ideological struggle and house occupations

the ideological struggle is much impeeded. the new blog interface lags like mad, impeded.
even the word struggle is ideologically incorrect, not a coincedence.

in netherlands at the moment occupying a house is not easy.
that is to say.. it has been a while since i was with a group that would not mix pragmatism with housing struggle.

moreso in a point of time like this, after a decade long criminalisation campaign, that ofcourse had it's effects.

that wasn't even hard, marginalisation and infrinchments on rights sufficed to make the usual situation so precarious i often saw no other option but a criminal for sustenance myself.

..

a history of legal disenfranchisement of the civilian i a formal struggle with the system over a basic right: housing,

the nazis love to do anything against housing, the capitalist you might say, but nazi is their product and favourit. disempowerement disenfranchisement, illegalisation their hallmarks,

if it is about a single group, a social phenomenon or the result of cneturys of struggle for emancipation.

..

in my opinion and for my person, now it is not possible to occupy houses at the moment 'just for living'

even if the people need the house unfortunately.

just like it used to be btw. the occupying of houses must be done seriously, consciously aware it is a political action and it is an exemplary action.

probably it would be best to focus on a few big projects besides emergency housing. everyone their own 'legalised' sttus is also distracting and doing the cause for the whole not much good.

once that is done people 'settle', and often 'settle with it'. also the majority of even political people cannot withstand the temptation to try and get 'individual property-like rights' of their own only corrupting the situation more. if we could arrange a few bigger places to house the people that do need the political and free context but cannot on their own fight every institution and prejudice it would be great. i suppose not everyone has to be consciously aware of every ideological implication.

anyhow for me it does not work to compromise. i am looking for a group with a definite target and 'mission', like we used to have, for an individual the pressure is usually to big.

this 'mission' also has to be communicated between ourselves. it is better to loose a house than to haggle with the principles and rights that people have.

the basic method of occupying houses has allways been demonstrative action. usually with groups of people or sympathisers.

through demonstrative action housing will allways stay possible, not immediatly but even when they succesfully imprison the people that dare to stand up the better at some point the system will allways give in tp the pressure of populace and media.

perhaps they intend to won't, and sniggle over that in the pluche but the individual township and major also has to answer, and usually sooner rather than later it would result in a roof over the head that needs it.

for that it is important not to isolate the people that have the ideological perspective still more.
and if for that reason only, occupying houses should be a spacy affair.

rdprcially because it will need to be doe with a ideologically motivated group. housing is an ideological right, non ideological housing struggle, strange compromises, vague contracts etc., it is pragmatically easier than no roof at all, but it has nothing to do with real housing struggle, the occupation of unused and speculative property.

a property that is the hypocrit crisis pyramid scheme to defraud us all from sensible living circumstances and individual and collective rights.

so very damn ideological that i do not want to work for individuals, that need the house even desperately. yes i will try but i find it hard to function it is the ideological bases, and it is a dutch one unfortunately, that allowed the housing movement to change a whole lot against homelessness.

like with every emancipation the establishment is torturing hard to turn about every psoitive social impact because it does not serve their pyramid schemes.

only one answer, struggle back and struggle that ideological struggle ideologically.

the action is quite simple, and quite possibly the person i think about most at the moment will succeed when they get bored with evicting them time after time. not for the first time they try and play like that.
no of the measures are 'new' they all been tried and failed before.

if he was with a group and everything was ideologically motivated it would be that much easier.
he doesn't even err. he just does not take the ideologically pragmatical course, to continue the project with the half empty neighbourhood (that well actually yet discriminated him) plenty good reasons for that, but every other project is more complicated.

for these small houses every aspect of the speculation is clear, the only reason it failed last time was because the homeless person had so much pleasure in destroying the house, so that he was not 'ideologically fit' for the action. he still needed a roof over his head ofcourse, if i had no house it would be more simple, i would just make the action creatively untill i could live somewhere.

ofcourse you need to be creative, in case for example a few attempts in the aforementioned neighbourhood would fail because of infringments of the authoritys, i would surely squat the former post office or some other high profile target to make the point.

also that is ideological, not to be satisfied before you have what you need, but not to allways opt for more than that.

for a bigger project, the first you need is more people, only after that a person  with ideological background can legaly represent the point that is thus made.

to represent cases for ideological reasons implies another thing,
no matter what, the house and the people in it should stay reasonably whole.

if you need to destroy some building for a living, it cannot be that we do it under the guise of housing.
either you need to make the ideological struggle to occupy for demolition, and it would be a story with an end, because the establishment likes demolition well, or you have to destroy a building that you are not using under an ideological and thus legal pretence.




PS.
most people cannot make the ideological struggle for two simple reasons
egoism and fear
and: not being fair.

once you manipulate someone(s) to make them help you it is not anymore ideological,
within certain limits (can you help me is ok), since the ideology is allways for a 'true cause'.

 it is not possible to reach the ideal situation (good and facilitating housing) simply if the intentions will not be clear and reliable.

that is for me or any other politically engaged person, but it is even more so in the struggle against the establishment, because one way or another that fight is allways won in and as a legal case.

the pretence of the legal system that it donns justice is utterly farfetched, but actually that they are an excuse means you should not give them one.

the powers that be (cops, sneaky services, establishment, the rich) will create the mishaps themselves, brief informers and pressure the lonely to destroy iniatives, nevertheless we need to win our cases.

oh we can be pragmatical, but only in ideology, not in practice.

about being fair, if people are not fair i will consider them unreliable, for good reason or not,
that not being fair is so often pragmatical ('perhaps it works this way') is one good reason to put fear first and the resulting lack of openness and dishonesty only second.

an extreme example is once someone approached me and said,

oh that was the owner, but i dealt with it..

how??

i told him we would leave..

what???

well, we will just not leave, but he will think so and go away.

now i am so much older i wonder if he actually asked and got money with that trick,

glad i don't remember who or when or if it even really exactly happened, i guess it is a compilation of several memorys.

obviously telling an owner you will leave when you have no such intention or plans is a good example of how it is rewarding to be ideologically consequent. the best that guy can think about the people he just met and discussed with (or so we hope he could have) is they are idiots, wich would be close to the truth in the case, but he can also get scared for lies and cheats.

well since i think he was a damn rich nutter serves him well he swallowed it and probably , i think now, payed no small amount, to the persons standards

but at the moment, now we need good cases,  they well now, i think they thoughtfully conspired, planned and even planted to have the earlier action fail.

it would result in a rich fellow whining to his well positioned mates, and they would aptly and illegally have the police serve and slave with malicious violence and conspiracy to hold the iniative.

that is how it is if you are under a regime without any respect for fundamental rights 'in practice'.
the weak spot is they have their excuse still, and allways, pragmatically.