Anyone can take down any structure...if they just close off a radius of two streets all around it. What is Justice allowed to do that it wouldn't be able to do, only that it also closes off the streets for certain events from time to time? Closing off streets for demolition lately? And, how ought access be treated? Closing them off for conventional evictions? Why ought their Magic Powers to bring the street off to a far distant planet -and then back again- seem like Earthly Justice? We are a species free to roam. We don't like things as require being done behind closed doors, so much as we require that we ought like such things, to so be done. Sometimes. Secretively. A bit of tact. A bit of discretion. But a cloak-and-dagger dawn-raid to oust peace-niks has be viewed differently than already it has been shown to us, yet, thus far. 'Justice is allowed to demolish and evict.' How is it going to do it? “You're allowed to reclaim the hanging apple”, the grim reaper is told...how's he going to do it? What other Powers has Justice? It can throw people from their beds. Hurl them across streets. The human species, preventable in their accessibility range, only, until recently, on this sphere, by such extremities as Everest and Poles, is now to be prevented from entering streets. Already, we have made it to The Moon, sent machines to Mars, unravelled the genome, and, about to unveil Artificial Intelligence, we can't quash a tent village without first closing off a two-street radius? “Don't go into the street: there is a bomb”; 'there's a diversion'; 'there's a riot';...people are camping in tents....? Our safety distance kept; our better direction made; dispersal of number approaching critical mass (whatever secret that test hides); but, don't go into the street – because tis so right what we are about to do...that it might blind you. Eviction has nothing to hide. But, we must do it before we get too much support. Support would only talk us out of wishing to complete the task. To keep back the fans and stalkers of policemen. To keep overeager housewives from joining in the clean-up.
If I can temporarily block off the street, then is it also right that I ought demolish and evict? If I can demolish and evict, then is it also right that I can temporarily block off the street? But what if I can't? What if leaving the street open, the masses would trample such Evictors? Is it, then, Justice as is going to be seen going on? Or is it a side-show of a controlled circumstance, taught only too well by political events, as have trained the masses to fear that Justice might be right in all that it might do to protect our lives from worse threats, seeming? Seeming worse, for the symptoms of not being free reacting in different ways, not being worse for having worse conditions to oppose. And, so we learn such Powers, watching bomb squads, as good men, doing good work. But, are they not themselves doing the damage? Is the fear of our physical safety and survival so great that it blinds us as to who's shafting who, here...to allow such Powers, and, those Powers invoked to protect a purportable Commercial Interest? If I can jump all the way to Mars...you just have to bring me on the side of a space rocket, first, and then land me gently, and I'll jump off the step...am I being Just in my proposition, to fool you, that I can? What am I leaving out of my argument? Does it seem unfinished, somehow?
Something you need close off two streets to perform -that it be done safely- ain't right from all angles. One appeal as ought get proper hearing is that streets be left open while such evictions are forced – so that the court of public opinion can have its permission to appeal in whatever way, naturally, that it might take place. There might be some right, by some order, to evict - but there isn't the balls to it in broad daylight. If it could be done, showing, then, also, the masses, what is Just, then we might believe it. But, showing a duped public, that a specially-identifiable node of a network of a mass of 3000 spores can seem as though like as if it were a head - if you treat it as one...before cutting it off - tis not for the right reasons that they are showing such masses, but concealed and dubious ones. Who knows who's angels don't also fart? Its probably the case that they all can, but just not without first closing off the street! Is street-closing argued when such legal wrangling is going on in open courtrooms? And what event must be its excuse, then? I don't believe that super-hero-magic-power-force thingy – that hocus-pocus, witches-spell arguable in a court of law, empowers their such super-hero giant-thingy to do that move. I think that move is swindled.
To bring cameras to a last stand -and to leave the audience out- shows that we care more about our television audience than our public duties; to bring police to a last stand and leave no room for the stand to grow, as it were, naturally, is chicken-shit. Police are there to protect removal by bailiffs - not to stop any protest from swelling naturally for the cameras, if one might have had. When else are the cameras gonna bring all such attention???...But, that natural courses and flows are disallowed, Natural Justice is, surely, also, disallowed. There's a conflict of interest in considering the role of the police - those who are to evict, and, those who would normally be seen to close off streets, and for whatever reason. Were it sufficient that it were so, that those normally seen to close off streets ought be there also, then why doesn't the bomb squad also get drawn in? Something is obvious is left out of the argument. Because I might know how to tear down structures doesn't mean I ought pretend a timewarp in which Law allows me to block streets to do my dirty deeds. I might defy the physical nature of structures all around me, but that doesn't mean that during times of eviction, these are going to be times when I legally have permission to block streets. Being the same force as would normally do such a thing in other circumstances is not good enough. There ought be a clear and explicit reason to employ such force.
And, the arguable reason worth discussing, seemingly, isn't worth discussing in any courtroom as decides that such evictions are so rightful, and, that it will be an end justified by every means employed, and a means justifying all of its ends, if not to say, a well-considered Act. Were they big enough to brave all the elements, including a species free to roam the earth, then perhaps their eviction arguments might properly hold sway upon their Hearing. But, don't look now, I'm taking the Planet Earth to another part of the Universe - and, then just making myself more comfortable, and this for reasons of Health and Safety...implementing a victory won, where good argument is supposedly had - it doesn't cut it, for how a Justice System ought be seen to be doing Justice. Had is what it seems. Don't look now, but I'm refusing Santa Clause and his Elves their way. But, why ought I wish people not look? Its Justice, I am, after all. Tooth Fairies show up to bring support – doesn't mean I'm worried. I, still, am The Law. I, still, am Justice. I'm still Real. Look how Real I am – I'm making a bigger effort now to hide what I told you I shouldn't have to. I only had permission to get rid of Santa's toy factory – I didn't really have permission to get rid of Santa and his Elves. But since the Tooth Fairies showed up – I'm gonna hide them, too – because I say what's Real. I'm Law. Or wait now – I wasn't supposed to be interfering with their right to protest as well, was I? How did I swindle closing the streets from any discussion had in the open courtroom?
Ain't that just the practice that 3000 sites need! Thank you London for showing some scruple. Doubt we know who's being tested though...four months, five – ah sure we don't take that slant. Crap, shoddy, workmanship, them slants. Protest or campaign? We don't like the slant on that issue either. Anti-globalism or anti-capitalism? Nothing to slant nicely about for us here, either. How come they have a slant at all?..Wait now, the Cops have a strategy...and, all the questions from the interviewer...the host...the presenters...are contending issues as would be of interest to...no...nevermind...nothing of any reason to ask. If they didn't spot “against corporate fascism” not being a school of thought which trips off the tongue with any convenience, then why show its inconvenience to anyone's advantage in bringing it attention? I'd just like to see more than one country perform so well in its slant-making – while others' houses of cards are falling down, and their lifeboat of morality is sinking, from their spaceship mother-earth; and, showing just how slippy their own roofs are...for the proper slant, as adjudged, as lets drain off, into the gutter, as best it ought! Ain't it full of the cleanest materials! Don't they just look just so chemically sweet! I wouldn't say 'toxic' about any of them. Urrrgh! Shiver me timbers! Who said that? Banking crisis rhetoric was it? Not our Cops at work, then...Did I also tell you I like the Toe-Nail Fairies. You didn't even know they existed!
The public aren't protected by the barriers. The police are. And the police are supposed to be protecting the bailiffs. But what are the police any good to protect, if they are blocked from anything, themselves, as might do them harm, and thus protected? Bailiffs don't need barriers. They need police to protect them. Police needing barriers! Tis inconvenient their support, morally, in the frame of circumstance in which they are supposed to garner popular support somehow in their civic duty...Exploiting the moment, they block the streets. The moment when things could swell. When cameras would come. Not the moment when bailiffs might be endangered. Not the moment when police might be, either. But, the moment when crowds might gain a critical mass and groundswell event.
What is for testing in all this protest, and, being for the testing of such things...pro-test? We are swindled in a cheat. Our 'anti-test' other half doesn't show its colours. Its governing, but not governing, what purportably is a species as ought think itself whole, were it not able to swindle such cheating games. Tis a species as cannot convene – cannot amass – cannot draw together, such that its behaviours might show what Laws indeed do exist, and perform, so as to show how it is governable – and those ain't the ones written! And, so tis forbidden, by taboo, to come together in such number, except when, maybe, there is some positive focal point of celebration in some festivity or tradition – such as, ordinarily, at a football game. There, though, there's no testing going on in the general character of the herd. The swarm moves as it would be wooed to move. And it behaves. But protest is something different. We become consciously aware that we are a crowd. And an animalistic crowd. We might like scoring goals, but we don't like to be oppressed. The intelligence of such a swarm requires testing so that forms of rule as pretend that our might does not exist, might become wary of such Power, as from time to time, shows that we can oust them. To block the streets off is cheating. The public should decry such behaviour of state to employ police as suppressor of human freedoms, as foul, those acts as are contrary to our human nature, and are out of bounds in the wider game of our human evolution itself; those such bounds, our sphere, on which the species assumed governance of are free, and free to roam whereever they might please, even, and especially, where they be ruled by law.
Taking the planet to a different constellation in order to rule it – doesn't just look tyrannous – and despotic – it also gives opportunity to paint rule that way, too. There's no justification for taking conditions to be framed against a historical backdrop other than where we are celebrated as at the top of our food chain, free and unoppressed on our own sphere, that we be policed so, that way, too. Questions as to the difference relate answers as are fundamental and integral to the occasion to rise to. On this planet the humans are the ones who are challenged only by the terrain and weather getting around. Price ought be our object to get rid of in our freedom of mobility in this century, not our dignity, not higgery-jiggery-pokery arguments of now you see it, now you don't, which event is which, in which Einsteinian frame, in who's courtroom, – out of this universe – claiming to rule the species, but price. It ought be free is our intention to travel, as free is our liberty to make it there, that our language not be made absurd by denying that such intention, collectively, to make it so; copyrighting countries names and charging different rates from drop down menus with PayPal just to cover up freedoms we might have argued nought over, had we been on time with our electronic data. Tis not on the drawing board – something as is a power of State to have to block the streets to carry out evictions, to announce anything new. Streets protect themselves collectively by being streets, not by containing barriers. They are either your streets to throw them out of, or they aren't. Tis foreign you come in, and foreign the aftertaste of the Fascist Corporatism protested against to begin.
You don't turn up out of the blue and say: “but, I thought I might have seen a bomb threat or something that day – so I thought I'd block off the streets.” And, then, think, 'scary events are always in the public's minds– they'll never notice I don't have the Powers...to crush and evict a tent village'. Tis not fear as hides such things best. Tis disproportionate. For tis fear as has been hiding them all along. Its unreasonable and unnecessary to think any other way. That empty void that fear is, its 'nothingness' reveals its lack of power -as by right- and, so, it ought do and behave as it would be seen for all and sundry audiences; anyone who thinks its a head of a worm gathering: once quashed, then the worm faultering in uncertainty and misguidance – don't look now – now you see it – now you don't. Squish! Nothing. No audience. No-one. But tis only a spore same as any other! 3 down 3000 to go! You're only fooling the empty-headed masses. You're not fooling any idea going on within them.
Rat: 'Who saw protests at G8 as a revolt against the empire?'
Pig: "I thought it was just a disruption: can we start again?"
Chicken: 'Did you have the score to mark us up next round?'
Pig: "Sorry, I wasn't looking, is this one a rebellion too?"
Rat: 'Shit – why isn't anyone teaching the army protecting the state against the people?'
Pig: “If they're gonna bring police – then I'm gonna have an army squadron amongst them, watching, making sure they don't put a foot wrong!”
Chicken: 'Police watching the army – or army watching the police?'
Rat: “No, silly...Telly crew, with a camera!"
I might rule the streets, but only when they're closed...to others -as might tell others further- that any such thing ought be different in perception as it might be perceiveable. I might show the ad, but only if the screen is made black. And I am Justice. I have nothing to hide.
