Nemesis

It's all the same story

2009-09-25T15:24:00.003+01:00

It just keeps coming back. Class. I know it never went away. Since Man was able to impose himself on the weaker members of the tribe, we had social hierarchies. Humans invented structures, social, political, religious structures
which served to ensure that social mobility was hard, if not altogether impossible. And of course all of this stemmed from economic reasons: The relationship between the haves and the have-nots was the primary concern of the control mechanisms in societies.

Since the Enlightenment and the Age of Revolution, the fringes of social groups became penetrable (or appeared to do so). Rich peasants became lower middle class. Upper middle class were allowed (although with great contempt) to attain a status which would gradually become comparable to that of the aristocracy. The royal family, with its fascination with bloodlines, has managed to keep apart from this mobility. Their wealth is less pronounced, as if they realised that flaunting it around a-la-1788 could prove detrimental to their health and wealth, as Louis XVI would be able to testify-if he could find his head that is.

The twentieth century with its great 'liberation' supposedly became the great leveller. "Class is dead" we were told. "All are equal". We all vote, have the right to work, live and procreate without restriction. In theory, anyone could move from any class to any class (apart from the royals of course-we will deal with them later). Slogans such as the 'American Dream' and 'rags-to-riches' serve to support the idea that no one is shackled to their predicament of birth, anyone can pursue their dream and achieve it.

Or can they? In a country (and world) obsessed with class, examples of true mobility are few and far between. The system ensures that mobility is restricted, as if it is dictated by a chain around its neck which would only allow it to go that far. The few exceptions (the Alan Sugars of this world) are just that: few. Every turn you take, you are surrounded by class, its limitations and prejudices. The stereotypes, the ridicule. Chavs and poshos, bruisers and cruisers, collective mass insecurity and the massive chip on the shoulder that causes it.

The system of education has a lot to answer for. You can never start to early in grooming your child to succeed in life. Nurseries that teach babies French. OFSTED-set objectives to enable the children to cope with a competitive world. Privileged primary schools that ensure that the sprog gets a decent secondary, a decent uni and a 2.1 at the end of it. Parents' ambitions, the pushiness, the aspirations of moving from a 2-bed terrace house to that semi-detached, from that semi-detached to the farmhouse (attitude which has ruined the house market and made it impossible for the poor to own a house). The understanding that this is a race, get in line, there's a queue for the fucking nursery, get ahead of the other mugs, you deserve better. The ripples of this rotten system are far-reaching.

Whole areas are considered 'bad' because the schools there are 'poor', have 'bad' results. So the poorer members of society gather around these areas, badly looked after by councils, where crime is constantly on the rise. And of course those schools can never become 'good', exactly because they are in these 'bad' areas. A vicious cycle perpetuating itself, condemning whole communities to ignorance. The other end belongs to 'good' schools, where self-respecting parents drop their children off in their SUV's, trying to ensure that their children don't get left behind in humanity's race for a bigger pay packet.

But the mobility that ensues as a result of this activity is limited. If a working-class parent breaks his or her back to send their children to a better school and to uni (and the examples are again few), those children, who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, can never attain the fully bright future reserved for the children of the middle class. If they are studying law, they will be able to finish their degree and get a crappy solicitor's job at a neighbourhood estate agent's, as their fellow graduates will be waltzing their way into top jobs because their parents have the contacts. The system is only ticking the box by letting them in-it's inclusion. Investors in people, they say. Investing in box ticking, says I.

All this is happening underneath the upper classes of course. They don't worry about these things because they go private all the way. The upper middle class is trying hard to break into the lower fringes of the upper class. The upper class, although it can't become royal family, can now buy peer titles and feel aristocratic, in their 'rightful' place on top of the pile upon which the royals shit.

This of course resembles a pyramid. There are fewer people at the top, but because they are so rich and so fat, they need a lot of people underneath them to support them. Wide base, narrower middle, really narrow near the top, one person sitting on it. And interspersed in this are the various lies: religion, nation, football, flags, symbols and heroes, all of which serve to keep the ones at the bottom there. Hm...sounds familiar? Check this out. Things don't change do they?

All of this is summed up in John Lennon's masterpiece, revamped and made more poignant by Samoobluga here. Enjoy.

Who's the immigrant?

2009-06-17T12:02:00.012+01:00

After news today that 100 Romanian immigrants were forced out of their homes in Belfast as a result of racist attacks, I believe there is a need to address the issue of racism and xenophobia honestly and go beyond scratching the surface. This attack comes a few days after the BNP claimed two MEP seats and saw its percentages increase considerably, along with UKIP-the other, rather better camouflaged xenophobic right-wing group.

However, we must not fall into the trap of thinking that this is a British phenomenon only. The fall of that excuse for Communism that was the Eastern Bloc meant that millions of people flooded into the economically stronger nations of western Europe in search for a better life. Add to those the millions of Africans and people from the Middle East and you have a population movement of historical proportions. North Africans flocked to Spain, France and Italy, Albanians to Italy and Greece, Iraqis and Kurds everywhere, Kosovo Albanians, Bosnians, Afghanis, Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Estonians, Latvians, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians. Such population movements always cause tensions amongs the people who see themselves as the 'natives' in any space. They see their lifestyles, their culture and, in some cases, livelihood threatened by the influx. This is a social phenomenon observed worldwide and throughout history. Tribal movements caused by drought in Africa caused violent conflict. Search for pasture brought the Scythians, Turks and Mongols to Europe. The examples are numerous.

However, this is not the 1200's and we are not dealing with Kublai Khan's hordes. We are dealing with poor people, coming to these shores to do the dirty work, often underpaid and abused by the system. It is necessary to see their coming as a global phenomenon dictated by global economic conditions. Idiotic, short-term and shortsighted policies against immigration don't work. You can't stop the flood. Besides, the conditions that brought these people are similar to the conditions who brought just about everyone else inhabiting the sunny British Isles. What gives an eighth-generation Irish person living in London more right to exist and earn here than Niculae, the Romanian road sweeper and Nadia the Romanian cleaner? Nothing.

It is indicative of our times that instead of our system, our government and education trying to counter and nullify the social effects of immigration, racism and xenophobia by doing grassroots work, we have one the one hand 'pledges' by cabinet (and shadow) ministers to counter the very phenomenon of population movement. At the same time, the liberal but not-so-interested middle class armchair Left gives a slap on the wrist on whoever is remotely suspected of being racist and xenophobic. As with crime, there is no attempt to limit xenophobia at its roots by attempting to work with peoples understanding and perceptions. Rather, it is a Johnny-come-lately attitude intended to appease those calling for measures. Sincerity has no part in it. And the hypocricy which sees the world embrace 'globalisation' of the economy, where we see no problem buying 'cheap' goods manufactured in sweat shops, but at the same time object to the same workers from those sweat shops working on our 'home' turf. Kettle for £5, good. Chinese worker, bad... The world is in a fluid system where economies are no longer protected by restrictions. This means that money and goods can circulate freely. Why not people then? If you would like a 'pure' Britain, without foreign workers, you must also be prepared to do away with cheap imported goods, because the two are products of the same system. And then we'd see if you could afford a flat-screen TV, a kettle or even a football shirt made by British workers.

On a final note: tolerance. This is a term liberally used to describe British attitudes towards foreigners. However, the term itself hides the seeds of xenophobia, as foreign workers have done absolutely nothing wrong that needs to be tolerated. You tolerate a nuisance, you don't tolerate people. You coexist with people, that's your only choice. You don't tolerate racists and xenophobes.

Ethical Football Now!(?)

2009-06-11T11:53:00.008+01:00

The news today that Man Utd have accepted an unprecedented £80m offer from Real Madrid for this man did not come as a shock. Neither did Kaka's £56m transfer to Madrid earlier in the week. A combined fee of £136 million pounds will have been spent to bring two of football's brightest talents to the Spanish capital.

I must question the way football has headed ever since Newcastle Utd paid £15m for Alan Shearer back in 1996. Despite the fact that factories are closing and unemployment is rising, with dangerous social implications (the dangerous swing to the far right for example), the real football factory never seems to relent. It is based on the principle that no matter how poor and deprived, Mick and Josh from the estates will always be able to afford £50 a month for a Sky subscription, which pays the likes of Man Utd and Madrid, who in turn squander such huge amounts of money on pairs of feet. Unfortunately, LDV workers who found themselves out of work this week do not see the macrocosm which includes these deals, the bad deals their bosses made which forced the plant closure and threw them out on the streets.

The working class has shifted to voting for the BNP in a response to the Labour Party's abandonment of the working class. Their world consists of short-sighted hatred of foreign workers, reading the Sun and watching Jade Goody dying live on telly. Why? Because the people whose responsibility it was to keep the working class aware of its social responsibility and its place under the employers' heel have been too busy making the Left a corporate whore, where politics are only a means of self-promotion and acquisition of wealth. The workers' leaders have no voice, no way through to the ears of a supposedly Left government. On top of that, they are peppered on a daily basis by reports of the MPs excesses, their spending habits, their decadence. The tabloids also exagerrate the impact of foreign workers in the UK, sending those who read them into a frenzy.

Christiano Ronaldo's transfer serves to highlight once more the lethargy capitalism has forced the working class into, a complete loss of identity, an utter confusion amidst cheap material possessions. Cheap lager, fake tan, Saturday footy and overpriced nylon football tops. Money is the new, individualistic ideology, and the Christiano Ronaldos of this world are the new Che Guevaras. One only hopes that the deathly shadow of the credit crunch on football won't be long now. It will be a great day when the by-then impoverished former giants of football turn to the state for help, to preserve the 'legacy', 'heritage' and 'history'. Unfortunately, the same corporate bots who bailed out the banks will also try to bail the clubs out, so that the collective sedative that is football does not lose its stranglehold over the masses. Drink your cheap pint, eat your cheap pie. Watch the millionnaires play with your money. Your eyes are heavy, you feel sleepy, the corporation has its hand in your wallet.

Expenses and expendables

2009-05-30T12:18:00.005+01:00

The row over MPs' expenses has opened a debate for 'change'. Change in the system, change in its administration. The BBC's reports, showing unrepentant, well-to-do drones explaining why they needed to pay for their daughter's au-pair's hair extensions only serve as further confirmation that the system is in deep rot.
The excuses are ridiculous, and so are the outcomes. Some of them stood down, some paid the money back (or what was leaked to the press in any case) and some announced that they would not be running next time round. What? As if this is enough to absolve them and make everything OK.

Let's take things one at a time. That these MPs have abused the system in order to further their own wealth and accommodate their relatives in 'jobs', despite the fact that they were hundreds of miles away, can only be considered corruption of the highest level. No no no no no no mr and mrs MP, you don't get to pay the money back and apologise blah blah blah. The filth need to come round, clap some handcuffs on your wrists and take you down. Because you need to stand trial for corruption, dereliction of duty and nepotism. In a bygone era, which Emiliano remembers with nostalgia, the charge of high treason would have also been slapped on their foreheads and they'd be shot at dawn.

Secondly, this also raises the issue of 'expenses'. Myself and Mrs Emiliano get up in the morning, get dressed, have breakfast and go to work, sometimes spending hours to get there. Our bosses allow us a lunch break but no food. Then we come back home. We pay for our work clothes, our transport, food and on top of that for baby Emiliano's nursery. Add to that the mortgage and other expenses. If I went to my boss and demanded those expenses to be paid by the company, simply because they were incurred in an effort to get to work and create a surplus for him, not only would I be shown the door sooner than you could say 'MPs' expenses', but I would also probably find a white van waiting outside to take me in.

That these people work for the government does not mean that the taxpayer has to foot the bill for any of their expenses. Many people work for the government, and I could argue that considerably more are more beneficial to society than MPs. Social workers, nurses, teachers, anyone who works in a role which contributes to society is more useful than any MP. MPs pursue a political career out of personal interest. They advance and climb, acquire and own. Very few of them actually contribute anything, because they are so detached from the rest of us.
So, here is the proposal: MPs to be paid a basic salary which means they can afford to live near their workplace. No second homes. If I get a job far from my current location, I will have to rent or buy there out of my own pocket. Becoming an MP is personal choice, not an imposition. So, if the MPs can't afford to rent or buy in London, let the Parliament run a dormitory system, with rooms for MPs and even basic food thrown in (see how generous I can be?). If the only thing MPs gain by being MPs is just the opportunity to engage in debate and decision-making, then that will be their motive, not second homes and luxury lifestyles. And we could do with people motivated by the former.

Prosecute MPs who claimed excessive and unreasonable expenses. Strip all MPs from these perks, just pay a fair salary. Demand that all MPs participate in all parliament discussions. Give them clock cards and expect them to be there, Monday to Friday, 9-5.

Emiliano is back after a short trip to his homeland to oversee the progress of the revolution.

Big Brother is indeed watching you

2009-04-06T19:01:00.004+01:00

Boy they kept this quiet. As of Sunday the 5th of April, ISPs will be storing all user data under the EU Data Retention Directive, a controversial law which most civilised European nations chose to ignore or put to their citizens for a vote. Not in the UK. This has been adopted as a measure 'against terrorism', as so many other infringements on privacy and personal data.

Of course we know the rhetoric: the Home Office said it was implementing the directive because it was the government's priority to "protect public safety and national security". The announcement went further by stating that "communications data is the where and when of the communication and plays a vital part in a wide range of criminal investigations and prevention of terrorist attacks, as well as contributing to public safety more generally."

That this will be done indiscriminately across the board does not seem to bother the legislators. So, your ISP will retain all your usage data: all websites you visited, all emails you sent, your email address book, everything you downloaded. Everything will be logged and retained for 1 year in the name of 'security'. Whose security? In the name of counter-terrorism nations have begun to terrorise their own subjects, implementing a series of regulations and laws which seriously compromise privacy and basic freedoms. Make no mistake, we are speedily moving towards a period in history where totalitarianism is a given.

This is another dictatorial policy 'Labour' adopted without questioning. It was also done on the sly, not even featuring on the front page of BBC news. it was rather hidden away in their technology section, despite the fact that the content represents a major concern to all British households, and is not just of interest to those particularly focused on technology. Pages that did make the BBC News front page are Robinho's sex attack, the Home Office's website link to porn, violent crime and car sales. Not even under 'Also in the news', where we are informed that Gavin & Stacey star Matthew Horne is to return to a West End stage. That a significant change in the laws which would impinge upon the public's privacy has just taken place is nowhere to be seen.

And yet there is little or no public outcry. This is no different to having your post delivered opened and resealed, with a stamp stating that it has been checked for security purposes. If that happened there would be an uproar. The fact that surveillance is digital is no less dangerous. In fact, it is considerably more dangerous, since we spend a large part of our lives online; we shop, interact, voice our opinions, view content and read newspapers and blogs online. Our credit card data, our shopping preferences, websites we frequent, people we frequently talk to, blogs we read, newspapers we read, dating websites, porn, sports. All is recorded. And I'm sorry but, I don't trust a state which forgets defence data on trains with all my data.

While the public is being force-fed stories about TV and football stars, terrifying stories of violence and the 'credit crunch', the state is slowly but surely pulling over our eyes the woolen blindfold, its other hand deep in our pocket. Jade Goody's death and funeral, Jacqui Smith's porno expenses, victory over Ukraine: all events that were given prime time coverage. Bread and circuses, just bread and circuses in what is a gradual descent into a situation where authoritarian regimes have complete control of our lives. Control is not just about restrictions. It is also about monitoring your every move. Be awake. Be aware. Be vigilant. Do not take your freedom for granted, even as it's quietly crumbling from under your feet. Because one day you'll switch off the television, after another episode of the X-factor, only to find that you have no voice.

Jacqui oh Jacqui...

2009-04-01T16:21:00.007+01:00

The tabloids loved this. So did the Conservatives. I can hear them screaming for Jacqui's head as we speak. So the guy watched some porn and charged the taxpayer for it. Big deal. Him and his señora have surely charged considerably more on things considerably less necessary than a quick wank under the duvet.

This incident serves to highlight a culture prevalent among MPs (no, not wanking-although they're probably at it all the time judging by some of their decisions). I am talking about freeloading. Their sort secretly (and openly) criticise the country's unemployed for being on the dole, but they are guilty of spending and wasting the taxpayers' money on things such as first class flights to places completely irrelevant to their work, second homes and expensive flats in London, cars, chauffeurs, the list is endless. By focusing on this case and Jacqui's porn-viewing husband we serve two things: firstly, we draw attention from bigger expenses and the issue of the squandering of public money, to deal exclusively with why the poor chap was watching porn and why he claimed it as expenses. If anything, he was watching porn because his wife was doing some government work or was working on spinning some bad story or other to make it look good. Secondly, it trivialises the issue of government decisions, especially in relation to expenses.
We are talking about a government that on no valid information whatsoever involved itself in 3 catastrophic wars in 10 years (no, I don't forget Kosovo-will be banging on about it as long as I breathe). Exaggerated reports from Kosovo allowed Tono and his cronies to blow Serbia to smithereens. Government lied, people died. Connecting the Taliban to the attack on the World Trade Center facilitated the attack on Afghanistan in search for Santa Cl...sorry, Osama Bin Laden. Did they find him? Does he even exist? Who knows? Thirdly, they openly lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq, destroy it and then help their American buddies 'rebuild' the country (at a price, of course). Government lied, people died. Just ask Dr Kelly's widow. Or maybe better not, in case she suddenly dies 'while jogging' as well.

As many members of the current government voted yes to the above wars, they have war crimes to answer for. Complicity in the events of Abu Ghrayib and Guantanamo, in addition to the bodycount in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan (for all sides involved) is still unaccounted for. These people must answer more serious questions (hopefully naked, forced to kneel all night long while Iraqis piss in their ears) than paying for a pay-per-view porn film.

In light of the above, I think the poor chap was entitled to a wank. We all are. Because what we have experienced in politics, economy and media in the last 15-20 years can only be considered the hardest of hardcore porn films. And we have paid for it. For every bullet, missile and aircraft thrown at it, we coughed up. So a tenner for a wank is nothing in comparison.

Apprentice-schmapprentice

2009-03-29T12:49:00.011+01:00

Having to put up with The Apprentice episode 1 this week, I felt I had to say something about it. We all know the format-some hopefuls are battling it out in a mega back-stabbing feast which will end in a few weeks with the sleaziest one of them winning a (short) contract making photocopies for SurAlan Sugar. During this time the teams are given tasks and are expected to make a profit. The team with the lowest profit is considered to have lost the challenge and will have one of its members fired in true gangland-execution style (borrowed from Charlie Brooker) by the chief cahuna himself, surrounded by his cronies.

The show 'makes good TV' because of the public's fascination at the viciousness with which the blades are drawn out and repeatedly sank between 'team-mates' shoulderblades. The producers have cleverly taken the bits of Big Brother which captivated the audience, moments of conflict and behind-the-back slander and hatred, and made a show which only has such moments. The format itself is a contradiction: the candidates are supposed to be working as a team, they are however constantly aware of the need to undermine the team and whoever is managing it in order to advance and win the game. As such, the teams cannot possibly succeed, simply because they are set up to fail. At the end of the day, the viewing public likes a monumental loser, don't they?

The problem, however, is that the people who consider themselves worthy of the post of tea-boy/tea-girl in SurAlan's empire epitomize a certain class of people who stradle that fence between the upper classes and the working class. People in middle-management, often incompetent and ignorant, but ambitious nonetheless. These good-for-nothing ass-lickers are the exact caricature of what has become to this country's production: it has moved from an industrial powerhouse to an economy of middle-managers, people who live in cheap pinstripe suits and who fancy themselves to be successful business people, or corporate bots as was said earlier. It is clear from the tasks SurAlan assigns to these morons that not only could they not successfully run big business and become filthy rich, but they couldn't even run the management of stationery supplies for the local chip shop. It is precisely these idiots that make our lives difficult; they end up working in HR, lower finance, council admin and so on. And they take it out on you and me because they constantly feel that they deserve better than that, they deserve to lick SurAlan's boots. This and this clearly demonstrate the immense stupidity of the people who think they should be at the vanguard of our economy (and at times government).

The only clever people here are the producers, who found a money-spinning formula-one which ridicules its participants and allows the rest of us to temporarily laugh (or cringe in my case) at the beautiful qualities of these idiots (in the words of Zac and Rage Against the Machine): "compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite: all of which are american dreams". To sit and laugh at them is to laugh at ourselves and the state we're in. This is not entertainment anymore. This is outright sarcasm by THEM against US. Next time SurAlan and his monkeys are on, press the red button on your remote (not the interactive one, the one that says OFF) and do something useful instead. Read a book. Read Koundera. Read Orwell. Because they'll tell you about YOUR predicament. Bring on the summer of rage.

Corporate dictionary of definitions entry #2: networking

2009-03-19T18:01:00.006Z

Standard definition
Networking: the process of establishing a mutually beneficial relationship with other business people and potential clients and/or customers.

Emiliano's definition: The aggressive search for and establishment of connections with people who can advance your cause/career. Networking often happens in corporate events, conferences, dinners, functions etc. It usually involves ambitious people coldly and calculatively approaching people who are higher in stature in order to introduce themselves and strike up a conversation with the sole purpose of establishing a connection with them. This is done neither coincidentally nor organically; it is a premeditated attempt to advance one's career and aims by involving powerful people. This happens to the extent that the ambitious networkers become a nuisance to their targets but a hated figure to their colleagues who are just enjoying the buffet.

Business cards play a big part in networking. The flashier the card, the greater the impression it makes. Ambitious networkers collect other people's cards but also scatter their own among those they wish to influence.

Synonyms: arse-licking, arse-kissing, shoving one's head up another's arse

Usage examples:
This event will be a good opportunity for arse-licking.
Dr. West engaged in some networking with her boss which can be described as x-rated.
Charlotte finished networking in the toilets, then she lit a cigarette.
Stephen found that networking wasn't all it was supposed to be. His tongue hurt badly and he thinks he has herpes.

Corporate dictionary of definitions entry #1

2009-03-18T14:13:00.011Z

cor·po·rate (kôrprit)
adj.
1. Formed into a corporation; incorporated: the corporate companies of industrial America.
2. Of or relating to a corporation: corporate assets; corporate culture.
3. United or combined into one body; collective: made a corporate effort to finish the job.
4. Of or relating to a corporative government or political system.

This is the standard definition of this term. However, today we will be initiating a series of attempts at reinterpreting the content of definitions widely used and abused in meeting rooms and corridors worldwide.

#1 Corporate
Corporate signifies a certain culture, shared by members of a certain group of officials and middle managers. Corporate is not blue collar. It is most definitely white collar and 'above'. Corporate people dress in a specific way, use a specific vocabulary, have a specific attitude towards their colleagues. These people think outside the box, they touch base across the board, roll things out and in, speak the lingo and move sideways and upwards. We have corporate services, corporate boxes in stadia, corporate hospitality, all operating within a dedicated purpose-driven series of structures, underpinned by policies implemented by them. Blah blah blah... But let's not ignore the elephant in the corner. Corporate really means ambitious and greedy. The merchant bankers who wrecked the economy are corporate. The incompetent administrators who run public services are corporate. Second home owners are corporate. They jump from job to job just as monkeys climb higher in the jungle with a series of sideways and slightly upwards jumps. Corporate people drink champagne and enjoy luxury more than the rest of us.

Of course there are the wannabe corporates out there as well, who have no second home, no corporate box, who fly economy and cannot possibly wreck the economy. But they wear the power suit and are constant pains in the ass. They are largely incompetent.

Synonyms: cunt, asshole, slimey bastard, greedy cunt, ambitious, uncharismatic

Examples: Selling your mum for a handful of dollars is corporate. The police arrested them for offering corporate hospitality. Steve couldn't sit down after his ass was incorporated by his boss. Corporate boxes are common in Amsterdam, but are illegal elsewhere.

We will shortly be analysing more terms. Help to expand the corporate dictionary of definitions.

Corporate bots

2009-03-12T20:24:00.006Z

It has come to my attention that the corporate bots around us have been increasing in recent months, especially since the great Auspicious Event which saw corporate bots placed at the top of the pyramid of what is otherwise a thoroughly academic environment.

There seems to be a clash of cultures within the establishment. On the one hand we have the vast majority of its inhabitants: academics and students, people whose main concerns are learning, teaching and so on. These go on about their business without paying too much attention to bureaucracy. The other inhabitants, the corporate bots, are there to regulate just that. They fear that by leaving academics and students to run the place it won't be run properly. The clash of cultures comes from the different perceptions which prevail among the two crowds. Most academics are focused on research and teaching, and only do whatever admin they do grudgingly. They do realise the need for an institution that is sound financially, and they understand the benefit from increased revenues from student fees. At the same time, they don't go as far as understanding higher education as another commercial activity. The fact that students pay fees does not make them customers. Academics believe firmly in student responsibility and accountability. Only students who take an active part in their studies can succeed. Regardless of how much they paid in fees. Universities aren't supermarkets selling meat, the so-called customers need to engage with the subject and work hard. In a supermarket you just throw things in the basket and pay.

On the other hand we have the corporate bots. Self-important Alan Sugar wannabes that couldn't quite make it in the real corporate world and ended up managing a bunch of academics in tweed jackets, elbow patches and besocked feet in sandals. And they come to universities and behave as if they are in the real corporate world. They organise meetings, use clipboards, send memos, organise idiotic award ceremonies which are too similar to the Oscars for comfort. They stick to hierarchy... About hierarchy: what is it with these morons that they always have to put in place these chains of command and expect everyone else to adhere to them? So much so that if you email the wrong person you get a memo for doing so. They are people who tell their people to tell your people to ask you if you can give them a ring. They are people who get the secretary to email you just to show how important they are. They draw statistics to measure their success and to highlight your failures. And they sell the place. They consider it some kind of business, like a bank or something. They 'sell' it, 'promote' it, advertise it, use it as a product, based on moronic business and marketing principles they picked up while doing data entry in some fucking third-grade ex-polytechnic.

And they lie. They lie to students, and they lie to parents. They sell them the product, the result of the academics' brilliance, in such a way that the student thinks that all they need to do is sit there and be taught. Any glitch and they're on the phone to their lawyers, as customers would do. Just because they were sold a product by the corporate bots who think they're as high-flying as their moronic cousins in London who sailed the economy straight into the rocks. Our corporate bots are more dangerous though. Because they have a massive chip on their shoulder. They know they're not good enough. They know that the academics look down on them as bean counters and underqualified overpaid pains in the ass. And they know very well that if they were real corporate animals they wouldn't be working in a fluffy environment such as the university, they would be out there in the cut-throat world, earning millions and holidaying in exotic destinations. But no, they are in god's asshole of corporateness and they know it. And they can't wait to jump ship. And I can't wait to give them an ever so gentle prod. Kill the corporate bot.

Why we need a new way

2009-03-06T11:00:00.005Z

Democracy /dimokrəsi/
• noun a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. (nicked from here)

Democracy has failed us. Our politicians have failed us. According to the definition above, the people currently inhabiting the House of Commons should be doing our bidding. Serving our interests. And yet, it has become the case that they only show an interest in us when it’s election time. They visit our schools, play with our children, visit our hospitals and care homes and talk to the ‘common folk’. Once they’ve tricked us into voting for them, they get back into their luxury cars and head back down to London. To be with their real pals. You see, the state is currently involved in a collusion with private interests which, although I wouldn’t go as far as to call unprecedented (we have historical examples after all), I would most certainly characterise as deep.

New Labour seems to have become a gang, a clique formed by the usual suspects, ambitious (and mostly uncharismatic) individuals with no scruples. How else could we interpret the repeated departures in shame and inevitable reinstatements of characters like Mandelson, Hoon, Campbell et al? These are the same people who went out of their way to convince us that Iraq had WMDs in order to help the US destroy Saddam and lay their hands on his oil. The same people who doctored reports in order to shape public opinion to allow them to bomb Serbia in 1999. The same people who keep lying to us through the BBC about world affairs.

None of these actions represents what the people wanted. Massive protests against invading countries left, right and centre were ignored. The people currently ruling us are not interested in our opinion. Only in our votes. We are not worthy enough to be taken seriously. We are simple folk, who don’t have refined tastes, who haven’t been educated in Oxbridge, have never been to a yacht off the Cote d’Azur, have never been in any exclusive clubs with corporate hospitality, we’re rather crude by their standards. The disparity between politicians and the people, despite the illusory power the right to vote gave us, remains huge. The common folk have no more power than they did in the days of the first Queen Lizzie. The right to vote is just a little bit of laudanum to help us in our eternal sleep. Sleep, sleep dear commoner, your fate is being decided between canapés of smoked salmon and sips of bubbly in a retreat near Washington DC, behind closed doors in London and Brussels and, of course, on yachts in Corfu.

It is of course difficult to come around and ask each and every one of us to give our opinion every time the government has to make a decision (considerably harder than doing the rounds gathering votes). However, this shows that the way the modern state functions is not democratic, because it cannot be. There are far too many people, far too different, too far apart to be able to gauge their opinion and imprint it upon the drones in London. However, and here is my proposal, if we lived in a system of loosely connected regional governments, things may have been different. If Yorkshire, Lancashire, the Midlands etc had to sustain themselves, conduct their own trade, protect their industry, collect and allocate their own taxes, draw their own policies, determine a welfare strategy for their own, things would definitely have been different. You see, the last thing on the mind of a Cornish government would be to build, equip and supply an army to go fight in Iraq to preserve the interests of Halliburton. In addition, people would be known in a county, have a reputation. The people who voted for them would have direct access to them, and therefore to power. Decisions would be taken based on the interests of local communities (and business), not based on the interests of multinationals. Even things such as nepotism and corruption would be done at a local level.

We have tried the ‘House of Commons’ solution. It doesn’t work (well, it works if you’re a businessman or an ambitious politician, power-hungry and corrupt, with links to international business). So why don’t we give the regional model a try? Taxes paid in a region shouldn’t leave the region. The public should have strong control over the finances of the regional government. No-one will fund anyone to stage a coup in a foreign country. There will be no army, it’s not necessary, unless of course Somerset plans to invade Cornwall in order to farm out mackerel fishing to Halliburton. And the priority of these regional governments will be the welfare of its inhabitants. No more globalisation. Bring on regionalisation. I want to know who rules me, where they went to school, if they were a bully, liked their veg and so on. Who is Mandelson? Who is Milliband? Who is Geoff Hoon? Who is Jacqui Smith? Who is Gordon Brown? And who the fuck was Tony Blair?

I am willing to seriously consider the possibility of strong regional governments. Either that or violent overthrow of the current system and the bloody elimination of the upper classes. I am happy with either.

In the beginning there was the word

2009-03-04T15:46:00.005Z

I have decided to kick off this discussion, this new blog, by dealing with an issue which has long troubled me: foreign workers and the threat they pose to British jobs, British culture, British ideals, British life. I keep hearing this. Our culture is under threat. Polish workers stealing our jobs. Chinese nurses stealing our jobs. Czechs coming over for the benefits, sponging off the state without contributing. Italians and Portuguese, Somalians and Pakistanis. A threat to our culture, way of life. Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood as resonant as ever.

Or is it? Let's take our time here to deconstruct the argument with precision and sound argumentation. Let us begin from the very essence: the values under threat. What is Britishness? How do we define it? Is it simply a set of values, an identity which is merely contemporary and valid for the Brit of 2009, or a timeless value, a constant and solid identity, shared by the inhabitants of the island from time immemorial? A quick retrospective evaluation of the (known) past will reveal a number of different (and diverse) identities. Who were the first inhabitants of this island? Were they Picts? Celts? Britons? Welsh? What did they believe in? Did the populations of northern Scotland have any shared beliefs with their 'fellow Scots' in the Lowlands? And did the ancient Welsh have much in common with their Mercian neighbours? And then the 'foreigners' started coming from the East. Not Pakistanis and Poles. Saxons, Vikings and Normans. The Saxons were Germanic speakers from northern Europe, the Vikings were Norsemen from modern Norway (and Denmark), the Normans were Frankified Norsemen, French speakers from northern France. According to history, the Normans were the last people to invade and conquer this country. However, that didn't mean that the 'foreigners' stopped coming.

The wars of religion brought Dutchmen to Wales, Frenchmen to England (and Englishmen to Spain). The early modern period also brought more foreigners, Italian navigators such as Sebastian and John Cabot, other merchants and, of course,simple folk, fleeing wars and other disasters. Let's not forget the huge Irish contingent. Every other person I know has an Irish mother or grandmother.

The period of colonial expansion of the 18th and 19th centuries created a conduit for the circulation of money, goods and people. Some of those people abducted off the coast of West Africa and sold as slaves in the Caribbean inevitably ended up in Britain. More were to follow, especially with the post-WWII boom of industry. Chinese, Greeks, Iranians, Turks, Cypriots, Jamaicans, Barbadians, Trinidadians, Indians, Pakistanis, Chileans and Argentinians to mention but a few. And then, in more recent times, similar tidal waves of economic hardship, war but also opportunity brought Albanians, ex-Yugoslavs, Romanians, Bulgarians and so on. Add to these the more prestigious migrants, Europeans and North Americans, who come here and study or work in specialised professions and you end up with a multitude.

So I throw the question at you: who is British? What is British? Is it Sunday roast with meat and three veg? Is it hippies worshipping the moon, naked in the fields in (or perhaps just outside) Stonehenge? Is it tattooed-knuckles, cheering on their football team and the nation, occasionally throwing a rant against the IRA or their dark-skinned neighbours? Is it content middle class property owners in the home counties with a second home in the Loire Valley? Is it pregnant teenagers queing for their giro cheque? Is it wealthy bankers with a 'pad' in central London and properties scattered between the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean? Is it our nobility, deeply inbred, xenophobic and arrogant, tucked away in their mansions commenting on the latest regatta? Is it our royal family, coming from a long line of Dutch, Hannoverian and of course Norman and Anglo-Saxon ancestry, with their pretend stints in theatres of war and their pompous presence in parades commemorating wars where millions of working class lads gave their lives so they can go on dining on pheasant souffle and truffle?

National identity and nationalism are as deeply rooted as they are moronic. It is impossible to pin down the values of an identity, simply because there are too many parameters, too many sub-identities within it. When did the Irish, Italian and Dutch cease to be 'foreigners' and became British, so much so that they now in turn despise the Polish and the Asians? How can the Asians and blacks, themselves the victims of long and ongoing discrimination, demand that no more people come from abroad in search of a better fortune?

The very issue of migration needs to come under scrutiny. Nobody leaves their homeland to come here for the weather. There are real reasons for this movement of population. Europe and America have worked hard to keep Africa, Asia and South America poor, installing brutal regimes which in return delivered in the hands of Anglo-American corporations the keys to fruit and coffee plantations, silver and diamond mines and oil reserves. We like buying cheap electronic goods, manufactured by children who work in sweatshops. We like shopping for cheap clothes. But we don't like it when our suppliers of cheap labour and goods want to join us in this nirvana of a better life. We like them tucked away, we hate to be reminded of their predicament. Or, as some people I know, we sip our (Costa Rican) coffee, preaching about these poor souls, just before we book our flights to the south of France to check on the vineyard.

It is also assumed that migration isn't a two-way thing. How about the millions who colonised the Carolinas and Virginia? How about all the Puritans who were 'encouraged' to leave? The Scots who were driven off their lands in the Highland Clearances by 'fellow' Scots in the name of intensification of production? And how do you explain the thousands of Brits living and working abroad today? Is there a superior quality in being British that makes other nations welcome members of this happy club with open arms? Do we think that the drive to buy a second property in Bulgaria or Cyprus has no impact on the local population? Just ask any Bulgarian or Cypriot trying to buy a house, paying British prices. One more British owner, one more Bulgarian tenant.

There is nothing that can prevent movement of population. It is a historical event, triggered by situations that go beyond superficial and xenophobic legislation. Capitalism started it all off by reaching out, colonising and conquering other continents by force (or 'persuasion'). Conquest is a two-way process. Borders are immaterial, so are passports and visas. The movement of population to Europe is the result of a) demand for labour on the part of European businesses and b) availability of labour elsewhere.

Divisions based on national/ethnic or religious background are pointless. The hypocricy of this lies in how we have a problem with foreign plumbers, but we are OK with foreign businessmen, drinking Chablis and snorting cocaine in London City. Rupert Murdoch owning a huge chunk of the country's (and the world's media) is no problem. František the builder is. Therefore it is not an issue of nationality. It is an issue of class. Anti-migration rhetoric goes against the poor, builders and nurses, the working class. This is where the system has succeeded. It has succeeded in convincing the British working class that it no longer is at the bottom of the pyramid. It has managed to convince it that its enemy are not the fat cats, the capitalists who inhabit the top of the pyramid, but their poor colleagues who abandoned home and family to eke out a living here. Because a united working class, against the fat cats is a 'bad thing'. I can hear them dicating their manifesto as we speak:

"Have some cake (from Aldi), buy a flat-screen TV (on credit), book holidays abroad (put it on the credit card). Have some fake tan, expensive tracksuits. You have arrived. You are not working class anymore, we respect you. We don't make fun of you in Eaton, Oxford and Cambridge (no, really). You belong in the same army as the royal family (OK, more of you die but it's for the flag, against the 'other'). It's not our fault you are redundant, it's Giovanni from Napoli and Paulo from Lisbon to blame. Yeah, blame them. We love you. And we will go on thinking of you as we sink our feet in the lovely sea on an exclusive beach in the Cayman Islands."

This isn't about Labour and Conservative, British and Polish. It's about class. Class class class.