MEDIA_ACTIVIST JAY BAKER

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Survival of the Fittest?

"Make poverty history." We've heard that a lot. Then the economic crisis hit, and such concepts got conveniently put on the back-burner by powerful people. It hit, and it hit hard, but some of us weren't really surprised; in fact, we'd been warning people about it for quite a while.

As I've said before, you can't remove workers' rights in the workplace, and then ship the rest of the jobs overseas to increase profits and put the poor the furthest behind the rich they've been in forty years...without giving them access to credit (debt). And you can't keep filling the bottom of the barrel with debt without the bottom breaking open and everything falling out from under you.

The media quickly worked to refer to the crisis as the Credit CrunchTM, as though an unavoidable natural phenomenon, and a cereal you have to swallow down and go about your daily business. As is common by intellectual capitalists and Social Darwinists, while they tried to apply laws of nature onto society and politics, referring to the whole thing as a freak of nature, they also kept talking about the "survival of the fittest."

In my homeland, Great Britain, the government moved fast to bail-out the banks who had suddenly found themselves on the brink of destruction. The media drew attention to it, but the focus of their stories were not questioning the bail-outs themselves, but the behaviour of the bankers who were getting bonuses and posting profits in the aftermath - the only scenario where someone was given a raise for doing a bad job! What the media failed to do was question the bailout itself. Hardly anyone did. Funny, huh?

I know what you're thinking, "Well, the banks had to be rescued, because without them our economy might completely collapse, right?" Well, yeah, maybe. But when we talk about "banks," are we talking about the role banks play in our economy, or specific banks - run by corporations? Interestingly, when these corporations - these businesses - failed, suddenly the Social Darwinists weren't using the phrase "survival of the fittest" so much anymore. They weren't cheering for the dying dire banks to be destroyed through a natural selection process of elimination. Even though Metro, Virgin, and even Tesco had suddenly emerged ready to "step up to the plate" as the next line of banks to meet the demand, these older banks - these businesses, remember - were being bailed-out by their buddies in power: Labour, Tory, Same Old Story.

Yeah, the Tories can't comment, for sure - they are, after all, the ones who so loved the Social Darwinist approach to economics by the likes of Milton Friedman that they began massive deregulation of the financial sector years ago, giving the bankers free rein to run amok, with no concern for the disastrous possibilities...because those at the bottom of the barrel will take the brunt of the blow when they're all crushed and "crunched." The bankers - and maybe even the politicians who gave them license - committed financial terrorism on the population, and, as financial pundit Max Keiser suggests, ought to be prosecuted in the Hague.

But the banks have been bailed-out - to the tune of over £1.5 trillion! And why? Well, sure, the likes of RBS have been largely taken under public control, but we still have no say in where their profits are invested (in their case, towards environmental destruction and human rights abuses). And it's still £1.5 trillion we're talking about here!

What else might they have done with that £1.5 trillion? Well, I guess, as my mother always said since I was a kid, we have to "look at the cause, and not the cure." In other words, we ought to be pro-active, not merely reactive. So, will people in poverty without any widespread long-term stable job prospects still seek access to credit? Heck, yeah! Of course they will. That's not going to change unless the whole system changes; until corporations are taxed properly and operate properly, and money is more equally distributed so that people aren't homeless or hungry while rich white men are clinking their champagne glasses together on yachts paid for by overblown bonuses.

Yep, British citizens all across the country are in debt. And while they're in such a bad situation - just as with the poor countries in the developing world indebted to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank - the most decent, humane thing to do, if possible, would be to clear their debts; scrap it all.

But to bail-out the people instead of the banks would cost a lot of money, right? Yeah, there are a lot of citizens in Britain who are bogged-down in debt thanks to loans and mortgages and credit cards. It'd take a lot of money to re-set them all back to zero and liberate the entire population! It'd take a lot of money indeed. In fact, the debt of all citizens in the United Kingdom amounts to...wait for it...£1.5 trillion.

That's right. With the amount of money the politicians - the elite - unilaterally decided to use to bail-out their buddies in the financial sector most of them wanted deregulated, all the debts of all the people in the entire country could have been completely scrapped; gone; ka-put! And you, me, and each and every one of us would be debt-free, overnight. Can you imagine the change felt across the country? Can you imagine the people that would liberate? Citizens going to their jobs free from worry about repaying their debts. No more calls from the bullying collection agencies. No more payments on your mortgage. No more County Court Judgments. Everything you possess, truly owned by you.

It could have happened - with the £1.5 trillion the politicians decided to give to those few banking businesses instead, and now say that those private sector companies have cost the treasury so much money that all the poor people in the country - still, in fact, worrying about their debts - will see their public services slashed as well. A double-whammy! They're taking public money and giving it to private companies. So let's call it what it is: reverse socialism; taking from the poor (the taxpayers) and giving it to the rich (the banking businesses).

Of course, the media and politicians are still telling us that it needed to be done; that the financial sector is so very crucial to our country, and its economy. Is it? Is it really? Let's look at the area in which I work, for example. Media? Pah, pretty trivial stuff, right? Well, aside from the fact that money that could have been invested in cultural industries in communities all across Britain for weeks, months, and even years went instead towards some kind of two-week show in London called "the Olympics," the cultural industry itself is massively undervalued by those in power. But is it comparable to the mighty financial sector? Let's look at the facts.

The financial sector employs about 1million people and accounts for 8% of the GDP. That's fairly significant, right? But the cultural sector employs 1.3million people for 5% of the GDP! Wow...pretty close, huh? Yet the cultural sector is experiencing huge cuts, not just for the Olympics, but for the sake of it, while the financial sector, the failed sector, is gifted £1.5 trillion! (And don't even get me started on social audits that show the benefits culture gives to the people.) Can you imagine a cultural company - such as mine, SilenceBreaker Media - asking the government to be "bailed-out" because I'd badly managed it and run it into the ground (as did the board of directors of my last company after I'd left that)? They'd say "too bad...that's survival of the fittest."

Strangely, everything the Social Darwinists said to excuse their massive dominance and exploitation over the people is no longer applicable to themselves. When their buddies are in trouble, they're bailed out. When it's us in trouble, we get a big "FU." They have had us brought to our knees since the 1980s, when they closed our industries and deregulated those of their buddies. The last thing we should be doing while we're down on our knees is looking up and worshipping them and their business interests. We should be hitting them in their bollocks. We should be hitting them where it hurts. We should be changing the flow of capital.

Make affluence history.

- Jay Baker; South Yorkshire, England

Jay Baker's brand-new book is Pissing in the Mainstream. You can read a compilation of his best blogs from the past several years, and a few exclusives, in the book Soon To Be Banned: Musings of a Media Activist, available here.

Labels: bailout, banks, Conservative Party, intellectual capitalism, Margaret Thatcher, New Labour

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

The Big Red One: Santa Clause IV

It's been an interesting year. I've said before that New Labour is a failed brand: nobody asked for New Labour, nobody wanted New Labour, nobody needed New Labour. Re-branding doesn't work when your head honchos love it, but your target market hate it. In 1997, people were so sick to their stomachs of the Conservatives that, heck, they'd have even voted en masse for my beloved Doncaster Rovers team as the next cabinet, if that was the alternative (and back then, they even sucked at soccer - now they're doing well in the Championship and beating teams like Bristol City, which of course I'm not shouting about as I sit here at Bristol International Airport awaiting a flight...to socialist Spain).

Speaking of socialism, I've also said that New Labour are now doomed unless they drop the "New" and return to some of the values they had back when they formed at the turn of the century - a group of trade unionists sitting in the Good Woman pub in St Sepulchre Gate in Doncaster drafting up a proposal to the trade union congress to create a party for the people, a party for the workers: a Labour Party. The Big Red One! Here we are, a century later, and they're almost unrecognizable, and considered virtually unelectable.

Yep, after all the damage Thatcher's Tories did to Britain, 1997 finally saw the working classes mobilize and make sure Labour got into power. What they didn't realize, however, was that New Labour meant Tory LiteTM. Tory Tony Blair scrapped his party's Clause IV (devotion to nationalization of industry), which may not have seemed like a big deal, had it not been for the fact that what it actually symbolized was Blair's devotion to the very opposite: privatization - of areas even Thatcher was hesitant to touch. Blair was able to do this, of course, as a wolf in sheep's clothing; a very dangerous man indeed. And now? Well, today we have his successor, Gordon Brown, trying his best at damage control while leading a party his predecessor put towards privatization, leaving Britain ripe for the pickings of a Tory Party salivating at the thought of finally selling off every last little piece of the country to anyone with the money to buy (their pals). Yeah: thanks - ironically - to New Labour, Tories are more excited than John Major in Edwina Curry's bedroom; their wildest dreams now almost a reality. Almost.

The thing is, New Labour have faced a backlash because of these policies, and today's Independent published results of a poll showing that a massive amount of British citizens still feel the Tory toffs favour the privileged few. And 2009 has seen the demise of New Labour's best-laid right-wing plans.

In 2009, Blair admitted he committed war crimes, compulsory identity cards were essentially abandoned, the plans to privatize the postal service were scrapped, certain banks were taken back into government ownership, and, with an overwhelming 70% of the British public wanting Thatcher's privatized railways back under government control, it actually started to happen. As if the message was not clear enough over the last decade of diminishing votes for the New Labour brand: Britain wanted its working class party back. From the call centre operators to the retail checkout clerks, it wanted a Labour Party again.

So, with the coal of my hometown barely a memory, Santa Claus gets to safely land at the bottom of my chimney with a chance of granting my wish of what I - like most of the working class mass majority - want for Christmas: the return of the Labour Party.

The New Year will bring us a renewed push from the Tory toffs to re-brand themselves, too, as less posh, more relatable, and a far cry from Thatcher's Milton Friedman economics that led to a devastating economic crisis - but it's more of the same. Incredibly, their solution to the crisis has been to repeat what was the problem in the first place: selling off public services, privatization, and deregulation for their banker buddies. What Gordon Brown and Labour have to do, then, is show us what - if anything - is left of the Labour Party that represented the workers; the working class. They have to show us the Big Red One at its biggest and best!

A defining moment in the history of British politics is almost here. Interestingly enough, for Labour to show a shred of integrity means they can still stay in power, while to fail to kick their habit - this new addiction to capitalism - means certain defeat, and a nation wallowing in the mock of avarice.

- Jay Baker; Bristol, England

Jay Baker's brand-new book is Pissing in the Mainstream. You can read a compilation of his best blogs from the past several years, and a few exclusives, in the book Soon To Be Banned: Musings of a Media Activist, available here.

Labels: Conservative Party, Margaret Thatcher, New Labour, Tony Blair

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Angel of the Public Interest

"The night after I was sworn in, I waited for a visit from the angel of the public interest. I waited all night, but she did not come." - Federal Communications Commission chief Michael Powell, an avid deregulation advocate and son of Colin Powell.

Does media matter? That's what I'm asked a lot.

Well, ask yourself how many of your opinions have been formed by something you heard, something you saw; a television show, a magazine, a song, a movie, a newspaper, or even a conversation - which, in turn, was likely largely based on opinions formed from...media! Sorry, but there's really no way around it, honey. Media controls the world. That's just how it is. The more we're informed, the more our opinions are formed.

But who controls the media? I guess that's pretty important, then, eh? Well, unfortunately, it's being left to rich, greedy, white, right-wing men in suits who - funnily enough - have the tendency to tell twisted tales to the people consuming their media, so that they keep hating each other and voting the right-wing political parties into power. That's pretty much how the whole thing works, right there.

In Britain, after boom-and-bust Conservative strategies left the incoming Labour government in economic turmoil - subjected to the (first) Winter of Discontent - Margaret Thatcher led the Tories back to power in 1979 with help from not just the clever, cynical, fake and now-infamous billboard poster designed by advertising agency Saatchi & Saatchi, but also Rupert Murdoch's tabloid newspaper The Sun encouraging the population to vote for the Tories, like an evil nanny feeding a starving child arsenic and telling them "It's good for you," and it being trustingly gulped back.

No doubt many working class people - feeling that Labour had already significantly compromised their socialist approach moulded three decades earlier by the great Clement Attlee - felt less enthusiastic about voting for Labour again. That's to be expected. But it was predominantly the less industrial, more middle class, more suburban south of England that provided the push needed to solidify the support necessary to put in - and keep in - a Conservative government, all the way to 1997.

The Tories didn't simply fall from favour in 1997. No, it's no coincidence that Rupert Murdoch had become impressed by Tony Blair's "Third Way" route for New Labour that promised to continue the media deregulation started by Thatcherism - so much so that he had his News Corporation, and indeed The Sun, support them...resulting, of course, in their rise to power. And also resulting in deregulation and near-monopolisation of the media for Mr Murdoch.

Sure enough, Blair's Britain continued along that path, as did Bush's United States. In 2003, Murdoch claimed Bush "will either go down in history as a very great president or he'll crash and burn...I'm optimistic it will be the former." He put his Fox News Network to work on making his hopes a reality, almost always portraying Bush in a good light, discrediting his critics, and - most crucially - omitting certain facts about him and his party, only increasing the role of the channel as being, in actuality, Faux News, while Murdoch bought MySpace two years later, and continued his quest for his right-wing domination of the media world, and the people of the planet showed the propaganda wasn't completely succeeding as millions marched in streets across the globe in opposition to the UK-US led illegal invasion of Iraq.

The Bush administration, of course, didn't let these deeds go without reward. In the spring of that same year, Colin Powell's son, Michael Powell, in his role as chief of the Federal Communications Commission, set about dismissing thirty year-old rules while further loosening restrictions on just how much media could be controlled by a single company like News Corp. These changes threatened to allow a single network to buy stations that, combined, reached as much as a staggering 45% of the American people.

Think about that for a moment: one ideology, one message, one slant - bombarding as many as almost a half of all Americans. Murdoch could control the information of entire cities in the world's most powerful nation. Yep, deregulation was still being attempted in return for propaganda and campaign funds donated to the bigwigs by the media moguls. It was becoming a tired old sick joke.

Speaking of sick jokes, Powell simply stated, "The night after I was sworn in, I waited for a visit from the angel of the public interest...I waited all night, but she did not come." This pissed off a lot of people, with leading media activist Aliza Dichter responding, "Since he had trouble seeing one angel that dreadful night on March 22nd, we shall descend upon him in droves!" and Indy Media announcing "We encourage all Angels such as yourself to come to the gathering dressed in your best Angel garb - halo, wings, glitter, the whole nine yards. (If no angel gear, come anyway!)"

They're still waiting for the droves of angels to descend on the FCC, and I'm very tempted to come to Washington, D.C. myself. There are all kinds of media activist opportunities there, because it's the seat of power, and if I'm allowed there, I'll be helping to kick the legs from under it along with the rest of the people wanting change through responsible, fair media.

Barack Obama's great. The media has pleasantly focused on the fact that, for the first time ever, an African-American now resides in the White House. Why trivialise it? Why reduce it to tokenism? He got where he is today because he wasn't Colin Powell; he represented the wishes and hopes and dreams of America. He made promises he is already struggling to keep while under pressure from the same old system - be it by appeasing the military industrial complex by pulling forces from Iraq and simply putting them into Afghanistan, or by using the economy as an excuse to put progressive policies on the back-burner. Yes, his achievement is historic, yes it's important - but we must not forget the real reason he was put into power, because a black man means nothing unless he represents the people, and nor does a woman.

Deregulation was pushed to unprecedented places by Margaret Thatcher, one of the most devastating Prime Ministers in British history. That's something worth remembering. And with that in mind, it's time to take back control of the airwaves and the printing presses, because once Murdoch and his ilk have had their way, we'll only get their side of the story.

When the media lie, they get sued. So what do they do instead? Omit. It's lies through omission. If someone threatens you and your loved ones, and provokes you into threatening them in return, to then accuse you of threatening behaviour would only be part of the story, and, some might say, as bad as lying. That's what the mainstream media do: they lie through omission. Omitted details about immigration, about Iraq, about Palestine, about Ireland, about everything. There are certain things they'd rather you didn't know about or focus on. Because if you did? You'd be ripping their papers and brand-new asses for their bosses; you'd be organising and forcing change.

Ever noticed how everyone complains about how hard life is, and how much they work, yet things just largely stay the same? Ever wondered how that's even possible? They filter the information; they tell you that the arsenic is good for you! Everything's okay; just blame the immigrants. Everything's alright; blame the benefit frauds. Everything's fine; blame the poor who went into debt. Whatever you do, don't even consider questioning capitalism's free market or why there are just a few privileged people with eight-bedroom mansions, limousines and lear jets, while the mass majority in the world are struggling, and 1.4 billion live in official poverty.

What the media clues you in on is nowhere near as important as what they've left out. It can be quotes, statistics, editorials, and the screaming headlines themselves - overpowering or even replacing a few extra crucial details to the story. Given the fact that more and more of the media is being controlled by fewer and fewer people - with right-wing interests in contrast to the interests of the mass majority - our information is being controlled more and more, as well. It's being filtered. But heck, information is too important to our lives to be left in the hands of the right who are doing us wrong. We have to do something.

Get involved. Be an angel.

- Jay Baker; Doncaster, England

Labels: Aliza Dichter, Barack Obama, Conservative Party, FCC, Fox News, George W Bush, Iraq, Margaret Thatcher, New Labour, Rupert Murdoch, Tony Blair

Sunday, May 1, 2005

Vote or Shut Up!

As former Skunk Anansie singer Skin confirmed, everything is political and everyone is political. Everything we encounter on a daily basis in this world we inhabit is as a result of the current political climate, and we constantly complain about one thing or the other. But we can do something about it all, and now is our chance. And though unfortunately we can't vote for Skin as Prime Minister, we do have a choice.

Contrary to what the newspapers are telling you, your vote doesn't have to go to New Labour or the Conservatives. That's not even a choice! They're essentially a coalition government, as even Rupert Murdoch - helped to monopolize the media by Margaret Thatcher before, then, providing propaganda for her - had his leading national newspaper The Sun switch allegiance from Tories to New Labour because they became just as right-wing. And where I come from, people know exactly how bad the Tories were (they've essentially been barred from this area, to the extent that Michael Howard has admitted he'll never win Sheffield, adding that they don't need Sheffield.) This area - along with The Sun, of course - helped Tony Blair take Labour convincingly into power in 1997...only to then be betrayed by him as he introduced university tuition fees, wrecked both the welfare state and health service, increased the amount of billionaires by 150% while the poorest 10% became poorer, and attacked Iraq based on a lie whilst trying to introduce draconian laws.

It seems like everybody's pretty peeved with Tony Bliar (no, that's not a typo). In fact, people are so peeved with him that even the Tories have gained ground like nobody thought possible, after Michael Howard tried to outgun the government on such issues as immigration ("I can kick out more ethnic minorities than you!") in addition to opposing them for the sake of it ("We're arguing with you on security issues, even though we wanted ID cards and anti-terror laws before, especially as the IRA were blowing up us Tories!") It's embarrassing, really. It's like two bullies beating up on all the poor kids in school, nicking their pocket money, and taking the attacks in turns, trying to prove who's the hardest. Meanwhile, the good guys with strawberry blond hair watch from the other side of the playground, biding their time and waiting for the kids being picked on to call them over to help...

As I mentioned in my last blog, the Liberal Democrats opposed the attack on Iraq - unlike the New Labour - Conservative coalitionTM - and are promising to tax those who can afford it, introduce a local income tax, scrap tuition fees, endorse unions, and allow more immigrant workers into the country to cater for the workforce shortfall. They've even been commended by Greenpeace for their policies. The Lib Dems have fulfilled their destiny in being a legitimate opposition to the Big Two. And, even more interestingly, the Left now have a prominent party, too! Respect is led by George Galloway, after he walked out of the government for the attack on Iraq in spite of the right-wing press using false documents to portray the diplomat as dictator Saddam Hussein's mate.

But this issue is where the Lib Dems have failed: though Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy spoke at the history-making anti-war demo in Hyde Park on February 15th, 2003, once the bombs were dropped, the Lib Dems called for the country to support their troops, without requesting that they be brought back home. As George Galloway said, surely if you opposed a proposal, you oppose it even more when it is realized, and troops are dying for the reasons you opposed it?

Nonetheless, Tony Blair is for the first time in his political career feeling the heat. The majority has turned against him for sending our troops over to Iraq for no reason other than to nick oil for the Americans and the corporations, but, whilst still reading The Sun, has yet to realize his party's other screw-jobs on us all, and - particularly if The Sun switches sides again like it's been admitting it might - may vote Tory now instead. It's important that this does not happen, because there really is no damn difference. We know Blair's Thatcherite, but we also know that a real deal Tory is even worse (after all, the Tories were all for the attack on Iraq!) Remember the poll tax? Boy, that was a riot - literally! And it was Michael Howard's work. But for some reason he doesn't mention that on his campaign trail.

Tony Blair recently said, "the British people will decide; they're the boss." I say: "Damn right; we will decide, and we are the boss...but as you became guilty of insubordination after February 15th, 2003, we're firing you, you lying bastard!" In his inauguration speech this year, George Bush claimed America must extend the perimeters of freedom around the world, in fact using the word "freedom" twenty-seven times, and when the Pope died, Condoleezza Rice called him a great man for "contributing to the fall of communism and therefore freedom." What is this "freedom" they speak of? What does it mean?! Really, will somebody please explain this one to me?! I don't get it. I think it must be said because it sounds good, and that's all! And I don't know about you, but I hate it when old people try to use catchy words to look cool without knowing what they mean! "Freedom"? It's strangely Orwellian, because they also call the mass murder of 100,000 Iraqis for oil "liberation" from a dictator they themselves previously installed and supported. Given America's shocking scandalous election voting errors - and ours too - how can Bush and Blair talk about giving "democracy" to another country when they haven't exactly promoted it at home? We've been ignored, and yet the government is the only service you buy that you have to keep paying for, no matter what; if you refuse to pay up to this mob, you're taken care of...albeit in the courts. So think about it: Voting is the only power we've been left with, and if enough of us do so, any irregularities won't matter either. We'll choose who works for us as "the boss."

Obviously the BNP are Nazis, UKIP-on-the-couch and Verit-ass are weirdos, and we're not happy with this New Labour - Conservative coalitionTM either. So who's left? Well, there's the Liberal Democrats, of course, and then there's the Left themselves, Respect. But there are also parties like the Greens. I've provided links above so you can look at their policies and proposals, watch their political broadcasts, and make up your own mind. If you vote for the Liberal Democrats, you're creating the ultimate opposition, one that can and will be a big difference from the New Labour - Conservative coalitionTM that has depressed and oppressed us so much. And if you vote for Respect or the Green Party and the like, you're making a principled vote that will take votes away from New Labour, the Tories - and the Lib Dems as well, possibly allowing New Labour to remain in power, or the Tories to get in through the back door...but at least you'll have increased the votes for these parties of principle, and put their issues back on the political agenda.

There's an old saying: "A patriot must always be prepared to protect his country from its government." If you love this country like I do, you have to protect it, and you have to change this government, one way or another. And if New Labour remain in power? Well that may not mean much either, because you have to remember that the General Election in Britain is based on votes from 646 areas of the country, with each one choosing a Member of Parliament to represent them. This means that New Labour can win more of these seats to stay in power without necessarily being voted for by a majority of the people. So who cares? Just go and, as Brian Sedgemore said, "give Labour a bloody nose!" You know who to vote against, and the good thing is, for the first time in a long time, on May 5th you have a legitimate choice of who to vote for.

It's up to you.

- Jay Baker; Sheffield, England

Labels: BNP, Conservative Party, February 15th, Green Party, Liberal Democrats, Margaret Thatcher, New Labour, Respect, Rupert Murdoch, Skin, The Sun, Tony Blair, UKIP

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]