essays on Crime (5) Social services

Children are the group of people considered most vulnerable than any other and for good reason. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable that a sort of organisation is set up to protect these children from abuse, amongst other things. We have this of course. The major problem is they do not protect children; often, the opposite is the case. This is how they usually operate: if it is known a child is being physically or sexually abused, they often do nothing and sleep comfortably in bed at night knowing a child is having their head rammed against a wall or perhaps being sodomised every day of the week. The Social Services, or certainly some people who work for them, know these children cry out in pain at night time but have a joyous sleep despite this fact.

At the other end of the spectrum, these same people act like total crazed schizophrenics and remove children from their parents for no reason at all. Often they fabricate stories for this to happen, and then the children are put in care homes, which is the place children go where they can be abused. The social services must be rubbing their hands in glee at this prospect. Parents are, not parents at all, because they are powerless. At any time, they can have their children removed. On this face of it this has a fierce system of terror; worthy of any fascist state.

Nevertheless, why would such people do this is an obvious question to ask. There are various reasons why. The first has everything to do with ambition and “targets”, this enables them to gain promotion, they, quite plainly, are psychopaths. The second reason is for control and power; nothing more. A third is because they have a narrow delusional spectrum of the world, and lunatics of a sort, and so carry on these delusional behaviours. This is the behaviour of the megalomaniac. However, the fact of the matter is that they just do not really care

A particular concern about these agencies, as they like to call themselves, are given more power than any other group. The police, for example, do not have this level of power. This may surprise some, but it is the plain truth. If the police arrest somebody, they need a jury to convict them and judge to imprison them. A social worker needs no judge or jury; they are able to make all sorts of terrifying decisions and no judge is required. It is a simple case, to quote George.H.Bush, “what we say goes”. The parents, of course, must be docile or they face the possibility of losing their children and never seeing them again. This is what some would call living a life of absolute terror.

Everybody has a right to family life, so we are told. This is a falsehood because clearly not everybody has a right to family life. Because, when a woman has a child, the social services have the power to remove that child, and this same woman may never see that child again. This is because she does not reach the “criteria” the social services set. In other words, “what we say goes”. If the victim involved does not like it, well that is really too bad because there is simply nothing to be done. The nightmare society has been fully recognised and there is no escaping that fact.

Stories often make the capitalist press concerning “mistakes” and “errors’ made by the Social Services. There have been cases where children have been battered to death, raped by unceremonious individuals, but it remains a mistake and that is all. The person responsible for such a “cataclysmic error” is reprimanded, and things carry on after that, as usual. There is never any criticism of the structure of the organisation itself, just like there is not any of any other. The tyrannical role the social services play, there are rhetorical questions, which we must all consider. These questions, in contemporary society, are children free? Do they possess even a fragment of freedom? In addition, what of opportunity? Do they have freedom of opportunity? These and other questions remain unanswered. They remain so; therefore, the attempt to answer them shall be made here.

The first of these questions shall be the exploration of freedom itself. Are children really free? In a word, no. Then people will say children cannot be totally free because of varying factors. It would be appropriate to look at these factors, but not presently. Freedom ought not to be a privilege but a right bestowed on all us. Parts of these freedoms are taken away from children for evident reasons, and people broadly support this. Nevertheless, nevermind that. Therefore, the parent’s child is left with the responsibility to minimise their freedom in order to “protect” their child. For example, they would prohibit their child from moseying the streets during the early hours of the morning; not to behave and act as they please, for without discipline the child runs amok around the place and few would argue against this.

Nevertheless, when the Social Services become involved that is another matter entirely. For they assume the role of the parents and do as they please. They able to dictate whether the child is able to see this person or that person; because of the DBS (Disclosure and Barring Service) culture, their freedoms are left seriously impaired once again. These checks then are made to fill the pockets of private power, and besides this, it displays a society to children, too young to know better, are filled with an overwhelming mistrust of adults. They have not the freedom to work alongside that may be an awe-inspiring influence to these children. However, what the social services do is make children more susceptible to abuse and dissipate any freedoms they may have left. 

They have no freedom of opportunity either. If the child’s parents, for whatever reason, have attracted the attention of the social services, this child suffers because of the actions they impose. It is as simple as this: if your mother and father do not do exactly as we say you will never see them again, be forced into children’s homes and be abused for a long sustained period. This is perhaps an exaggeration of sorts but the point has been sufficiently made. 

Now for the varying factors. Children, all sorts of people proclaim do not have the capabilities in making decisions such as consenting to sex, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, voting, getting married, driving a car, gambling and so on. Well, these laws are just foolish. Every child has different levels of maturity at varying stages of their adolescence. Some children are mature enough to consent to sex at thirteen, likewise the same in the case of driving, drinking alcohol and so forth. The restraints we force upon children, and it is not children who are the “brute engine” of the law, to borrow a phrase from William Godwin, but the parents that face criminal prosecution and other individuals.

The social services are very eager to criminalise such people and act like rancid fundamentalists in carrying out these practices. It is all part of a culture of fear and could only happen in a crypto totalitarian state. Just like in Kafka’s the problem of our laws, he, Kafka, writes: “Our laws are generally not known; they are kept secret by the group of nobles who rule us. We are convinced that these ancient laws are scrupulously administered; nevertheless it is an extremely painful thing to be ruled by laws that one does not know”. Yet it is right, a story written in the 1920s tells us everything we need to know about modern society. It is the Social Services, which hide these laws. They act as if they were a government themselves, as oppressive, autocratic, and criminal. They set their policies, and are largely unknown because they are simply told to nobody. The picture, which Kafka paints, is prevalent amongst Social Workers. 

When children are removed from their parents and taken to some wretched place where they are sadistically abused, the Social Services make up adventure stories on why this happened. Of course, they are believed and soon afterwards, they do the same thing all over again to sabotage yet another family. They write their reports of course, pretending they abide by a strict code of conduct. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is they are set hideous targets and they meet these targets with utter barbarity and inhumanity. However, of course all this is very furtive and other agencies, in turn dare assert such things are untrue. Are they willing to sue writers and journalists who document such things?

That is hardly the way such organisations work. If they did, they would be working outside of the official propaganda network. No, this is not how the propaganda framework operates. What usually happens is the following scenario: they write directly to the person making these criticisms and make the lamentable attempt to convince such people otherwise. When they come to the conclusion when they are unable to sue for damages, surprisingly, they then have the capacity to think independently, and for themselves. The next choice of action is to - if the critic of the organisation is popular - they will spin their story to the capitalist press. They will speak of the “bad apple”, and get other organisations to agree with their sordid lies, smearing the individual, isolating them and seeking to destroy their credibility.

They lament the actions of this befuddled lunatic, as they call them, and claim they are putting children, all children at risk. The consequences would be inevitable. It would be an example of say, in political terms, Salvador Allende, the former President of Chile. The fascistic “democratic” states that claim to be moral and just bully and intimidated this President and the country. How does a person, they would say in private, deviate from our free market hegemony? In this case, incidentally, the country was subject to fascism, torture, mass rape and murder. Opposing the American post war economic imperial structure is a brave thing to do but terrifying for the victims involved.

If you intervene in the midst of a gang war infiltrated by gangsters, do not be too surprised if you are shot in the head. Nevertheless, for example, if a thousand people do it or a hundred-thousand perhaps then that is a different matter entirely. The same is true of organisations like the Social Services. When a large number of people-which does not happen by the way-object to the very structure of the organisation itself-that is when some good may come of it. Nevertheless, presently that cannot happen, because under capitalist demagoguery, such freedoms about “transparency” are not bestowed on the population in general. Social workers, therefore, will continue to terrify and haunt children with their perverse ideology, it makes no difference that Social Services have little idea what this actually means. Then again, such people are not known for reading Zola, Turgenev and Schiller.

“We are not safe Clarence, we are not safe”, so says the Duke of Gloucester in Shakespeare’s Richard III. It is the safety of the child we need to be concerned about. People pretend of course because that is what is expected of them. This “pretence”, one must admit, is alarming to grandiose degrees. In the church, the Roman Catholic, as well as others, it has always been fashionable to abuse children, with, at times, state support, as we saw in the Magdalene laundries in Ireland. This practice carried on all the way up until the 1990s. Nothing could be viler than this “pretence”. It happens all the same because when there is no impediment to stopping your own crimes it will forever continue.

Nevertheless, this is removed from history as far as people are concerned about this frivolous piece of information. It should be here noted with total sincerity that the Social Services as an organisation are worse than any child-abuser and even child-killer; in fact, it would be correct to say they are worse than every child-killer combined. There is a significant chasm between these two groups of people: with the Social Services everything is pre-planned, they are of sound mind and fully aware of what they are doing to the child and their family. The child killer/abuser, on the other hand, does not. Many have dilapidated minds, and the ones that are fit and well, it is safe to say nobody of a sound mind abuses a child unless there is at least some psychopathy in the individual involved. Consequently, these sorts of people often are punished for their crimes.

There are many instances, of course, where parents who pretend to look after their children, are subjecting them to a misery and a direful existence. This is perfectly acceptable as far as the Social services are involved. Neither do such people even attempt to make people's lives better by removing these children from these dreadful people. There is only one possible reason for doing this. It, of course, has nothing to do with nonchalance, for if it did, they would hardly go out of their way to make sure the child suffers, which is exactly what they do. It is not nonchalance but psychopathy, and this is prevalent throughout the Social Services.

There have been cases, and lots of them where children have been abused in numbers, and it is well known the Social Services have been complicit in this abuse. In fact if you read the testimonies of adults who were abused as children, they tell dreadful stories not just of cover-ups and complicity of the abuse, but they have even carried out this sadistic abuse themselves. However, of course, it never happened; none of this happened, and so it remains.

3rd-9th May, 2013

For my other 'essays on crime', check my previous posts. My next essay on crime will be posted soon.

Propaganda against Iran

In 1979 three things or rather events happened in the Middle East which had devastating consequences, in all these events, Washington played a key part.  A little background information is required before speaking about the present state of affairs.

In February 1979 Afghan militant fundamentalists abducted the American ambassador in Kabul.  This did not prevent the U.S from supporting the terrorists who carried out this outrage.  Later, Ronald Reagan, called the murderers and torturers “freedom fighters”, one tactic these “freedom fighters” used was “to torture victims by first cutting off their noses, ears and genitals, then removing one slice of skin after another”.  The Afghan Government “invited” the Soviet Union to intervene and so they did.  Jimmy Carter gave the Mujahideen terrorists $500 million; Reagan, in the following years, gave them so much more.  It has been said by commentators in the U.S that this was Washington’s revenge.  America lost thousands of marines in Indochina, so they were determined the same fate would happen to the Russians, and it did.  Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, gave the following interview, years after he had left office, or rather kicked out of office:

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

There was another reason why Washington took this course of action: its major ally in the Middle East, at least one of them, fell.

In 1953, Mohammad Mossadegh, the Prime Minister of Iran, was overthrown in a coup. It was Britain who intended to get rid of him because he drew up plans to nationalise the AIOC (Anglo-Iranian Oil Company), which was an English company. With Washington’s help the coup was a success.  The Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was put in his place, and for a quarter of a century ruled like a bloodthirsty tyrant.  In the 1970s, Amnesty International, the human-rights group, published a report saying the Shah was  one of the biggest violators of human rights abuses in the world.  From 1953 until 1979, Washington Backed him until he fell from grace. When They lost their ally they sought refuge in Afghanistan and Iraq.                                                                                                                     In Iraq, a similar story is told.  In the late 1950s and early 60s’ the country was led by Karim Qasim. In 1961 he announced that the Government had intended to take fifty percent of the profits from oil exports.  By February, 1963, Qasim was dead; he had been executed.  Again, Britain and the U.S were the proud initiators of yet another coup.  The C.I.A then handed out lists to the new government of 5,000 names, they were subsequently hunted down and murdered.  The Baathist party ruled until November of 63’, and there was another coup.  In the late 60s’ they regained power once again, and a decade later Saddam Hussein became the country’s President, with consequences that would haunt the country for many years to come.  One ally was lost in Iran, but no matter, because Saddam Hussein was promoting American interests in Baghdad, and they would thank him.  They sent him enough weapons to wage a war against his own population.

Since 1979 propaganda against Iran has been unrelenting.  The United States, of course, needs an “official enemy”, and the enemy  must be known to everyone.  Fidel Castro, Muammar Gaddafi, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Osama bin Laden, just to name a few.  The U.S was waging its second war of terror, announced by George.W.Bush and supported during the Obama administration.  Iran is one of the most important and biggest powers in the Middle East, so the U.S have come up with creative and fairytale nonsense to launch the Americans into a state of frenzy and panic, believing Iran to be an imminent threat to the U.S.  How could they do this?  The answer is very simple.

The discussion was now about Iran’s military arsenal.  They wanted people to believe Iran was a threat to the world, and that Iran was intent on developing nuclear weapons.  This would be the sole justification for a military invasion.  It had already been justified for the brutal sanctions, where the civilian population of Iran suffers, but this is of no concern to Washington.  Part of the reason is for Iran to rise up and overthrow the current regime.  Its neighbours, Israel, not only has enough nuclear warheads to wipe it out; it has enough weapons to wipe out every country in the Middle East.  This is well known, but largely ignored.

Washington has allies in Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt and so on but Iran is the one that got away, and it needs pulling back, so to speak.  This would be the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle.  If the U.S could somehow have a client regime in Iran, they would have total control over the Middle East, and indeed they know it.  So why did not George.W.Bush and his henchmen not overthrow the Ahmadinejad Government, as it had done in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Unlike these two countries Iran actually has an army to defend itself, not only that, it is organised, it is not a small army either.  They would be well disposed to defend themselves, that is the ultimate sin to Washington, self-defence.  When George.H.Bush assumed the presidency of the United states in 1989, a National Security Policy Review read: “in cases where the U.S confronts much weaker enemies, our challenge will be not simply to defeat them, but to defeat them decisively and  rapidly”.  In other words Washington wants weak enemies, a power that is unable to defend itself and a quick victory with few American casualties, so belligerent America can stand proud of this.  Panama and Iraq are striking examples.  

When his son, George.W.Bush made a speech on “the Axis of Evil”, he named Iran.  But fortunately for the Iranians they have sufficient military power to defend themselves from cowardly states.  They often paint Iran as evil and menacing, cruel, bloody and so forth.  It may be the case the Iranian Government is cruel and bloody to its own people, which Washington has no concern about, but in terms of international terrorism, rather Iranian state terror, it hardly goes bombing nations on a regular basis.  It is Israel’s duty to carry out such barbarism, the home of state terror in the Middle East, not Iran but Israel, beautiful Israel as its baleful sycophants call it.  

Barack Obama and the rest of the “civilised world” placed stupendous and barbaric sanctions on Iran, the main aim of sanctions of course is to attack the civilian population, to declare a kind of war on them, a war by other means, it is an economic war, that Iran has vast amounts of oil is no coincidence.  If the Iranian Government were overthrown, America and other “friendly” states would reap the awards.  So the propaganda against them has been rampant and constant.  Under what is labelled communism, the “threat of the red menace”; the propaganda on this is one of the biggest success stories of the 20th century.  We had briefly what was labelled “the drugs war”, this came in the form of bombing an old ally, Daniel Noriega, of Panama.  In the early ‘80s he was one of their most-favoured allies, this is when the M16 and the CIA were running drug cartels, and of course Noriega himself was heavily involved with this narco trafficking, but then he decided against letting the Reaganites use his country to carry out their terrorist war with Nicaragua, then came the obscenity of “humanitarian intervention”, this largely meant increasing murder and destruction in the Balkans, there was finally “a war on terror”, first launched in 1981 by Ronald Reagan, to terrorise Nicaragua, Guatemala, El-Salvador and others, in 2001, “the war on terror” was re-launched by George.W.Bush, it was more a corporate affair.  But it was all mass propaganda which allowed this criminal behaviour to perpetuate. But now the U.S and its client states have mounting problems, people are more aware of the actions of government.  The internet has allowed people to attain information that was previously unobtainable, they are now going on radical and dissident websites, they are also organising online, also there are protests, boycotts, information is being received by the general population, even through social networking sites, for many people use them.  So there is room to be concerned from the imperial powers.  Iran, meanwhile remains the “official enemy”, and Israel, the land of state terror and oppression, is an “official ally”.

Samira Makhmalbaf, an Iranian Film director, was asked along with ten other international film directors, to make a short film, eleven minutes long, to be exact, about September 11th, 2001.  She made the film from the perspective of the Iranians.  She showed how terrified Iranians were at the prospect of of Washington attacking the country at any moment.  One of the biggest liars in history and the biggest propagandists of modern times, is Tony Blair, at any appearance at the Chilcot enquiry about Iraq, he emphasised the need to deal with Iran, in fact he mentioned them no less than 50 times; this was from an enquiry that did not even concern Iran.

In this new age people are no longer people.  They do not have feelings, emotions, they do not feel excitement or pain.  States that do not adhere to the postwar global fascist framework are evil monsters.  The children in countries like Iran are unpeople, as are the elderly, the sick, women and everybody else.  They have become the new Vietnam, they have become the Filipino, the Cambodian, the Indonesian, the Guatemalan, the Nicaraguan, the Cuban, the Chilean, the Bolivian, the Albanian, the Palestinian, the Afghan, the Mexican, the Nigerian, the sudanese, the Brazilian and now the Iranian.  All this propaganda has now become official history, indeed history has been engineered.  Whatever will happen next?

5th January, 2013