Posts Tagged ‘London’

She got out of the tube station and turned right. That’s right, she was always told to stand on the right, do right, say right and be right and yes she loved turning rights without knowing why. Who was she anyway, she was told to think. She was in her bloodiest conflict when she accepted it, she was attacked and frightened when she didn’t. Yes she was belittled like every other feminine soul with a hole, she was no one, she was small, she was insignificant, she was nothing. Hence she always wore the highest hills to feel a little significant.

hilly heels 3

She passed by some shops, some appeared and disappeared around her. People seemed to be forbidden to look at each other when they walked on this street and on every other street in London; the city that was in love with itself, the city that sold pride to those who lacked it at the cost of their smiles.

There appeared two men; they saw where she was and what was happening inside her hilly heel;no they could not smile either. Her feet were pulsing in her head now. She looked at them, could not see them but fear them. She began walking faster on her hilly heels.

“Beauty has a high price,” a woman whom she admired exclaimed in her mind. She walked on to the known, feeling pulled by her unknowns.

“No you should not go!” said her mother.

He was there, standing in front of a book shop. She saw him and walked back to the tube station.

“Yes, you should go and have fun,” said the woman whom she admired. Her heart breathed for a few seconds.

She walked back to him.

“You are nothing more than a little hole, no matter what you in this world!” shouted her father.

She hated him, she wanted to go and punch the young man in the face.He was waiting for her in the cold and dry weather. She felt ashamed of what she felt; ashamed of what she wore, ashamed of being there. Her feet pulsed in her head, she was not here and she walked back to the tube station again.

Hello everyone, thank you for your ingenious replies to the last week’s story. You have just read the “Inside Her Hilly Heels” which explores the love-hate relationship between women and their heels. You know what to do next. Complete “Inside Her Hilly Heels” with your unique insight as creatively as you want as part of the Magic Book Writing Project.

If you have not joined the project yet visit Magic Book Writing Project now and be the part irreplaceable part of our collective creativity.


I talked to that guy, it did not feel right. I talked to other guy, it did not feel right. I talked to a lady,she was fucked up, I felt fucked up. I talked to older and younger guys. First ones were slaves of their cocks the second ones were victimized. I talked to more intellectual ones, they thought they were God, it was still there. All I knew was something was hurting inside, something around my pancreas or guts.

I watched the moon and she cried...

I watched the moon and she cried…

Being an immigrant from a third world country was hard. There was no love unless it was commercialized. Brits were harsh and they could politely beat you up with their smiles.That was how they were in London somehow.Oh,those politely rude souls in the crowds.There was no place offering you a piece of peace. As if everything was designed to make you feel lesser than who you actually were,lesser,lesser,less. You were never good enough, never fast enough, never smart enough, never pretty enough, never idiot enough, you never knew enough,you were never bitch enough, enough, enough, enough!!! Every state of mind was fucked up, circuses, parks and squares were packed up! It did not matter,I felt whatever was not verbalized.

The pain in my guts went up, up and up! Fuck! Wasn’t that enough!
I went to a gallery of art! I took a trip to somewhere dark! Quiet, creepy and dark! Everywhere was another question mark!He, too, must have been having enormous pain in his guts! What was light and what was not! What was being what was not! What was something what was not! What was an artist what was not!
The pain in my guts stopped and moved somewhere in my heart. I went to a bar before it was night! A man was  right, a woman was right, gays were right,straights were right,lesbians were right,non-lesbians were all right, they had all done their jobs, sure they were right, because it was night.Everybody was right until another trial started up and ended by the next night. But for now, everyone was safe and everyone was right, because it was night.
I watched the moon and she cried, I cried…

“The contradictions in Shakespeare’s life are similar to the contradictions in us. He was a ‘corrupt seer’ and we are a ‘barbarous civilization’. Because of that our society could destroy itself. We believe in certain values but our society works by destroying them, so that our daily lives are a denial of our hopes. That makes our world absurd and often it makes our own species hateful to us.”, says Edward Bond in the introduction of his play “Bingo” that will be on at Young Vic Theatre until the end of March.

Those who experience what exactly Bond says in their chaotic daily lives but can’t describe the situation as clearly as he does, will be leaving their seats with the same question in their minds: “How long have I been dead?” just like Shakespeare does in the end of the play. However when they open the Young Vic’s door to the most absurd world ,where all their human values are trivialised and all humans are valued with the money they have ,after the play will they be able to ask the same question until they find the answer and stop the destruction? Will they be able to afford the truth without being a murderer or dead? Shakespeare could not, in fact, chose not to in Bingo, but that cost him a lifelong inner war and suicide in the end.

Patrick Steward as Shakespeare and Richard McCabe as Ben Jonson in Edward Bond’s Bingo at Young Vic Theatre.

When Patrick Steward appears amongst the audiences and walks to his garden all in brown outfit as Shakespeare, real mixes with unreal, past penetrates into present and one year of his life takes two hours of our future. It is 1615 winter, the year when Welcombe enclosure takes place, aged Shakespeare is at his Warwickshire house after long and prolific years in London. He looks tired,withdrawn,all in his own world.All he does and wants to do is to sit in his garden and think,but will people around him let him do that?

Audiences become imaginary and  play becomes real, when a poor woman shouts at Shakespeare for help behind the garden gate , that is placed between two rows of seat.It becomes obvious that stage is not big enough to satisfy the director Angus Jackson ‘s appetite for perfectionism.

The poor woman begs for money ,Shakespeare ,who is too far from where he is,most probably in the world of ideas,reacts  slower than his old gardener. The old man manages to let  her in, touch her breasts and hides her in the back to have sex with later, until Shakespeare goes in to the house to get some money for her. She is beaten and hungry. We see violence, poverty and deep division of the society in her. Will Shakespeare, who hates his ill wife and own daughter Judith, insults them  in every opportunity, tries to love them with money and slowly corrupts them, do something for the people like the poor woman  in the town or will he let them suffer as a powerful artist?

Big land owners Mr Combe and his two friends persistently ask Shakespeare to stand on their side for his own benefit during Welcombe enclosure which  they want  to begin soon.Mr Combe asks Shakespeare to sign a contract to secure his lands and rents but in return not interfere  enclosure of the common fields once in the first scene. When he comes back after six months Shakespeare says:“I want security. I can’t provide for the future again. My father went bankrupt when he was old. Too easy going.” and signs the contract. People in town begin to suffer, violence, poverty increase, Shakespeare begins to die slowly from that point on and he asks himself:

“What does it cost to stay alive? I am stupefied after suffering I have seen.”

He is also  hated by his author friends like Ben Jonson( Richard McCabe) who says: “I hate you because you smile. I hate your health, I am sure you will die in a healthy way. Well at least you are dying.”

Shakespeare lies down in the snow just before the play ends and asks again just like his characters transfer their insights to the audiences in his plays: What is the ice inside me? The plague is hot, this is so cold. Truth means nothing when you hate. Was anything done, was anything done?”

Socialist playwright Bond collected historical facts about William Shakespeare’s acts on Welcombe Enclosure ,that are hardly mentioned in any of Shakespeare’s biographies,from E.K.Chambers.Bond’s Bingo was  premiered in 1973 at Northcott Theatre in Devon and revived many times before it came to Young Vic Theatre last week.

“If you don’t give me enough love, if you don’t give me enough money, if you don’t give me enough knowledge that brings me wisdom I will be your worst enemy. I will never let you have peace!”, screamed youth , who were left voiceless for a long time, in London Streets. No one can ever know how true this statement is, as much as Londoners now do after being traumatised by the explosive riots of last week and re-traumatized by its governmental fight back this week.

Since the  poor kids broke their silence and showed the world how the country’s policy had ignored them , left them in poverty, left them in silence; the rest, who were shocked, have been woken up by the continuous sirens not by their alarm clocks every morning.

But what were all sirens telling us?

A rioter in Hackney.

A rioter in Hackney.

They were echoing across the country to acknowledge people that state and its laws were there to punish only the poor as the rich always steal by law. Otherwise we would have heard the same sirens when bankers robbed the country and dragged it to the  harshest economic crisis from which we are still trying to recover, which brought us social disasters like riots. The same sirens  somehow were silent when MPs stole from the state’s budget. They  were muted because MPs stole by law and even if they didn’t they were MPs.

Despite the legitimized theft and financial violence of the rich, the poor kids peacefully took the streets last December to reduce the sky high tuition fees to be able to study and maybe become the one who could make better laws for their country .But they were not heard, all they got was just a bit more violence from the police. Their parents, who can’t even spend time with them due to long work hours, marched to the streets peacefully on 26 March to oppose to pay the price of financial crime of the rich, namely publice spending cuts in austerity package. Were they heard? No!

They were not only unheard ,ignored or violated by the system ,they were also constantly provoked by the colourful ,most of the time immoral but still better accepted lives of others on the TV. No matter how high moral values those kids had, they were not accepted, they were not recognised in their society, where measure of everything was money. They had nothing, they were nothing.  And they didn’t steal like the rich with high status but low morals did, they didn’t know how to steal legitimately like the white collared ones did. They got angry more and more every day. The only thing they looked for was that to communicate with their state that stubbornly ignored them. They rioted, they were violated and they violated just like a rioter said in the scene that: “You got to fight fire with fire!”.

Did they get heard? We don’t know yet.

When London was burning and youth was screaming on the streets that: “Enough is enough! We, too, exist in this society!”Their Prime Minister was on holiday in Tuscan and took three days to return to the country. His reaction was as violent and insensitive as rioters’ actions. He ordered police to raid rioters’ homes that criminalised and punished every member of one family regardless their age, health and criminal records. However that wasn’t the answer that people wanted to hear.

People wanted know why that had happened, what was supposed to be done not to have it again? While rioters were “Facing the Justice” like PM said, leaders were facing these questions of which roots come from social and financial injustice.

Whether it was consequences of financial crisis or moral collapses in every part of society; whether it was the result  of  bad
parenting  or of  indirectly privatized education system; whether it was the result of unseen war on women; whether it was  the rights given with no responsibilities ;whether it was  discontented TV programmes that praise immoral personalities and present them as role models to the youth; whether it was  the partial media that never gives voice to victims of the system; whether they did it for fun or they did because they couldn’t find the way out, it is hard for one not to think and painfully ask that, why do we need explosive riots  to be heard if we live in a democratic society?

If today, leaders are going to inquire the riots to create a better society, whom de we need to thank? Do we need to thank those most of who committed the first crimes of their lives by rioting or leaders who never heard them but claimed to have built a  democratic society? Which ones are the real criminals of this social disaster? Did those kids not victimise themselves for
us to have a real democratic society?

No matter how hard mainstream media attack WikiLeaks to cover their failure in exposing the truth ,thousands of people proved last  Saturday in London that they only care about the publication that  frees the information and opens the governments for them by spending their afternoons listening to the  discussion on “Why do we need WikiLeaks?”.

Democracy Now’s presenter Amy Goodman opened the discussion,that is organised by Frontline Club in Troxy ,East London saying that “Information is power, it is matter of life.”If we knew what was happening in Iraq and Afghanistan at the time it was happening, millions of people would have not lost their lives, said Americanjournalist and added that it is extremely important to know what is done in our names.

Slovaj Zizek and Jullian Assange discuss why we need WikiLeaks in Troxy,London.Amy Goodman hosts the discussion.

Then Goodman introduced two most dangerous men of the world to the audiences. Political philosopher Slovaj Zizek and WikiLeaks’ Chief Editor Jullian Assange.Slovaj Zizek who published over 50 books on psychology,political philosophy ,political theory ,history and theology was on Goodman’s right side  ,on her left was sitting the most dangerously published man Jullian Assange.

When Goodman asked Jullian Assange to talk about significance of the war logs and why he chose to release this information, Assange said they , as an organisation, have a role to publish materials on what affects  our civilisation. “We have such a role to shape our civilisation. To be able to do that we need to know what decision the institutions make and how they behave and we need
information for that”,said  Chied Editor of WikiLeaks just a day before he turned 40.

Assange added that the Afghan war log is the largest war record in the world history that has ever been published. Exposing and knowing the truth of the wars is beautiful and horrifying thing at the same time according to Assange who explained  that 15 000 people’s deaths in Iraq war was recorded but was unknown to the world and was never reported by British and US Press.

When Political philosopher Zizek was asked to talk about significance of WikiLeaks ,he was happy and proud to be there to tell his views. “WikiLeaks is doing something extremely important and radical in such a crucial time we live in today. Don’t confuse Jullian with Bourgeois  press’s so-called investigative journalism and so on. Jullian ,you are doing something much more radical.You are not only violating the rules, you are violating the way of violating the rules in media.”,said passionate philospher.

Jullian Assange also  talked about his personal and as an organisation WikiLeaks’ experience during the war log releases when Assange and his publication were under constant attack by main stream media and US officials as Goodman asked. Assange told the audiences ,who believe that WikiLeaks should fight to survive and who also fight for it, what strategy he and his organisation followed during that time and how they survived even after Master ,Visa,Paypal,Western Union’s blockade to stop  money transfer to the organisation.

Amy Goodman quoted US officials accusing Jullian Assange for being information terrorist, high tech terrorist  and some New York Times journalist who blamed him for being insensitive when putting the information out and those who wanted him to be arrested under Espionage Act and asked him to respond them all. Before Assange  started to talk ,audience laughed out loud and finally Assange widely smiled and said that  Sarah Palin blamed even his grandmother on twitter.

The most dangerous  philosopher Zizek exclaimed: “If you are a terrorist then what are they?”

Please visit to watch the whole discussion .

Those who want to know accuracy of the news about Zizek’s relationship with Lady Gaga, Zizek denied it all and said he had never listened even one song of Gaga.

WikiLeaks editor Jullian Assange brought thousands of Londoners, majority of who believed whistleblowers make the world a safer place, to theKensington Hall yesterday at his first adversarial debate organised by Frontline Club and New Statesman.

Assange, the head of Al-Jazeera’s Transparency Unit ClaytonSwisher,NewStateman’s senior political editor Mehdi Hasan were in the proposition of the controversial debate which was chaired by NewStateman’s editor Jason Cowley. In the opposition British diplomat Sir David Richmond, former director of the US Department of Defence Information System Security Programme Bob Ayers needed a miracle to make the crowd believe that world can be a safer place without whistleblowers.

Jullian Assange speaks at the debate on "This House Believes Whistleblowers Make the World a Safer Place"at Kensington Hall in London.

Swisher, who started the debate, talked about ethics of what to disclose and criticised mainstream media’s jealous attitude towards Assange said:”They’re hatingAssange because he got a scoop they didn’t.”and he added “There is no point in giving a deluge of data without contextualising it and saying why it matters. However when it serves their interests, governments have no problem with leaks, thinkof “senior officials” on WMDs before Iraq.”

Speaking about the Palestine Papers, Swisher said thatal-Jazeera’s Transparency Unit has to “Take documents, stand them up, and turn them into TV.People know what not to put out there.”

“Freedom of information isn’t the same as an information free-for-all.” opposed Sir David Richmond and added that: “If the
right balance is not being struck, the democratic way to address this is notwhistleblowing”. However he also said: “Parliament, courts and mediashould be more democratic so there is less need for leaks.”

When Jullian Assange took the stage no one dared to break the silence apart from the cameras that never stopped taking his picture. “The question is if the absence of whistleblowers makes the world a more harmful place?”,asked Assange  after the  loudest applauses in the hall.“How are we going to know if the secrecy process is working or not? The only way we can knowis to know what information is.”When information is secret we don’t know about it. If we’re not talking about what actually happens in the world, whatare we talking about? Myths and hypotheses?

Assange referred to the “original sin” of censorship and claimed that Vietnam and Iraq War could have been prevented if the information had been leaked earlier. 39 years old WikiLeaks editor also stressed that whistleblowers prevented an attack on Iran in 2007 and added that”When whistleblowers speak anonymously they can feel proud that theyhave changed history… and move on.”

Second opposition speaker Bob Ayer called whistleblowers “rat,snitches and sneaks” and talked about legality and technicality of whistleblowing and unfortunately his speech didn’t bring any credit to the opposition.

When Cowley invited Ex MI5 agent Annie Machon to the stage she said: “If we lived in an ideal world where we had transparency, freedom of information and real democracy we wouldn’t need whistleblowers. We need some sort of protection for whistleblowers but until then we have WikiLeaks.” and received personal attack from Douglas Murray who was sarcastic and disrespectful to every speaker throughout the debate.

“Transparency is the key to the truth and it is the truth that gives us freedom. Whistleblowers prevent disasters but they get treated like toxic waste or lepers.”,said HBO’s whistleblower Paul Moore who was invited tothe stage to deliver a short speech about his experience as a whitleblower.

Cowley asked  Assange to explain collateral damage and risk to innocent people as he received the question from NS reader.“We have never got it wrong .” replied Assange and added: “We have the perfect record, no one has ever come to any physical harm because anything that we have published. The Pentagon has more blood on its hands than WikiLeaks.”

The final proposition speaker Mehdi Hasan  who based his strong defence  on Abu Ghraib said:” says that anyone who says whistleblowers don’t make the world a safer place should go and talk to the inmates of Abu Ghraib. Hasan exclaimed passionately at the governments who lie to public repeatedly, “Stop lying to us and we won’t need to have anywhistleblowers!”

The final speaker award winning author and journalist Douglas Murray, who was suffering from clear  symptoms of WikiLeaks Syndrom like  those journalists that  couldn’t  get the scoop also did  as Swisher mentioned at the beginning of the debate, couldn’t  manage to be rational and attacked Jullian Assange’s personal bussiness.Assange’s rational and consistent answers only made Douglas look more fool. However when Assange’s PA reminded him the time ,it was time for him to go to Norfolk where he is currently under house arrest.

Cowley wanted to do the final poll  just when Assange was leaving and the result was not different from the initial one. Opposition speakers’ weak defence was not good enough to make difference in people’s minds which is why none of them  wanted to spend one more second in the Hall after Assange had left.