I recently realized that I’ve returned to a France that has kicked the racism up a notch. There is quite a lot of talk on the current practice of evicting Roms from occupied fields/buildings. One UN commission dedicated to fight racial discrimination has denounced a racist climate in France. One government official said that ‘everybody knows that immigrants and criminals are usually related.’ Another is working to implement the possibility of taking the nationality away from people who will have attacked police officers [think suburb youth resistance], or who have ‘committed’ excision or polygamy.
Not that I care too much about nationality. After all, it’s a sham and a fabrication. The nation does not truly exist, in the same way that a forced marriage does not yield a real couple. They would, in fact, only be two strangers bound together and living their lives as best they can, in such horrible circumstances. Most Statists today would recognize this, but would pretend that after a while the strangers manage to live somewhat happy lives, despite it all. A common theme for supporters of majoritarian democracy, who call it the least worse of systems, and then go and have tea over people’s oppressed backs. The least worse is naturally not so bad at all for the top 1% elite.
I’ve long had the desire to take a pair of scissors, come up to those CRS officers and destroy the national ID card. A more public performance with many more people would be preferable. I hate this symbol of participation in a thing I do not want. Nevertheless, I am without personal resources and could not fare very long without help from the State. Without benefits, I’m toast.
The first step towards this dream, then, is a step in the general direction of mutual aid and self-subsistance, so that I can de-nationalize myself and all those who are sick of this society. We should be able to expect a lot from Calais, one of the most communistic towns of France. Sadly, until now that communism has mostly taken the statist form of party politics, votes and demonstrations. And those who are acquainted with state communists will know that they, as relativists, do not usually reject private property claims to land, as such. There is a lot of work to do.
I have once taken the pro-occupation stance openly, as a writer on the CMS blog, on the occasion of the eviction from the docks, sometime around last october, and was berated for it. Why, let’s not write about politics on a blog that should bring forth the reality of the situation. This theme is common talk. The state tries to disappear migrants, people are blind and ignorant of what happens, hence they do not act against this repression. Let us publicize things neutrally, make ourselves respectable, and the media will pick up what we write about, and thus bring shame on the police, acquire local supporters, and change the public opinion.
So long as the politics of it all are not addressed, people will just say that it’s a difficult thing, immigration, and move on. They’ll commiserate, at best. What we need is outrage, not sadness. Isn’t this how we feel? And why? Don’t we want to spread the fucking fire? I don’t need shameful police officers, who will at any rate continue doing what they’re told with the consolation that their minds, at least, are still clean. To instill an ounce of shame in them would already be a feat, so long people have called them all sorts of names. No, I want to stop them by using all the force I can muster, and what will happen will happen.
But I’ve been digressing for a while. What is the status of unoccupied land and buildings? Based on the response, your attitude towards the State and absentee owners, migrants and Roms, will change.
Diving for a minute in dangerous State mythology, the national borders are naturally required for protection against outside danger and also for self-subsistance, living space, etc. Such a position was held to me very recently. That people come together to provide food and protection for themselves, and that this implies a territory where they are free to take to the land.
Yet, nice as this picture seems, it is untrue, for the people is not a people, but many peoples who happen to be bound together, as I explained above. So the national borders are not natural, and they are truly a line on the map. Furthermore, why should people outside be stopped from taking to the land on the inside? There isn’t any reason to stop them from doing so. There just isn’t any need for borders at all, as far as producing life’s necessities or protecting ourselves is concerned. In fact, borders create danger and stop people from earning a decent living.
Beyond the pain and the rage, I would be interested to know who Fabricom ‘bought’ the forest from? And how was it ‘their’ forest? How do you even sell a forest? How do you own it? I wish we were back in the day when common sense had a chance in this world.
The No Borders position is predicated on the idea that the territory is a natural resource. It is no one’s property, and permission to enter is not required, because there is no one to ask the permission from. I enjoin you to stand at the limit of the Belgian border, in a field, and step forward. Do you hear any cries of pain at the injury you have just inflicted on the nation of Belgium? Do you see people gather on the horizon and rush to expel the miserable trespasser that you are? Cut the crap.
As it is with virgin land, so it is with unoccupied land and buildings. There is no one to ask permission from. No one is there. That’s what it means for land and buildings to be unoccupied. Private property, infinite ownership, is assumed to be the natural law. Well, no, sorry. The sacred claim dies when you leave the property and forget about it.
Last item: Michel Rocard, a state socialist in France, has just called the government’s endeavors unbelievable, and said such measures had not been seen since Petain and Hitler. The title of the interview was: “He will pay for it and he will regret it.” Right on.