How the NHS was Infiltrated by the Middle Class!


The British National Health Service (NHS) was initiated in 1948 by the incumbant Labour Government as part of an extensive ‘Socialist’ reshaping of British culture following WWII. Although not a Socialist Revolution in essence or intention, this compromise with capitalism was designed to alleviate the greater burden of inequality that existed throughout the working class. The capitalist system and its class differentiations ensure that a minority middle and upper classes retain control of the means of production, the political system, the legal system, the police and the armed forces. The majority working class – which provides all the ‘labour’ that fuels society – suffers from poor wages, poor living conditions, poor education and shortened life expectancy. Through a radical re-distribution of wealth, welfare and medical resources were made available to the working class paid for through taxation, and provided ‘free’ at the point of use. The NHS worked on the principle that there were grave inequalities within capitalist society, and that when working class people presented themselves at their GP, it did not matter who they were or what their station in life was – they were entitled to top-notch and ‘free’ medical treatment delivered by healthcare professionals. The GP was not interested in the patient’s social background, but only in alleviating pain and suffering. Today, as the Tories continue to privatise the NHS, this situation has completely changed. Gone is the Socialist idea that inequalities within society cause psychological and physiological illnesses within the working class irrespective of lifestyle, and in its place is the bourgeois notion that illness is the consequence of personal lifestyle choices. This change marks the infiltration of the once Socialist NHS with a thoroughly middle class attitude formulated through centuries of privilege and arrogance. It ignores entirely that capitalist society is unequal and unfair, and that these destructive political, social and cultural forces conspire to adversely affect the psychological and physical health of the working class. If you are ill because of the manner in which society treats you, today’s GPs mark this as a personal failing on your part, caused by the bad decisions you make. Of course, middle class people who access the NHS already adhere to this hyper individualistic view of the world, and can afford to live stress-free lives whilst sipping their designer coffees down the local gym. For such people, their wealth and social status does indeed allow them to purchase a good and comfortable lifestyle, and if they do not like the attitude of their middle class GP, they can always ‘pay’ for a second opinion. GPs working in the modern NHS are nothing more than medicalised accountants tasked with excluding as many people from the NHS as possible as a means to save money. Instead of acknowledging that social pressure causes illnesses, these new GPs blame the individuals for the ailments they suffer. In this regard, these new GPs continue the centuries old bourgeois project of dominating the working class at the point contact.

Deficient Individualism: How the Police Operate


As an institute, the concept of the ‘modern’ police developed in Scotland in 1800, and spread throughout the British Isles. This model of policing now exists all over the world. During the Industrial Revolution (form around 1750 onwards), immense wealth was generated for the middle class which possessed the means of production. The middle class possessed the wealth and social status which granted it the economic, political and cultural power to put its ideas into practice (a further product of receiving a good education). The middle class designed and had built the machines which were placed into the buildings (i.e. ‘factories’) that it owned, and ran these establishments continuously over a 24hr period. The machines were operated by the peasantry whose cottage industries had been destroyed by the industrialisation process. The peasants headed en mass into the cities and towns to be employed in very bad conditions and long hours, as a means to prevent death from hunger and destitution. The middle class treated this ‘new’ working class in a despicable manner and paid them little in return for their long hours of dangerous work (this included the exploitation of young children). The middle class paid probably about 10% of the profit generated to the working class, and amassed the other 90% for themselves. This process of production and exploitation continued day in and day out, year after year. The middle class became overly abundant with their accumulated wealth, whilst the workers who made the profit sunk ever deeper into abject poverty, illness, injury and early death. As the workers started to agitate for better working conditions, and as certain elements of the working class took it upon themselves to ‘steal’ back the profit already stolen from them by the middle class, the middle class representatives in Parliament (the workers could not vote), started to heed calls for a body of government representatives at all levels of society, from he village to city and beyond. The Greek word the ‘city state’ and its authority is ‘Polis’, therefore the British government put forth the idea that the middle class would be protected from the working class by a government body empowered to ‘arrest’ and ‘prosecute’ with impunity. This is how the middle class British ‘invented’ the ‘police’. The police exist to protect the middle class interests in society (such as private property and wealth), and oppress and suppress the working class population so that it cannot a) band together and over-throw the middle class, or b) attain any type of independent political or cultural power (other than the ‘token’ representation granted by the middle class). The police are trained a priori to behave like a stern Victorian-type ‘father figure’ whose authority cannot be questioned by his underlings without the fear of arbitrary and/or violent reproach. The police are paid to reduce society to the status of single individuals ensnared in the all-powerful presence of the police. This represents the middle class view of the world, where ‘individuals’ are already empowered by wealth and status. This explains why the police employ two distinct methods for dealing with the general public. For a wealthy, land-owning middle class person, the police approach carefully and with respect (as such people have access to effective lawyers). In this scenario, the police effectively ‘negotiate’ with middle class people of interest, because such people represent the class that created the police to protect their own best class interests. This represents the police responding to ’empowered’ individualism. As the working class band together into ‘unions’ for self-defence and collective bargaining, the police refuse to acknowledge this ‘Socialist’ outlook. The police do not negotiate with working class people of interest, and have no interest in contacting union leaders. Instead, each working class person is reduced to the level of bourgeois individualism, but as each working class person does not possess wealth or property, the police interpret this individualism as ‘deficient’, and act accordingly. With every encounter, the historical dynamic of the 19th century is played-out yet again in the present. The potentially dangerous working class must be kept in its place by any number of legal or lawful sophistries, so as to prevent the middle class losing its wealth, power and property. When it is obvious that a police officer has broken the law he or she is paid to uphold – the State simply declares such a suspect ‘not guilty’. The suspect is then congratulated and promoted as a demonstration of who holds the power within bourgeois society. The working class does not want bourgeois individualism and is alienated by its concept. This is exactly why the police project this concept upon the working class as an intimidatory tactic. As many officers are recruited from working class backgrounds, these workers become individuals who are granted ‘limited’ access to the middle class world they would usually remain permanently excluded from. This is the reward they are granted for turning upon their own class.

The Eurocentric Myth of John Titor: ‘White’ American Time-Traveller


I am not going to over-analyse this topic, which comes-up every now again. John Titor materialised on the early internet during 2000-2001. The details can be read on a number of websites, but the gist of the story is that John Titor claimed to be a time-traveller from the near future – 2036 – who, as part of a special military unit, was tasked with travelling back in time to collect a specific IBM computer from 1975. When his forum postings stopped in late 2001, it was thought that he had returned to his time. Like any myth, the story has expanded with some claiming John Titor visited as early as 1998 and sent a number of faxes, and that he may have re-surfaced in 2009. Whatever the case, there is now a story that his parents (whom he visited in 2000-2001), now have a lawyer, and have gone into hiding – but not before publishing a book about their ‘son’ and his time-travelling ways! Of course, none of this is provable and even his supposed parents (or the lawyer for that matter) can not be found. Like a religion, lack of evidence has become proof of truth. The ‘real’ person who wrote the posts in 2000-2001, did so over a number of forums in the days before search-engines, and so today this body of literature can be read in its entirety. This individual pursued a ‘script’ with a definite story-line – which he kept to – regardless of forum visited. None of his ‘predictions’ were right. This is despite many contemporary followers of Titor claiming that things have developed ‘sort of’ like he said. The reality is that none of his very precise predictions about the future cane true in anyway. Titor was well prepared for this, as he also stated that there are a number of different time-lines in the future, and our time-line (despite him being in it), may not be the same as the future he had already lived. So far, so good. A stranded time-traveller who happens to be hanging-out with his mum and dad – whilst on his way back to a future he can describe in detail, but yet cannot ‘predict’ in any meaningful manner!

What is interesting, is that John was apparently unaware of his own ‘Slavic’ surname, which is found mostly throughout Russia today, with a small number spread throughout the world. This is how a Russian online genealogy forum defines and describes the surname ‘Titor’ (Титор):

‘The name Titor is derived from the nickname Titor. The nickname “Titor” comes from the nominal “Titar”. In the southern and western dialects this word has the meaning of “church elder”. Most likely, the ancestor of the owner of this family name was a clergyman.’

(Фамилия Титор ведет свое начало от прозвища Титор. Прозвище Титор происходит от нарицательного «титарь». В южных и западных диалектах это слово имеет значение «церковный староста». Скорее всего, предок обладателя этой фамилии был церковнослужителем.)

This is despite the fact that he mentions Russia using nuclear weapons on the cities of the US – apparently as part of Russia supporting one side in a ‘new’ American Civil War. The author of John Titor’s scribblings is obviously a ‘White’ American, as he uses the usual anti-Chinese rhetoric in describing that country – claiming that Communist China invades Korea and Japan, but suffers a military defeat at the hands of ‘White’ Australia! This is pursuing the age-old racist idea that China and her people are racially and culturally inferior, and although they may ‘bully’ other Asian countries, when they encounter the superior ‘White’ race and culture – they are invariably defeated. This is the usual bourgeois, Eurocentric attitude prevalent in the US today, and not an attitude indicative of a ‘new’ future where all the ‘old’ ways of viewing the world have been smashed and transcended. For a non-White person reading Titor’s posts, it is obvious that the narrative that he builds for the future is ethnically biased and symbolic of contemporary racist attitudes prevalent amongst many White communities. This should not be surprising for a man who does not even know the Slavic origins of his own surname.


George Orwell: Trotskyite and Arch Traitor to the Left!


George Orwell was a middle class White man born into the heart of British imperialism in India – as his father was an official who managed the the export of opium grown in India – which was exported to the British Authorities stationed in China, where it was distributed throughout the population of China. Of course, as a member of a privileged class he went to Eton – an exclusive ‘Public’ school for the children of the rich and powerful in the UK. Following this, and acting fully inaccordance with his bourgeois leanings, George Orwell became a Colonial Police Officer – whose job it was to enforce the British imperialist presence in that country. As his family possessed wealth, he was able to live a life of leisure – writing here and there – after leaving the Colonial Police Force. During the Spanish Civil War, he joined a Trotskyite militia whose main function was to combat the Soviet International Brigades – whilst pretending to be fighting the fascists. The (Socialist) Republican government disbanded this militia for proven collaboration with General Franco’s fascist forces – but of course, George Orwell denies this real function. In fact, in 1938, Leon Trotsky called upon his followers to actively collaborate with the forces of International Fascism as a means of over-throwing the democratic, capitalist countries – and the Soviet Union. When returning to the UK – Orwell embarked upon an embittered anti-Soviet tirade with his ‘Animal Farm’ and ‘1984’ books being attempted ‘ahistorical’ Trotskyite critiques of the Soviet Union. As a White bourgeois male who had benefited from his class and colour, Orwell possessed a turn of phrase that has captivated many – but beware of exactly what it is that you are admiring! Like all Trotskyites – Orwell’s leftism is a charade behind which a true rightwing agenda is hidden. His mission was to attack and bring down the Soviet Union (for Trotsky), whilst undermining through misrepresentation, the Scientific Socialism of Marxist-Leninism. As his establishment-friendly rhetoric matched perfectly with the developing anti-Soviet Cold War ideology of post-WWII, Orwell became an establishment figure in the UK and across the capitalist world. Instead of being scene as he truly was – as an opportunistic Trotskyite – George Orwell is often (and mistakenly) interpreted to be some kind of political and literary genius! In reality, like all Trotskyites, Orwell strove to support the racist and oppressive bourgeois establishment. His books are nothing but Cold War trash written for brain-washing small children!

Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) – Deconstructing a Trotskyite

Author Christopher Hitchens

‘Of course, I do everything for money.’

(Christopher Hitchens)

Christopher Hitchens was born a privileged bourgeois (i.e. middle class) person, who was educated in Britain’s public school, before attending Oxford University and reading philosophy, politics and economics. As a student, he was a Member of the Labour Party, before being expelled in 1967 for opposing the Vietnam War. It is logical to assume that at this time in his life, his ideological viewpoint was defined as Marxist-Leninist, as he certainly espoused an opposition to capitalist war, imperialism, colonialism and racism. However, all this changed when he encountered the work of Soviet dissident Victor Serge, although it is certainly true that Hitchens had been taken with the works of George Orwell before that time. His conversion to the religion of Trotskyism can be traced through a foundation laid by George Orwell’s anti-Soviet writings, confirmed and strengthened by Victor Serge’s direct ideological inv olvement with the counter-revolutionary movement of Leon Trotsky. When Trotsky’s power grab in the Soviet Union failed in the mid-1920’s (following the death of Lenin), Trotsky switched tactics to that of attempting to’bring down’ and ‘destroy’ the USSR from within, fuelling discontent and rebellion throughout a Soviet population whose lives had improved immeasurably since the 1917 Russian Revolution. The capitalist West, seeing an opportunity to destroy the Soviet Union, assisted the Trotskyite movement from without, in an attempt to ferment a counter-revolution that would destroy Soviet Communism, and initiate a modern (bourgeois left) capitalist society administered by Trotsky and his cronies. Victor Serge was one of these cronies – whose counter-revolutionary activities are falsely eulogised by the Trotskyite left, where every villain is transformed into a hero.

The defining feature of Trotskyism is its dishonesty. Trotskyites share a common ideological bond with Adolf Hitler in that both assume that ‘lying’ is a legitimate political activity. This dishonesty is most obvious in the reluctance of Trotskyite groups and individuals to openly admit their ‘Trotskyite’ affiliations. This is a mainstay in the Trotskyite left’s ability to continue to attract and recruit the politically naive, and the easily led, by ‘pretending’ that they alone represent the ‘true’ Communist movement. If this were true, why not clearly state on all descriptive literature that such movements are ‘Trotskyite’ in nature? Trotskyites do not openly advertise their ideological affiliations because they know that as soon as it is understood that they follow the bourgeois left ideology of Trotskyism, it is also understood that such movements do not, in fact, follow revolutionary Marxism or Leninism. Trotskyites do not clearly state their ideological affiliation because such an honest and open policy would immediately indicate their bourgeois, corrupt, and counter-revolutionary status. The point of such people as George Orwell, Victor Serge and Christopher Hitchens, is to sully true revolutionary working class politics, and replace it with a bourgeois sham, or parody of ‘revolution’, where everything stays the same for the workers, but the White middle class feel better about themselves. A study of the life of Christopher Hitchens, is in fact a study of the ‘fetishisation’ of the revolutionary path of the working class, by a White, privileged, middle class man, who thought that what he had to say as an individual member of the bourgeoisie, was more important than the ‘collective’ revolutionary path of the working class. The hypocrisy that underlay Hitchens’ later political mercenariness, can be clearly discerned by his backing of New Labour’s neo-colonial ‘oil’ wars in the Middle East, and his whole-sale abandonment of anti-racism and peace activism (strong elements within Marxist-Leninism).

As his Trotskyism allowed for the distortion and misinterpretation of Marxism, Hitchens became something of a mouthpiece justifying ‘Islamophobia’ from the British left. This essentially racist attitude mirrored that of Trotsky, and as the mainstream press in the West was busy peddling anti-Muslim racism, Hitchens – as a White member of the privileged Bourgeoisie – was invited to express his anti-Islamic views throughout the UK and USA media – gaining much right-wing support in the process. Hitchens’ racism toward non-White people was camouflaged by a thin veneer that masqueraded as a Marxist critique of religion. However, this perversion of interpretation demonstrates exactly how Trotskyites misrepresent the very Marxism they claim to uphold. This is because Trotskyites exist within a ‘deluded’ interpretation of material reality, which is in fact a ‘mirage’. Trotskyites actually occupy a parody of historical materialism, where they firmly operate through the very inverted mind-set that Marx exposed as the basis of the bourgeois class. This is why the Trotskyite interpretation of Marxism is not ‘Marxist’, but rather a bourgeois inversion designed to disempower the working class, prevent the working class from uniting, and present ‘racism’ as real, religion as ‘evil’. Marx never said religion was ‘evil’ (as he rejected such Judeo-Christian notions as ‘good’ and ‘evil’), as Hitchens’ suggests, in fact Marx stated that theistic religion is a product of an inverted imagination, and that once this is abandoned, the human intellect begins to function the ‘right way around’. The working class throws-off the yoke of inverted religion ‘collectively’, and not with a personal age to grind, as suggested by the behaviour of Hitchens throughout his life. The bourgeois delusion that Hitchens presents, is that of a White bourgeois, who can, through the weight of his class privilege, gain access to State media and perpetuate his particular creed of middle class sentimentality. His pointless middle class ‘fetish’ attacks on religion (often facilitated by an equally ‘Trotskyite’ BBC), were only matched in their deluded sophistry by his attacks on the USSR and its history. These two attacks often ‘blended’ when Hitchens tried to laughingly convince the Western world that Lenin and Stalin were ‘religionists’ that founded and administered an ‘atheistic’ Soviet State. His lies about the Soviet Union are many and numerous and would justify a separate study. Suffice to say, Hitchens was a bourgeois Trotskyite who dedicated his life to destroying any genuine working class revolution by reducing all politics to the fetish of the capitalist individual.

The Plight of the Artist


Furthermore, the commodification and commercialization of a market for cultural purposes during the nineteenth century (and the concomitant decline of aristocratic, state, or institutional patronage) forced cultural producers into a market form of competition that was bound to reinforce processes of ‘creative destruction’ within the aesthetic field itself. This mirrored and in some instances surged ahead of anything going on in the political-economic sphere.  Each and every artist sought to change the bases of aesthetic judgement.  It also depended on the formation of a distinctive class of ‘cultural consumers.’Artists, for all their predilection for anti-establishment and anti-bourgeois rhetoric, spent much more energy struggling with each other and against their own traditions in order to sell their products than they did engaging in real political action.

Harvey, David, The Condition of Postmodernity, Blackwell, (2000), Page 22

Rightwing Bigotry Never Invented Anything!


If it wasn’t for the fact that Albert Einstein was so clever, I am sure the United States would have expelled him, and banned him from re-entering the country.  Furthermore, the US authorities may well have opted for ‘assassination’, to stop a possible ‘defection’ to the Soviet Union  – particularly after Einstein conclusively condemned the modern Zionist State of Israel from it inception.  Einstein was one of the greatest minds created by humanity (and evolution), and in his considered intellectual opinion, capitalism was stupid because it keeps people in a deliberate state of ‘exploitable’ arrested development, as the last thing the exploiters want, is for the exploited to realise and understand what is going on.  Einstein, as a genius, stated quite plainly and clearly that the Socialist path is the scientifically ‘superior’ path for humanity, so if the greatest thinker of our age (or any age) thinks this, then why hasn’t Western society listened to him?  After-all, the Western establishment has been quite happy to ‘steal’ Einstein’s scientific ideas and sell them for profit, but nevertheless steers clear of his preference for Socialism.  Einstein was perfectly correct, or course. Humanity has evolved together in the past, and for it to progress in the future, its must evolve ‘collectively’ yet again.  Capitalism, with its emphasis upon exploitable individuality, runs philosophically and biological counter to the natural forces of evolution, whereas the Scientific Socialism of Marx and Engels runs entirely inaccordance with it.  Capitalism, with its incessant ‘greed’ for personal wealth keeps humanity as a whole  dumbed-down, and unable to effectively ‘imagine’ and ‘think’. Capitalism, and those wedded to it, are inherently ‘stupid’ because that is the default setting of ‘greed’.  Humans living within bourgeois society mostly conform without any sense of awareness or objectivity, but occasionally, individuals do rise to the top, being able to ‘transcend’ the conditionality of their circumstances.  This is the development of a Socialist mind-set within the capitalist system, and can be used to precipitate a system-wide Revolution of thinking and behaving.  It is only through Socialist thinking that humanity can scientifically progress, this is why the Soviet Union was technologically far ahead of the West, and why Communist China is now leading the world.  One thing is for sure, being happy to wallow in capitalist indifference, is simply being happy to be in one’s prison cell, even though the door is perpetually ‘open’.  Such stupidity!

China Unsettles Western Imperialism


The bourgeois, racist, imperialist West is running scared of modern, Communist China.  It is running scared because despite a tremendous propaganda drive against the so-called ‘threat’ of Communism, all the anger and hatred the greedy bourgeoisie could muster, with its false words, bombs and bullets, could not dislodge China in the manner in which it brought down the Soviet Union in 1991.  Make no mistake about it, anti-Chinese racism has been a key ingredient in the attack on China and her chosen path of Scientific Socialism.  So potent has this racialised anti-Communist policy been that even Chinese people living outside of China mindlessly trumpet the White racist attitudes of the imperialists toward their fellow ethnic brothers and sisters in Mainland China, not realising that they to are viewed as racially inferior by the very same White masters they serve.  The White imperialists laugh at the success of this ‘divide and conquer’ tactic, rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of a ‘Chinese-led’ counter-revolution.  So potent has this racialised anti-Communist policy been that a ‘racist’ anti-China rhetoric is now evident in many strands of Black Nationalist ideology, the African and African diasporic narrative now mimicking the racist propaganda of the White imperialists, are taking-on without thought, the Western notion that Chinese Communists exist to ‘exploit’ Black people, and take away their freedom – the very things White imperialists have historically already done to Black people, and continue to do.  However, although China as a nation and an ethnicity must face this racial onslaught alone, all is not lost, as China is on the correct dialectical path of self-achieved freedom through a Marxist-Leninist Revolution, as perpetuated by Mao Zedong.  No matter what racist lies the White imperialists concoct, China is reading history (and historical trends) correctly, in exactly the non-inverted manner that Marx (and Engels) envisioned, no  more and no less.  As the West operates from an ‘inverted’ mind-set, its greed obsessed ideologues are unable to perceive or acknowledge this truth, and so are unable to do anything about it.  The White imperialists, however, simply stick to their predictable racism and lies as a means to topple Communist China – a policy that is not working.  As a result, China is moving ahead in all technological and scientific fields, and leaving the West behind.

Cecil John L’Estrange Malone – UK’s First Communist MP


Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone – 1925

Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone not only served as an officer in the Royal Navy in the early 1900’s, he was also amongst the first few to learn how to fly early military aircraft (gaining his Royal Aero Certificate in 1912), becoming a pioneer of naval aviation.  He also served in the British Army where he reached the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel, and during during WWI he was a Commander in the Royal Navy and eventually awarded the Order of the British Empire (OBE). His extraordinary military career spanned the Royal Navy (RN), the Royal Navy Air Service (RNAS), the Royal Airforce (RAF) and the British Army.   In the 1918 British General Election, Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone was elected Coalition Liberal MP for East Leyton.  He travelled to the Soviet Union during September, 1919, (whilst the UK was still involved with the USA and many other countries, attempting to destroy Bolshevism during the Russian Civil War), and met with many leading lights (including the then Bolshevik supporter Leon Trotsky) who showed him around the factories, villages and cities, where he witnessed first-hand the transformation that Communism had brought to the Russian people. This experience converted him to the Marxist-Leninist cause, and upon his return to the UK, he joined the British Socialist Party which soon transformed into the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB). Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone appears to have left the Liberal cause and formally presented himself to Parliament as a ‘Communist’ in 1920.  In this sense, he became the first ‘Communist’ MP in the UK by default.  However, in the 1922 General Election, ‘Communists’ campaigning as Labour Party candidates would win two more seats by popular vote.  He spent much of his time calling for Russia to be left alone by the Western capitalists, and attempting to affiliate the Bolshevik Communist Party of Great Britain with the Parliamentary Labour Party – but failed to achieve this objective.  Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone gave a speech at the Albert Hall on November 7th, 1920, defending the Bolshevik Revolution and stating that the working class had a right to defend itself from the military forces of the bourgeoisie – killing those forces in self-defence if need be.  For this he was charged with, (and found guilty of) sedition, stripped of his OBE and imprisoned for six months.  What decided his fate was that he said that executing people like the rightwing Winston Churchill (and others) would be beneficial in the long-run for the working class.  Not long after this, Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone left the CPGB and joined the Independent Labour Party (affiliated to the Parliamentary Labour Party).  He failed to win a parliamentary seat in the 1924 General Election, but was returned to Parliament as a Labour MP for Northampton in the 1928 By-Election.  As he was considered an important historical figure within the British Communist Movement, the British Battalion of leftwing volunteers during the Spanish Civil War was named after him.  The following Times Obituary deliberately omits the details of Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone’s conversion to the Communist cause, his visit to the USSR, and the fact that he was the first Communist MP in the UK – but instead paints an entirely false bourgeois picture for its conservative-minded readers:


 Further reading:


Police as Functional Class Oppression

The police represent the class interests of the bourgeoisie (middle class), and its purpose is to suppress and oppress the working class by upholding a system of bourgeois law that is antagonistic to working class interests.  The false justifying mythology that sustains this abusive relationship is that the police are benevolent, and have the best interests of the ordinary people at heart.  This has created the further mythology that the police are always correct, never wrong, and beyond reproach.  This is the bourgeois obsession with religion being reproduced in its notion of a ‘perfect’ police force, the members of which are believed to behave like ‘Jesus’.  In the meantime the continuous evidence is that the police readily break the law it enforces, which often involves the maiming and killing of those unfortunate enough to fall into its grasp (even the disabled are not immune from this murderous ill-treatment).  When killing and maiming is not pursued, the police retain a constant level of emotional and psychological oppression aimed at all whom they encounter.  Whereas working class people are treated with disdain, those of the middle class that comes under suspicion are treated with deference and respect.  The police are a major component of the bourgeoisie’s attempt at retaining their ill-gotten wealth (stolen from the working class), in keeping an oppressive status quo that is designed to prevent individual members of the working class uniting to effectively fight the bourgeoisie and the police it has created.  The police prevent the working class from progressing into a state of Socialism (which would overthrow bourgeois hegemony) and this is exactly the true purpose of the police.  Of course, this systemic purpose of fundamental oppression is hidden behind a veneer of imagined chivalry which many police recruits believe is true, and which serves to motivate them to join.  A police officer in a capitalist society, is fulfilling the purpose of being convener of a ‘weaponised’ legality.

Contrary to popular belief, the concept (and usage) of the ‘police’ is a relatively modern phenomenon, and that for the greater part of its history – the British Isles had no professional police force.  The concept of the modern police developed in the UK in the 19th century and was a response by the middle class to a perceived threat that it was under an increased attack from the far more numerous (and impoverished) working class.  The modern term ‘police’ stems from the Greek noun ‘polis’ which refers to the concept of a ‘city-state’.  In the context of the contemporary police, this concept refers to representatives of the modern State, which are legally empowered to enforce the law by that State.  In the UK there was much parliamentary debate about the formulation of an official police force, as it was thought by many to be unnecessary and representative of the loss of liberal rights for all people.  The police is a middle class construct that recruits its high-ranking officers from the middle class (as a means to retain middle class control over the police), and draws the majority of its ordinary constables from the working class (as these ‘officers’ carry-out the majority of the work).  The police exists to protect the middle class from the working class, so that middle class privilege, wealth and political power (acquired during the Industrial Revolution and after) is preserved without loss.  To do this, the police routinely oppress, attack, maim and murder members of the working class, whilst treating members of the middle class with deference and respect.  Working class police officers are rewarded for betraying their class through the agency of ‘immunity’ from any consequences of their actions, even in the unlikely event that the matter ends-up in court.  Police officers are routinely filmed abusing, beating and murdering people across the globe, and the yet the footage and other evidence are ignored as the officers involved are cleared of any and all wrong doing.  The middle class must pursue this privileged policy or the majority of its working class police officers might well change their loyalties to the working class from which they came.

Middle class law has been developed by the middle class and represents middle class interests, sensibilities, and codes of behaviour.  This privileged and self-indulgent legal system is assumed to be both ‘natural’ and ‘correct’, and it is the function of the police force to apply this law ruthlessly throughout working class existence.  The working class are forced to abide by a middle class legal system that does not represent their own class interests, and which oppresses them at every turn.  As a result, the police participate in the negating of true working class culture, and assist the middle class in its oppression of the working class.  Whenever a police officer beats or kills a member of the public, the verdict is that it was just a matter of ‘one bad apple’, but in reality this behaviour goes on all the time, and never ceases, despite high-profile cases exposing police brutality.  Nothing changes because the police are behaving in exactly the manner that their bourgeois over-lords insist upon.  Police kill and main because they are taught to kill and maim, and that nothing will happen to them as a consequence.  In this regard, working class police officers remain above the law they claim they are impartially enforcing.  If the police was satisfactorily held to account by the same law it enforces, then every time a member of the public was brutalised, maimed or killed, a police officer would be sacked and sent to prison.  More than this, however, the police as it exists is a capitalist sympathiser and should be abolished in a Socialist State to be replaced by a proletariat-friendly people’s militia.

%d bloggers like this: