Teachers And Police.

      Anybody that looks at the structure of this society can see that is an extremely unfair, unequal arrangement. The question is how and why does it survive? It survives because the powers that be, the state, have several lines of defence to prevent any real change taking place. One of the first lines of defence is the standardised education system, teachers are the soft police of society. Where they fail to get acquiescences and acceptance of the system, the second line of defence comes in, the police, followed up by the judicial system and prison. When these lines of defence fail, the state will have no hesitation in bringing troops onto the streets to repress the people and any demands they make for real change to the structure of society.

        It is obvious that the first line of defence, the "education system" is failing, as we are seeing more brutal and militarised policing taking place in countries across the globe. The police's duty, first and foremost, is to protect the power and property of the wealthy and the status-quo.

     This is an extract from an article on the police, from the latest issue of Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed. 

      Anarchists know (or should know) that individuals who enter institutions usually come face to face with possible conflicts between institutional norms and their personal integrity. Those who remain end up perpetuating those norms regardless of any possible intention to alter them. But the observation that institutions change people is not the whole story. Power corrupts, but the already corrupt and the easily corruptible seek to join powerful institutions precisely so they will have professional opportunities to exercise their corruption.
     The laughable institutional excuse of supposed bad apples continues to be deployed at press conferences. These supposed bad apples are the ones who join the police in order to harass queers, beat up detainees, demand freebies from sex workers, steal from dealers, frame suspects, punitively deploy crowd control weapons, exercise disproportionate violence, and antagonize and terrorize non-compliant people — up to and including murder. .And who then have the bad taste to get caught. But no Field Training Officer has to teach them how to do these things. When there’s a too-big- to-be-ignored episode of alleged misconduct, all the good cops and their supporters line up with the bad apples, making every person standing with them complicit. Institutional self-preservation doesn’t dissipate even a little in the wake of embarrassing multi-million dollar settlements to survivors of police abuse.

Read the full article HERE:

CONFUSED POLICING?

This looked more like confusion rather than policing. Let's hope that our numbers grow and their confusion grows in unison.


See this video and more at Indymedia London

ann arky's home.

SACRED PRIVATE PROPERT.

       The Occupy Movement hasn't gain much ground here in the UK but has moved forward with much greater momentum in the US. For this reason, in the US there is a much wider discussion about private property, creating conflict within the Occupy Movement. This is no bad thing and it is a discussion that I would love to see take centre stage in any protest movement here or anywhere else.

The following is an extract from an interesting article on American Leftist:

Occupy and Inviolability of Private Property

         A couple of months ago, I discussed one of the most difficult challenges facing Occupy, the willingness of middle class progressives to rationalize the abuses of the police because they place a greater priority upon the preservation of social order by law enforcement. Such progressives want to square the political circle by seeking a transformation of American society without conflict. They are most perfectly represented by Chris Hedges, a man who seems to find the verbal abuse of the police at protests more disturbing than police assaults and finds himself incapable of deciding whether protesters should throw tear gas canisters back at the cops who fired them.

But what is it that these progressives believe requires the protection of the police, even at the cost of the violent suppression of Occupy protesters? Upon reflection, the answer is obvious: private property and the hierarchical social relations inscribed by it. Of course, Occupy participants are not all anarchists or communists, far from it, but they have adopted direct action tactics that have frightened progressives with the ghost of expropriation. Initially, occupiers set up encampments in public spaces as a means of highlighting enormous income inequality and corruption. They sought to prefigure an alternative, much more egalitarian, social order that stood in marked contrast to the existing one. If we were living back in the 1960s or 1970s, the government would have responded with a program of increased public assistance, a program that would have drained away support for Occupy by providing housing, jobs, student aid and medical care, but that would have threatened to reverse the neoliberal process of the marketization of all aspects of our lives, and, hence, was never seriously considered.

Instead, with the federal government guiding them behind the scenes, cities, starting with Oakland in October of last year, cleared out the encampments with force. There was an initial broad based criticism of these police attacks, but, as it became apparent that Occupy had evolved into a loose coalition of anti-authoritarians, people of color, the homeless and other marginalized people, such criticism dissipated. Meanwhile, particularly on the West Coast, occupiers organized more confrontational actions in response, such as the November 2nd general strike in Oakland, the December 12th port shutdown, the January 20th Occupy Wall Street West protests and the attempted seizure of the Kaiser Auditorium on January 28th. The failure of Occupy to extract any meaningful political response to the distress of millions of impoverished Americans and the interrelated corruption of the financial and political systems was pushing its participants towards more and more radical approaches. Within occupations, this resulted in increasingly acrimonious personal conflicts, as most publicly displayed in Oakland, while the progressives that should have been allies became hostile.

         Continue READING:

ann arky's home.

  

COMMUNITY POLICING.

ann arky's home.