Conspiranoia

I've made a small research and it seems this is a term used more in Spanish than in English, were people usually just refer to conspiracy theorist. Nevertheless I like the term. 

During this period, I've not seen a lot of cases in my social networks, but there's an occasional one sometimes. And I cannot help but get nervous about them, but it's not much I can do. 

Conspiranoia would refer to this tendency to believe that there's dark conspiracies involved in certain world events.  Conspiracy paranoia, basically. And current events are easy to cause strange irrational reactions that make us believe such things indeed. However, applying basic logic can help diffuse these strange feelings, even if not everyone applies it. 

For starters, let's clarify that there has been conspiracies in the world, and even now I totally believe there's some conspiracies being executed. The thing is, they're conspiracies that make sense. For example, if you review the history of C.I.A., you'll see that yeah, they're bastards that have conspire to overthrow legitimate progressive governments in order to put right-wing corrupt dictators in the past. So yes, I totally do not trust any "official" occidental comment about South-American politics where USA and Europe are supporting some party in there that is trying to gain power, because more often than not they're trying to overthrow a legitimate leftist government. Venezuela is a mess and I'm not sure what to think about it apart that every side is bad in there, but I'm sure that the official opposition backed by USA is a corrupt right-wing piece of shit. Bolivia, I totally believe USA tried to remove Evo Morales and put some bullshit right-wing government that would let them steal the countries resources by bribing them. 

Same way, and considering how they don't want to release information about it, I'm totally convinced Kennedy was killed as an act organized by its own government and security agencies, because he was too progressive for their tastes. 

There has been proof about the surveillance that USA wants to apply to us all as revealed by Snowden. And there has been proof that, in Spain, there's a number of policemen, lawyers, judges and other law members, plus politicians and parties that are organized to lie, prosecute and condemn people that do not follow their right-wing fascists ideals.

So yeah, there are secret conspiracies in the world. Usually by right-wing fascist, by rich people, and by strong authoritarian powers. I will not talk about Russia and China because they don't hide it, so it's not secret they want to control their population and such things. They don't care as much about PR, and they're happy to point at the hypocrisy of other powerful countries that pretend to defend "justice" and other such concepts and then they do the same shit and try to justify it or hide it, like Spain with political prisoners as Russia pointed, or Spain with the police repression as China indicated too.

In general these conspiracies are "easy", usually. The surveillance one was a bit more complex, but we suspected it would be possible by just adding certain code to apps or by not sharing security holes in programs and such things. Other conspiracies are more in the sense of  "give money and weapons to this South American party", or "accuse this person of something so we can put them in prison", or just "kill this person". They tend to have a basic idea and with a clear objective that benefits certain people. Like, "this guy wants to prevent us from making money from this business that exploits people", so "we kill this guy, we scare others, we manage to make money exploiting people".  It's pretty straightforward, you can see the logic, it's basic.

We need to consider that people are idiots. Even powerful evil people. So, complex plans to achieve difficult weird objectives are quite unlikely, really. 

This virus is not a fucking conspiracy. The vaccines are not a fucking conspiracy. And for fuck's sake, the bloody stupid masks are NOT a conspiracy. 

Do I like to wear masks? No. Do I like to stay inside home? No. Is this some stupid "plan" to control us? Of course fucking not.

So, let's discuss some of these comments. 

-The Vaccine will control us and monitor us: Do you have a smartphone?  If you do, I can assure you that there's no need to provoke a global pandemic and to create a fake vaccine so they put a chip in us. We carry the chip every day, use it and provide information to it. I'm not saying different companies and organizations don't want to track us, but that there's a lot of easier ways to do it and they're already doing it in simpler ways. Also, most of us are not interesting enough for particular information, they just want "Big Data" to try to create models for prediction and control. Yes it's scary and not good, but vaccines and current situation has nothing to do with this. 

-The vaccine will modify our ADN: First, that's not how the ARN thing works. Second....why? What is gained by "modifying our ADN"? What basic gain will this provide to the organisers?? This enters the terrain of believing that someone has researched some way to modify our behaviour via ADN or some crap like this, which is just ridiculous and not worth mentioning.

-The vaccine is actually the illness and the thing that will kill us:  That's why before the vaccine people were dying left and right, correct? I mean, we're hiding at home for the shits and giggles, because before the vaccine everybody was healthy, yes? Actually scratch that, some people may believe this is the case. To that, please volunteer in a COVID ward in any hospital.

-The virus has been created in a lab by China/USA/Bill Gates/ Etc: First, virus occur naturally. Second, the people and countries you're proposing benefit from having big amounts of population to exploit, so they win nothing by killing it. Third, the people and countries you're proposing got hit nastily by it and are in shambles. For this to be some type of plan to destabilize the others, we'd need to accuse the country that has dealt with this better...which probably is New Zealand! Known conspirators for the fall of civilisation, of course. 

-Masks are "muzzles" that want to silence us / they make us breathe CO2 so our brains get smaller: Here it's just a matter of looking at people that used them before this, basically doctors and nurses and lots of Asian countries. They were doing fine while using masks and were using them to avoid transmitting diseases long before this. So, no, masks are a bit uncomfortable but they're not controlling you or killing you. And yes, if you don't use them you're certainly a narcissistic egotistical piece of shit.

-Confinements are attacks to religious freedom, they don't want us to to meet in churches/other religious meeting points: I mean, if you think you need to meet in crowded places yes or yes to practice your religion, here I'm not going to argue, please do so. But please don't meet anyone else outside this community of people, and when you catch pneumonia, please stay inside your house and don't cough at anyone else.

- The whole pandemic has been planned and it will create a new world order: So no, it hasn't been planned because there's several important business that have been hit by this and they would rather not have been hit, even if others are having more benefits now than before. And about the new world order stuff, look, there's already a war ongoing as I said before, where rich and powerful are trying to fuck with the rest of us, yes. But they want to fuck us by making us powerless and make us work more. Closing us inside houses or killing us is just not profitable long term. So just consider profit, this situation is not nice for them either. 

All these have this issue of complexity, strange goals and dubious benefits. However, there's a few things that may be true, because they fit with what we've mentioned before, simplicity and direct benefit: 

-Some vaccines are not being approved or bought, or they're stopped suddenly from being applied, because different governments want to give money to only certain companies and countries: Yeah, I totally believe that, and you can see it by which vaccines are being treated worse in which areas. 

-Going to work with public transport and working in an office is a much worse infection vector than they say: Indeed, but they have to pretend it's outside work that people get infected, or they'd be forced to force employees to provide teleworking, pay more for risks or temporarily stop activity, and the economy cannot deal with these things so they ban the "fun" time people may have while keeping the "boring" working part, when both are equally dangerous, because one produces money and the other does not.

After saying all this, I have to say I'm as tired as anyone about the situation. However, being selfish about it and defending it with a conspiracy theory is not helping anyone.

Who guards the guardians?

In the last days, Spain has again done something repressive (big surprise) by jailing a rap singer. 

Let's not focus on that right now, although it's worth mentioning Spain is the country that has the biggest number of artist in prison. Yeah, ahead of Iran or Saudi Arabia or other places that are repressive dictatorships. And the European Union is not doing anything about it. 

Anyway, there has been protests in defence of freedom of expression, in Barcelona and other cities of Spain. And the police has answered with charges. In front of that, protestors have created fires and barricades to defend themselves, and now the main TV channels and newspapers that support the elites are crying for burned trash containers and making it equal than being beaten with sticks or losing an eye, something that has happened to a protestor when she was shot in the face with a special foam bullet.And I'll redirect attention to my other post of Declaration of War, and say that they expect people to just silently comply to everything bad and we're past that phase, and you can either support the repressed or be part of the problem.

In Valencia for example you could see that a protest was ongoing in a peaceful manner and police with riot gear just went against it at full force all of a sudden. And actually these images are similar to what happened during 1st of October in Catalunya when the referendum took place. 

In all these, police can do whatever they want. There's never any repercussions for them. They're supposed to avoid hitting heads, to avoid shooting in the face, to avoid creating panics or making situations more dangerous, they're not supposed to insult or say racist or sexist crap, etc. And they do, and nothing happens. 

Police is a problem. Society does need some type of mechanism to guarantee that you will not be robbed, raped, murdered, attacked,etc. and when these things do happen there needs to be a mechanism to follow them up, find the authors and deal with them, by re-educating/re-inserting them or, if that's not possible, locking them up. Society does need some type of protection against abuse. In most countries, it has been decided that there's a security force, like a small army, that should take care of that, the police.

However, then you have several other problems. First of the issues is what is a crime. There's evident ones, like if you are on a street and randomly decide to murder the next person that crosses you. Yes, that's a crime. But then, there's a lot of grey areas, like what if you were defending yourself from said murder and ended up murdering the attacker? It was self-defence, right? Well, some countries decide this is allowed, and some others say this is still a crime. And that's just an example that things are never that clear-cut and usually they need to be analysed in detail to understand context. Then there's the matter than robbing a food shop because you don't have food is considered a crime but raising rent to the point where your tenants cannot afford to eat is not, which also shows that crime can be quite subjective and the big powers can make it so their activities, while more damaging to society, are considered not a crime. 

Second of the issues thought, is that, who's going to check that this force is not committing crimes themselves? This is a very old philosophical question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who guards the guardians? If a police officer is a piece of shit that hits his wife, their comrades and friends will gladly stop him from doing so and arrest him, or will they cover for him? If the police decides to beat people up for fun and revenge, who's going to stop them from doing this? If the police is full of bastards, how do we clean  them from the system if we need the same police to arrest them or protect us from them?

In theory police itself should try to find its worse elements inside it and remove them, but why should they? They're being trained to support each other, trust each other and work together. Especially in sections like the riot police, they're trained to act like an army, like soldiers, and you cannot expect that this training does not produce a certain brainwash against reporting your fellow officers. Plus there's the fact that most people that join these sections are more than happy about not reporting them even before the training, but we'll get back to that too.

So, what are solutions to this? Sometimes police departments have what in movies call "Internal Affairs", which is a side that investigates police officers themselves and, of course, in most cultural works they're painted as "the bad guys" from preventing "good officers" from doing their job. Only that will tell you that they're probably not popular if they work well, and that they have huge pressures against them. Plus in the end they're part of the same force, they may have started working with the same people and have friends in there. 

In Spain, I'm not sure internal affairs exist, I think most forces just investigate themselves, but there's a curious kind-of alternative: We have different branches of forces. We have national police, sometimes regional police, and then we also have Guardia Civil, which is like a different force entirely that works also at national level. This solution was initially implemented to have an alternative force from the military, for all the wrong reasons (at the time the military had turned more progressive). 

This idea could work, if implemented properly: You have two forces that are independent, with different uniforms, different training, different circles. You divide the forced by region, so depending on the region one applies or the other, and you then make any crime that one does to be investigated by the other, plus having each other in checks so no one gets corrupted or does something bad, some type of friendly rivalry for being the best and more clean. Since they're not connected or part of each other, this would reduce the feeling of "betraying one of us" that lots of them seem to have. Spain hasn't implemented this correctly, of course, but it's something that could help. 

However, Police has also another problem, a third one, that is in the end the root of everything that's wrong with it: The profiles of the people that want to join and are accepted. In theory and in an ideal world, police should be formed by people that want to defend society from bad elements that live in it. Compassionate strong people, with a high moral compass, that even if they're not a judge, they can decide when someone is worth arresting or if it's better, for example, to pay for their meal once, or just warn, or well, really understand the situation and do what's best for society in the long run.

That's not the case at all, at least in Spain and in plenty of other places. Here the main focus is to find people that will obey commands. That's the most important detail. Then, people that will uphold laws regardless of if they're unjust or not. So it's better if they're not too bright or moral or they may see the problems in persecuting poverty without addressing the root causes. They have to be loyal people, loyal to their partners and bosses, not loyal to real legality or morality, but to the force. And in the case of the riot police, they have to be people that are happy to hit others. 

So, who then applies to these positions? Well, bullies. Fascists. Military fanatics. Violent people. And then you end up with forces made up of sexist neo-nazis that are quite happy to beat these progressive protesters, grope women as they arrest them and bully pacific people into submission. Or they're quite happy to ignore the openly neo-nazi that works with them because he's a "nice guy" and they have beers together later and he's a companion. And then it happens that when real dangers to society, when actual fascists are marching around saying we should kill all jews and leftists, these police officers are happy to defend them, because they're their friends. Hell, in Spain lots of times with different forces, in these fascist marches one force is defending the other force, because the other is marching but without the uniform, not officially.

And it's not me saying this. It's lots of ex-cops, ex-military, ex-security forces. There are people that joined these professions with real care and, when they protested about the situation, were directly expelled because they didn't "fit in" and such things. Which means that any good people left in there may disagree with these things but they're not willing to say it out loud either and accept it as something that just happens inside police. 

The power that these positions offer corrupts, and attracts corrupted and violent people, apart from people that just want to defend others. And for very long the elites have accepted the bad ones because it was useful for them to have mindless violent guard dogs that they could send to anyone that bothered them.

Not every police officer is like this and it also depends on what they do, if they investigate murders, are just information analysts, or are patrolling or riot police. However, there's way too many, it's not just a few, it's a big majority inside that prevents any real change. Most Spanish police worker unions are openly supporters of VOX, for example. Another example: a lot of domestic violence cases are caused by police officers themselves, in a proportion much superior to any other profession.

Recently two police officers in a bar decided to say sexual things to a 14-year-old, and when his dad protested they put him in the hospital. This case was so evident, so bad, that they have been arrested, but we'll see if they're really condemned. And when a similar thing happened in Euskadi, the police officers said the others were terrorists and they're currently in jail for terrorism, when they just defended themselves in a bar fight. 

The worst offenders are Riot Police, as I said. Riot police should be there to defend us from, for example, the fascists groups that were roaming the streets recently and hitting people. But the reality is that it's impossible for them to do so, for the same reason Spiderman can never be seen saving Peter Parker. Riot police shot live ammo against protesters, after the 14-year-old incident I mentioned before caused locals to go to the police station to protest. Riot police shot to the face a girl and she lost an eye, this week. Riot police hit people voting on 1st of October during the referendum. And riot police have again and again been abusive, violent, brutal without reason, not following laws themselves at all. And they've faced very little repercussion, or even being awarded for their "brave" service of hitting people in groups while wearing full-body armour.

Riot police as it is, should be disbanded in Spain. And the profile and philosophy of  police needs to be reassessed in order to have proper democracy, otherwise we'll keep having huge problems with them. 

Any party that says they're progressive should defend that and do it if they have the chance. Otherwise, they're not.

It's the end of the world (as we know it)

So, we're again in Interesting Times. And maybe we have had enough for a while.

Nevertheless, this has created an opportunity at least. Yeah, it's a horrible thing what's happening and it would be better if it didn't, but it's giving us lessons, really important ones. And I'd like to mention some of them, as I think about them.

1-In lots of workplaces, it is possible to work from home. This one is written from a privileged standpoint, of course, shops and industries and the primary sector is not included in this. But there's currently a lot of new jobs, based on services, where we have been forced to go there every day and stay there for a lot of hours, to be present just out of a certain old fashioned panic that if we don't have someone breathing on our neck, we won't work. Well, not the case, clearly. At the same time, there's meetings and such things that in the end were not as necessary as we thought and can be shortened or eliminated without that much problem. For sure in-person contact has its advantages too, but this should really made us rethink how we work, and try a more balanced system where maybe we can easily be home at least half of our time.

2-Really essential services are the primary sector, the food shops and the cleaners. Jobs like working in a supermarket or cleaning offices and houses should be better valued and paid nicely. Also better considered.

3-Healtchare must be public. Private healthcare that depends on profit has no advantage in dealing with this, because it requires a lot of resources and hours and it's overall too expensive. Also, public healthcare must be well-funded and have enough resources. And given this learning, I would go further: Just straight up ban and nationalize private healthcare companies. Also, if you're all for private healthcare and vote for parties that are against public one, it's only fair you refute any treatment nor help in public hospitals and facilities. Or reconsider your vote next time.

4-Capitalsim doesn't work. The system is totally broken and this crisis is showing its worst sides. Under pure capitalism, we would need to continue working right now, as we die left and right. Under pure capitalism, now people should just go hungry and starve and die out as they cannot work. Under pure capitalism, any business that was unable to function for this period should just close and disappear, or leave its employees to die out at least. This is neither a sustainable model nor a model we should want to keep. This needs to go. I'm not advocating for communism, but we must get rid of the idea that the market is great, when the truth is the market would see humankind destroyed in order to keep benefits. We have seen this before, in the people that lose track of the real world and require workers to do extra hours to finish a project that will ultimately have no meaning 2 weeks after completion. Well, I'm exaggerating a bit on this example, but this same attitude is the one where some manager considers that maybe people should just work, because the company needs it, without realizing this means people will die.

5-Related to this, we need to make people in power responsible for their actions. Managers who have disregarded warnings and asked people to work have killed people. Governments who haven't taken action once it was clear how serious the situation was and have not followed medical expert's recommendations are guilty of personally killing people. One thing is not knowing what to do, another very different is thinking that since your friend the banker prefers people to die than to close some of his business, you can allow it. Or allowing it out of some political agenda. This means you are killing people. And this is not the only situation when this happens: when a government allows banks to kick people out of their homes from unpaid mortgages, both the bank and the government are directly killing people. When a manager over stresses their workforce to the point of people having nervous breakdowns, they are directly killing people. When a rich bastard not only doesn't pay their taxes but also pressures the government to close public hospitals, they're directly killing people. No more fucking euphemism, if you do these things you're a killer, and you should not be allowed to get away with it.

6-Centralism doesn't work. Look, I think Spain is a failed project and I'd rather be left out of it. Maybe you don't think the same, that's fine. But what is undeniable, as we've seen in companies, countries and other organizations, is that when you centralize everything, when you try to manage personally more and more and more things, when you're further away from the real action separated by layers of responsible people, well, you have a less clear image of what is happening. In this crisis, hospitals and small towns or neighborhoods can know better what's the best actions to take. They can know better what resources they have, what do they lack, what to do. So you leave them be, unless they prove to be doing a bad job out of it. Then, if they lack things, if you have organizations over them you can manage that from such a higher level, and so on. But when you try to, basically, micromanage everywhere, that doesn't work. So let's not do that. From a government point of view, I believe regions should be more independent and able to take their own decisions, since they tend to know better their own needs. For example, now Spain has declared we can go back to work. This is idiotic and will cause deaths as the experts are saying (see point 5), but I'd say that for some regions it may be OK. However, should be managed region by region as I said, to see which ones can do it and which ones cannot.

7-Spain's traditional parties plus the right wing parties are useless. Right wing, we know, they're here to steal and lick their rich friend's anuses, and people can die as far as they care, we all know that. However, I hope it also helps to show that PSOE is almost as bad: they militarized the crisis instead of giving funds to healthcare, and since their members are professional politicians that don't know how to do things but know how to get paid from public funds, we've had the situation were resources are not reaching the people, or they buy the wrong things and millions are wasted, plus time is lost.

8-Left-wing parties do not deserve special protection just because they're considered left-wing. We made this mistake before with PSOE, letting it do things that were not left-wing just because we labelled it as the left-wing party. So, the same applies now to Podemos. They're part of the government even if they're not big enough to make some changes. I understand they're not able to criticize some of the government actions without creating a conflict, but that doesn't make them untouchable. We should criticize the fact that they let military to lead this crisis. We should criticize that they're not protecting workers by allowing people to work. And we should criticize their silence or their praise to the current government, when it's not right.

9-USA, UK and Brazil, as very capitalist and right-wing countries, are far from the worst of it, and it will be a massacre in there. Spain is already one because of several of the mentioned points, and forcing people back to work now will kill and numbers will grow again.

10-Catalunya's proposals have been a bit more smart than Spain's (because duh, it's not very hard to be), but far from effective, and one of the involved parties has also been de-funding public healthcare, and that's something we should not forget either.

There's plenty more things I could say, but politically speaking I find these are quite relevant...

Time for questions

So I haven't written in a while, especially about politics, because mostly the current situation can be summarized by screaming to the void at top volume for 4 hours....but I'd like to try to explain some things.

You probably have seen that the people that organized a referendum in Catalunya have been condemned by Spain to lots of prison years. And that people here got tired of this crap and started to protest in a more hardcore way, blocking roads and stations. And then police started to beat people up, and people responded by barricading and setting things on fire, and we're still in this situation.

So, let's start by saying that Barcelona is not a war zone, you can live perfectly well here unless you're right next to some  very conflictive point. So, yeah, newspapers are exaggerating the situation to make it look so much worse than it is.

However, it's bad what's happening yeah. And it's bad only when police act. Otherwise, there are no issues. So, police is doing a horrible job, because they're supposed to keep the peace, but instead they're guaranteeing there's problems and chaos. Police is used as a punishment for protesters instead of trying to establish normality, and it shows.

Anyway, I'd like to try to explain that what is happening should horrify a lot more people than it does, and why.

So, let's say you're not pro-independence. That is fine, each person can have their opinions. You feel that Spain is a nice country, or you feel that Catalunya will do better with Spain, or you're against Spain losing Catalunya. Or some other reason like that. That's fine, I repeat. But even then, there are things that I believe concern you.

The Spanish government and judicial system condemned people to lots of years for organizing a vote,  debating it in parliament, trying to organize a protest and declaring "independence" without any real chance to back it up for real, kind of symbolically. That's it. That's the summary.

Now, you may say, "oh no, but the vote was illegal/declaring independence was illegal". Well, first of all, that's debatable, Spanish laws could be interpreted either way about this. Second of all, laws are not pillars of morality. Laws are rules written by governments. Dictatorships have plenty of laws. If something is illegal, sometimes it's good to also ask yourself, why is that, and if it really should be. As mentioned before in other posts, to assume all laws are just and good is dangerous, submissive and can give birth to horrible monsters like Nazism and Stalinism. And well, when is a vote something that should not happen, really? Why voting is so bad? Could you ask yourselves that? You may say that all of Spain should vote, which is fine, but then why not get the region's opinion first since we're at it? Doesn't it sound...fishy, that you cannot even vote? Today it's this topic, but tomorrow it can be another important one (like reducing CO2 emissions or transitioning to green energies) and the result may be the same, "oh it's illegal to vote about this!". This is a slippery slope, really. It's ok to vote but only if you like it? That's the thing here?

Then you could say it was not the vote, that it was the independence declaration. Only thing, it was symbolic. No administrations changed control. No infrastructures were taken. No efforts were made to change taxation mechanisms nor implement any type of real independence. The declaration was made and then nothing was done to implement it. While I could accept that declaring independence is illegal under the current constitution, the point is that it was not implemented. So, with no effort to do it properly, they should be condemned to lots of years just because they said it?

Then you could say it was the protest a few days before where some police cars were vandalized. Which is true, but the people condemned didn't personally do it either, and they asked for tranquility and peaceful protesting at all times.

Then on the trial, the main argument about violence happening in Catalunya was to say that 1-Screams and looks of the people were "violent" and 2-that the police brutality was the cause of organizing the vote. The first argument means that "violence" can be anything now, as long as the people in power decide something is violent. So you cannot protest against anything that you consider unjust, because it's "violent. The second point is the same defense rapists use, "she was asking for it".

Also on the trial, it was not allowed to use videos or images that contradicted the witnesses statements. They were shown later. So no witness could be considered false and to be removed from  the trial during the trial itself. And there's a lot other things that happened during it that plenty of international organisations have condemned, saying that it didn't guarantee proper rights. I mean, I understand you may be against independence and you didn't like the fact that people tried to vote about it, but isn't it...troubling, how forceful it was? The Spanish government disagreed with the idea, accused people and then proceed to not follow their own laws and checks and balances to make sure these people would be condemned. Isn't it worrying this can happen, regardless of who's being tried and for what?

This was a vengeance, plain and simple, not really a justice matter. Isn't that something that should not happen at this levels, inside the justice system, regardless of your political believes?

Then there's the matter of  the following protests. Of course there has been protests, and there's been people organizing them. They have been disruptive, they have been intense and they have been a lot of them. Well, guess what, that's how all protest that achieved something have worked. That's how we got the 8-hours workday. That's how some other regions and colonies gained independence. So, that's how protests work, they're disruptive or they're useless. Did they put bombs or killed people? No. Did they use firearms? No. Did they enter into direct fights with the authorities? Well, some people have, but the vast majority haven't, and the ones that have are mostly using it as defensive strategies. There has been burnings and fires, yes, and it's not good they happened, but not with the intention to harm others, just to protect from police charges. The thrown objects are bad, ok, but again, these things have been more as defense from charges.

Well, this is now being considered terrorism (not a joke). And again, let's say you agree, those stupid pro-independence bastards are bothering you. Thing is, next time you want to protest because you have a shit salary and rent is being controlled by investment funds that want to make you pay a lot more? Forget about protesting. Any demonstration, any type of road blocking, any type of disruptive action can and will be considered terrorism. Don't you think this is worrisome? That it's establishing precedents? That real democracies should not consider this terrorism?

Let's also talk about the police charges. You can also say that police tell protesters to leave and if they don't they should be hit and arrested because they're not following the law. But then, police are hitting people on the head, on the neck, on other areas where it's clear in their procedures that they cannot hit. Isn't it a problem that the law doesn't apply to them then? Isn't it curious that rubber balls are banned in Catalunya and police used them anyway? Doesn't make you wonder,  that police can arrest anyone in the street,beat them up, jump on top of them, touch them (to women usually), and that's all fine? Is police above the law? And then, why is wrong to defend from them also not following the law? Are you ok with all this because "they would never do this to me, why would they?". Because this is for protesting, for demonstrating, with ideas that are not the officially approved ones. Should you be hit in the head for not running away fast enough when police charges to make people move? Is this proportional? Is ok to beat anyone in the area just in case, even people that are leaving?

And following also this topic, isn't it weird that fascist have been running around Barcelona and beating people up, and in these cases there has never been police beating them or stopping them? Or that when unionist, let's say, have slapped pro-independence people in front of police, police did nothing whatsoever? Isn't it a problem how friendly police is with fascists? And also the same fascist, how friendly they are always judged when they beat someone up and such things? Similarly when it's about rapists that belong to police forces, as shown in La Manada?

Then, considering all this, and consider how the Spanish government refuses to talk. About anything, really. Isn't it strange that no one on the Spanish side is willing to sit down with no pre-conditions, and try to see what can be agreed on or what can be done to improve the situation? Not saying agreeing to anything, I'm just saying to talk.

I will also add for those that put both sides at the same level, do you think it's the same to hit someone and to defend yourself from someone hitting you? Is it the same to control police charges than to have some people among thousands that do fight back? And even then, do you think it's at the same level, police charging and people protesting? An organised force beating civilians is the same that a few disorganized violent groups? And given the last images, is it ok that police infiltrators are trying to rile up these people so there is some fights and some chaos? Do you think it's the same to organize a voting and send police to beat people up? Do you think it's the other's side fault when, during a negotiation, one side just says "No" without further comments and proposals?

Also, consider this: It has been proven that the Spanish government, in the past, has used police to try and incriminate people, accuse them, make sure that minimum you get big news about it by filtering information to the press, prepare charges, etc. Doesn't this concern you a bit? Doesn't this makes you doubt the whole judicial process?

I keep adding: Spanish tribunals are usually decided by the two main parties that are in charge of all this repression and that have alternated ruling the country for the last 40 years. A lot of these judges have been members of the party "in the past". A lot of these judges have clear preference with a certain political spectrum. There's even some that are the same ones that were ruling during Franco's dictatorship, they never moved or were never removed from the position. Isn't that something to make you wonder about the quality of Spanish judicial system?

Just to finish, there's Catalan politicians that left the country and are staying in Europe to internationalize the conflict. Spain has send extradition orders to several of them. Don't you find it curious that Germany and UK and Belgium have, in general, ruled that the detention orders were wrong/didn't apply? Don't you find it disturbing that, in places where there should be separation of powers, the Spanish government is threatening diplomatically other governments about the outcome of a trial in their respective country, which is made by the separated judicial power? Do you think it's normal that the Spanish judges have only asked for the detention of certain people, and that they have withdrawn the petition depending on the political moment?

Now that there's other protests in the world at the same time: do you trust China's and Chile's Governments regarding their actions and declarations with their respective protests? Whatever are your thoughts about independence, don't you see parallelisms between all three cases and how police and governments are acting? Do you disagree with how Hong Kong people is being treated when they protest certain laws? Do you like that Chile protesters have been shot?

Do you still think independence is the problem here? Do you still think it doesn't apply to you? Do you still think Spain is being fair and just with their reaction? Do you still think that, when the time comes, your protests will be treated differently because yours will be just and necessary?

Do not defend independence. If you don't want it, that's ok. However, wonder what is at stake here, because it ain't about the independentists.

Argumenting

Things are getting tense in Catalunya.

The Government has approved a law to organise a referendum on Independence on 1st of October which proclaims Spanish legislation cannot touch it. Spanish government and tribunals have reacted by indicating that anything referendum-related is forbidden and that the law is suspended.

There's more details, but well, the most probable outcome at this point seems a vote happening on 1st of October nevertheless, where "yes" wins.

The Catalan laws were approved with questionable procedures that limited the possibility to debate them....but then again it was done like this because Spain was indicating that even debating such things was illegal, and therefore there were no other options.

In all this mess, several newspapers have started a misinformation and lying war against independence, while several people have made articles or comments where they attacked the referendum.

And in all that, what I have not ever seen are arguments about why we should not vote, or vote "No", that could stand on their own. So I want to comment on some of the arguments said and why they're bullshit....but I also want to point out that there are arguments, valid ones, and it's just mind-boggling that people that I though were smart are not mentioning them....

1-Because it's illegal:

-This one is the first thing that lots of people mention that are against the referendum, and it's really really stupid. For starters, its legality is a matter of interpretation. However, let's say it was clearly and without doubt illegal. So fucking what? As lots of people mentioned, legality is not an indication of morality or ethics. People say that one should respect the law in a democratic country, but I disagree on mindless obeying. First question to ask regarding anything illegal, is to ask why is it illegal. Is it morally or ethically wrong? Is it harmful? Is it plain stupid? If you check this, it's rather evident that some laws make perfect sense. You cannot rob, kill and/or rape because it's ethically terrible. You are not allowed to do drugs because it's a danger for your well-being. Of course there's already shades of gray, and for example maybe rather than forbid drugs for that last one it is better to control and regulate them..this could be debated, and that's why some laws are a must, but others can be debated. Why is a referendum illegal? Because it would leave the integrity of Spain int he hands of Catalan people. And why is this bad? Well, here is where it fails. The only reason this is bad is if you believe in frontiers, in countries, if you feel patriotism for Spain without any other reasons than being Spanish and feel personally insulted by the though of Spain not having some piece of land that was theirs before. I consider patriotism idiotic, since where you are born is a rather random thing to be proud of, it's the same as being proud of having 5 fingers, as if you are personally responsible for them. A referendum is also illegal if you believe people should not decide things, which is antidemocratic as hell. And there's plenty of things that were illegal and should not have been, like women voting. Legality cannot limit ethical causes, and if that's your main reason, what should change is the law.

2-Because it's nationalistic propaganda/patriotism, which as you said it's rather stupid.

-First of all, Spanish nationalism is SO much worse than Catalan one. Second, while there may be some people that really want to be independent because they don't feel Spanish at all and are really really proud of being Catalan, this is also patriotism, which is stupid. However, if you check the general opinion among independentists, the nationalism aspect is not that important compared with the chance of self-governance. Currently, Spain's government and institutions are a cesspit of incompetence and corruption, unable to do much apart of behaving like a corrupt dictator, with the novelty that they do so in group. This is fairly evident for anyone not suffering from brain damage, and that includes a big chunk of the Catalan people, who want to get rid of that and be able to promote a better management and better laws. Lately a lot of progressive laws that could have improved life in Catalunya have been suspended or nullified by creating another law that supersedes them. The problem is that in Spain at the moment we do have a lot of brain-damaged people apparently, and the main parties that are corrupt, dictatorial and useless keep getting votes, so there's no clear solution for Spain. A clean break from that sure would solve the issue for Catalunya.

3-Because in the context of the European Union it makes not sense to put more frontiers, and in general frontiers are stupid.

-Indeed, frontiers are stupid. For example, the Spanish frontiers are not allowing refugees and are also kicking them out back to the sea on the heat of the moment, something that has been declared as illegal by international right. Controlling such frontiers in Catalunya would not be to close the region to the world, but to open it a lot more than what Spain is allowing.

4-Because it's right-wing propaganda and it will become a dictatorship/neo-liberalist hell worse than Spain (so what you say about making progressive laws or opening frontiers won't apply).

-The independence moment is really transversal, and if you check any demonstration or statistic you will see that people of all ideologies are supporting it. What's more, this movement has forced the traditional right-wing party of Catalunya (which disgusts me) to move toward the centre and become much more progressive (but I don't trust them at all still and I know they have corruption, but not as bad as the Spanish one). Also, the parties that have always been more supportive of a referendum and independence have always been more on the left side of the spectrum.

5-Because it's left-wing propaganda and it will become a lawless/communist hell like Venezuela

-Again, the movement is transversal and you can see that a lot of ideologies are involved. It is true the left has more supporters in Catalunya and inside the independentist movement, but the left parties involved have been very calm and rational in the last years while ruling, promoting more social justice and never advocating for pure anarchy, trying to follow a model more north-European if anything.

6-Because the law of the referendum and its conditions have not been agreed with Spain.

-This one is the most used by people more in the middle/undecided, or against the referendum as it is but not against the idea of voting/doing something political to solve the issue instead of just illegalizing it. The problem here is that this depends on Spain. Spain has a tradition of being authoritative and is not used to negotiate much. Let's be clear: The left lost the civil war against fascism because there is a lot of fascists tendencies in Spain, a lot of patriotism for the wrong reasons, and there's only one accepted way to be Spanish, and since then things have not improved greatly about this topic. For a big group of people, Catalunya is not Spanish enough, instead of thinking that Catalunya is another interpretation of Spain, as valid as any other. The current government has the support of such people and any negotiations would be considered as weaknesses. That's why in the last years the Spanish Government has never even considered any negotiations, and has just said Catalunya should shut up and behave, basically. The Catalan government has offered to negotiate until the last minute, but Spain has never offered or proposed anything. So, how can this be negotiated if one of the parts negotiate by saying "no, end of discussion"? Some of the people defending this argument say that this is now, but that we should work to change this dynamic, and vote to put into power people more open to negotiations. The reality however is that with the latest election results we are very far from having a big majority of parties open to that. One of the parties currently not ruling that is defending this argument or proposing other solutions ruled for 8 years and did nothing of the sort, so their promises feel pretty much empty. Asking to pact is asking for people to wait maybe 40 years while renovating the parties, to reach an unknown situation where maybe things improve...or maybe they don't. People defending this option are way too optimistic about it, I think, based on previous experiences. However, I can understand to a certain point people defending this.

7-Because independentism excludes and divides people.

-This one I've heard it from several newspapers that I thought were better than this. This argument, similar to the patriotism or frontier argument, assumes or tries to tell that independentism is about Catalunya being isolated and defending "proper Catalans". However, this is easily disproven by the fact that there's a lot of independentist that are immigrants and children of immigrants. This movement has always been inclusive, and you can see that people in Catalunya just love it when newcomers integrate. One of the best things that Catalan government has promoted since Franco's dead is the fact that, to be Catalan, you just need to live and/or work on the region, and this attitude is clear in all the movement. Most of the divisions come from the unionist side's attitude, where statistics show that the emotional component of feeling Spanish is the most common reason to want to avoid independence, and therefore tend to act in more emotional and extreme ways (although lately it is true there has been some extremism on each side)

8-Because Catalunya will be kicked out of EU.

-First of all, as long as people remain Spanish (which is an option available), they will be part of the EU. As for the theoretical new country, you don't need to be in the EU to have some of the benefits of the EU, as Switzerland or Norway show, but also it's unlikely that EU will not manage things to include a rich region that would be in the top tiers of GDP compared with the rest of European countries.

9-Becasue Catalunya will become poorer.

-Of course if Catalunya becomes poorer, EU may not want to accept it. However, the general consensus is that industry and business in Catalunya is strong enough that there are 2 likely outcomes: If Spain negotiates with Catalunya, Catalunya's economy will rapidly grow from the start. If Spain penalises Catalunya, Catalunya's economy will have problems for a short-term period until it regulates the situation and then it can grow at medium-term.

I could list more reasons that I heard these days, but most of those are over-simplifications of the situation or just plain wrong. The only one that might kind of work is number 6, but it ignores reality too much....which brings me to one reason I have not heard yet, but it is actually good, and I'm surprised no one has mentioned loudly yet, that I know.....

10-For solidarity towards the poor Spanish people that will be left with the brain dead, conservative and corrupt Spanish traditional parties.

Now this is a reason I can get behind to defend not separating. Catalunya is a very progressive area compared with the rest of Spain. The current vote estimation for Catalan elections indicates that  around 60% of the people would vote a party on the left spectrum. Checking the results of the last Spanish elections, Catalunya gave around 2.100.000 votes to parties from the left-centre. In Spain in total, there were around 11.700.000 votes to parties from left-centre. Almost 18% of the total votes for the left came from Catalunya, while the region represents only 14% of the total votes in Spain. Losing those votes, even if you also lose the votes of the Catalan right, means it's much harder to implement changes on Spain, especially since the party that seems to really want to change things in Spain (they're not perfect but so far they're at least trying) was the most voted party during these same general elections in Catalunya.

Basically, separating from Spain is a bit like abandoning any hopes of changing it. It's admitting that the system is too corrupt, too biased, to change it from inside. It's a bit like admitting defeat. And it's leaving all this great nice Spanish people more at the mercy of a group of bastard.

However, there's an alternative approach to this. Spanish politics are stuck in a bad place, for too many years. Breaking from that would be traumatic yes, and would leave the progressive side weaker in Spain. Nevertheless, maybe that's what is needed to make people in Spain react, and see the old parties for what they really are: A bunch of useless corrupt assholes.

Maybe a shock therapy like this can put some life into this old and outdated system....

The Art Of (Mis)interpreting Polls

It's been a while since I commented on Spanish politics, because Spanish politics are still really really shitty and it just gets me mad. There were 2 general elections in a row (first one didn't work out so well) and, big surprise, the usual parties won. The most corrupt party actually improved their results a lot. The almost as corrupt party lost support but still had more than enough to be relevant, and at least the new corrupt party didn't win as much as the polls said. Anyway, these 3 parties never had any intentions to associate themselves with the new left party (which may not be perfect but it has some good ideas and could improve the situation), because they would have to stop with the corruption and such things, and in a predictable move they kind of allied with each other. The only good part is that the most corrupt party is ruling in minority, so the almost as corrupt party and the new corrupt party are happy with destroying some of the damage the most corrupt party had done by undoing their previous laws and pretending to be very different in this way, and that's at least a bit decent.

Anyway, Spain is ruled by corrupts and far-right patriots and traditionalist, and I've abandoned all hope of this changing in the next 50 years. The next hope is to just separate from that.

So these days there has been an interesting poll about what Catalans think about the independence process and, more particularly, about doing a referendum, plus also which parties would they vote in a theoretical new local election.

This poll was done by a newspaper with a center-left bias, but big supporter of the almost as corrupt party. This party is against voting to see what Catalan people want to do regarding independence, so the newspaper had to give results that reflected that this vote was a problem for Catalunya.

Here the thing is that the poll said otherwise, so the newspaper had to present it in a bad way to try to reinforce their ideas that voting to decide Catalunya's future was bad and divisive.

So, they wrote that "The Referendum splits the Catalan people", saying that around 49% of the people were in favour of doing a referendum unilaterally without consulting Spain, and 48% were against this idea.

Of course, if you say it like this, it seems it's a 50-50 matter. But they had to publish all the results after all, and as some other have pointed (link in Catalan, sorry), the reality is that a staggering  84.6% of the Catalans DO want to vote. It's only that of those 84.6%, there's almost a half that want to vote in a Referendum negotiated with the Spanish government, and are against doing it without consulting Spain.

If you put it like this, it is quite clear what is the will of the people, that are pretty much united in their intention to vote. However, all the corrupt Spanish parties do not understand the "democracy" concept and are against letting the vote happen. They're paralysed in their fear of the "Yes" winning, and instead of negotiating, campaigning for "No" or proposing a better relation between Catalunya and the Spanish government, they close their ears and hope that by making voting illegal (yep, that's right) they can solve the issue. Meanwhile, they keep rescuing private companies with public money, and they keep neglecting inversions in Catalunya, and they keep trying to judge and condemn politicians for trying to discuss and debate the independence topic.

So every day, people are more and more tired of this, and independence gains supporters.

Other results that the newspaper "forgot" to reinforce as quite brutal and tried to diminish their importance or applied make up to them:

-When voting for independence, the "Yes" would win with 54.8% and "No" would get 45.2%.

-The first poll indicated what people preferred, but if there was an unilateral Referendum, 68% of the people would vote anyway, regardless of their previous wish. If you then count what people would vote in this case, "Yes" wins by more than 80%.

-More than half of the people that support parties that are against voting would be in favour of voting anyway.

-56% of Catalan people believe Spain is not a democratic country because they're not allowed to vote on a Referendum.


Now, on the second part of the polls, people were also asked what party would they vote right now in case of elections. The results were that, out of a total of 135 representatives, between 88 and 94 would be from parties considered left or centre, with right parties being relegated to very small numbers . If you count parties in favour of the Referendum, you would get between 84 and 89.

Polls are not exact and who knows for sure what will happen. But it seems to me Catalunya has a chance of something...different. Really different from conservative Spain.

And some people are scared shitless about it...

Videogames, Sexism and Idiots

For a while now I wanted to write a little about GamerGate and Feminist Frequency, but I was not inspired and time passed.

However, I have seen some post recently that still talk about it, and I though I should finally write about it even if a lot of time has passed and it is no longer in the news.

So, for those who do not know, in a  summarized version: a while ago Zoë Quinn, a girl that has developed videogames, left her boyfriend. The guy was bitter and made a false claim saying that she had slept with some reporter in exchange for favourable reviews. That's it. That's the whole original story.

Of course, the situation quickly worsened when, all of a sudden, lots of self-proclaimed "Gamers" (usually guys, but I guess maybe some women joined this as well) started to say this was shameful, that she had slept with a guy for a good review showed she was a bad person/slut/etc., that the reporter was immoral, that these practices were immoral, that she should be punished, etc. Things got to the point of death threats to her, and brutal harassment. They stalled calling this "GamerGate", imitating the "Watergate" scandal name format. (People keep calling scandals "somethinggate", as if "Watergate" was referring to some water scandal or "gate" meant scandal, when it is just a hotel name and it is stupid to use "somethingate", but oh well....)

The thing here is that there has been lots of other cases of confirmed corruption in videogame reviews, but nobody made such a fuss about integrity and other topics when it was big publishers and big magazines. So the whole complains were less about integrity and more about the one blamed being a woman,, who did a video game not very mainstream.

Then lots of these "Gamers" started to complain also about how feminist women, progressives and other such groups were trying to change videogames for the worse,  and started to threaten other women related to games development. They also threatened a feminist activist, Anita Sarkeesian, that had started an online video series where she talked about sexism in videogames. The "Gamers" accused Queen, other women and Sarkeesian of trying to ruin videogames and such other things.

Feminist Frequency, the website that Sarkeesian has, explains with examples, videos and interesting facts why games are sexist sometimes, and proposes changes in games stories and game play,  sometimes, to try and change that, while recognising that a game can still be fun to play if it has these issues. Some of the points raised may be questionable or debatable,, and she may be wrong in some aspects, but plenty of times it manages to make valid points and the videos tend to make you think about certain sexism that is given for granted in games. 

People reacted as if she was personally raping each one of their relatives.

The whole thing is ridiculous and shows that a worrisome amount of gamers do not understand games, women, or higher thought processes (I'm amazed they don't suffocate the moment they try to play and breathe at the same time, since clearly their brains cannot handle such complexities). Some people said that the complain was against political correctness, ethics in reporters and other higher goals, but the reality is that most complains were hysterical fits against games not meant for or done by white heterosexual males. 

In Zoë games and Saarkesian videos somehow "Gamers" got threatened by the idea that games could be something else than ultramasculine action games. This also matches the idea of a lot of publishers that, unless the main character is male and white, white males won't relate to them and won't buy the game (even when white males are not, by far, all the people that buy and play such games).

It is funny, but most games that are very masculine, I find them kind of....gay. Nothing wrong with that, but I find it funny that a lot of these "Gamers" would find it offensive if they heard that, for example, Gears of War seems really gay. As an heterosexual male, I don't see the point of controlling a muscled warrior around. It is usually also boring and uninteresting, unless the character has some depth on it, or some funny trait. But by preference I'd rather control other type of characters. For sure I  prefer a female character because I like their appearance, but it is much more than that.

I know how to be a white heterosexual male because I am one, and I do not need games where I control white heterosexual males to feel empathy towards them. Games allow you to play at being someone else, so I'd rather embrace this opportunity by being something else and relating to that.

I'd rather be a teenage girl of unclear sexuality, like in Life is Strange. I'd rather be a murderous female human-alien hybrid with complex motivations, like Kerrigan in Starcraft. I like to play as a female special ops. soldier like in Dino Crisis. I prefer to be represented as a renegade female Sheppard than a goodie-two-shoes male one in Mass Effect (I played both ways and the other one is more interesting). I'd take Claire over Chris Redfield anytime in Resident Evil. I would even argue that Master Chief and Cortana (don't be fooled, plenty of times you play as both in one body) are much more interesting than just Master Chief.

Sure, maybe some of these games are still very sexist in some aspects, but by just putting yourself in the position  of a female, they already do something slightly different than a lot of other games.

Hell, opening the scope to race and species, I'd prefer to be anything apart from the typical, boring, white heterosexual male. I'd rather be a Dark Elf, a Zerg,  an Asari, a Quarian, a Geth Platform, an Orc, part of the Chaos, a Gene Stealer, a Monster, a Zombie, a Dungeon Master....

THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT OF GAMES!

Going on and talking about game play.  I am happy with destruction and slaughter, and some days that's what I want, but I love a good implementation of time control and conversation-based puzzles and stories, or platformers where the simplest game mechanic gets new spins. I love scary games where you cannot kill the thing that follows you,  and games where the puzzle solutions are not evident but still (usually) logical.

And continuing with the story, I love games where the traditional tropes are not used. Games where the damsel does not need rescuing, or games where your actions are not always good and nice, games where you may be the villain, games that question the "you must" approach. Games that punish you for playing. Games that mess with your mind and your feelings.

Games are full of potential, and capable of amazing diversity. And to create such diversity,  we need diverse minds and people changing the shape of games, developing games and analysing games. 

Complaining that women should not complain when they are not represented in them or treated as objects,  complaining that the traditional "rescue the damsel" works fine and doesn't need to change, complaining that some games now are trying to explore game plays that you find boring because you're not killing things while playing, complaining that games should appeal to your sexual tastes, complaining that games can be ruined by increasing diversity and possibilities....it is not just missing the point. 

It is missing it so hard that you shot yourself in the head instead (which could explain your clearly diminished cognitive abilities).