Archive for the ‘Uncategorised’ Category

New Poem – Existentialism

Posted: 29th June 2018 in Uncategorised

I’ve been delving in to a bit of philosophy lately; mainly through the existentialist works of Dostoevsky. After reading his novel and novella: Crime & Punishment and Notes from the Underground, its interesting how Dostoevsky was able to reflect – with such detail and veracity-  a sense of paranoia, hyper consciousness and an erratic level of self-esteem that was existent amongst some Russians in the 19th century. His theme of the human psyche being a natural flaw of creation is something that resonates very closely with our current crisis regarding mental health and how to treat it. Plus, the way in which he uses the adolescence of his characters to portray psychological development in turmoil reminds me of the current debate about teenagers and social media addiction.

I am no expert of Dostoevsky and his works, but the poem I wrote tries to reflect the contemporary problems that humans have with their social identity and how our notion of goodness is in conflict with our notion of freedom.

 

Can you hear the Jury grumbling as they take their seats?

The Judge cracks open the session with his bulletined order of events.

Like a tombstone of structured emotion, the prosecution states their case with a cackle of arrogance and bitter assumption.

“We are defending “the liberty of love” beckons the defence, but the patronising scoffs of despair and horror are normalised in this world of systematic tabling.

 

But I….feel nice here.

In my pot of soil.

On my patch of mud.

Withdrawn from production line patriotism,

And isolated from the sounds of their rules,

their reasons,

their judgements.

 

This pot gives me plenty of space to run,

I can feel its walls, but I can see freedom in the darkness.

And the silence echoes with a special…

“Thump, Thump”. Order! Order!

This striking sound of ‘justice’ deafens my minds(s).

One fails to recuperate such tranquil thoughts with the murmurs of an enlightened mob above them.

 

I do not infringe upon others movements,

The thought of asserting my morality gives me no amusement.

I have not relinquished my citizenship for a hovel of an existence.

But simply rekindled my sovereignty so that I could have independence.

 

I can hear the defendant interrogated and accused of a love based on guilt.

As if the prosecutor understands.. ,

Oh what castle of lies they have all built!

 

You see, in these worlds, grands delusions reign supreme.

Call whatever Witness to the stand.

They will testify to their own hypocrisy.

Offering perceptions born out of the fog and mist.

 

But in my dwelling, I provide no blurred convictions.

The love I hold, is not hollow but honest.

I am not swayed by unrelenting passions.

No bleakness can consume me,

because I have freed myself from my own harsh reality.

 

However, it seems that sentences must be carried out.

Children must be punished.

And yes, we must learn from our mistakes.

People need to have regrets,

and so we must control our own heartbreaks.

 

Though I live for the eternal, I can not forsake my liberty.

For my truth is powerful because it can shift.

It sustains my wriggle room in a life that constricts.

So when the jury makes their call, I will cackle in my chair.

For the courts can’t influence me, and their verdict is insincere.

bcc61b9c61b6ea363eb065c28d95917c

 

 

 

Advertisements

The British national newspapers today speak of Russian officials and members of the EU conspiring to create Brexit for private financial gain. This portrayal of a secret Russian lobby working to undermine our political system has been an ongoing theme for the past couple of years despite recent investigations proving otherwise – the Cambridge Analytica Brexit Scandal revealed a close connection between Cambridge Analytica and the United States Department, not the Kremlin. But recently I have become increasingly convinced, that a separate undermining of democracy is taking place, not necessarily by Brexiteers but by Remainers as well. The Italian political sitution is particularly disturbing for anybody who has respect for the political process in a “civilised” nation.

populism

Can populist governments make their citizens prosperous?

To be brief, following the newly announced right-wing coalition of the Five Star Movement and Lega, the Italian President Sergio Materrella prevented the legitimate appointment of FSM Paolo Savona as the Finance Minister. His reasoning was based on a notion that the political intentions of the new Finance Minister would jeopardise the market relationship between Italy and the Euro, which could lead to severe Italian economic decline. After much public/political pressure, a compromise was reached between the new Italian government and the President, but in my opinion the political ramifications may be devastating. The President’s actions demonstrate that the Italian constitution or perhaps all the constitutions of Europe are dependent on external economic affairs. As the historian and political commentator David Runciman said last week “In Italy, the Markets are sovereign”, if it is the markets sovereignty that is being rejected by the European people then why is the Italian President so willing to prop them up. Furthermore, it should not matter how Eurosceptic the Italian parties may be, they have earned their democratic right to hold office and to follow through their political programme. Much has been made regarding the xenophobic profile of the Lega and the FSM and perhaps the accusations are justified, but this does not mean you can ignore the strong mandate(60% combined vote) that they received in the general elections this year. To uphold the civil liberties of the Italian people, one must also respect the constitutional liberties of the Italian politicians, for representative democracy is only true gateway for progressive politics. We have all witnessed the tyranny of our dictators throughout history, from Stalin’s shady manourevering of political figures to the uprisings and coups that led to the Spanish Civil War; no one wants a return to an era where our political representatives are dismissed because of power and privilige.

italian president

Should the Italian President be impeached for violating the nation’s constitution?

The Act of Brexit was considered to be radical political decision, but the movements by the political parties to suppress Brexit is an undemocratic act with levels of regression that must be considered to be also politically radical. It was announced earlier today, that a Scottish Judge has rejected the call from a cross-party group to examine whether the European Court of Human Right can legally cancel Brexit. As the Judge mentioned, the very idea that a British parliamentary group is appealing to a European body to overrule a British decision is not only troubling for lawmakers, but it begs the question…at what level is democracy exercised? Which probably triggers the other underlying question, why is democracy so isolated within our political system? I was not in favour of Brexit, purely because I supported a movement for a Reformed progressive EU with some British contribution, but I was aware of its shortcomings; particularly its implementation of austerity throughout Europe and its excessively bureaucratic/undemocratic nature. But it now appears as if our own representatives are adhering to the Great European Project with little consideration for what Brexit could mean to this country. I had hoped that Brexit would be an opportunity to reshape our “unwritten” constitution in to something a little more beneficial to the country, perhaps a reformed relationship with the Single Market and Customs Union(that would reshape level and type of immigration we enforce) or perhaps a tweaking to some of the trade regulations for the coastal communities. But I realise this is a utopia that our government never aimed to enforce, instead our ministers are more concerned with ensuring that we are still tied in to the most corrupted parts of the European Union without having a voice in the European Parliament. Brexit (in my opinion) was never going to be an exciting prospect, but it did not have to be the failure it is turning in to. With a government that is more concerned with prosperity for its privileged elite, it is leaving its subjects dejected and without a truly democratic system through which to voice their frustrations.

(more…)

When we think of the essential services that the public rely and depend upon such as the health sector, firefighting service, education system police industry and the transport network, they are all perceived to be integral forces that support the safety and welfare of the British people. Regardless of the emergency, whether it is a protest, a national disaster or an act of homicide, all the victims, perpetrators and bystanders involved are entitled to an equal and fair treatment from the emergency services.

However it seems as if we are in the midst of making fundamental changes to one of our essential services. A new privatised police force called MylocalBobby will be rolling out their services across the nation after the “successful” trial period in three London boroughs (Kensington, Mayfair and Belgravia). Customers will simply have to pay roughly £200 per month and this will enable the client to hire a “police officer” who has the ability to make citizen arrests, investigate thefts and other matters of anti-social behaviour. I can understand how some may regard this as credible alternative to the corrupt and bureaucratic state police force, but I can only see this as the marketisation of the police and the encroaching two-tier system between the rich and the poor and their access to police.

methodesundaytimesprodwebbindbc66dea-3cd4-11e8-a9e1-b026dac05a85

MyLocalBobby – Could this be the future of British Policing?

A privatised police not only challenges the notion about equal access to emergency services, but it also raises questions about the principles regarding equality before the law; a concept that is meant to underpin our British constitution. If our police officers are enforcing the law based on a quality of service that you may or may not be able to pay for, then we will not have “equality before the law” but “wealth before the law”.

I also think that politically and historically these changes can be perceived as regressive step back to a more lawless, uncivilised and unstable period in history. When a public police force was created in 1829 it was under a backdrop of violent riots over political reform and rising crime in a densely populated London. It was initiated under the principle of fairness, equality and apolitical behaviour. The architect of the police – Robert Peel – stated that “The police seek and preserve public favor, not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating…friendship to all members of society without regard to their race or social standing“. But this is being overturned by an emerging private police force that is being supported by an idea of exclusivity, as the chair of the police federation has claimed ” “Policing is not a consumer or lifestyle issue. Nor should it be the exclusive domain of the wealthy. When Sir Robert Peel introduced the first full-time, professional and centrally-organised police force in the 1820s, that was not what he had in mind.”

However, with deep financial cuts to the police service and a clear loss of police officers, the resort to a privatised police force is becoming more attractive to the Establishment and the wealthy in society. One must take considerable caution at this growing trend, as history has proven how the lack of an organised public police force can cause chaos. The Peterloo Massacre occurred during a political demonstration in 1819 when the local magistrates ordered the military to arrest a radical orator and to disperse the crowd, but due to the intensity of the moment, the undisciplined nature of those armed forces and the confusion around the situation, 15 civilians were killed and many were injured. This was one of the defining events which motivated Prime Minister Robert Peel to create Metropolitan police force in 1829.

Peterloo-Mural-final-print-NEWS-FRIENDLY

Peterloo Massacre – Is this something we could witness in the future?

Now, I am not suggesting a diminished police force will result in a standing army willing to hack at anyone who causes disruption, but there are growing reports that local authorities are relying upon a militarised security force instead of standard police officers on patrol. We are told that they are there to prevent terror attacks, but with a growing unstable political climate and a society that is gaining the confidence to openly demonstrate against controversial measures, the potential for dangerous and violent confrontations is growing by the year. Our right to protest and to resist is seen as a fundamental right in British society but without the necessary measures and tools to ensure that demonstrations are carried out peacefully, we are thus denied the protection of a potentially rational police force and offered the unpredictability of a militarised one.

police4

Is this the path to a new standard of policing in Britain?

The police are designed for the public safety of all citizens and our historic right to protest, but if our government is weakening the the police’s ability to enforce those principles then it runs the risk of leaving us deprived of an essential emergency service.

They often say that a week is a long time in politics and that has certainly been the case for the past week. The government has had to apologize for its role in the Windrush Scandal in which hundreds of immigration documentation relating to migrants from the West Indies and beyond was purposefully deleted and additionally the government has to defend itself over its decision to bomb Syria over its “alleged” use of chemical weapons.

In my opinion, both of these events characterize the way in which the British government betray our historical tradition and the citizens that inhabit it.

I’ve just finished reading, “The English Atlantic in an Age of Revolution 1640 -1660” which illuminated the foundations for English influence across the world and explained the fluid nature of British identity. I feel as if this book is especially important and relevant to discuss and review, particularly in an environment when the military and civil prerogative of our government is being questioned and challenged with such frequent ferocity.

The English Atlantic is essentially a study that seeks to challenge our notion of transatlantic culture and the various political and social norms that have evolved over time. The author – Carla Gardina Pestana – links the so called “English Revolution” between Charles I and Parliament to the growth and development of the Americas. She purposefully mirrors the demise of monarchy in Britain to the rise of modernity in America. She eloquently explains – through the use of migrant testimonies and official accounts – how new forms of worship and religion were allowed to prosper throughout the continent, Carla neatly juxtaposes this religious freedom with the rise in restrictive trade barriers. The growth in restrictive trade was part of movement towards a centralised system of governance: enforced by Cromwell’s new republic in Britain. Carla actually goes further than many historians and actually asserts that this process of centralisation was the birth of the global network known as the British Empire. Interestingly but not surprisingly, as the republic grew in solidarity it relied upon illiberal labour sources like slavery and indentured servitude to strengthen the connections to its various colonies. Carla importantly explains that this turn towards centralisation affected its foreign policy, as the British republic sought to eradicate their European competitors (militarily and politically) to ensure they had unfettered access and influence over the regions they dominated.

book cover

This study underlines the importance of the “English Revolution” to the the evolution of the British Empire.

The essential element from The English Atlantic is that it outlines a transatlantic world whose liberty is transformed by the rise of an centralized power, this provides some interesting parallels and precedents for today’s political and social climate.

If we first explore the Ongoing Windrush Scandal there are some interesting comparisons. The Windrush Generation have consistently stated their wish to self-identify as British Citizens. James Green who was born in the West Indies but migrated to the UK in 1958 when he was 15 months says “Sixty years, it’s a long time. I’m an Englishman” and Nick Broderick who also arrived in the Uk as baby in 1962 “always thought [himself] as being English.” and indeed another member of the windrush generation has spoken in astonishment: “It was a shock because I have always thought I was legal, I was British. I have been here from when I was eight. I didn’t give it another thought.” There appears to be a consistent and accurate theme where these citizens do not perceive themselves as solely West Indian but as British Citizens first and foremost: they could have easily used the term ‘Commonwealth citizens’, but their self-identification as British is an expression of their allegiance and of their informal citizenship to Britain.

Like the Windrush Generation, English migrants to America in the seventeenth century envisioned themselves as British citizens first, however the central authorities in England did not interpret this identity in the same way. Although the Windrush generation arguably faced greater injustice – seeing as the British government are responsible for eroding their British status in the first place – , the seventeenth century migrants to America were also treated as subordinate members of this new British Empire even though they considered themselves to be English. As The English Atlantic notes “Given the unprecedented intrusiveness of the state…it might seem that the colonists who envisioned a more egalitarian Empire based on shared Englishness lost their battle…..“, this was despite the fact that colonists believed that their political and social sovereignty had been inherited upon their English citizenship, one Barbadian colonist often “considered it the liberty and privilege if the free-born English-Men to have an assembly election”. This denial of basic civil rights to seventeenth century colonists has similarities to the Windrush Generation and their inability to access subsidized healthcare and employment opportunities, it also demonstrates a historical trait for the British government to neglect the rights and liberties of their citizens regardless of their ethnic origin. There is also an element of irony in this situation if one considers the fact that when Cromwell created the idea of a Commonwealth in 1653, it was designed with vision of improving the “wealth” of the “commons” (people) across the Transatlantic Empire, and today we are witnessing citizens who are facing unjustified discrimination and deportation despite being born in a commonwealth nation. Furthermore, I believe this could also undermine the constitutional changes regarding immigration and the European Union. If EU migrants can see a history of injustice relating to the British State’s treatment of citizenship, why should they trust British government to give EU nationals the rights and liberties that they deserve post Brexit?

empirewindrushgett_3347461b

In the wake of the missile strikes by America, France and Britain on Syria, there has been lots of debate regarding the legitimacy and the legality of the decision to attack the Syrian state for their alleged use of chemical weapons. Jeremy Corbyn argued for something similar to a ‘War Powers Act’ that could possibly hold future governments to account when they perform a military action that might jeopardize the credibility and safety of the nation, however MP Jacob Rees Mogg responded by stating that any sort of policy to change Parliament’s influence over military affairs will require either an appeal or an amendment of the Armed Forces Act. The act does actually state that the power rests with the Prime Minister to put the armed forces in to combat and it doesn’t actually provide a mechanism for Parliament to intervene in military action. However, Corbyn should take Mogg on this suggestion and encourage the Labour Party to amend the Armed Forces Act as I believe there is historical precedent for Parliament to have a greater say in foreign policy. If we stick with Britain in the seventeenth century, there was was great turning point in 1653, when Parliament declared their sovereignty over the Monarchy when it came to dealing with military and foreign affairs. When Charles I was eventually defeated and executed in the Civil wars, Parliament legislated a new constitution which included one important clause:

When Parliament was sitting, the ordering of armed forces by sea and by land, for the peace and good of the three nations’ must be by the consent of Parliament”

 

20thCromweLL

When Cromwell (Main) defeated the King in 1648, he established Parliamentary sovereignty over Britain. How much power does today’s parliament really have?

Even though Oliver Cromwell was the defacto leader of this new parliamentarian regime, there was an essence of democracy which reflected the importance of wide-ranging consent and approval from the nation’s “representatives”. Unfortunately, this Instrument of Government was eventually repealed when the Monarchy was reinstated in 1660 and the King resumed his position as head of State. However the seventeenth century rhetoric surrounding the armed forces, parliament and domestic affairs is very relevant for the decision making process in present day British politics. In 1654, Cromwell desperately tried to fund his military campaign against the Spanish in the West Indies with parliamentary approval. He failed to get consent based on the weak economic condition of the country, it was stated “whence shall the means of it come? Our nation is overwhelmed with debts”. This has a striking resemblance to the argument that many present day MPs make about our government which seems to find the funds for military campaigns but is simultaneously refusing to invest in to vital public services because of “austerity”.

Labour MP Ed Poole stated

“Notice how everyone wants to know how Labour will fund free buses for under-25s but no one asks Theresa may how we are going to fund bombing Syria”

images

Why do we so often prioritize our military affairs over our domestic ones?

This demonstrates that Parliament should have a much more considerable influence not simply on whether it is legitimate to punish a foreign state for their alleged war crimes, but based on whether those resources could be better invested in the British public services that are known to be underfunded and under supported. Parliament has a historic record of challenging sovereign political authority for the benefit of the nation, this was proven in 2013 when Cameron lost a crucial parliamentary vote to send missile strikes on Syrian soil. That result came about because of the suspicion surrounding the rebel forces in Syria and their ambiguous legitimacy to overthrow the Assad government. Currently, we have encountered the same stumbling block as there is apparently lack of official evidence from the OPCW regarding the Chemical Attacks in Douma. It may be time for Parliament to increase its ability to scrutinize the government over the military decisions that they adopt.  Obviously the intelligence that the Prime Minster and the cabinet holds is vital to the decision making process but the government must also take in to consideration the mood of the nation and whether engaging in military conflict is in the population’s best interests. And here it must be noted that Parliament – in its entirety –  is the only institution that has the capability to represent the population’s best interests.

 

 

 

 

My new poem as part of my Glitzy(Glitchy) Paradise series.

https://onemanwolfpackdot.wordpress.com/2018/04/08/journey-to-the-infinite/

The Origins of St Patrick’s Day

National holidays have been occurring for centuries, they’re not unusual to the general public but to me they’ve often seemed like a strange phenomenon. The mystery lies often with the connotations that are ignored, forgotten or lost within the distractions of the celebratory glitz and glamour. Take St Patrick’s day for example, the day is often used to commemorate Irish solidarity, heritage and culture; but what I have always wondered, is which elements of Irish heritage are being celebrated? Are we here to remember all the divisive parts of Irish culture as well as its solidarity? St Patrick is supposed to celebrate the achievements of the Christian Priest himself and his life as a missionary to missionary to Ireland as well. This therefore illustrates Ireland’s christian history and withdraws the Irish people from their mythological roots. But this distinction is often ignored during the celebrations, with the fantastical Leprechauns paraded around Christian symbols and buildings like the Irish churches and the cross. One could argue that the introduction of the leprechaun and other fairies from Irish folklore is simply about commemorating the universality and the depth of Irish nationalism, and this is understandable given the divisive nature of the Irish past. But surely this only seeks to detach St Patrick’s day from its true religious origins? If we want to understand and enjoy the entirety of Irish history, then perhaps there is a need to reinvent our demonstration of Irish pride. I have often spoken about the fluid nature of national identity, but when it comes to the commemoration of historical figures we should attempt to be as accurate as possible so that we do not blur legacy of our forefathers.

st 1patricksday

Is this really what St Patrick’s day is about?

Brexit Troubles

With St Georges day also approaching, the British national identity maybe on its own path of reinvention. With discussions around the Irish Border heating up, there is a growing talk of a border being formed in the Irish Sea essentially allowing Northern Ireland to retain its access to the single and customs market in conjunction with the Irish Republic. Some Brexiteers and Remainers see this as a path to the eventual break up of United Kingdom which I think would be a radical shake up of our national unity.

The Tory MP and prominent Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg, has criticised the warning that creating a Hard Irish border to separate South and Northern Ireland could reignite the Troubles. He claims that simply making that historical link is an encouragement of violence. Whilst I agree that it is premature to believe that Ireland would simply revert back to its violent and chaotic past, I do believe there needs to be some acknowledgement that creating such split on the Irish land has psychological consequences for the Irish people. It reinforces the image of Ireland being in constant civil strife and it could undermines the relatively healthy relationship that both regions of Ireland have shared recently. Many young adults in Southern and Northern Ireland have little to no recollection of the Troubles and influences it has had on Irish development, this has enabled them to live a harmonious live with their Irish neighbours. But history has often demonstrated how quickly peace and cooperation can descend in to division and conflict, thus we should never underestimate mankind’s ability to be regressive and self-destructive.

On the other hand, a border in the Irish Sea could seriously challenge the framework of the United Kingdom, given how attractive Northern Ireland may be to those seeking to maintain their link with the European Union. Furthermore with the growing regional disunity within the United Kingdom – as seen by the EU referendum – the creation of a hard border may persuade other British regions to secede themselves from the central government. Either way, some sort of border needs to be erected in or around the United Kingdom, the economical operations of our nation requires it. Whether this will transform our national identity remains to be seen, but this radical step towards greater independence has raised questions of allegiance and sovereignty, which must be addressed.

msm-liberal-media-leftist-propaganda-control-politics-1322033990

Has the Alternative Media become as manipulative as the Mainstream News Outlets?

As someone who has grown to be quite disgusted with the corporate and elitist nature of mainstream media outlets (MSM), I have found myself drawn to sources of alternative news. It wasn’t simply because they discussed subversive and thought-provoking topics, it was also because they exposed the blatant lies that MSM outlets espouse on a daily basis. It became refreshing to learn about subjects on politics, history and the economy that the MSM wouldn’t even dare to mention. It wasn’t necessarily the “sensationalist” conspiracy theories about Lizards that I was attracted to; as it was enlightening stories about international banking cartels, deeply suspicious foreign policies and the stealthy attacks on our democracy that drew me in. And one of the great things about the Alternative Media was that they operated outside of the LeftvsRight paradigm whereas the MSM are persistent in their divisive propaganda and bias to serve their establishment agenda.

But this once thriving community of alternative opinions and well researched journalism has transformed into a toxic environment that is full of hate, a lot of virtue-signalling and full of “headline-grabbing” material. Intelligent and rational discussions on immigration have descended into xenophobic and racist ramblings, important questions regarding security at Mass homicides has turned into ludicrous discussions about ‘dummies’ and ‘fake blood’. Some of these news outlets have even become gradually reluctant to discuss the financial and political scandals that occur at the very highest echelons of the elite society. These Media outlets such as Infowars, Milo Yiannopoulos and  Paul Joseph Watson’s YouTube channels are a blatant example of this, as they often tap in to the negativity of a situation and bring out the darkness out of it without offering any clear solutions. It is unclear how this transformation of the alternative media has come about, I think it is too simplistic to blame this entirely on Brexit and Trump. Perhaps this is closer to our human desire to be controversial and to change ourselves into enemies rather than to be reasonable allies. History has shown a tendency for society to fabricate the truth in order to gain attention and popularity, back in Seventeenth century England a newspaper called Mercurius Bellicus tried to improve their readership by reporting on the execution of Charles I in 1648, a year before his actual death. This was done to stoke interest and create controversy at time when the transmission of information was slow and people were desperate to for any sort of new on civil unrest. The modern era still offers some credible alternative news outlets that provide well researched and open minded conversations. The activist/writer David Icke and the Journalist – Richie Allen seem to offer balanced and insightful debate that does not rely upon the ‘cult of the personality’, I don’t always agree with their viewpoints but they always use critical thinking as an essential element of their reporting. Unfortunately both of these outlets have suffered from demonetisation on YouTube and have even faced smear campaigns based on unfounded hate crimes. 

The demise of the Alternative Media presents a bad path for the future of radicalism. The writer Asbjørn Wahl has recently claimed, that to solve our current social crises “any party of the left will need to have more radical alternatives, visions and solutions – very different from the political centre or the right“. How are we meant to deliver a true radical programme for the people, if our ‘alternative’ media have resorted to the same regressive and divisive rhetoric that is characteristic of Mainstream media outlets like The Daily Mail or the Daily Mirror? Being confrontational is something which should be encouraged for journalists, academics and politicians alike, as it allows us to challenge the status quo instead of being afraid to touch upon difficult topics. However this does not legitimatise the Alt-right(or the Alt-Left) to falsify information and to make the style of your reporting more important than the substance. If we have lost our grip on making Radicalism an ideology of integrity,  then it is down to us to ensure that our alternative, unorthodox and independent media does not fall down the dangerous path of the Mainstream Media.

https://onemanwolfpackdot.wordpress.com/2018/02/16/the-deliquents-dance/

I wrote this poem very recently touching upon the issue of public resistance. Although the poem discusses the pitfalls as well as the positives of protest, it gives an interpretation about the true nature of humanity’s desire to refuse and also asks some questions about why we have so many protests with such little positive, practical outcomes.

Resistance is important. How we execute it, is vital.

 

https://onemanwolfpackdot.wordpress.com/2017/12/02/glitzy-glitchy-paradise-part-1/

This is actually a poem that I wrote a little while ago, it was my first attempt at mixing Science Fiction, History and Radical Politics together in a captivating way. I plan to make an entire saga of poems in the future based on Glitzy (Glitchy) Paradise. Whilst it is difficult, it is important to try and broaden our horizons when we write creatively; the process often make us stumble across something wonderful, disturbing or intriguing. In a world where people are often afraid to challenge their own principles or values, this can prove to be a valuable tool.

c964e2b02713428f3e5622f46c206e7b