18 July 2007
It should be the proudest day of any mother's life: the day her baby says "mummie" for the first time. For one British working class mother the day is seared into her memory because it was also the last time she saw her two year old daughter. The child has been seized by social work filth, on spurious charges, as was her sister within an hour of that child's birth. The police tried to find evidence to validate the state-sponsored kidnappings, but even they, long experts at finding grounds to fit-up the innocent, could find nothing in this case. In January of this year they announced that no prosecution would be forthcoming.
The social work filth then responded to this by placing the babies with prospective adopters and the innocent parents received a voicemail message telling them that all visiting rights would cease. They have not seen their babies since. Their lawyers have told them that the chances of recovering their babies are slim. However, they have been told by the social work filth that if they have any further children they "may" be allowed to keep them. How nice it was of this filth to give their permission in that way. And doesn't it just tell you who is in control of working class people in working class districts? The couple may have another child and the social work filth may decide to let them keep that child. Permission has been thus been granted, and thus control over our lives by this new colonial administrative class has been further demonstrated. Instances of class power like this are becoming all the frequent in Britain today.
Living in a working class district in Britain is increasingly similar to living in a colonial territory during the days of empire. The residents are the natives, the kaffirs, the chavs, and the colonial administrators are the teachers, police, social workers and assorted council officials, all of whom parachute into the territory in the morning, and then scuttle out as quickly as possible at day's end. Even the councillors, the men and women who are supposed to legitimise these characters' actions, are increasingly outsiders who do not live in the wards that they ostensibly represent.
To make matters worse, the working class response to a polity that no longer even pretends to do anything other than toss them a few scraps has been to disengage from politics completely. Into the vacuum has stepped a new breed of party member. By and large he is polytechnic (semi) educated and employed in local government as a teacher, social worker or generic manager. He lives in a nearby authority and runs for office in that council. He has more in common both culturally as well as economically with the teachers, social workers and council officers that he is supposed to supervise, than he does with the council tenants who voted for him. As types like this expand their influence, yet more working class people withdraw from politics.
In a strange way, this may turn out to be of benefit to working class activism in the long run. Mobilising our people on the basis of unemployment or economic inequality doesn't work. The reason is that unemployment and underemployment are the default setting for most working people during most of their lifetimes. Almost every generation undergoes at least one recession - those of us who were unemployed in the 1980s were told by our fathers what it was like in the 1930s. Some of us railed against our lot, but most just made their lived tolerable by tightening their belts and reverting to the default position of acceptance.
Put another way, if working class people do become involved in class politics again, then it will not be on the basis of their economic uncertainty alone. They are used to that and accept it as naturally as they accept the spring rains.
What may bring about a change are new factors that are related to the way that working class people are increasingly controlled and managed in their home districts. This brings us back to the notion that parts of Britain are little more than colonial territories, that the people who live there are the natives, and that the council officials are the colonial administrators.
Had these administrators left people alone and just concentrated on collecting their inflated wages, then this argument would not be viable. The fact is that they can't do this because an essential component of lower middle class ideology is the notion that whatever they are doing has to be justified in some moral sense. To this we might add the sheer sense of knicker moistening power that these creatures must feel as they exercise their control over our lives. Middle class self righteousness and the euphoria of power: it's a powerful combination.
The enemy has chosen to use our children to coerce obedience into us and as an example of their power over us. That was there big mistake because this is the one issue that should force the working class to begin its resistance. The number of instances where middle class scum have attacked us via our children is growing, and leads this writer to conclude that virtually all working class districts must have instances that can be used as mobilisation issues.
In Salford, one schoolgirl was arrested for saying something in class that these creatures did not like. Codie Stott, a Salford girl, had the temerity to ask a teacher why she could not be taught in her own language. A week later, no doubt following various discussions between various parasitic polywallahs, all cheerfully getting in on the act to prove how important they are, the girl was arrested and held for an afternoon before being released. The aim was obviously to instil terror and obedience into the wider community. Say what we say, think how we tell you to think, that was the message.
This threat is pretty much guaranteed to fail for the same reason that the teaching trade is not going to provide much of an impetus for a renaissance in working class political activity. Simply put, nobody gives a shit about the teachers. Parents tell their children to ignore them, to get through the school years with as little fuss as possible. They go on to say that teachers have always been that way, and that is a cue for some anecdote from the parents' days that helps put the whole thing into perspective. More importantly, Codie Stott, who will have left school by now, can walk past her old school building every day for the rest of her life and stick two fingers up at the lower middle class scum inside. If she does that then there is absolutely nothing that any of them can do to her, her family or her class.
That cannot be said of the social work industry. As has already been demonstrated, they are taking our children into care on spurious grounds and even when we prove our innocence, we find that they are being put up for adoption. Our women are seen as little more than brood mares, the providers of children for barren women or men who cannot get it up - the middle class in other words.
What we need to do is to start making these actions the focus of our resistance. Community groups need to be formed to defend an estate's children. The resistance needs to be community based, thus to draw on the collectivist tradition that is at the root of working class political action.
We have the issue: the question is do we still have the bottle to use it? In the next essay, we shall look at some ways in which such community groups could grow and the tactics that can be used.