New Movement Rising

By Daviemoo

The west is trying desperately to crack down on the pro Palestine rebellion, because the movement highlights what our modernity, what our ‘civility’ is built on- the bones of the oppressed.
The pro Palestinian liberation movement must not be hijacked, either by those seeking to expand it into obsolescence or to divert it to irrelevancies- instead, a wider moment must form from this one: a movement which focuses on holistic uplifting, the equity so many are denied and the creation and maintenance of a society that’s built on fair principles, rather than the silent muzzling of other regions and groups to protect the blood covered leaders of this outdated world.

Whenever anyone writes “the West” in anything but neutral or glowing terms there is an immediate mistrust of their words – as though holding criticism of our society is anathema despite the ever growing pool of evidence that the way our world was formed is through the crystallisation of inequity. No society is perfect and immune from scrutiny- yet the arbiters of western democracy will ruthlessly crack down on defenders of it.

Hundreds of years ago, our ancestors set sail to Africa, took innocent people as property and hauled them across the ocean- removing their links, land, family, heritage, freedom, so we could sit in the garden doing experiments and drinking tea as those enslaved folks cleaned our shit out of bedpans, built our government buildings and washed our clothes.
We’re told that the West just magically came to enlightenment, ignoring the protests, the acts of desperate violence and radical calls to action and awareness to instil some rationale in oppressors both silent and loud – and it’s all sanitised, as though this stain on our history was a blip, a mistake, and not a continual campaign of murder, rape and dehumanisation where everyone from housewives to eminent scientists & politicians alike gave reason or theory as to why slavery was fine and should continue.
Even after its abolition, the schools of ignorant thought around racial discrimination remained and remains to this day: it is 2024 and weak minded fools like Nick Fuentes believe black pilots are less qualified than white ones, despite the rigorous testing needed in order to be a pilot.
You even have those like Candace Owens who will state she thinks women are led by emotion & shouldn’t be leaders in a world where powerful men must not be angered lest they punch a hole in a wall, where promotion to the boardroom is given through primal act driven by his hormones over hard headed sense.

Racism, yes, is still alive in the West: in 2020 we had a whole months long set of protests about it- and black women showed up to kick out Trump from his rancid presidency.

But lurking under that, hidden in our own carefully crafted journals of history, lingered an open secret that was engineered to be kept from public discourse: it wasn’t the problem of racism (though it exists and is a problem) but the Colonialism that led to those atrocities, which is not some ghostly thing, long dead and relegated to the past: it’s alive, well, flourishing, and the pro Palestinian marches are the clarion cry of its long needed exposure.

Before Israel was formed, there was discussion of creating a Zionist state in other regions: the Uganda scheme was a potential plan to offer a refuge to Jewish people from persecution, but it was rejected because many in the zionist movement of the early 1900s felt it would make the eventual establishment of a Jewish state in historic Palestine would be more difficult than we see now, and for non or anti Zionist Jewish people was seen as capitulation to the monstering so many innocents suffered: why flee ignorance and let it win and breed when you can stand against it with allies and defeat it?
If this state had been created, we’d have seen the exact same type of land displacement and violence in Uganda as we see now in Palestine, much as we saw the disgusting dehumanisation of Jewish people expand into a murder machine in Germany- fleeing that type of irrational, evil slaughter is common sense, but engineering more dehumanisation and murder to protect yourselves is transference, not transcendence.

Ultimately, the sad truth is that it was perfect for the west to hand over land that wasn’t ours after the Balfour agreement, and give assent to the creation and maintenance of a state in the Middle East as an ally- because we required a strategic presence in the region.
The Middle East is overflowing with wealth in the form of everything from historical artefacts to goods like oil: having a partner there would make diplomatic discussion easier- to say nothing of the Christian Zionists (because Zionism is not specific to Jewish people- Joseph Biden, a life long devout Catholic said he is a proud Zionist) – who believe fervently that Jewish people need to establish a homeland to bring about religious prophecy.
Ultimately the disgusting idea that Jewish people should be relegated to a patch of land to bring about the end of the world turns my stomach- Christian Zionists believe jewish people and everyone outside their group will burn in hell as they are raptured to heaven and I’d say the mass death of everyone but them is hardly a helpful way to think of others, rife with supremacism as it is.
On a personal level- I don’t want the people I love who are Jewish to go anywhere they don’t want to, or to be forced there by antisemitism stoked up by the actions of the Zionist state erroneously legitimising the lies of the past about Jewish people- but I also don’t want the safety of any peoples to come at the expense of others, because starting with an unbalanced scale never leads to measured safety, progress and civility. The right to safety, life, happiness, protection- this isn’t hierarchy, it’s human.

The history spoken about is complicated: Jewish people have faced persecution for thousands of years because of the embarrassing ignorance of too many – folklore typifying anti Jewish sentiment was replaced by judenhass, supposedly scientific reasons to hate Jewish people coined by the forebears of the Nazi scum who knew they had to bring their argument into a different scope than tattletale to maintain it.
Jewish people, yes, have faced oppression and the debate about rights to homelands are complicated in that respect, but simple in this: if your homeland is established by the violent displacement, dehumanisation, rights removal, bombing, shooting, crushing by tanks, beating and more that Palestinians have faced- one has to question the legacy of that homeland: I was born into a country hundreds of years old, verging on thousands, whose legacy I did not choose and I’d like to hope if I was born in a time my state was committing atrocities to grow I’d work against that as we all are now… because violent expansionism which oppresses is not how states can grow, certainly not without expecting repercussion, and maintaining a state through evil acts means that state delegitimises itself.

Prominent Israeli figures have been heard to say statements that any rational person would call evil at most demure, genocidal in intent if honest: one prominent Israeli politician whose job is to oversee the IDF asked on Israeli TV recently why they aren’t allowed to “kill more Palestinians”. In the West Bank this week, a place with no hamas presence a teenage boy was shot in the heart because he stood too close to a wall- a wall over 15 feet high guarded by snipers. He was chasing a football.

The back and forth of origin is both important and superseded by the latest egregious actions: Yes, the hamas charter did originally refer to mass murder of Israelis which is evil- and Likud’s 1977 charter referred to erasing all Palestinian land. As a devout atheist it is odd to turn to biblical screeds but an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
If “peace” is brought to a region by force it leaves a bloody legacy that doesn’t wash off with the liberal hand waving of some future peaceful time that might just happen if you kill your way there, and it seems that many members of the Israeli state want to finish the job started 75 years ago by wiping out the Palestinian resistance in whole to pretend that peace won by brutal extermination is peace and not the echoing silence following a gunshot, the still calm hanging in the air like the stillness in a room where a murder was committed.


This colonial legacy, we’re reassured, is gone and dead, dust in the wind: it is not legacy: it is alive, well and flourishing through our uncritical support of Israeli military oppression. Before we go further we have to point out that innocent people were murdered on October 7th by hamas and this is terrible- nobody deserves to die in such a manner- nor though, do they deserve the penning in and neck crushing that leads to such extremist retaliation.

Hamas are not the good guys, hand picked by Netanyahu to serve his rationale that you need an enemy to direct at (see the essay “the essential terrorist”, which lays bare Netanyahu’s thinking and justification of his actions).
Hamas’ treatment of women, people in the region in general and minorities is appalling, their collaborative denial of democracy for Palestinians is egregious, and human rights reports will tell you as much. Nevertheless so many wish to pick and choose elements which fit their narrativisation rather than the whole picture: Hamas are bad, but so is the state of Israel’s horrendous crimes against humanity in response to Hamas’ atrocities- I can condemn Hamas and Israel and understand the actions because of the history: Understanding is not acceptance or forgiveness. And yet, we see a rise of people who think it’s as simplistic as picking one side and uncritically pushing for it- more on that and a particular hat clad exponent of this type of reductive thinking further down.

When it comes to western people all over, we’re suddenly keenly aware that the resources we consume, the comforts we enjoy- all come at the cost of the maintenance of a totalitarian regime we’re the unwitting beneficiaries of. Remember how those who benefit from oppression often don’t see it? Many of us are starting to, in spite of the best effort of state to prevent that by cracking down on discourse around it.

Suddenly we know the iPhones we enjoy videos of critical analysis on this very topic may well have parts made by starving children forced into labour inside them- we know the apps that are letting us talk about this are a threat to the status quo as politicians frame us as talking from ignorance and endangering society when what we learn isn’t ignorant dogma: we learn that the food we eat is grown in fields thick with dried innocents’ blood, or extracted from countries whose citizens are in famine as we gorge on their proceeds: their government ministers feed on our dollars and pounds, assuring their countryfolk that their shrinking waists can be survived.

We know our lights are kept on by oil we buy from despots like Putin or extract under duress with the threat of retaliation, oppression or intervention, or we take easily from theocratic regimes we install after we encourage assassinations of the socialist leaders of those Middle Eastern countries or countries in Africa- the women, the minorities who suffer there, sometimes suffer because our governments chose to arm extremists who swore to do our bidding over leaders who wanted better for their countries- because sometimes better meant not dealing with us, or actually making us pay fair trade for their resources.
Capitalism writ large is installing a dictator who accepts pittance for resource as the price of power, instead of working with a government who wants fair price so they can sink that into betterment of state for their citizenry.

The West’s dark history is still being written in blood, and this must stop- but the enemies within are also rallying.
People like George Galloway gain political influence for the righteous cause of standing against the oppression of Palestine, yet recycles the same dull hard right rhetoric of “anti wokeness” and his followers will recite the same as if it’s common sense to expect those of us whose identities mark us as woke whether we believe it of not to accept this meekly.
Recently he said he thinks people like myself are not “normal”: what is the definition of normal, because if it’s creating a loving relationship and contributing to society, we do not differ. Biological arguments against trans and gay/bi people don’t work- we can’t help our biology nor does it harm anyone. Biological arguments about child rearing are pointless- I have the same capacity as a heterosexual man, I just don’t weaponise it as some type of supremacy because it’s ludicrous to think that the genital collusion of two people makes them innately better, when they might ham fistedly raise a child who is miserable.
Galloway’s argument is that normal is a man, a woman and children: to say nothing of the heterosexual people who do not want or or cannot have children, those who lose children and so on- our worth is innate as human beings and not predicated on whether we follow a socially prescribed model of human behaviours or progress, especially in a world where so many do that it is an irrelevance: if our greatest artists, our most strident writers and our most open hearted fellows were child free does it devalue their works? Does it mean they lived empty lives because they didn’t follow the steps of billions of others? Or do they matter because they were here and because of what they left behind beyond more people?
He says we’re worthy of respect – but that telling children about us is “sexualising”. Is saying “that married couple” sexualisation, if you’re referring to two men instead of a man and a woman? Is referring to “Aunt Penny” who began transition 13 years ago sexual? It is gross to feel sexualised simply because my existence is acknowledged, and it is weaponised incompetence to pretend you cannot tell people about our existence without sinking into the seedy. If you cannot speak to children about other humans without sinking into the crass, rethink having children until you learn.

It is the pushers of this dull “anti woke” ideology who sexualise us unwillingly, it is a rape of our existence, and my existence is no more or less sexual than Galloway, than Sunak, than Starmer, than anyone.
Galloway fronts a cause to help some and hurt others, using his megaphone shouting for justice in one area to divert criticism of his poor ideas in others.

Ultimately his cause should be something decent: we do need a world where identity politics takes a back seat: but not because it makes cis-het people uncomfortable: because it should only be relevant when it is relevant: the very distaste Galloway and his followers feel for us is exactly why that relevance in wider political discourse remains- if you didn’t bring us up, if you didn’t speak so dispassionately about us, if you weren’t threatening to hide us like a dirty secret- if you didn’t have such twisted views about us, we wouldn’t need to be on the defensive and have to force progressive legislation through that drags equity out of your hands when you should offer it freely.

These views will always infiltrate movements: in the BLM uprisings, much discourse was had on holistic inclusion of black and brown people with further marginalisation.
I choose the words of a black commentator I’ve admired for many years, TheConsciousLee who says “if your activism isn’t intersectional it’s not useful” because uplifting some and not others is not uplift: it’s a framework for a new supremacist order.

The anti trans movement, too, typifies this: there is objective truth in womens’ continued suffrage in society. To deny that is to be obtuse: but to pretend that movement is about liberating women when it’s so clearly about removing trans rights, and jest that those topics are a monolith is fallacy- see the proof in the states where trans healthcare is banned alongside womens’ reproductive choices, where anti trans women hospitalise each other for each thinking the other is trans, where existing access to spaces is banned, where trans people can be legally punished for seeking healthcare… and now in the UK where trans people are singled out to be offered third spaces in hospitals so overburdened you sometimes cannot even be admitted when you need to be- if your care is delayed because a trans person is being ostracised that’s the fault of knee jerk fear metastasising into politics, not the sick trans person. This erosion of human parity based on arbitrary characteristics and labelling of “woke” is to say there is a hierarchy you want, just not the one that prevails when so many of us are fighting to abolish a hierarchy at all.

People like Galloway claim they want socialism- but if socialism is a social system designed to empower the proletariat and give us executive control over the production of goods, meaning we’re as liable for the rewards as the company owners who currently offer us paltry salary for the money we make them, how can we seek equity if people don’t even get the chance to be workers?
The Equality Act doesn’t endow people with more rights: it prevents the violation of their existing ones: If a gay man isn’t offered a job because an anti wokeness afficionado runs the company, he cannot access the fruits of a labour he is denied.
A new system built on a lack of equity is another not fit for purpose: and all it takes is for something else to be declared “woke” for its exclusion: many think the pro Palestine movement is “woke”. Here we feed back to the fact that Galloway is eager for Donald Trump- who also reviles wokeness- to win the US presidency because he will pull out of NATO: conveniently ignoring Trump’s Muslim ban, his bigotry spilling into policy which erodes peoples’ ability to enjoy the proceeds they would otherwise reap as humans outside of their marginal identities- to say nothing of his multitude of schemes which have decimated the rights of workers in his empire, to say nothing of his status as a supposed billionaire violence agitator (though he whittles at this himself with his own egregious behaviours).
I myself have spoken about being sick of identity politics, not because it’s not important: because of its weaponisation by people just like Galloway, Trump, Starmer, Tice, Sunak. The constant consolidation into a shibboleth like “wokeness” and it’s invocation as the enemy diverts focus to our human existence- and means it’s diverting from real issues we should be facing and breaking down. Centralising an issue that shouldn’t exist in the first place is a waste of everyones’ time, not to mention half the equalities bunting you see is simply liberal chest beating about how accepting they are, and how quickly the worm turns if you question them elsewhere- liberals will swear they’re allies and yet how quickly that latent hate bursts to the surface if you come at opposition on their stances on workers rights, Palestine, world affairs, anything… liberals see their acceptance as a reward for being their good little pet, not an innate right.

Galloway is not the leader of a better politics; he’s a voice for a free Palestine, and vital to that cause and little more because his politics is crafted from a different type of hierarchy.

Better politics by its own nature must account for inequality in society: if people are treated unequally from the knee because of skin colour, because of their sexual characteristics, their gender, sexuality, their dialect, their ability, that society grows out of the muck of inequality and cannot shake off those constraints and affects that person’s path, chaining them to fewer and fewer directions.
Equitable politics is not some overbearing political correctness: it’s the fertile seedbed for a world to develop that admits, and ceases, its colonial actions: It’s a world that offers everyone the opportunities they’re due, accounting for who they are and giving them uplifting in line with their own needs, rather than demanding people behave in line with a framework developed by others who proscribe their experiences to everyone.
It’s a time where your identifying characteristics don’t matter because people rationally see that their own small minded biases don’t stop you being a good worker, a decent person. And it’s a society which focuses, not just on uplifting one group, or a few groups who are palatable- but overthrowing a system built from floor to highest ceiling on the oppression of many for the benefit of the few- the central socialist ideal.

You can look at this time and understand that, whilst we were all sanguine in our ignorance and compliant with the whims of state, it seemed like freedom: but now people are being kicked from campus, stabbed, shot, imprisoned and worse asides for the crime of genuinely being disgusted by the mechanisms of state and asking for change, for a society that is not built from the ashes of those we trampled during its creation: Biden says peaceful protest is a right sacrosanct as he watches agitators on his side instigate violence and as the press try desperately to tell us it’s the ones screaming for peace who did the violence: and that is because he is the violence. His office is the violence: It led to one Trump presidency and is leading to another.
America must reconcile with the truth of its creation and the cost of its maintenance in this form, or it will veer from extremist president to extremist president who will throw human rights, citizenry and liberty itself into the jaws of state maintenance.
The further maintenance of the Israeli state is a facet- though a very relevant- facet of that larger idea. The foolish sleight of hand that anti Zionism is anti semitisim doesn’t work when Biden, who is a catholic, says he is a Zionist- and when his uncritical diffidence to Zionism means he’s letting Americans die and be injured over standing up to a foreign entity, it means he chooses state over liberty. Blue or red, the chains still fit the same.

State is now entering delusion to maintain itself- America is gearing up to pass a bill claiming antisemitism is speaking out against Zionism even as a catholic Zionist is president, and as jewish people who are at the white hot forefront of the movement to liberate Palestine are beaten, arrested and mistreated- in Germany, anti zionist jewish organisations are having their assets frozen: we see the same thing in the UK where Rishi Sunak pushes forward the unreality of new legislation to declare an unsafe country – Rwanda- safe in his bid to maintain state as it stands: in shambles.
Rwanda is verging on open war with Congo. Rwanda has sold of 70% of housing stock for migrants. Migrants have died in Rwanda previously because of the negligence of state. It is not a safe country, but our government who talks often of common sense and reality, is legislating against reality itself to declare ignorance to enact a scheme that will not help the problem. Every single migrant to our shores could be sent away and we would still have hospitals bereft of staff, schools crumbling into dust, parochial workers rights and corruption bleeding from the heart of our government. But state must lie to maintain itself: and that means state itself is a lie.

It’s bigger than all of us

At this moment in time, our states are more interested in protecting the colonial regime they collectively embody than our liberty. Biden ignores the death of innocents in Palestine both born there and innocents there to pass out aid- innocents from his own country, because to stand up to Israel is to imperil the rank behaviours of all states held together through colonial action. We can literally die because of Zionist extremism and Biden will overlook it, because dismantling that cultivated system threatens the world he grappled with long ago and accepted the cost of: the blood of dissenters.

This all fits into the wider skein of my own political awakening. In the UK, the battle isn’t so trite as to just “remove the tories”- it’s to utterly break apart the system that empowers them, a system that allows the opposition to offer the barest stirrings of change to be seen as electable- a system where minoritised people are expected to live “less than” lives so people around them can enjoy the simple life as their noise cancelling headphones tune out the screams of the bombed whose corpses grow the plants they eat in coffee shops, whose laptop screens block the vision of a fellow citizen having their right to use facilities removed to accommodate small minded bigots- a life where the student loans we pay go to universities knee deep in the arms trade or funding countries who mistreat their citizens: a world where the dint of your birth sets your choices in stone before your character begins to develop and other avenues are cut off by the bigotry of your familial wealth, diction, skin colour, region, gender, sexuality and you’re cajoled, pushed and pressed into being another body in the ceaseless machine of capitalism, your blood oiling the cogs as they turn to produce more people to keep powering this shuddering project forward.

We can do better- we should do better. The pro Palestine movement is the tip of an iceberg big enough to sink the titanic states we’ve existed in for a millennia. We surely do not want to live lives where merely existing under our states causes pain elsewhere for others: where our resource guarding means others suffer, where we force people into militant labour to produce clothes we discard after months, and where the proceeds go to the rich who scorn our request for equity.
This is not the human condition: capitalism is not the human condition, bailed out by socialist theory every decade since I was born or collapsing into ruin and taking everyone with it as we defend regimes accused of genocide over our own citizens.
Racism, bigotry and more are not the human condition- humans intellectualise reasons to hate rather than accepting the reality that we are all the same until our heads are packed with the empty vessels of hatred, and we’re pushed into a tiny space where only the proscribed, narrow thoughts we’re told are vital to consider, paralyse us.


We’re a species with so much potential to coexist with each other and with our world itself, and the movement to call for that and work to it would be an earth shaking change.
People would need to compromise, to adjust, and to work within the bounds of a new way to live which guarantees coexistence in peace.
But better that than to keep careening towards the fulfilment of the colonial project where everyone who is in our way becomes a bloody smear under our boot, and our history is that we slaughtered our way to a manufactured peace filled with the shouts of those we brutalised to get there: isn’t it?

Is punishing migrants genuinely worth your own human rights?

By Daviemoo

In the last few days alone, Sunak’s government has passed the Rwanda bill, ready to send flights of migrants to a country with almost no housing stock on the verge of war with the Congo at the same time as passing even more measures to punish those on “benefits”, stating that he will remove payment from those who have been out of work for a certain amount of time.
How will any of these moves help our lives improve? The answer is- they won’t. But too many British people will be swayed by another layer of varnish dumped on the cracked walls of our political existence to ask themselves how punishing others uplifts us.

When it comes to Rwanda, Sunak is right that the boats need to stop; not because every boat is heaving with rapists ready to attack British women or with people ready to make a life on benefits. Because it’s clear that the UK’s asylum system cannot handle the numbers or the methods. Rather than focus on a workable strategy like opening processing centres in key countries and making the long awaited safe routes that multiple MPs have failed to describe including ex Home Secretary Suella Braverman at a select committee hearing and as the government ignores widespread alarm about the state of- and safety of Rwanda in terms of migrant safety. Even this morning the news reports that five migrants are feared dead off the coast of Calais, using this as the perfect rationale to push the scheme. But nobody ever seems to be able to answer the crucial questions.

Previously, Sunak and Braverman have spoken of how the Rwanda bill will “break the funding model of people smugglers”. But think logically: the boats will still fill with people who may possibly be sent to Rwanda after arriving. How will that stop people smugglers from being paid? It doesn’t. Because Sunak, because Braverman, think throwing money into the burning pit of racist ideologue is a solution. They don’t want numbers to go down, they want angry, stupid people to be satisfied by an expensive, unworkable plan that doesn’t even address the issue.

But what is the wider problem of this ideological shrapnel grenade of a policy?
Sunak will soon face his first legal challenge from the ECHR. Sunak will use this legal challenge as a lynchpin to further press for removal from the ECHR’s purview: Whilst this isn’t good for those whose rights are abused who have come to the UK from abroad, we as citizens will still be protected by the human rights act- but notice that this, too, is under attack. Truss herself has recently spoken of wanting to tear up the human rights act, and abolish the high court- meaning the government cannot be challenged by its’ own people, essentially beholden only to its own rules.

Let’s look at exactly what the ECHR protects, shall we? Let’s decide which rights we’re fine to forego shall we?

  1. The Right to life
    The right to live. Shall we forego the right to live, in the name of stopping those boats?
    Priti Patel once made an argument that the ECHR would thwart attempts to bring back the death penalty- despite the death penalty literally being offered as a loophole in the very ruling of the ECHR to protect the right to life.
  2. Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
    Ah yes, who needs protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatments or punishments! We know the tories aren’t the type of people to enact cruel and unusual punishments against their own citizens… right?
  3. Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
    Did you know that next to Albanians, British People are the most at risk of modern slavery in the UK? And as that’s the case, does it seem wise to abolish the protection of this right?
  4. Right to liberty and security
    Liberty- freedom… Remember that one of the most famous American quotes of all time is “give me liberty or give me death”. People literally died for the right to liberty.
  5. Right to a fair trial
    Who needs fair trial, eh?! Who needs a fair trial, under a government who has been found to breach the law multiple times.
  6. No punishment without law
    Punish the innocent to get to the guilty does seem to be in vogue with Brits
  7. Right to respect for private and family life
    Did you know Tory MP Own Paterson is taking the government to the ECHR over his breach of privacy during the scandal of him taking money from a company who lobbied him for bigger covid contracts? Weird how they like the court when it can help them, isn’t it?
  8. Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion
    FREE SPEECH! Unless you say something we don’t like, then we want to take away your right to say it- right?
  9. Freedom of expression
    An addition to above- but who needs to express themselves in a country where if you behave perfectly you don’t get punished! What a normal way of thinking.
  10. Freedom of assembly and association
    I’d argue that this one is already heavily under assault… the UK’s ridiculous anti protest laws were meant to challenge this one, in the hopes we’d bring cases and the tories could start the association process of “foreign courts meddling”.
  11. Right to marry and right to found a family
    Imagine if this right was denied you… is that a life worth living?
  12. Right to an effective remedy
    Who needs that! I prefer ineffective remedies.
  13. Prohibition of discrimination
    Imagine how upset gammon would be if their human right to the prohibition of discrimination went? You can be racist if you want now- but imagine what can be said and done back to you…
  14. Protection of property
    Seems like we might want this? No? Not an important right?
  15. Right to education
    I wish more of our red foreheaded British fellows would use this one to be honest
  16. Right to free elections
    I mean who needs free elections? The government are so trustworthy!

    All too often, Brexit defenders will state that we need to make our own laws and decisions: but who is doing that? A loud, slack jawed minority who hold the tories in populist thrall. They don’t care about how much our bills are, how restricted our rights, how bad our living conditions, how strangled our NHS- provided they see blood from others. The ones who rail for hours and days and weeks against transgender people, migrants, people off work with mental health conditions, people with different coloured skin or accents from other countries. I haven’t made a single law based decision in years and those I’ve tried to make, I’ve lost. I’m led to believe my views aren’t popular… which ones? Green policy? That’s popular across the entire political spectrum. Wealth tax? Only rich people and indoctrinated poor people are against that. The permanent enshrining of basic human rights in a constitution? What absolute idiots would be against that!?

    We live in a world where the worst examples of humanity are used as justification to punish an innocent majority, and more and more people seem to accept this framing. We just have to send migrants to Rwanda because some of them are bad horrible people- never mind the fact that there was never a safe route for them to come, so how can you be angry at people for not taking an option they don’t have?! Being angry at people for coming to the country you say is great is insane. And the weirdest part of it is, attacking their human rights is obviously a foolish argument because they are human rights- and you are a human!
    Think of it this way; if we decide the worst of us don’t deserve human rights, all it takes is enough people to decide the not so bad of us don’t, then the okay but not perfect people… Removing human rights is out of the question because it is always, always a slippery slope. There but for the grace of fate goes you: and imagine what the tories- or, dare I say it, a Starmer government, would do with dissenters when not bound by layers of human rights protections.

    One answer to this is in fact to constitutionalise our rights- but is now the time to ask? Do we really want Sunak- Truss- Braverman- Starmer- Tice to be deciding which of our valuable rights to be constitutionalised? I sure don’t.

    We’re in a mess, led as always by the people we’re chained to- the most unaware of us. And I don’t even blame the unaware. When you’re living in a country where your daily experience is to worry about paying your bills, worry about that lump under your arm, worry about your kids eating enough… why would you give a shit about some weird leftist on the internet giving you dire warnings about your human rights?
    Some of the worst regimes in history happened alongside peoples’ very pedestrian, day to day lives. They shopped, went to the doctors, got married, received medical treatment under the Nazis. We’re literally watching Israelis throw mini dance parties to disrupt aid trucks from getting to the starving civilians in Gaza.
    This is what we’re fostering: we’re seeding the ground ready for our government to commit horrendous atrocities, as the peons who couldn’t even conceptualise fighting back will throng the streets, still wondering about their own lives in the face of the sanctioned horrors happening around them.

    All too often we’re told we’re catastrophising- I remember being told I was catastrophising about austerity, catastrophising about the police, crime, courts & sentencing bill that has gutted protest rights, catastrophising about our gutted protest rights, about our ability to vote. It’s harder than it’s been in living memory to protest, it’s harder to take industrial action, it’s harder to simply vote as Rees-Mogg airily talks on stage about gerrymandering and how it backfired on them… We aren’t catastrophising when we’re in the middle of the crash- as the glass and metal screams, shatters and twists around us.

    All too often history seems to reflect a peoples who stood around watching horrors unfold, only to scratch their heads and ask “how on earth did that happen?”
    How did Nazi Germany come to pass? How are the GOP so radical in America that they’re talking about the “end of democracy”? The answer is- not enough people gave a shit and stopped it. The UK’s government has failed its citizens for years and its reaction is not to get better at the job, it’s to make its citizens quieter. The signs are there- exactly how many klaxons need to sound, before British people panic?

    Benefits? Hardly

    The truth is, our mindset doesn’t help. How many of us have grown up in homes where we’re told that suffering is moral, that it’s righteous to work yourself to death, that it’s lazy to rest? And how macro can that mindset go to? It’s righteous to forego human rights, because if we’re good little robots, why do we need them? It’s why when it comes to HELPING OUR OWN, the usual refrain we hear when people who don’t want to help migrants. Better to help our own, they say as they cheer through punitive benefits sanctions ushered in by Sunak to gut people’s ability to take time to recover from mental health issues.
    As a person who had a breakdown in 2016 who took three months off work and ended up so broken I couldn’t even buy milk at Tescos briefly, I can assure you that HELPING OUR OWN doesn’t start by forcing them to work when they feel like they can’t even talk to another person.

    Even the name of Benefits is ironic- what’s the benefit of? Public payment for not working.

    The irony is when you’re a leftist people assume you want everyone to be able to claim everything when the fact is, I’d love if we could practically abolish benefits because the country works well enough for us that we don’t need benefits to top up low salaries so people can afford to live; I don’t want there to be a cap on child benefits because I want people to be able to afford to have and raise kids without benefits at all. Crazy right? Benefits are not a benefit, they’re a stipend and they pay back into the very system that lends them out: that £50 a benefits claimant spends on a haircut pays that hairdresser’s hourly rate, pays the rent for the salon… it’s a big circle. We do nothing about the rich, punish the poor, punish the migrants and things just keep getting worse! How odd. Must be the trans people- or those uppety women with all those lovely reproductive rights- bet if we took those away people would fall in line.

    How did we become so foolish, so naive? And where does it end. Nowhere good, I fear.

    Dangerous times are ahead, and oozing ever closer- and the question to ask is: what will we do about it?