is simply a nonsense.
And it continues - without doubt the hold of religion is one thing that still holds back working class people (black and white) in advanced societies like the US.
Either way, rasta's responses - which are deliberate in my view in failing to see any of this - haven't changed my view that, however nominally intelligent he is, he talks like a cretin.

[Rasta]

Well I rather talk like a "cretin" than talk like an arrogant asshole.
You don't know jack shit about the beliefs or rituals of the people you are talking about. You think you know everything, but you know nothing.I think they (people who I personally know and who you have never met... oh and btw, people who could understand every word of standard English that you speak [including the marxist rhetoric in many cases... both political parties that have been fighting one another for control of Guyana since independence claim to be Marxist, FYI] but you would have a hard time understanding them... anyway I think they have a very good idea about "the relationship of power in their own society" (the one that I grew up in, and which you have never even visited, and plainly know not a damn thing about).
PS Learn to speak English, which presumably is your native language. As I stated, "emotional and intellectual illiteracy" is a completely meaningless phrase, unless it is intended as a metaphor for "over-emotional" and "stupid".
Finally, here is some Guyanese English for you to learn... a glorious phrase... YUH MUDDA SKUNT.
If you want to continue the "conversation", then do so on another thread now, as I told Internationalist.

[Internationalist]

The term "emotional illiteracy" was new to me but it does not take long to find out the meaning.

It means inability to understand or articulate your own feelings or to empathize with those of others.

I don't speak for Steve, but in a political or work context this could mean misdirected anger, i.e. anger directed against yourself, or against people who are in the same situation as yourself, instead of against the system or those who run it.

Of course, this could apply to large sections of western "first world" society as well.

But when I think back to what I have learned about previous generations of my family, they seem to have been totally fucked up until they got out of rural poverty and moved into the city.

Probably the most important change came as a result of WW2 where there was so much shared misery and suffering, but at the same time so much communal solidarity, that the old approach of bottling up your emotions until they finally burst out into self-destructive violence could no longer be sustained.

My great-grandfather was old school. He went from being a labourer in rural Worcestershire to Birmingham and became a police officer, and was taught to keep a stiff upper lip at all times. Then one day he picked up the bread knife at the breakfast table in front of his one surviving son (two were killed in the war) and grandson and stuck it in his throat.

By contrast his surviving son (my grandfather) was a building labourer but was quite able to cry in public. Partly because he was active in the labour movement, read books from the Left Book Club and therefore had some understanding - I'm not claiming he was a convinced marxist because he wasn't - of how the world worked and how to deal with it.

This is just an anecdote but I think it illustrates what is meant by "emotional illiteracy".

[Rasta]

Why not tell me about the dream you had last night as well? It would be about as relevant to the discussion at hand... and once again, what does your family changing status from agricultural serfs to industrial wage slaves in the ninenteenth century have to do with Guyana (a country consisting of both rural and urban areas, whose people engage in both agriculture and industry) in the 20th-21st centuries?
I know I said I wouldn't respond further but the inanity of you responding to my post with a story about your suicidal ancestor (though an interesting story in and of itself) compelled me to say something... now that's it.

[Internationalist]

"what does your family changing status from agricultural serfs to industrial wage slaves in the ninenteenth century have to do with Guyana"

Everything. Both nineteenth century Britain and 21st century Guyana were/are class-divided societies in transition.

You seem to want to have it both ways Rasta. On the one hand you say I am not allowed to talk about Guyana, because I have never been there, but on the other hand you say I am not allowed to talk about my own country and its history (even when it is personal history) because it is "irrelevant".

I know you think I am an idiot, Rasta, but I was not born yesterday. The rhetorical strategy that you are employing is what rhetoricians call "framing" a discussion within such narrow terms that only one side can possibly win.

However, in this particular case I was not comparing Britain to Guyana, I was using my family's history to explain what is meant by emotional (il)literacy, without reference to Guyana.

I'm sure, even without having visited the place, that Guyana is a wonderful country full of nice friendly people. As are all countries in my experience. However, the world does not revolve around Guyana, and other countries' and people's experiences are equally valid.

You know, I suggest you look back at your posts.

You have called me an idiot on numerous occasions, told me that my personal and family experiences are irrelevant to discussion, called my posts "inane" and abused me repeatedly because of the colour of my skin, calling me a name that is intended to imply that I am (literally, not metaphorically) a slave driver.

I could have mentioned this in order to explain the meaning of emotional illiteracy; perhaps it would have made the point more forcefully. Instead, to spare your blushes, I illustrated the point with reference to my own flesh and blood.

Take care and Merry Christmas.

[Alexander Baron]

You call yourself an antidote to 911 conspiracy cranks, yet you endorse arguably the biggest crank ever to be awarded a PhD, Larry O'Hara.

Check out some of his ravings about the Secret State.

I see you also attempt to equate this movement with anti-Semitism. While the 911 truthers are obviously barking up the wrong tree, so too is anyone who dismisses out of hand the power and mendacity of International Zionism.