Thoughts on the US 2020 election

 

Clearly Trump and his administration must be removed from office for their incompetence on covid19, nepotism, the appointments of an army of fanatics and libertines to executive  and judicial offices, abuses of power, corruption, the massive transfer of wealth from ordinary people to the obscenely rich under the Cares Act, the emboldening Neo-Nazis and white supremacists, the persecution of Muslims, the failure to address murder and brutality being committed by the police, belligerent threats of annihilation against other nations, the failure to address student debt, pulling out of the Iran nuclear treaty, weakening of regulation on destruction of the environment, withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate, to name a few reasons.

That being said, unlike the last umpteen administrations, both Republican and Democrat, Trump did not start any new wars and was in fact against more war hence his fall-out with John Bolton. We can fully expect a resumption of US imperialism under the Democrats which will of course be enthusiastically supported by Republicans, in congress at least. There will be no universal healthcare system despite the country being ravaged by covid19. There will be more deregulation of corporate activities from finance to pollution, leading to another and possibly terminal financial crisis and another 8 years of failure to address the burgeoning climate crisis which threatens to end civilisation as we know it. We can also expect the continual ratcheting up of authoritarianism as the US population rebels more and more against their appalling economic malaise at the hands of the corporate elite

Americans seem to like to think in terms of hope, but the reality is that hope is a luxury they can no longer afford. If they do not overthrow the corporate state and radically address the inequalities in healthcare, education, living conditions, working conditions, wealth, political influence, then they are doomed to a societal death spiral accelerated by evermore frequent appointments of fanatics and psychopaths to the Whitehouse, leaders who will make us long for Trump again, the way we longed for Bush again under Trump. These ruthless demagogues will have at their disposal not only the police and military forces of state but an ever-growing movement of angry racist hyper-masculine militias eager to express their discontent with LGTBQs, ethnic minorities, liberals and a laundry list of groups of people they hate, through barrels of their Glocks and AR-15s. Let's not forget of course the increasingly violent counter-movement from the left namely Antifa, who will do nothing to protect American society, but only to contribute to the misery, further enrage the already disenfranchised and grease the slide into anomie and civil collapse.

We in the UK are not merely distant observers, we already suffer many of the symptoms of the corporate-capitalist domination we see writ large in the US, and we too, much like Canada, will follow the US down the same drain hole. Furthermore, the collapse of the US could see nuclear weapons come under the control of some of the most frightening and deluded fanatics, both religious and non-religious, in the world.

There is little to celebrate from this election but the temporary removal of one of America's worst. The descent into destruction nonetheless proceeds unobstructed.

Letter to Boris (on IQ versus wealth)

Dear Boris,

I don't know how true the claims are in a recent article in The Mirror regarding comments on IQ and wealth attributed to yourself, but I wanted to give a few comments of my own on the matter for your consideration. I hope that is not too presumptuous of me.

I don't know whether IQ is a particularly good predictor of wealth, but I can see why such an assumption might be made. IQ is certainly not a great predictor of ethical behaviour or humanity, and I think you would find much better predictors of wealth and power in metrics of greed, ruthlessness and selfishness should they ever be adequately measured and calculated. Also it doesn't take exhaustive research to realise that the most voluminous and monstrous crimes against humanity and the planet are orchestrated by the most wealthy and powerful, not the least, and always have been.

Claims about IQ distribution to support the existing rich/poor disparity strike me as alarmingly eugenicist rhetoric. I hope that such notions are not a genuine participants in your own philosophy.

I would be glad to hear your thoughts on the matter by reply.

Yours Sincerely,

Ian Kirwan

----------------------
Posted to Boris Johnson (mayor@london.gov.uk) 29th November 2013
----------------------
Update: Email received from the Mayor's office; "Thank you for your interest in the work of the Mayor and the Greater London Authority, we are keen to answer your query as quickly and fully as possible. As you will appreciate, the Mayor receives a very large amount of correspondence but he is committed to responding to your query within 20 working days."

To mask or not to mask, that is the question

I was pretty insensed when I read Martha Gill's blog article, "Anonymous have been exposed as hypocrites. Watch them try to wriggle out of it", via The Telegraph website today. It was a dreadful attempt to pick any little hole possible with the movement by arguing that anons buying Fawksian masks to attend protests somehow contributes to misery in the 3rd world. I immediately responded in the comments section below her article:

"Slimey establishment spin from the Teleguff. What a surprise. Interestingly boycotting these factories would make these people considerably worse off. The right thing to do is to support their fight for better conditions. Furthermore it is establishment corporations in the West keeping these third world workers so oppressed. Establishment corporations that the Telegraph supports and receives advertising revenues from and whom pay Martha for her 'journalism'. But you wont read that in the Telegraph. Wriggle out of that Martha! Frankly you disgust me"

Martha could have done a little investigation into how Western corporations lobbying politicians put in place the kinds of international trade agreements that perpetuate and exploit the poverty and hardships of people living in the third world, for profit. She could have gone further to point out how these same corporations are driving down working conditions and dismantling the welfare state in the UK to create worker insecurity thus enabling corporations to stagnate workers wages against a back drop of inflation, effectively meaning wage cuts. All the while corporate executives and shareholders are getting fatter and richer. She could have talked about how Western corporations are using 3rd world workers as wage 'competition' against UK workers, putting many workers out of work or pushing them into zero hour contracts. But no, she didn't do this. She managed to spin anonymous, perhaps many unwittingly, keeping third world workers in work, into some kind of story about anonymous perpetuating their hardships. That takes at least one of two things; an unacceptable degree of ignorance for a journalist and a calculated cynical establishment hit on a people's movement.

Such smears will be little surprise to anons of course, having watched the media go to town on the likes of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange in recent years. Her article does however illustrate establishment ideology at work beautifully. They will try to find any little thing they can to bring down people's movements for justice. No matter how flawed their argument is, it doesn't matter. They're the establishment media. They decide what people should believe.

Martha very likely considers herself an independent minded journalist. What she almost certainly doesn't consider is that she has grown up in the downpour of establishment propaganda, as did her parents, 'educated' in the establishment run/controlled education/indoctrination system, selected by an editor because of her views, who himself/herself was selected for their views by the establishment owners/executives. This is how the hierarchy conspires to narrow the range of views presented to the public. This is totalitarianism in action. Martha will be completely unable to see it or herself for what is/she is. Nonetheless she is a tool of corporate/fascist totalitarianism.

One thing this whole issue does however do is make the waters of boycotting unethical businesses a little muddy. There are times when boycotting is the right thing to do, but this would not be one of them. Boycotting Israeli products for instance is a good idea as this puts economic pressure on Israel to end it's vile and murderous oppression of Palestinians. So what is the defining criteria for ethical boycotting? Well Israel is a prosperous state, and no small part due to its occupation of other people's territories, so a boycott is unlikely to put Israeli workers into the kind of abject poverty being inflicted upon Palestinians, whereas profits will be hurt. So we have to think about who we are helping and who we are hurting, and evaluate each case on its merits. I wish I could be more cut and dry, but this is the best I can come up with for now. I will be interested to hear your views on the matter, so please comment below.

So what of the mask? Is it a good idea to where the mask? Author and former war correspondent Chris Hedges argues that it isn't [1]. I agree mostly with Chris's point that hiding behind a mask of some kind is a gift to the establishment. The reason being that the sleeping masses will see this veil as the mark of criminality rather than legitimacy. If you are not a criminal then why are you hiding your identity? I know, I know, it's a horribly flawed rationale, but that is where they are at, and if we want to win them over we ought to avoid alienating them. That aside I do think that the Fawkesian mask carries with it tremendously important symbolism and of course a novel visual tool for drawing attention to the movement. I can't and don't want to tell others how to protest or dress but I can tell you what I will do and why I will do it and hope that others see what I perceive as the wisdom of it. I don't want to hide. I am happy for people to see my face when protesting. Why shouldn't I show my face? I'm proud to be standing for a cause. I will however continue to carry the mask and wear it for brief periods because of its symbolism and power to draw attention. But I will lift the mask from now on to talk to passers by who express an interest. This is just the same as taking off your sun glasses when talking to someone. Standing in front of someone with a mask covering your identity whilst talking to them suggests that you do not trust them, whether true or not, and that is not a smart way to go about bringing them on board. I want to meet them face to face. I want to smile at them and win them over with my humanity and my argument, and the mask can be a tremendous barrier to that. So if I had any advice to give on the matter I would say use the mask wisely and thoughtfully. Don't let it be your down fall.

References/Citations
[1] Chris Hedges and Occupy Debate "Black Bloc" tactics, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SoXWuQPrrI

Article short URL: http://tinyurl.com/phcmms6

Remember, Remember, the 5th of November, Birmingham UK 2013

Finally, the afternoon/evening of the 5th of November had arrived. The #MillionMaskMarch was on. Images from across the world were already starting to appear on Facebook of Anonymous protests and protesters, from the cities of Australia to the US. The excitement was growing.

I arrived at the Bull by the Bull Ring a little before 5pm, almost 2 hours late. Sorry guys. Life had already conspired to delay me. Already anonymous folks had convened, prepared banners, and were successfully attracting the attention of Birmingham shoppers and workers. The Fawkesian masks, being entirely appropriate for the 5th of course, certainly raised the interests of passing folks, young and old, different ethnicities and creeds. It soon struck me, the significance of the mask that is. Guy Fawkes had plotted against the rulers of the day in the onslaught of ruling class tyranny, and here we were 400 years later still struggling against a ruthless ruling class. The mask carries with it an important piece of history; the ever present struggle by the ordinary people against the monsters who dominate our lives. That idea is somehow carried implicitly in the mask itself. Folks without realising it, see the mask and receive an important message. The struggle is still going on. It's here and now. It is the rich and powerful against you, against us.

Anonymous protesters did themselves proud. Making friends with passers by. Answering questions calmly and thoughtfully. No aggravation. No trouble. Just spreading the message in a friendly, visual and effective way. The banter was fun and people wanted to know more not less. I am struggling to find words to express what I want to say but alas I should just say that I was proud to be part of this event, because of the people involved and their commitment to peace and positive engagement with the public.

It was my first demo and, truth be told, I was disappointed that there weren't more people involved, but I suspect I'm not alone in that sentiment. The issues being raised (see the banners in the images) were all of tremendous importance to the lives of ordinary people and perhaps even the survival of our species, and so long as they remain issues we are going to want more people participating in these events. We need the people to realise that they are in a war, a class war, and that they are us, we are them. The movement must grow, and it will. It will so long as there is oppression and tyranny, and we have an indelible symbol to unite behind. The movement is a symbol, a symbol of discontent, a symbol of defiance, a symbol of unity of the people regardless of the issues being raised.

Just a few metres away another protest had gathered, under the banner "Bonfire of Austerity", put together by  The People's Assembly against Austerity and the Midlands Socialist Resistance. They had quickly realised that we were fighting for many of the same issues that they were and invited us to join them in demonstrating at pay day loan shops. The police arrived quickly to do what they were instituted for, to protect the interests of the rich against the ordinary people. Thankfully no one was arrested and no trouble occurred. The protest did succeed in penetrating the shops themselves and making a point inside the building to the workers of Cash Loans and the Money Shop. Please take a minute to understand the issues of pay day loans and why they are a cynical and deplorable exploitation, by the rich, of the poorest workers, often trapping them into a spiral of debt with extraordinary and obscene interests rates.

After the loan shark protests, anonymous and The People's Assembly reconvened at the Socialist Resistance stall where people were invited to speak. We heard some great speeches about the voluntary complicity of local councils in the most cynical of Tory policies, free speech and other issues. I even got up to the microphone myself and rambled on a bit about democracy, law and order, sadly failing to get across the most important things I wanted to say e.g. how picking between factions of the rich every few years is not democracy, and how the principle function of the police is to maintain order, the social order, rich to poor, by protecting property over people. Those with property being the rich, those without being the poor, as it has always been. Many thanks to the Socialist Resistance for allowing us to speak. This was a great show of solidarity between different protest groups.

One of the points that I did make, regarding the establishment media and it's explicit function of serving the establishment rather than the people, came to mind again this morning as I replied to comments on Facebook about the appalling media coverage of protests. This is precisely why we have to get out on the streets and make our points. On the street there is no establishment media standing between you and your audience. No intercept. No 'interpretation'. Just you speaking to other people. We should also never forget the power of these face to face interactions. They are real. They make a lasting impression. They are free from the abstract and artificial experience of the media or internet.

Anonymous is an idea, not a group or organisation, and we must remember that and convey it. I think that idea was expressed well and we should all continue to develop our messages and our capability of delivering them. We have to encourage our fellow citizens out of apathy and into participation. This is after all about all of us. It's about how we are treated as livestock to be exploited by the rich for greater riches and power. It's about how if only we stand up and speak up our message will be loud and clear. It's about letting ordinary people know that they are not alone and that they do have tremendous power if only they choose to use it. We exist in far greater numbers than our oppressors and exploiters, and their power to oppress and exploit relies explicitly on our apathy and participation in their machinations. All we have to do is say 'No More' and refuse to play their games. But we have to do it together, and we can. Keep going people. There is hope. So long as there is a breath in your body there is hope. Movements grow by ordinary people simply acting and spreading the message. All big things start small, and those who have the gumption to start small, in hope, deserve a great deal of credit and recognition. It is a pleasure to be with you guys. Peace.

"We Are The 99%"

 "Join Us"

"Together We Stand. We Are Legion"

"Too Poor To Learn". Reminding us of how the the education system is become an explicit privilege of the haves under the ruthless and greed driven ideologies of capitalism.

"United as one, Divided by zero"

"Together We Can; End poverty, Eliminate pollution, Feed the world. Unite. Let Peace Grow."

"If you're not angry, you ain't paying attention"

"Say no to; Badger cull, austerity, fracking, bedroom tax, NHS cuts"

Russell Brand: Man of the People

I used to think that Russell Brand was a complete twonk. Another icon of establishment decadence swaggering across the screen at our expense with a typical celebrity class ignorance and indifference to the injustices lavished upon the majority for the power, prestige and riches of the sociopathic minority we call the elite, the establishment, the ruling class. Whether that sentiment was justified at the time I'm unsure, but it is one I no longer hold. I became aware that Russell had sympathy for us, the 'unwashed masses', when I came across an article he produced for The Guardian in which he scorned the extreme hypocrisy of the establishment in their treatment of rioters whilst continuing to lay a carpet of rose petals for our war criminals, terrorists and ultra-thieves we call investment bankers and traders [1]. However I nearly fell off my sofa the other evening when I saw him being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight [2]. Russell was on fire! He was fierce, filled with the pain of the people and the planet, a freight train of disgust plowing into Paxman's agenda riddled questions, carriage after carriage of articulate decimation of the political paradigm that prevails ubiquitously in the establishment media. I'm surprised that the interview was even aired. For that Mr. Paxman and Co. do deserve some credit, but it is Mr. Brand who should be appreciated here, not merely for his spirited lambasting of the vogons that rule over us and control the the wealth of the nation, but for the circumstantial fact that he can awaken and invigorate a lost generation of disenfranchised and disengaged young people like few others can. I can only hope that other celebrities of Brand's generation hear the groans of the people and pick up the torch, to help ordinary people, particularly the younger generation, fight back, not just for justice and equality but very likely for the survival of the species.

Russell brings to the fight some long over due humour. A kind of humour that us ordinary folks can relate to. It has the incredibly important characteristic of raising awareness of the seriousness of the situation we're in but without sending us into a coma. He is able to stitch back together our attention spans, that have been shattered by the mind and ethics disintegrating triviality and chaotic dross we call the mainstream or establishment media. It should be well noted also that this arrangement is far from undesigned as Chomsky and others prolifically reveal [3][4][5]. The establishment do not want ordinary people participating in politics. They never did. They never will. If ordinary people enter the arena en mass then the political system will no longer be heavily tipped in favour of the rich. Check out Russell's piercing but also funny recent article in the New Statesman [6].

Russell is absolutely right that voting is a waste of time. As I sometimes say "if this is democracy then giving a slave the day off once every few years should be called liberty". Picking between factions of the elite once every few years is not choice. It is not participation. It is very definitely not democracy. It is the scam we are told to believe is democracy, rather like being given the choice between a kick in the teeth or a punch in the mouth. Furthermore there are very good reasons why genuine prominent alternatives do not exist, or at least are not made known to us. They are numerous, but perhaps most significant is the fact that the establishment own and control the mainstream media. Are they likely to allow alternatives and views that challenge their exponentially disproportionate wealth and dominance over us? It's a no brainer. The only participation in politics ordinary people have is in the streets, demonstrating, protesting, striking, refusing to comply with the ideologies forced upon us. But we do have power. Enormous power. Our power lies in our numbers. The elite are terrified of us, which is why they go to such great lengths to divide us, disengage us and make us apathetic and hopeless. But hope is here, it's growing, and you need a piece of it. Growing and evolving movements around the world are linking up, sympathising, educating, sharing and galvanising. Occupy, the 99%, Anonymous, the Arab Spring, human rights groups, animal rights groups, unions, celebrities, academics, political dissidents, whistleblowers ad nauseam are all fighting back, not just for themselves, but also for each other and for you. You just need to pay attention. Visit their websites and their YouTube videos. Join the Facebook pages and Twitter discussions. Feel the power of the people. Connect with others who are as outraged as you. Join a protest and make new friends, real friends with a passion for humanity, for the planet, for our future, for you. You'll thank me I promise.

Russell is a good man doing a darned good thing, and good people deserve our appreciation and reciprocation. The only thing I can do to reciprocate here is to make you aware that it is very typical of the establishment to go after outspoken public figures and try to bring them down before their message really reaches the masses. Don't be surprised if Russell Brand becomes 'embroiled in scandal' of some sort in the not too distant future. He is certainly at best sacrificing career opportunities for our benefit. Stand by him as he stands by you!

As always please let me know what you think.

References

[1] Big Brother isn't watching you, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug/11/london-riots-davidcameron
[2] Newsnight: Jeremy Paxman and Russell Brand, 23/10.2013, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri0R9wCZz-o
[3] Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AnB8MuQ6DU
[4] Orwell Rolls In His grave (including an extended interview with media expert Professor Robert McChesney, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_lYGyIaK80
[5] Psywar, the battle for your mind, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXX0vujix-o
[6] New Statesman article, Russell Brand on revolution: “We no longer have the luxury of tradition”, http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution

Representative Democracy: An oxymoron?

I've often given thought to the idea of the representation of interests but have never 'put pen to paper', so I thought I might share with you where I have gotten to and see what you think about the matter.

Who is the best arbiter of your best interests? As a babies we lack any capacity to reason and therefore it is down to our parents to do their best to ensure our survival and our futures. Our genes predetermine this parental behaviour, which is what is meant by maternal or paternal instincts. As our capacity to reason develops we begin our struggle for independence. Often an unhappy time for both child and parents as their instinct to best serve our interests starts to conflict with our own developing sense of self interest. At some point we take control of our much our own interests, which is typically upon leaving the nest. Outside of this normative pattern the capacity of others to best serve our interests diminishes with diminishing kinship. That is to say; the less connected we are as family or friends the more we are likely to be serving our own interests rather than each others'.

How then is a representative democracy possible? Is it merely an oxymoron? Can a politician really have your interests at heart? Personally I don't think so. They are by nature representing their own interests, even if they earnestly believe they are trying to serve ours. Even if we manage to communicate to them our needs and desires we run into numerous problems.

• The representative is going to have to balance our needs and desires against the needs of desires of others they are representing.
• They have their own political ideologies, needs and desires that may and in my opinion almost without exception does conflicts with our interests.
• Party affiliations often demand that representatives follow the party line even if the representative is not in favour of the party line.
• The fact that one person is supposedly representing the interests of many makes them a target of powerful third party interests who are seeking to ensure that your interests are not represented. This can take the form of bribery, propaganda and even threats.

It is also important to note that the rich and powerful conspire to ensure that democracy is so configured. An examination of the notes of James Madison, perhaps the leading framer of the US constitution, provides us with an important insight into the thinking of the elite. The US founding fathers certain had England as a working model around which to construct their own system, and notes from their secret meetings show just that:

"In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They [branches of government] ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." [1]

Particular attention should be paid to the notion of protecting the interests of the minority of the opulent against the majority. Here James Madison is explicitly stating that the interests of the rich and powerful must trump those of the masses, fearful that democracy would lead to equality. Despite these horrific statements we should bare in mind that the founders were actually attempting to construct a comparatively more fair system for all than that of England at the time. They were however in fact elite, wealthy land owners and slave owners, and of course serving their own interests. This is the US 'representative democracy' in construction, but what they were in fact constructing was a tyranny over the masses with democracy for the rich. That system persists to this day, with our own British system now mimicking it almost entirely.

These points certainly demonstrate how wealthy people impose a class system upon us in which the further down the social order we are, the less participation in democracy we are afforded, for the explicit purpose of serving their interests, even if they believe they are serving ours.

For me, I don't think that there is any such thing as a representative democracy, because representatives do not and cannot represent us. I do think the term is at best an oxymoron if not an outright term of propaganda.

What do you think?

References
[1] Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, Taken by the Late Hon Robert Yates, Chief Justice of the State of New York, and One of the Delegates from That State to the Said Convention, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp

"Profits and tax cuts are not dirty words" according to David Cameron

This is the headline of a lead article from The Guardian today. It is in fact interesting to see such statements make it into headlines, as it suggests that there is a debate afoot as to the reality of the statement. If profits and tax cuts are not dirty words, why say anything? The very fact that the PM felt the need to say it is evidence of a fight back against public opinion by the ruling class. So I'd like to explore these words here for your consideration.

Let's be clear, when David Cameron states that 'tax cuts' are not dirty words in an act of defence against an opposing public position, we know he is not talking about tax cuts across the board but merely tax cuts for the rich. One of the Cameron government's first taxation acts was to cut the 50p rate on inheritance tax, which is a tax that only affects the rich. Why tax cuts for the rich? It's not as though they are facing any financial hardship is it? It is however the corporations of the rich that are lobbying our ministers and MPs on a daily basis, with campaign donations and offers of post-parliament 'consultancy' roles for MPs carefully tucked up their sleeves.

We should all take time to consider the meaning of the word profit. What is profit? What does it mean to profit? If I grow fruit on my land and exchange some for vegetables grown by my neighbour there is no profit. It is a mutually beneficial exchange for the purposes of our survival. It gets a little more complicated when we venture into the world of money, but the principle remains; in a fair and equitable exchange of goods or services there is no profit. Profit only arises when one party is exploiting one or more other parties, and on this 'principle' the ruling class has worked very hard to convince us all that it is fair and good, Cameron's own words being an explicit example. So who are the exploiters and the exploited? Well clearly ordinary folk are exploited by the rich, otherwise they wouldn't be rich! This isn't to say that the rich do no work. In fact they work very hard, exploiting us, because it is so profitable, but then should we really be calling this work? A con artist might have to go door to door for weeks before finding a suitably gullible enough victim with sufficient money to make his efforts worthwhile, but we don't call it 'work', nor should we of the activities of the rich. Furthermore the rewards to the rich are astonishingly disproportionate to their efforts.

The status quo is maintained of course by the fact that the wealth of rich gives them power, doorways into the process of government, and furthermore their domination of the media allows them to persuade the unsuspecting masses in their favour whilst keeping the truth as far from us as possible. If only folks had the time to look into the public record properly. The parliamentary record. The declassified record. Interestingly if we were all working to the principles of making a living rather than a profit, especially the rich, then there would be far greater financial equality. Perhaps more to the point though is that if we did away with the profit system and ditched all of the pointless junk produced in its name, we might all only have to work a 2 or 3 day week. Then there would be time on our hands to look into what the ruling class actually do. Catch 22. That's how they keep us intellectually and financially chained.

Thankfully ordinary folk exist in vastly greater numbers than their ruling classes, such that the mere act of talking about these things and propagating these ideas amongst ourselves leads to powerful people's movements that force the rich to act in our favour lest they risk revolution. Monsieur Guillotine's famous invention, used prolifically for shortening members of the French ruling class in the French revolution, really does play on their minds when we take to the streets.

National Service legislation for 18-25 year olds in progress

 A legislative bill to force national service on 18 to 25 year olds is currently making its way along the legislative conveyor belt in UK Parliament. The bill, titled 'National Service Bill 2013-14'[1], making it an offence to have reached the age of 26 without having performed national service, currently at the committee stage, will force young people to serve the armed forces or one of a number of other activities. Whether these alternate activities could be chosen from by young people in service is not defined suggesting that young people might be able to specify a preference but with government ultimately deciding the nature of their service for them. This leaves open the possibility of unofficial allocation of service by social class, school history or other capricious allocations.

The bill, sponsored by Conservative MP Philip Hollobone (Kettering), contains provisions for the following service content:

• forced re-education for young people who have not attained qualification in mathematics or English reading/writing
• a forced physical fitness regime, personal appearance and discipline
• life skills (cooking and so forth) and time keeping

This is not the complete list. The provisions also include what are likely to be regarded as socially beneficial elements.

The duration of service proposed is for one year for which young people on the program will be paid at the national minimum wage rate. Young people with severe physical or mental disabilities will be exempt from the program.

No official rationale for the bill is presented but it is not hard to see what it is trying to achieve. Governments have regularly created schemes for reducing unemployment figures without creating new employment. However it has been a long time since national service was in force suggesting that other motives may also be at work. The economic situation has certainly not improved for the majority of people in the country, with young people being worst affected, the government's unwillingness to tackle the big banks on activities that led to the 2008 crash, the shenanigans that have left the majority with increased work loads and pressure for the same pay, the economy is set to continue having problems and perhaps crash again. The bankers and corporate CEOs will not have missed the uprisings in Greece, Spain and elsewhere, and will be keen to see rebellion against their policies contained or stamped out. A national service program would indeed reduce the number of people with time on their hands who might be prepared to protest whilst simultaneously creating extra forces for controlling outrage and dissent by those worst hit.

If you have concerns about this bill then please express your concerns to your MP, whose contact details and email address can be found at the 'find your MP' page on the Parliament website. Additionally you may wish to share this article with friends and family in order to spread awareness since the establishment media are not so far covering this bill.

 

References

[1] National Service Bill 2013-14, http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/nationalservice.html

--------------------------------
Edit (13/09/2013):  I should have noted that this is a private members' bill, and as such has a lower likelihood of becoming law than a bill introduced by a minister.

Syria and the myths of power

Today I encountered two points of view that caught my attention. The first was an article posted in The Guardian by Niall Ferguson criticising left wing views on US intervention in Syria, which immediately had me thinking about propaganda and the establishment's self justifying mythology. By accident I stumbled upon an interesting talk called 'The Myth of Capitalism" by the historian Michael Parenti who from the outset began laying out what I was already thinking about regarding the Ferguson article, which was both a delight, for having my own view supported, and also a bit of a bummer since he was saying more or less what I wanted to say now, leaving me feeling like anything I write here now will be superfluous at best. Nonetheless I am compelled to write and so here I am.

Thankfully Parenti's talk is about capitalism whereas I wanted to talk about the situation in Syria, the 'humanitarian intervention' being pushed for by the West and the reality of Western power. Ferguson's article, I believe, is more or less a reflection of his beliefs on the matter in hand rather than some deceitful propaganda he dreamed up with hope of fooling readership. Ferguson argues for three points in his article, which I feel must be addressed:

"I have made three arguments that the left cannot abide. The first is that American military power is the best available means of preventing crimes against humanity. The second is that, unfortunately, the US is a reluctant "liberal empire" because of three deficits: of manpower, money and attention. And the third is that, when it retreats from global hegemony, we shall see more not less violence."

That US military might is the "best available means of preventing crimes against humanity" is to me predicated on basis of illusion and delusion. First off we would have to ignore all of the crimes against humanity carried out by the US both directly and indirectly. Western establishment media of course does this almost uniformly, notwithstanding the occasional article in The Guardian buried deep amongst the non-headline articles and thus never actually penetrating the public mind. Furthermore the establishment has always gone to extreme lengths to silence sources, of significance, that expose their criminality. So right now Bradley Manning is languishing in prison for having leaked evidence of US war crimes and the central journalist of this revelation, Julian Assange is being persecuted under the dubious pretext of being a fugitive of justice for rape, the details of which leave few in doubt as to the real agenda in play. Perhaps we should just remind ourselves of what the US did in Iraq that was leaked:

This is just one instance, just in Iraq, and we are 'lucky' to have such explicit video evidence, thanks to the bravery of Bradley Manning. It is difficult to convey how this represents a mere drop in the ocean of crimes of US imperialism, most of which the Western public is kept ignorant of by the Western establishment media, but for the curious amongst you, you may wish to look into US operations in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Cambodia, Cuba and Haiti to name a few. This ignores all of the proxy wars, terrorism and oppression carried out on behalf of the US or with its consent in places like Chile, Nicaragua, Columbia, East Timor, Palestine ad nauseam. Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti and others write and talk extensively about many of these 'ventures', which you can find on YouTube or in print.

The second argument made by Ferguson is that the US is a reluctant actor in the world with respect to its use of military force. This is an extraordinary claim that really has me wondering about Ferguson's honesty on the matter. In what sense might we call the US reluctant to use military force? It might prefer to delegate acts of mass violence to its client states for appearance purposes, but that is really about it. The US doesn't spend as much of the rest of the world combined on it's means of violence for no reason. It's 900 military bases stationed around the world might also be telling us something too. However its list of military engagements, against countries that were certainly not attacking the US, since WWII, must surely be the concrete post in the coffin of the argument for reluctance.

For me, the most interesting argument Ferguson makes in favour of US military engagement is that the world would be more violent without it. This is the template myth upon which all establishment power is instituted and maintained. The point was made beautifully in the film 'V for Vendetta' when Chancellor Sutler bellows to his staff; "I want everyone to remember why they need us". It is certainly common place for the police to believe that without the police the world would descend into perpetual violence, thus justifying their own violence, which is almost without exception discussed under the aegis of 'justice' within the establishment media, thus disguising police violence that is mentioned and completely ignoring implicitly the violence carried out by the police that isn't mentioned. The reality is that the majority of and the most extreme violence in the world is carried out by authorities, not ordinary people. They rely upon the myth that without their violence there would be greater violence. So we have to fear a world that doesn't exist in order to accept the world of violence that does exist. In fact the entire world order is constructed on the basis of violence or at least the threat of their violence. That is what is meant by the term 'force' as in 'police force', 'air force' and so forth. It is their capacity to use violence to achieve what is favourable to them. Really we should be asking ourselves, 'are my neighbours really going to march around here and start threatening me with violence if there is no police force?'. Very few people are going to answer an honest 'yes' to this question. In reality you are more likely to get the most rapid and effective help from your neighbours in the case of being attacked than you are from the police, if only your neighbours are called.upon. The real justification for authoritarian power was articulated eloquently by US founding father James Madison. In discussion of the founding of the United States he wrote:

"In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They [branches of government] ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."[1]

 "Protect the minority of the opulent against the majority". That's right, it is all about protecting the rich, and their wealth, from the masses from whom they exploited it, often using violence.

With respect to Syria, the idea that the US has any humanitarian concerns is absurd. Groups that are attacking the Syrian regime are comprised of militant groups largely supported by if not controlled out right by US client regimes, most notably Saudi Arabia. The US as always is seeking hegemonic control in the region, not least for the region's oil resources, and Syria is a pillar of support to Iran, perhaps the most prized of oil producers not under US control.

Is Niall Ferguson a ruthless liar for Western power or merely indoctrinated with the myths of Western power? I think I shall give him the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter.

[1] Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, Taken by the Late Hon Robert Yates, Chief Justice of the State of New York, and One of the Delegates from That State to the Said Convention, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp

Understanding Governments and The Establishment for Dummies

OK, many folks will be totally turned off by the post title here having already been turned off from politics by the shinanigens of politicians and the apparent complexity of politics. Obviously you havent quite reached that point otherwise you wouldn't be reading this. The good news is that politics is far simpler than most folks realize, though you wouldnt naturally pick that up from the white noise that is the mainstream media. The not so good news is that politics is far more sinister than most folks realise, but don't despair, I have some great remedies for that enraging sense of powerlessness. I'm not going to bog you down with confusing political jargon, rather I intend to cut through the crap and give you the big picture by reminding you about things that you probably already know, but have faded in the glare of the information barrage coming from your TV/Internet/newspapers etc.

The first thing to remember is that you live in a class structured society. The structure of modern society has not changed much since the dawn of human civilization and it is teered or stratified, broadly speaking, as lower, middle and upper. There are variations on these terms which maybe more or less familiar too; the establishment, the 1%, the ruling class, the wealth of the nation. These are all variations of the upper class. Management and political class are variations on the middle class. Working class, proletariate and steerage are variations of the lower class.

The distribution of political power amongst the classes is roughly speaking inversly proportional to the numbers of people in each class, during in 'peace time' at least, and is illustrated:

Class population distribution and order

These figures are taken from an article published on the BBC website for Britain called 'What is working class?'. The accuracy of the figures isn't terribly important for the point of this article. The magnitude of distribution is enough to make the relevant points. Power, wealth and attitudes maybe further stratified and compartmentalised within each class, but that is not terribly important for this article either, we just need the class oriented overview.

The first thing we should notice about the above figure is the order i.e. upper, middle and lower. What do these actually mean. Well, the most common way of viewing this order is in terms of wealth and power, with the upper having the most of both and the lower having the least. However, what I want to bring to your attention is the distribution of attitudes, particularly with regard to how these classes view each other. A typically held view by each class is that of 'we are the good guys'. Empathy of the upper towards the lower is low as is the lower towards the upper, the latter being commonly referred to as 'inverted snobbery'. Interestingly the middle class has a higher degree of empathy for the upper and lower classes than those classes have for each other. The middle class broadly speaking aspire to the wealth and style of the upper class but also sympathise to some extent with the lower class's hardships. Of course you will find plenty of exceptions to the these views within each class. I am speaking here in terms of general attitudes. Another aspect of attitude we might want to think about is the sense of superiority. Self superiority is nowhere near as abundant in the lower class, whereas it is dominant in the upper class.

'Order' is a word that you will come across frequently in politics, as in 'law and order' or as spoken in courts and parliament as a command 'Order!'. What does it mean. Well, look at the illustration and it should become obvious. The term means 'deference' or 'defer' i.e. the expectation that one should defer to their 'superiors'. It's not a term I am fond of, as like most I do not think of myself as being inferior to anyone. Of course we maybe inferior on specific skills and so forth e.g. I'm no carpenter, so a professional carpenter is obviously superior to me in wood working skills, but as a person I am much more egalitarian of thought. That is to say that I believe that all people are equal even if different. This is not a view widely held in the upper class I'm sorry to say.

There are many sources, particularly auto-biographies of national leaders, from which we can find candid revelations of supremacist attitudes amongst the upper class. I have picked one, which I have shamelessly lifted from Noam Chomsky in a talk he gave in Belfast 1993 titled 'Creating a New World Order', that should give some sense of attitudes amongst the ruling class:

The actual reality was expressed a bit more accurately by Winston Churchill, with his customary lucidity, when he was describing the new world order of the day, in 1945, and he wrote as follows; "The government of the world must be entrusted to the satisfied nations, who wish nothing more for themselves than what they have. Not to the hungry nations who only cause trouble. The government of the world must be entrusted to rich men dwelling at peace within their habitations. Our power placed us above the rest and it is our right to rule."

These kinds of utterances are generally kept out of the mainstream media, so for the casual observer it is quite hard today to pick up the degree of supremacist thinking amongst the ruling class, in fact many of the real power wielding ruling class do not appear in the mainstream media whatsoever. For example you might want want to browse the website 'Who Owns Britain' and see how many of the major land owners' names you recognise.

So what causes these social groups to become distinguished in their attitudes? We only need look at the evolution of species of plant or animal to find the answer. Geographically isolated groups of the same species will diverge into different species given time. Likewise, intellectually or geographically isolated groups of people will evolve different cultures over time. Just think about the evolution of Islam versus that of Christianity. Once an administrative group is formed to govern a people, and even though that administrative group is of those people, they immediately have a common interest; governing people. Government will always face resistance from some sections of the population on each issue, and so become desensitised to the concerns of such sub-groups believing that their own actions are for the 'greater good'. Given enough time the administrative group will be concerned with governing only and care nothing for the concerns of the people it governs, which is pretty much what we see today. A class of governors has evolved who serve the interests of governors only, relenting in its course only when discontent amongst the governed starts to frighten them. Even then they will use forceful means to try to stay their course, until of course it becomes untenable. The result is that at least 2 classes will evolve who exist in varying states of opposition to each other, the governors making laws to suit their ideals and the governed breaking those laws to suit their ideals. So now we have upper and lower classes.

So where does the middle class come from? Well, the upper class is a minority, and given that it's largely self-serving policies will benefit it most, it is naturally a minority of the privileged. So, based on the ratio of governors to the governed, many of its policies will be concerned with its own security. At the very least it requires a police force between it and the governed. If the police were to share the same views of the governed then the police force would be of no use to the governors, in fact a capable police force would be a threat to the governors. As a result the police force are given preferential treatment over the lower class, in the way of pay at the very least. Today the treatment of police goes much further, including indoctrination of the police against the lower class. The lower class must be treated with suspicion at all times. These are just 2 of the ways in which the police are set apart from the lower class. There are many others. This is quite probably one of the roots of the middle class, though we can go back to the Romans or further to see other middle class groups such as slave traders and so forth. Each middle class group serving the interests of the upper class whilst benefiting from exploitation of the lower class, or even other members of the middle class.

This stratification of the people has been around for a long time. The earliest civilisation I know of that doesn't appear to have had a middle class is that of the people of Caral in Peru. This was very likely a civilisation transitioning from a flat society to a structured society in which no middle class had yet developed.

There are many more aspects to this topic to be discussed, including the extremes that the ruling class regard as norms, which I shall do in future posts, but in short, countries are ruled by the ruling class for the ruling class, not by the people for the people.