On Boris’ plans to criminalise young adults:

“Dear [Assembly Member]

I’m writing to you because I’m very concerned about the Mayor’s scheme to encourage shops not to sell alcohol to those between 18 and 21. You’re my Constituency Assembly Member, so I hope you’ll raise the issue with the Mayor.

The scheme might be voluntary, but the precedent it sets is disturbing. The drinking age is 18, not 21. The young people whom they move discriminates against are adults. If they want to buy alcohol, it’s their right. The GLA shouldn’t make decisions for them - unless they want them to behave like children.

It’s also the right of businesses to sell to whom they want. Many shop-owners are feeling the pinch, at present; some may need these sales to stay in business. And yet, they’ll feel obliged to comply, or be attacked for it. Who wants the editor of a local newspaper, hungry for lurid headlines, denouncing them as soft on yobs? Small businesses face a stark choice; lose money they can ill-afford, or get a bad name.

Nor will the scheme have many tangible benefits. The Mayor believes the drinking culture amongst young people to be deeply ingrained; so how does he think this will help? The move does nothing to address the desire for alcohol which makes binge-drinking happen. It makes it harder for people to get their alcohol - so they try a little harder to get it, and probably look beyond sources where real regulation is possible.

What the move will do is further alienate young adults. The media already demonises youth at every opportunity. This just adds to their social stereotype of young people as incurable monsters. A move against 18-21 year olds to tackle binge drinking, rather than a move against binge drinkers, suggests one thing; that all adults between 18 and 21 years of age are virtually alcoholic. That’s patently untrue, and rejects the vast majority of young adults who comply with the law. Why should they listen to their elders, when those elders just criminalise them? If the Mayor wants to address

I hope you’ll speak to the Mayor about this counter-productive and unjust scheme.

Best Regards,

[Concerned of London]“

Thoughts? I’ve an increasingly large facebook group protesting, and nothing to do with them. There’s little use in gathering an angry e-mob unless you mobilise them…

(Scribo Ergo Sum at Marxism 2008 - part 4)

This time around I got to speak to some lefties before I even got into the festival, something which had only happened previously in order for me to ask some directions towards the location back on Friday. The reason for this was a pair of men who I overheard discussing some topic revolving around the Respect meetings and the SWP all having the same agenda upon arrival. This is (rather revealingly) something which caught my interest as the application of Democratic Centralism to coalition votes seems to have caused no end of complaints amongst the groups the SWP has worked in (the Socialist Alliance, Stop The War and, of course, the Respect Coalition). In fact I went so far as to presume that they were non-Left List/Alternative Respect members. It actually turned out that they were “critical” SWP members; quite an exotic breed. They spoke jovially about the state of Respect and stated that a split was effectively inevitable at some stage owing to the division which would have arose over whether to attack or back Ken Livingstone. Affable though they were they seemed slightly displeased with their position and perhaps a tad uncomfortable with the party. The less than glowing recommendation that I should probably not join the party if I didn’t believe what it did was given as we parted, perhaps their weak gesture towards participating in the recruitment side of this event.

By some unanticipated miracle I had avoided lateness, indeed it was the first speaker who was behind time, momentarily leaving me wishing that I had instead attended the one being held on Gramsci. This was exacerbated by her use of the phrase “Gramscian” when she did arrive and I had no idea what it meant (the reason for the delay was a breakdown in service from Oxford). But it quite quickly became clear that it was entirely worth it. Deborah Cameron is a linguistics professor and one of the few writers I have found that both share views concerning gender with me and have pierced mainstream media. She had a series of extracts from her book The Myth of Venus and Mars published in the Guardian earlier this year and reading them was what could only be described as a relief.

Cameron takes to task the substantial sub-genre of “Self-help” that effectively seeks to state that there are immense differences between men and women which are entirely inherent and that these should be understood and accepted as challenging them is a waste of time. Besides the obvious and intellectually cripplingly moronic failure to distinguish between presence and source these texts invariably exacerbate differences with the sort of selective pseudo-science everyone attempting to wield research as a weapon encounters. Where Cameron focuses, though, is her specialty: linguistics.

Male humans and female humans communicate in fundamentally different ways, the divisionists tell us: men speak far less than women and women talk about their feelings far more. Men are more assertive and women communicative, the former better in positions that lead and the latter in rolls revolving around empathy and emotional communication.

These are the claims but the evidence is scanty: Cameron started through telling us of an analysis which traced the myth of 20,000 words a day for women and 7,000 for men back to its source: a less extreme number in a Christian aimed book about marriage; which seemingly plucked the figure from thin air. Although in this instance she was able to obtain a retraction of the statistic from a well-respected book many other myths litter the memetic landscape that our and every culture consists of and she rattled through them at a satisfyingly brisk rate. There is no evidence that emotional words are used unequally between the genders besides swear words, which men do use more often (she notes that this never leads anyone to conclude that men are more emotional), men and women share conversation time equally when in equal status and it is only when there are more men higher in the hierarchy than women that they dominate conversations. Women are no superior at communication and men find women perfectly coherent as they speak the same form of English.

Where this starts to become of high importance is instances such as rape trials, where rapists can use this presumptuous nonsense to say that they somehow failed to understand women due to them not using explicit wording, when in reality almost all short of the mentally handicapped can understand signals of that nature under such conditions. She quoted the occasion in Cool Hand Luke where the prison guard tells the eponymous protagonist “What we have here is a break-down in communication”. Just as this was a euphemism for disobedience so is, for example, a man refusing to remove a bag of rubbish.

But many want to hear the reassuring signals of inherent difference and gender dichotomy being deeply entrenched, even if it means abandoning critical thought and relying upon shoddy readings of science. Challenging this is a vital task for any egalitarian as the division of humanity into an assortment of interacting but mutually distinct groups invariably should be pursued solely when necessary. This is not such an instance.

Before the meeting I had had a lengthy talk with a fellow who had seemingly been checking the room for anyone on their own and not in the Socialist Worker Party, for he quickly outlined to an extraordinarily attractive girl why she should prior to us leaving. He was another one of the charming young SWP members and he certainly seemed to consider it a positive organisation. I again expressed wariness at their organisational structure and today told that I was uncertain between social democracy and socialism (still truth) and thus uncertain if I’d be appropriate for an outright socialist party.

There were no communist groups around today but a few SWP were having something of a discussion on the grass outside Birbeck College with a pair of independent socialists. As this was ongoing I spoke to an Socialist Worker on the periphery who’s name was Simon. I later found out that he was from Belgium, where the left consists of four Maoists still talking about “Armed Struggle”. He had a sharp wit and when I told him my ideal for the left (a large structure with various factions) he told me that it already existed: the Labour Party. It takes your money and your vote and expects nothing else of you, he said. He told me that he was wary of working in an organisation where Stalinists or Maoists were also operative and I told him that I had not seen any such parties present at Marxism. His response was rather unexpected: he mentioned the CPGB. He stated that although they were not avowed in their ideology they followed such positions. Unfortunately the party in question weren’t around to ask.

He said that independent socialists had a role but could not expect their position to achieve a great deal, although they could of course be worked with in a popular front against fascism or the war or the like. He was opposed however to the autonomist anarchists who operated on in Sussex. As we left he paused and said that I should think about joining, because what with the 400 other people telling me to join the SWP I probably hadn’t considered it yet.

I headed out to check for any more interesting lefties around the corner but it seemed that only the SWP tents (and Stop The War and so on) were around so I headed kback to see a talk on “Zombieconomics”. This was a topic that intrigued me purely due to the name but which I knew nothing about, indeed in the room prior to the speaker’s arrival I engaged with another socialist about how it might be pronounced (with Zombie and Economics divided instead of combined, it eventually turned out).

The talk was given by Ben Fine, who had studied matters economical for decades and come to the conclusion that the subject was firstly dead: there was no room for growth or expansion as there were three main schools and hybrids between them but nothing beyond this could be envisioned. “Economics is dead” was not his message, however, in fact it was worse: rather than simply ceasing to exist economics had instead reached out and attempted to dominate the other social sciences, just as an unliving zombie has no essence of its own and seeks to forcibly extract it from those around it.

Much of his talk, as with Chris Bambery the day before, revolved around neo-liberalism but Fine made efforts to explain that this term can mean just about anything. Either a tendency to destroy public services to reform them, either an outright rejection of Keynesianism or a new form of it, theory or application, original form or current, these are all distinct varities that bear the same title. Comparatively the Respect/Respect split seems a matter of ease to understand.

The tone of his talk was in part hopeful: social sciences had moved away from post-modernism and neo-liberalism, he told us, although the extent to which he could go into points rather than merely touching upon them was limited. He was aware that he was not talking to a roomful of economists and confined by as much; but also avoided being condescending. To be honest though I still only half understand the meaning of “Financialisation”, although I accept that its implications seem to be negative ones.

I also don’t entirely understand the distinction between a political economist and a regular one but apparently it is primarily that the former are given less respect and purged from university departments more often. Apparently one of the speakers universities (in Sydney, as I recall) currently understands them to belong in the Arts department, something which they find most inappropriate.

In short it was mind-expanding stuff and probably the sort of stuff anyone wanting to become a Marxist would have to wrap their head around. Thankfully though I don’t have to and that’s one of the many reasons why.

I was considering just heading off home but decided to stage one final raid upon the mystical white “Marxism Attendees Only” tent, since that’s where all of the revolutionaries seemed to be at.

It seemed that my West London comrades were not in attendance but I caught up with Simon; who was behind a table stuffed full of food I eventually gained access to without paying. A discussion was underway between the assembled group about the Brighton bomb factory, a delightful but grim topic that revolved around the course of action to be taken against EDO. Apparently the aforementioned autonomist anarchists had taken up the course with force and were using a series of stunts and other direct action tactics to get the place shut down. A typical tactic was to chain themselves to the gates on a Wednesday and stay there until they got themselves arrested.

The anarchists had seemingly scared off the rest of the public from involvement with the cause; however they were also deterred by the obvious consequences: as great a blow as this would be for neo-conservatives in the short term (the factory makes door opening mechanisms for bombers that have been used by the Royal Airforce and US in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the Israelis against Palestine; therefore rolling a number of far-left issues into a potent cocktail) they would simply relocate and the effect upon the local economy from all the jobs lost would be disastrous.

Indeed I suspect that this was why the gentleman gently agitating in favour of action against EDO was struggling with the thus far non-commital SWP: much as they are often eager to take up a cause and take it to the streets in this instance they would be actively working in order to try and increase Brighton unemployment. But the activist in discussion with them stated that in capitalism everything was related to jobs and business and that any ethical projects would end up losing people jobs. This was simply part and parcel of operating politically within it and was unfortunate but had to be done and could be mitigated through demands including full employment for all the factory workers (who by, he did not outline).

Then there was the difficulty of methods: the suggestion of protesting on Saturday rather than the weekdays which had been done before (with the anarchists attempting to shame the factory workforce) was seen as an improvement but still considered warily. The difficulty was explained as there being no “Either or” choice between protest and direct action: the area had been cased and little willingness for factory closure found amongst the general public. Accordingly perhaps the only action possible is the sort that was apparently found legal by a judge in some similar case or other.

Just to complicate matters a little further the exact attitude of present company with regards to the autonomist anarchists was not precisely clear. They were dedicated activists and if direct action was to go underway doubtless valuable allies of some kind. But one of the Socialist Workers had heard that it was largely them that were scaring away any sort of mass movement over the issue of the bomb-delivery production plant. If so then any attempts at popular fronts would have to be formed without them and if direct action was the plan then they would have to be convinced to coalesce with socialists, at least to some extent.

In short I was receiving a quick vision first hand of just what a struggle it is to actually organise anything, even a local project with a specific aim.

The exact outcome of their in promtu meeting was indecided, but I was certainly well fed at the end of it thanks to a mixture of rolls, grapes and pasta. Stuffing the latter into the former was quite delightful, especially so because I got to do so while chatting to the chap organising against EDO. His name was Penny and he was quite possibly the result of the day. This I only discovered when probing (as one does under such conditions) his political affiliation. He was a member of Respect and told me his position within it when I told him that despite having covered it closely for a few months now and he replied that he was on its national committee and he still couldn’t.

This Respect is the Respect that isn’t Respect any more but was the Left List and now is the Left Alternative. Yes, the name is apparently around to stay, which I expressed my dismay over. Apparently he was plumping for the Left (too broad) or Left Solidarity (too close to Tommy Sheridan’s failed party for the electoral commission to handle) and the word “Party” was for some reason out entirely.

More importantly he was one of the seemingly rare Respect-but-not-SWP types I’d only met two of previously. I asked him how common his kind were and he said the split was either 50-50 or 40-60 in-not on the national committee, while on the local level the SWP bias was significantly stronger. He was not keen on Galloway but, unexpectedly, brought up Obama and expressed some considerable admiration. I told him that I also found it remarkable that he had defeated the Clinton Machine with such limited corporate backing and admired the transparency and skill that had marked his campaign, along with its top-down structure.

It was at this stage that I was approached by a Socialist Worker wearing an “Event Staff” t-shirt (weren’t they all?) who asked to see my ticket. I replied that I did not have one and he informed me that the tent was for Marxist attendees only. I replied that I was attending Marxism and he said he knew this as he was the one who had let me into Tony Benn and expelled me from the SWP student meeting. He reminded me that I had told him I had no money (perhaps presuming that I had paid for food). It was, I suppose, only a matter of time before they caught up with me. Too late. By this stage I did not even ponder resistance, when he told me I would have to leave the tent I didn’t even bother mentioning the ending of Animal Farm to him and obeyed his assertion of property rights, biding goodbye to the Respect member and then departing the area and the event.

On my way out I was stopped briefly by the Campaign Against Climate Change leafleteer, the first non-SWP sort I had encountered active that day. I mentioned the connotations of his leaflet with good humour and he laughed. We discussed the group for a short while and to demonstrate the Tony Been denying political bent of his organisation he simply pointed at his t-shirt, which declared Bush as “Wanted for Crimes Against Humanity” due to his stance on climate change. He spoke of the president now wanting to drill in Alaska and I told him how after the “addicted to oil” stuff this seemed to be junkie scrabbling. He laughed again and told me that it would make a fine cartoon; then I was on my way.

Marxism let me see a wide range of intelligent people for free and allowed me the peculiar opportunity to frequently be in a room-full of people who I was well to the right of. It allowed me to make some sense of Respect and conclude that everyone fucked up hard. My thanks to the SWP for putting on such a fine event. I’ll certainly trot along next year and hopefully can drag at least one of my SES comrades with me. In the meantime I’m still not a Marxist but I am far better informed than on Friday. Until next time, comrades…

Number of meetings attended: 10

Amount of money paid: £0.00

Number of infiltrations: 4 (Apparently the white tent counts, so my count of 1 yesterday was entirely inaccurate.)

Number of successful infiltrations: 3 (NOMNOMNOM)

Amount of free meals obtained: 3

Amount of offers to join the SWP: 400 a minute.

(Or: SES at Marxism 2008, part 2)

This time around I managed to gather myself from slumbers early enough to show up in time for considerably more sessions than the day before, albeit not nearly as early as the brisk 10.00 start that the meetings began with. I actually underestimated my lateness and ended up ploughing into what I thought was Labour and Alienation soon after starting but which was in fact Historical Materialism about to finish. Consequentially entry was a matter of ease; although in hindsight I probably left a SWP doorperson or two baffled.

I honestly can’t remember a lot about historical materialism, but as far as I can tell there was somehow a conversation about ethics going on, which was topically innappropriate but entertaining all the same, if only for a chap with shoulder-length dirty blonde hair who took to the floor and began talking about Kronsdat.

Now if I was looking for a sharp start to my day here it was: once this world was uttered things seemed to ripple and the effect was as delightful as I had imagined ennounciating such syllables in a room full of Trotskyites would be. Indeed, I merely deemed it a pity that I hadn’t beaten the chap to the bunch.

He was immediately followed by a bleached-blond lass who would later turn out to be somehow important who gave it some typical blather. Safeguarding the Revolution and so on, you know the drill. Never mind that their hero had overseen and executed the crushing of the epitome of the revolution, had to be done to protect a structure that they didn’t even agree with, see? The alternative being a far more popular brand of socialism than the Bolsheviks seeing control of the country and that…Uhm…Anyway…

The room was still left unsettled. The topic moved on and it was about some other stuff, with my recollection failing me over the materialism stuff. What was interesting was that as he was headed out of the room the chap who had asked was verbally hailed by a pair of Marxism “Staff” t-shirt wearers from behind a table, who wanted to give him the Kronsdtat Chat. I stuck around to hear this and the first man was firm and pulled away quickly by duties while the second was softer but spoke to us for longer, accompanying us to the lift and staying with us for a while.

Their arguments seemed to consist of a mixture of emphasising the importance of crushing the Kronsdtat threat, claiming that there were none of the original Kronsdtat sailors left owing to attrition from the revolution(s) against the Csar and the heavy losses of the Civil War (concerning this, as with all other matters of detail, you must consult Douglas or some other historian who is of this field rather than early Medieval as I am) , launching ad hominems (those that bring this up are bourgeois or anarchists aiming to discredit Trotsky rather than achieve anything productive) and talking about how the Bolsheviks agonised over the decision.

They also stated that the Kronsdtat make up was Socialist Revolutionary rather than Bolshevik, and this irked me: even I am aware that when Lenin briefly allowed an experiment in democracy the very reason he rejected the outcome was that the SRs won in a landslide, crushing the Bolsheviks electorally and demonstrating a level of support for the militants of an immensely smaller scale than they liked to presume. This considered, that there were plenty of Kronsdtat sailors Social Revolutionaries is hardly surprising at all.

Unfortunately all Bolshevik apologists dislike you bringing up their almost total absence of mandate about as much as Trots do his authoritarian atrocities. So we didn’t get far but the people we spoke to were perfectly friendly and their response seemed more an earnest attempt to explain their position rather than intimidation or anything of the sort. As ever the SWP seemed like a misguided but ultimately lovely bunch.

As we headed outside I encountered a large number of groups that thought otherwise. This was a set of people who’d cleared off before I arrived yesterday and were in some ways who I was there for. The SWP I’d already heard plenty from and now it was time for The Rest of The Left.

(more…)

Due to failure on the part of Douglas to show up (he was collaborating with the bourgeois in the most foul fashion possible by seeking a job) I didn’t bother to turn up for Friday’s sessions of Marxism until late in the day, instead opting to watch Alladin. Quite a good call, I thought.

The main event was based around a series of stalls, but sadly not as diverse a one as those I witnessed when I covered Love Music Hate Racism. No, this had SWP tents and Stop The War tents and Left List tent and a SWP table and…Well, basically all but three of the set-ups were SWP connected. The first seemed to be some climate change group which the SWP had possibly only let in due to being then impressed at the amount of protesters the Climate Camp and so on were able to mobilise. The other were selling subscriptions to an underground socialist video collection group named News Reel which I didn’t have any money to go along with. I told the man that my money was all going on groceries (the truth) and he told me he knew the feeling well.

The third group were the most interesting by far: Turkish socialists. These types are rather penned in on all sides; struggling alongside the moderate Islamists while repulsed by their neo-liberal policies and incapable of doing anything about the more conservative Islamist movement uprising, while having nothing but disdain for the secularist far-right nationalist movement which seems to have the backing of the anti-democratic Turk generals.

On top of this they suffer, as with almost everywhere, due to a fractured left. They, like the SWP, aspire towards a grouping similar to Die Linke in Germany, which has united the left successfully and enjoyed increasing electoral success. But it seems like they have a good deal of work ahead of them if they wish to manage that. Not, perhaps, as much as the British left…

Speaking of which I got to speak to more people from within Respect. This opportunity was presented to me when I stopped by at the Love Music Hate Racism tent and talked a bit about Bexley’s old school racist nationalism amongst other topics and it turned that (as Londoners) these SWPers were Respect activists. Interestingly one fellow (the second I’ve met who fulfills these credentials) actually was not a member of the SWP and never had been, due to filling the rather unpopular position (at Marxism, at least) of being a reformist socialist instead of a revolutionary. Apparently this is the source of constant arguments between him and his Socialist Worker friends, which I can well imagine but am glad has not prevented them getting along.

He still stated that Respect was now called Left List, but apparently the name “Left Alternative” is also being floated. I hope very strongly that this is not the one they run with as it is truly dire. If they haven’t gotten themselves into a position where they can call themselves “The Left Party” and be done with it then that should be their top priority. A party describing itself as the “Alternative” has never won anything.

In order to try and get my bearings of the place I headed to the entrance of the School of Oriental and Asian Studies (SOAS) where there was a large SWP tent. There I met a lovely middle aged woman who talked to me about the basic socialist stuff. She told me about the local level stuff the SWP get up to, I gave her a rough and weak outline of pragmatic socialism and she told me I should join. I find this an unnervingly frequent (not to mention predictable) occurrence with the SWP, but at least they make you feel wanted.

My response was perhaps not what she had anticipated: I told her that the now century old model of Democratic Centralism left me immensely wary, not only because organising a contemporary party along Leninist structures seemed to be more redolent of an exercise in historical recreationism rather than a serious political project; but also because I was less than keen on being bound in numerous ways by the majority will. She explained how as far as she could the democratic centralist structure was simply a means of getting things done but frankly I consider the continual failure of the SWP to achieve anything much is a testament to the ineffectualness of this argument. I didn’t tell her that, though.

On the upside: they did have free food. This was set up as a picnic in the green, where there was a concentrated crowd of Marxists sitting in circles and a pair of apparently illicit tents. Not a lot of it as I got there pretty late but enough to tide me over until I got home. My gratitude to the Bristol and Manchester SWP branches for the munchables. Much appreciated.

So I headed back through the area to pick up more perspectives. Another Socialist Worker seemed worth a chat so I asked him the time and then struck up conversation. As ever the gregariousness socialism demands of humanity was evident and regardless of their misdeeds as a body upon the left the SWP is characterised by a largely lovely membership. At least offline. This fellow was not from inside London but was the first from the SWP I found who admitted that there was opportunism “On both sides” concerning the Respect debacle. Indeed he went so far as to say that matters were far more complex than a “Left-Right split” and that trying to explain matters in such terms was far too simplistic.

It was now nearing 7 o’clock and I had a decision to make: Tariq Ali or Lenin. The latter was, of course, the blogger Richard Seymour, who was here under that name rather than his provocative nom de plume. The primary factor in my opting for the latter was my total lack of cash. No money to obtain tickets meant that opting for the room with spare seats was unquestionably preferable.

In the event Seymour’s room was pretty packed as well, but there was enough space for me not to be acting as a seat robber. I had a whole spiel planned involving mentioning that I was a victim of sub prime and still seeking employment in this crisis stricken economy (both true) but as it happens I turned up slightly late and the man on the door just waved me through.

Seymour was perhaps not how I’d imagined him but that was largely in the voice, which was a soft Irish one I probably should have anticipated more given he’s mentioned his origins on the blog. I was still expecting something a tad more harsh, firm, clipped and firebrand.

As for content, well it was concerning the pro-war left, who are his targets in “The Liberal Defence of Murder” (although interestingly three of his main subjects, Johann Hari, Nick Cohen and the especially despised Christopher Hitchens are all socialists or social democrats of some sort, although Hitchens seems to have shifted into not calling himself anything yet referencing Marx almost as much as before, if not more).

Both in person and in comments Lenin has described himself as “all over the place” structurally; but if this was truth instead of modesty it certainly didn’t show. There was clearly plenty he’d had planned but couldn’t get in, but this was seemingly because he’d done a vast amount of reading and research and it was to the degree that he couldn’t possibly cram it all in. He’d probably intended to say something about Yugoslavia, I suppose, but I never found that topic immensely interesting anyway so I’m rather glad he failed to. Likewise with Ol*ver K*mm.

As it was he managed to fill forty five minutes and then additional response time with a pleasingly fact dense speech that outlined the nature, power, motivations, methods and follies of the pro-war left. The talk traced how liberal interventionists of the contemporary era had directly borrowed from the colonial tradition (both of the far-right and of thinkers such as Mill and Tocqueville, not to mentioned the much-loathed Reformist Marxist Bernstein) and were now using rhetoric barely adapted from the times when you could get away with phrases such as “Adult race”.

Inbetween these two book-ends there was a discussion point where a surprisingly large number of audience members (including myself) were coaxed on stage to give views or ask questions. This felt pleasingly participative and it’s certainly a tradition I’m glad shows no signs of being abandoned.

Also in attendance was Naadir, former member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and founder of Boris Watch, to which our own Gerry Fenby contributes. I had met him before at the Liberal Conspiracy “Summit” and he kindly bought me a pair of pints while we talked about everything ranging from historical materialism and its importance for Marxists to the Revolutionary Communist Party to Objectivism to the neo-liberal case for a global welfare state.

In all a very pleasing day and one I shall hopefully extend tomorrow by showing up before six o’clock. Given that I’m writing this at nearing half past twelve and haven’t had breakfast yet (let alone got dressed) I suppose that it will not be by all that much…

For those interested Marxism lasts until this Sunday and is held in a variety of venues close to the Goodge Street Nothern line Russell Square Piccadilly line stations. The official website is here.

It seems like the comments sections has been a little bit silent lately. So, our possibly imaginary readership, let us know where you spent the last day you were able to drink on the Underground - should you be from London, that is…

Konnie Huq knew she was going to be wrestled for the Olympic torch, and stopped the procession to make things easier for her attacker.  She is a known Leftie, of course, so these latest anti-establishment antics are hardly a surprise.  I bet her agent’s fingerprints were all over the incident, designed to push Ms Huq’s name deeper into our humble minds.  The propaganda exercise has started.  Reliable comment, as always, from Donal Blaney.

Alternatively, China is oppressing Tibet and its own population in a disgraceful manner, and a pro-Tibetan freedom protester managed to get in front of live cameras: his actions were beamed around the world.  Not condoning the potentially illegal behaviour of the protester, it remains a matter of fact that he was a protester, not a stunt man employed to further a childrens’ television presenter’s career.

Watching the Olympic Flame make its way through London today, I couldn’t help but wonder what on earth the point was.  If China hoped to win favour by parading a candle through a foreign city, they would have been bitterly disappointed by the scenes from the UK.  You could barely see the torch at all as a swarm of police officers surrounded the inner circle of Chinese officials, with some B-list celebrity or athlete buried somewhere in the mix.  The event was so hideously over-policed, it is little wonder that the images displayed on Chinese state TV were of Steve Redgrave inside the secure confines of Wembley Stadium.

The torch relay is an unnecessary part of the Olympic process.  The nation identifies with the “Olympic spirit” (such as it is) at the games themselves, and the opening ceremony is something of a spectacle of internationalism.  The torch relay is nothing but a propaganda event, and the London leg failed to help either China or its games.

With the world’s media focused on the relay, though, London was given the opportunity to show a fantastic part of its culture to the rest of the globe.  Key flash points were thousand-strong with protesters campaigning against China’s occupation of Tibet and their rock-bottom human rights tradition.  Watching the protests (not the frankly uninspiring jogging police officers) made me rather proud to live in London, showing the world that we are less interested in some feeble flame and more concerned with human rights, democracy, and occupation.  I think the slant of media reports has been absolutely spot-on today: this was a day of protest against China’s record - note, not against the games - rather than a cheery love-in with the Chinese propaganda machine.

The draft Constitutional Renewal Bill appears to enable ministers to pass autocratic Decrees at whim.  I would hate to be accused of crying wolf, but evidence suggests that this is a genuine erosion - explosion, some would argue - of parliamentary government.  For all of the complaints against the EU Reform Bill, this is somewhere in the region of a billion times worse.

Those more knowledgeable on such issues than I am have written more about the issue, including the rather nice SpyBlog.  The Ministry of Truthhas published a letter first seen in the Times when these measures were first talked about, over two years ago:

Sir, Clause one of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (Comment, Feb 15) provides that: “A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for either or both of the following purposes — a) reforming legislation; b) implementing recommendations of any one or more of the United Kingdom Law Commissions, with or without changes.”

This has been presented as a simple measure “streamlining” the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, by which, to help industry, the Government can reduce red tape by amending the Acts of Parliament that wove it. But it goes much further: if passed, the Government could rewrite almost any Act and, in some cases, enact new laws that at present only Parliament can make.

The Bill subjects this drastic power to limits, but these are few and weak. If enacted as it stands, we believe the Bill would make it possible for the Government, by delegated legislation, to do (inter alia) the following:

# create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred, punishable with two years’ imprisonment;

# curtail or abolish jury trial;

# permit the Home Secretary to place citizens under house arrest;

# allow the Prime Minister to sack judges;

# rewrite the law on nationality and immigration;

# “reform” Magna Carta (or what remains of it).

It would, in short, create a major shift of power within the state, which in other countries would require an amendment to the constitution; and one in which the winner would be the executive, and the loser Parliament.

David Howarth, MP for Cambridge, made this point at the Second Reading of the Bill last week. We hope that other MPs, on all sides of the House, will recognise the dangers of what is being proposed before it is too late.

PROFESSOR J. R. SPENCER, QC
PROFESSOR SIR JOHN BAKER, QC
PROFESSOR DAVID FELDMAN
PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER FORSYTH
PROFESSOR DAVID IBBETSON
PROFESSOR SIR DAVID WILLIAMS, QC
Law Faculty,
University of Cambridge

If evidence was ever needed for the argument that Bills should be made public online, this is it.  A nice campaign has begun at mySociety (the people behind the rather wonderful TheyWorkForYou website), and their campaign pitch is so genial mock-sarcastic it is almost pleasant to read.  Ultimately, in this “Web2.0″ world, I can see no better check or balance to the government than the electorate.  Sign up to the Free Our Bills campaign!  Now!  If you need any more encouragement, read their “why?” section:

Being the people who run TheyWorkForYou we spend lots of our time taking rubbish, broken information from Parliament and fixing it up so that it makes a nice, usable site so you can find out whether your MP is actually working for you or not. Lots of people seem to like it, nearly 2 million came to visit last year.

It’s time for Parliament to improve its act and start publishing these vital documents properly in the first place. Quite apart from the fact that we’re a tiny charity without many resources to fix this information, you’re paying for them to produce it in a uselessly old fashioned way. Unless Parliament produces better bills:

• We can’t give you email alerts to tell you when a bill mentions something you might be interested in.
• We can’t tell you what amendments your own MP is asking for, or voting on.
• We can’t help people who know about bills annotate them to explain what they’re really going on about for everyone else.
• We can’t build services that would help MPs and their staff notice when they were being asked to vote on dumb or dubious things.
• We can’t really give a rounded view of how useful your MP is if we can’t see their involvement with the bill making process.
• We can’t do about 12 zillion other things that we’re not even bright enough to think of yet.

Once again I managed to turn up idiotically late to the protest, as I rapidly realised that I would as soon as I awoke. With it starting at 11 and me regaining consciousness at 10.36 this was effectively inevitable, along with everything else.

My time of arrival was further delayed by the nuisance of a closed tube station, something that was becoming irksomely common. I had to wait for an era for a rail replacement as well, something that made me glad I had not donned mask. That happened at the line switch, where I waited until the area of the platform I was on was suitable secluded and then donned the V mask that I had obtained from Forbidden Planet, along with the boxer shorts that I used to cover my scalp.

The attention of a civilian was attracted almost instantly when a small girl and her mother were to be seen standing next to me, the former gazing towards me in a mixture of uncertainty and awe. The gaze was maintained until I got onto the tube and seats were taken, with her occasionally gazing over. I was, however, approached by a pair of brash voiced Australian wenches who asked me:

“Why are you wearing undies on your head?”
“Because my hair is distinctive and I don’t want to be identified.” I replied.
“Who by?”
“The Church of Scientology.”

They nodded and left me alone.

I found a newspaper and sat reading it, which must have made quite a sight, until I was talked to by a tramp of some description with rather damaged teeth. He asked me where I was off to and whether it was a fancy dress party and I told him what I was doing.

I encountered three other latefags on my way out of the station and chatting we headed towards the first protest location, the London Church. I was wary of a massive turn-out shrink and initially as the protest came into sight I feared that that was exactly what had happened. On closer inspection and more thorough mental comparison it was only a minor reduction, I thought, but then once I reached the concrete platform that overlooked the Church I discovered that a vast swathe of Operation Party Hard was to be found up here.

Last time there had been but a smattering of anons up here but on this occasion there was copious amounts of cake and a vast horde of anons milling around, obtaining stickers, talking and enjoying themselves. It was clearly a considerably increased turn-out and better still there was a lot more cake, on which I gladly gorged myself. There were brownies and donuts and all manner of tasty, sugary things.

The protest was fully underway by this stage, with megaphones being used to blast music out including the inevitable Rick Rolls and, of course, Andrew WK’s Party Hard. The $cilon response was to stand inside looking furtive, with most of the windows vacant and the rooms empty besides some in the middle which had blinds down and thus presumably were full. The Church is adept at toying with preconceptions though, so that could simply have been a ruse. They only showed up in them in order to film us or to fill the hallway, with one fellow turning up on the Church roof with a camera and being met with a chorus of “Jump!” from the gleeful anons, to which he responded by trying {and failing} to hide behind a chimney.

The memes were out in force, as per usual. There was stretched across the balcony a set of print-offs taped together with longcat drawn across it and the slogan “Longcat is LOOOOOOONG!”, which was much like last time but even longer. Another informed us that “$cientology makes Longcat SAD”. Many posters involved mudkips and others simply stuff in reference to $cientology, such as “Scientology kills”. Some, of course, fused the meme and eaning, such as this picture which declared “Scientology’s closed, due to thetans.” “No Scientology please, we’re British” also deserves a special mention and twelve internets, as does “Down with this sort of thing”, which on February 10th was the funniest hand-sign but now become a proper banner.

A few were familiar there, such as the “404 Protester Not Found” hoodie pair and a couple, such as the lampshade men, I had heard would be there on Enturbulation. There were a few unexpected and utterly awesome costumes, like Medic Man, who had dressed up like a Battleship Trooper and handed out chicken after collecting money for a bucket in a bucket, and Mr. Marcab Mask Man who won the “Coolest mask” prize as easily as Pig Mask Man did last time.

There were not, on this occasion, protesters who surrounded the doors but apparently there were some Co$ plants who tried to break in last time so that might have been wise. The opportunity to Rick Roll right next to the Church itself would have been nice to repeat, though. The music was fun, but there was insufficient dancing for a true party, although more than enough cake. Perhaps the two were more than correlational.

Soon after I arrived, a lot sooner than I was expecting, the call went out that we were to move on. I had anticipated this occurring for 2 but it seemed that at least one anon had gotten bored and the rest of us listened to him as he was using a megaphone. Or perhaps this was some consensus established before my arrival, there certainly are a lot more people outside Tottenham Court Road. The police offered to escort us as we went to the train station and we accepted, the officer who informed us that it was available was very friendly, chatty and happy and the police received a massive round of applause just before we left.

As we headed off I commented to an anonywench that the boys in green {blue is too old school, it seems} had not really clocked that we were an international terrorist group yet and she laughed. We headed across the street and down the road, with the sight of the vast number of guy fawkes mask clad protesters behind me truly a vision to behold. Apparently we had not obtained {or sought?} permission to march so instead of doing that we simply all walked together, which apparently an event distinct from marching since we didn’t wave banners or chant as we went.

The video of us entering you can see here and was in fact filmed by an anon standing right behind me. It displays the glorious sing-along to the theme tune of The Fresh Prince, a programme which is the favourite of Anonymous, besides perhaps House. It occurred to me, though, that the idea behind memes was partially Richard Dawkin’s effort to explain the source of much pure human stupidity. A meme spreads not because it is worthwhile but instead because it is culturally contagious. The content of much of the material spread by Anonymous is of questionable worth, such as the Rick Rolls, but all that matters is that they are suitably spreadable. Some is truly of worth, such as 300 and, in its own way, Chocolate Rain but often Anonymous simply has a power to take the nadir of western culture and make it enjoyable. Even Andrew WK, the man who epitomised the nadir of British music when he headlined the NME tour and people turned up just to see Lost Prophets and left early. When you are being rebellious by enjoying the Lost Prophets then shit is bad yet Anonymous named the event in his honour and his sole memorable contribution was aired heavily and utterly enjoyed. That youtube film covers the even more devotional love Anonymous feels towards the Fresh Prince, who there are efforts to save from $cientology’s clutches, in much the same way they attempted to save a masturbating teen from a deranged hyper-feminist mother.

What he missed was that once inside one of the carriages the anon with the speaker played some pulsing techno that lead to us jumping wildly around to its meme-flavoured grooves as the train tore through the tunnel. This winful moment ended with us bundling out onto Tottenham Court Road platform and heading towards the “Dianetics and Scientology Lifestyle Improvement Centre”. The long walk was long but on the way I met someone who may or may not have been the awesome win lady who last time impressed us with her organisational skills and funness (a similar role being adopted this time by medic man) so that was alright.

This was arranged little differently to last time as there was no road block and instead of restricting the car traffic we were left clogging up one pavement entirely and thus restricting the human one. This also resulted in our large group being forced into spreading over a far larger area of the pavement than we had done last time, as there was no pen to hold us in. This resulted in many, myself amongst them, remarking “Long protest is long” quite approvingly.

Here there was more cake, or rather much the same cake relocated on a table that was brought over but abandoned once the protest had ended. The gathering was confronted with the same $cilon in command as before, the grumpy looking chap who I dubbed bald man. Unfortunately we were down perhaps the most popular member of the group there last time, thus gave demanding chants of “We want Red Tie!” Unfortunately he was not forthcoming {we speculated hopefully that he might have blown, but my own suspicion is that he simply proved to popular to post again}.

In attendance again though was fit window lady, who was snapping and filming us throughout. They had leafleteers at the doors as well as at other areas on the road {I encountered the latter later} and rounding up the $cilon posse was a fellow dressed in a fluorescent green jacket who seemed to be trying to use it to blend in with the identically dressed police, and failing. Later he was joined by a burly bulky man dressed in black, who was basically a bouncer, minus “If you’re wearing a mask you’re not coming in.” Both of those secfags were effectively rendered redundant by the massive police presence but I imagine that they wanted to feel other than totally impotent in a face of our cake-wielding protest so they put on a good show.

Finally of mention, of course, is all the cameramen. According to some gents I met later the police had one of their own but also shooting were various media, copious anons and the obligatory $ciCams which covered our every meme. The latter were intended to obtain material both for OSA (Office for Special Affairs, which is somehow even more sinister than it sounds) and in order to ensure that if anything nefarious was performed by anons it would turn up in propaganda videos.

I engaged in some chants and then wandered around to the outskirts of the long protest to see what was occurring. It seemed that a good deal of cake was being handed out to passersby, along with leaflets. I was given some of these but since that end was covered I moved down to the other, where I came across awesome azn girl. All I can say to describe awesome azn girl is that awesome azn girl is awesome. She was handing out fliers, talking excitedly and danced and sang along to the Rick Roll along with me, even admitting to forgetting some of the words, which is true of everyone but nobody admits to.

When I got to the end of my leaflets I was planning on just pissing off but she simply took some more and kept at it so I followed the example and quickly distributed some random news report which showed OSA being evil. Not enough in itself, I though, so I told the people passing it to examine “Xenu.net” for further information. Hopefully one of the numerous banners they would pass bearing the evil alien overlord’s name would help them work out the spelling.

At one point I attempted to cross the road and hand out some leaflets there, mainly because I had spotted a $ci doing it far away from the Centre and figured that it would be fun to balance things out. The thought of them using the increased traffic on that side of the road to profit from our protest was irksome to me. When I reached there the $ci said that I was not permitted to be there and threatened to fetch the police, so I told her to do so since I had committed no crime. She did and surprisingly the police woman concurred with the $ci in saying that I was “Not allowed” to be on this side of the road and suggested that I knew that already. In hindsight I should have said something encouraging to the $ci, or at least told her “You know the rules, and so do I.” Instead I decided to depart but as I was about to head back across someone asked me about what I was there for and I explained before crossing back, feeling glad that I had at least gotten the word out to one person.

That aspect, the firm restrictions, was strange and I decided to investigate further. I asked another policewoman on the other side of the road whether it was illegal for me to return and leaflet on the forbidden side. She said that we were not allowed to, or words to that affect, which did not really answer the question. When asked why she said that it was for reasons of public disruption, that we were already causing a good deal of. Disrupting the public, however, is by no means a crime and thus I asked her again if to disobey would be breaking any actual laws and whether I could get arrested. She answered in terms that made it pretty clear that the answer was “no” but that they would definitely prefer it if we remained on the assigned side. I decided to make her job easier as she seemed nice (another anon and I later had a lovely talk with her when she discussed the hardships of her job and told us that the police transport is filled with their own cake so they neither needed or were allowed ours, meaning that they really do have a partyvan) but it irked me that the lines between illegality and inconvenience were getting so blurred.

At any rate, to cheer me up two encounters heartened me: while passing by a pair of middle aged women asked me what we were protesting about, “Against them, I hope” and I replied happily that we very much were and they left pleased and with a leaflet. Another man can across with a piece of Co$ drivel and asked if I had a lighter. I had soon disposed of all the leaflets and left the awesome azn girl to distribute her stuff, encountering on my way one of the most awesome displays of the day. As the man responsible said: mudkips make everything win.

(Our tech is free!)

I came across a group of four middle aged men wearing no masks, which usually designates little but here meant that I was in the presence of win-pirate legends.

‘Are you the Old Guard?’ I asked.
‘Am I the old guy?’ one replied, with a laugh.
(My mask had left me muffled.)
‘Old Guard I repeated.’
He chuckled and replied in the affirmative, with his friend remarking “They’re just platinum highlights…”
The third I had met already but I was in a different mask on this occasion so I had to re-introduce myself. He had no idea who angry bald fag was but was as affable and friendly as ever.

The misunderstand man was also friendly and explained that he was there since his son had been Disconnected from him for six months. Apparently it had left the poor boy a mental wreck and taken him a matter of years to recover, even seven or eight years later he was now left damaged from the experience. Talking to somebody who had actually suffered as a consequence of the cult was not something that I had done much and it made my sense of purpose yet greater.

According to this man David Miscavige was likely to batten down the hatches and attempt to ride out Anonymous’ efforts but if the cult did go into implode then there would need to be some facilities even beyond the Free Zone (who he talked about in dismissive tones) required to allow the continued existence of the “parishioners” to survive without the edifice of the Church. Effectively they are left institutionalised by the experience and simply can not exist as a functional being beyond its clammy confines and mad rituals.

This was a worry but not a case against tearing the whole thing down. So long as more can be prevented from encountering such a situation then profit has been made.

I then saw the Free Zoner that I met last time. The best way to describe Free Zoners is that they are like normal Scientologists but without all of the lies. I had to explain to him, like with the Old Guard, that we had met before but that I was masked differently and thus he would probably not recognise me. “That’s the idea” he replied, with a chuckle, and I agreed.

He was as friendly as last time and in discussion with a pretty blonde anon. His history with the cult I had heard before but he went into it in greater detail this time: apparently when he criticised the Church’s structure and activities they ploughed through his life to try and find evidence for him not being “Clear”, eventually settling upon a point in his American childhood when he had encountered a psychiatrist at age three. Their suggestion was that he had chemically hypnotised and thus a tool of theirs ever since. At this point he simply “blew” and left the Church altogether without permission. He did not, however, leave Scientology and blonde anon asked him something that I had been wondering since February 10^th: a good deal of Anonymous’ rhetoric was aimed at associating negatives with Hubbard, indeed the choice of the 15^th as date was to make mock celebration of his birthday, which was 2 days before. How exactly did he, as a Scientologist, feel about this? It was here where he really surprised me.

When he spoke of L. Ron Hubbard he did not cloud his talk with the hagiographic praise that I associated with all $cilons, refraining from canonising him and instead stating that although in his later life he became “paranoid” and rather unhinged, perpetuating many unethical actions, in his earlier years prior to this he created a philosophy worthy of following. As a defender of Red Ken I understand and appreciate the argument that an utterly odious man can still create considerable achievements, indeed the existence motivational fallacy shows that even someone interested solely in making money can still create something worthwhile, so blonde anon and I pressed home about the nature of his philosophy.

It turned out that neither of us shared his basic premise that humans are spiritual beings but she skilfully described my view and hers in better terms than I ever could, saying that she thought she was a physical being in possession of a mind capable of coming to consider itself as a spiritual being, which is impressive in itself. Free Zone chap described the nature of Scientology some more regardless, with the central idea being that there is a “Reactive mind” that is the same sort of type possessed by a deer in a forest, which relies entirely upon instinct to guide its actions. Alternatively there is the “Analytic mind” which is the distinctively human form that assesses things with reason and logic rather than responding to stimuli directly and doing that alone. Scientology states that the two minds are hosted within one brain for humans and through purging yourself of the former and ascending the latter you can become a superior person to before.

This is something of a fusion of a philosophical tradition stretching back to the Classical Greeks with a heavy dose of Buddhism, that blonde anon identified, and heavy amounts of psychology in the process used to switch the states of mind (auditing is effectively an unorthodox form psychotherapy using a stripped down polygraph machine as a prop). When we discussed the nature of the “e-meter” he fell a little quiet, perhaps as we seemed dubious as to the reliability of this “monograph” given that even devices which measure far more readings than merely skin electricity levels are not considered dependable.

However he was perfectly happy to talk about the Church’s nefarious activities, which he suggested did not constitute a critique of the philosophy but instead a perversion of it. He confirmed that Scientology’s “Twelve Dynamics” had been altered by the present leadership, with David Miscavige having changed the Second Dynamic from “Sex and procreation” to “Creativity” since members of the SeaOrg (an elite organisation of chronic ultra-loyalist $cis who sign billion year contracts and paid £25 a week) are forbidden to have families and in fact forced to have abortions if they fall pregnant. Just for context, this is somewhat like if the Pope declared that he was going to alter one of the Ten Commandments in order to make specify explicitly that statues of saints and the Virgin Mary were ok, except even more extreme. “Squirrelling the tech” is a great crime within Scientology and anyone making alterations is seem as the vilest form of traitor, for that reason the Free Zoners are invariably accused of as much by the Church.

Indeed, the sheer amount of hatred for the Free Zone exceeds even that they express towards critics. The entirely external opponents of the Church are a threat, while the Free Zone are a challenge. Anonymous has always used the Free Zone as an example of us being opposed to an institution rather than faith. We have no grudge with them and if they were to be all that was left of Scientology then the matter would be considered a triumph and Anonymous would move on. They have not attempted to censor the internet, they did not kill Lisa McPherson, they have never tried to drive anyone to suicide. They are eccentric, certainly, but also harmless and often downright useful.

Like, for instance, when he started to talk to me about magic.

This was another surprise but it was included without ceremony as the final point in a discussion about influences. Anyone who investigates briefly can uncover Lafayette relationship with Aleister Crowley and his “magickal” theology, Satanism. Hubbard was immersed in the occult for a considerable length of time, indeed he had a close relationship with the Thelemic scientist Jack Parsons, with whom he conducted sex rituals in order to summon a Goddess named Babalon and who’s fusion of empirical science and magic (he gave a prayer to Pan when launching his first rocket) no doubt served as something of an inspiration for Hubbard as well.

Crowley, though, clearly had an even greater impact upon him. Scientology is a philosophy which teaches that through a process of ritual and a mystical act that a person can improve their existences through altering their perception of everything. Magic is entirely based around ritual and the power of perception. The Church will deny this tie and indeed stated that Hubbard’s involvement consisted of “Infiltrating a black magic ring in America in order to destroy it”, yet the Free Zoner told me of a speech where Hubbard had announced that he would recommend to anybody attempting to understand the Universe the works of “My good friend, Aleister Crowley”.

Some deep discussion followed this, with the blonde anon initially arguing against Alan Moore’s suggestion (repeated ineptly by me) that the existence of God in the minds of humans is the most important place that it can happen, suggesting that reality does not change according to the suspicions of individuals. We talked deeply for a little while and the Free Zoner seemed to become a little lost. I decided to talk specifics and asked him if the massive stone cross with a cross on the top of the building, the Scientology logo, was originally a symbol of Aleister Crowley’s. He told me that he wasn’t certain but knew it to be a magical symbol of some form.

His forthright honesty with this issue was striking and it seemed that he posed the perfect contrast to the furtive secrecy which the Church protects itself with. The difference, of course, was that he was a lone individual able to tell what he knew while they are concerned with popularity and the profit margin. If he was wishing to “Clear the world” he was certainly going about it in a strange way, given that so many would recoil from Crowleyian influenced anything since he was a man that declared Christianity an obsolete relic of the last aeon and proclaimed himself the Dark Messiah. But for the Church that is their ultimate aim, perhaps even their sole goal. So he could tell me all manner of interesting facts about his faith’s founder while they were left spewing white washed lies.

After this I got back to the proper protesting, waving a banner which he had given me advising that the $cientologists “Google Free Tech”, not because I admire Church devoid Scientology but simply because I knew that nothing would irritate or worry the high-ups more. The chants were heavy at this stage, ranging from the entirely truthful “We’ve got better leaflets” to the hazing, droning “Xeeeeee-nuuuuuuuuuuuu, Xeeeeeeeeeeeee-nuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu”. “We have cake, they have lies” was another popular line and, naturally, Happy Birthday Dear LRon was sung at a few points, but not excessively. The stereo anons were trying and failing to use the aforementioned Anonymous affect on “Cotton Eyed Joe”, which stubbornly remained overly shiny shit. I gave a few calls of “Anonymous, what is your…?” and found the power of the response utterly satisfying. Red Tie did not return but we had a new target named “Angry Woman”, who was angry. She refused to offer us any smiles despite repeated demands.

Also, cocks:

I then encountered a pair of people I was not expecting to see at all that day, the anarcho-communists which I had clocked last time around. My considerations of them since had presumed that they were simply going to go to Stop The War in Trafalgar Square instead but it seemed that I was mistaken. When asked I was simply told “The Trotskyites aren’t as funny”, which was undeniably true. If there is one thing you can rely upon the SWP for it is being a vacuum for all humour. They were not going to be standing around exchanging far-lefty esoteric Marxist in-jokes and neither would they have cake, thus their experience was far inferior to the one I enjoyed. Apparently though, the anarchs had paid a visit during the break between the Church and Centre protests, albeit a brief one.

I stayed with them talking to one about his views on anarchism and so on (apparently anarcho-capitalist is an oxymoron, although I suspect that they might say the same thing about anarcho-communist) but deemed it fairly obvious why an anti-hierarchical and anti-clerical pair would object to a Church that dominates and exploits its “parishioners” quite so thoroughly, so didn’t ask.

The rain had began to spit down sporadically, warning but not really wetting very heavily. A surprising amount had stayed but then dispersed. We remained standing around until the police approached us and told us we had to move along. The other anarch asked why and was told that we could move along or “You’re coming with us”. He stripped this of the euphemism quickly, enquiring as to what law we would be breaking in order to warrant arrest. He was told that the protest had ended at five (since Anonymous has no leaders exactly who this was agreed with is an enigma to me) and we replied that the protest was over and that we were no longer protesting. The anarcho-communist flag had been wrapped up, we were no longer chanting. Apparently us wearing masks and standing in the same place that the protest had been was what mattered though. We replied that we were wearing the masks since we were wary of being identified and recorded by the $cilon cameras and then the Other Anarch Anon was informed that since he was wearing a mask and that the policeman was “not satisfied” with this he could be stopped and searched under the Terrorism Act and then the $cientology Centre would “get a nice picture of your face”.

Why exactly he was treating the anarchs (and, I suppose, me) as if we were terrorists and using the unethical practices of a wealthy cult as blackmail was not something that I received an opportunity to ask us about as another anon advised we moved on and we followed this, crossing the road to the tube and heading off to the pub, which is a story in itself.

The protest was perhaps not as fine in atmosphere as the last one but then for a second event it could have been far worse. Our numbers were even greater when I had imagined they would be diminished and this time we had far more cake and thus much more pleasure. We should have stuck around at the Church for longer but the Tottenham Court Road protest was better for us not being boxed in. Again, we raised awareness to all the passers-by as well as those inside the cult, which are both equally important. Better still many lulz were had and the entire thing was permeated with epic win. If this becomes a monthly feature, which it seems likely to given the triumph, then it is hard to see how the $cilons can long survive the endless PR disaster. The anarch explained himself to me by pointing out that the protest against the war was the 5^th anniversary of the largest one. This was not an achievement but instead an indication of their constant, persistent failure. With $cientology, at least, it seemed like they stood a chance of success in achieving their aims. And even if he was wrong we’ll still have had a fun time.

Between 1 and 2 million people marched on the streets of London on 15 February 2003.  3 million in Rome.  Conservative estimates say 10 million took to the streets in 300 cities around the world.

Five years later, and the British public has not been motivated like this since.  Your thoughts in the comments section,  please.

Update: Well, would you look at that?