Thursday, July 21, 2016

British Antisemitism and my Friendship Failure



I had a heated discussion with an acquaintance, a former ‘friend’, after the Brexit poll that recently took place.  He is a life-long Labour Party supporter who acknowledged the futility of electing Jeremy Corbyn (JC) to the post of party leader while at the same time being exhilarated by the result.  We have not been comfortable together since he told me (just prior to one of my many family trips to Israel) that one mans history is another mans mythology.  From there it was clear I was dealing with someone of ‘easy’ personal ethics, someone who chooses sides based not on historical relevance but on ideological preference.  His justification is never swayed by either reality or counter-factual evidence. In retrospect, he was a perfect JC disciple.

We are all products of our identity.  We learn from our parents, our peers, from the education system and from society – social media, television, community.  We absorb many lies and half truths. What we have learnt from our growing up years helps us to turn away from that which is not congruent with our own belief system.  A well oiled propaganda machine can change hearts and minds; it can reroute our emotional response to input data simply by repeating its message and intimidating those people who refuse to listen, thereby silencing any counter argument.  It can work slowly or quickly depending on the strength of the message, its frequency of transmission and the opposing response (or lack thereof).

The Muslim and fascist Left’s “Boycott Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS) campaign is an excellent example of this.  If you have ever tried to have a rational discussion with a proponent of BDS you will be shouted down, intimidated, threatened with violence, accused of war-crimes or simply ignored.

And thus are today’s wars eventually won.

I have always valued education and appreciated the truism that you never stop learning.  There are always at least two sides to every narrative no matter how unequal they may initially appear to be. And this is the problem that the Left has with any conflict.  I will explain.  The political Right developed from entrenched ruling elites. They evolved, they adapted over centuries to changing circumstances. If the Shoah taught the political Right wing anything it was that defeat was painful and maybe, just maybe, that using people as pawns had terrible consequences.  They may not have cared, but technology had developed to the point of making conflict uneconomical for every one, including the winners.

Except that the unfortunate truth about people is this: time, given the opportunity, forgives and even more important, forgets everything.

In contrast, the political Left was born of ideology and of original sin.  Its ideas were grafted onto a social backbone imbued with poisonous hatred of the other.  In order to facilitate acceptance Karl Marx as well as many who came after him on the political Left plagiarized the most heinous prejudices of the society they inhabited.  The British Labour Party has never fully explored, repudiated or banished its antisemitism.  Followers could choose to disregard party rhetoric at their peril.  After all, a winning meme will help to elect candidates to office.  Acceptance in a monolithic movement means unquestioning obedience. The Left has rarely had a need to justify its behavior. It has usually practiced cognitive relativism which places morals in the area of human invention; do not reflect universal truths and are subject to social and cultural considerations that override the laws of society.  Put another way (according to Marcel Stoetzler “Antisemitism and the British Labour Party”) the meta-politics of antisemitism is in its simplistic but transcendent appeal.

The Left’s universalism and its opposition to ethnic discrimination is tempered by its need to attract converts in a world that is increasingly unstable while also being more prosperous and therefore less likely to listen to its message about the underdog. Devoid of “us and them” rhetoric the Left has difficulty attracting voters to its message of class struggle and has an even greater issue justifying its “Other” particularism. The latter, empowers a perceived underclass even when that underclass is racist, homophobic, misogynistic, antisemitic and imperialistic.  These are crimes of which the Arab and greater Muslim world is guilty.  But when Jews are viewed as part of the greater Western or American (capitalist) project they become a conduit for all that is wrong with the world.  How else to justify choosing a racist Arab Particularism over a flawed Zionist Utopianism?

There is another issue that afflicts society today.  If in the past, we were taught that to win was not the most important thing but how we “played the game,” today we are told that there is no respect, there is no honor, there is just winning.   In the short term that may be a useful yardstick for success but it is a corrosive attitude that kills innovation and destroys relationships at every level of society. It means that long term planning is unnecessary and even uneconomical. We live in a society where if results are not rapidly achievable then either other options should be explored or the journey itself cancelled.  It has made us for the most part ungracious winners and poor losers.

Think of the British campaign to exit from the European Union. The campaign was intemperate. It was unlike any I had previously encountered because usually both sides attempt to woo their opponents’ voters. This time they oozed contempt for those voters.  That disdain followed through when the losers demanded a rerun.   It was often expressed that the democratic will of the people was of no consequence because the winners were clearly too stupid to appreciate the gravity of their error or because of their advanced age, either too infirm or too greedy to understand the important issues (such as cheaper British holidays to Europe).  That contempt is an impulse towards fascism but equally, it is an intolerance that is spreading even as we pray at a multicultural altar.

To return to my acquaintance, his logic cannot be faulted for the following reasons:

  • If only he is ever right then his opponent is only ever deluded, misguided, uncaring and wrong.
  • If only his vision is clear, then anyone who fails to share that vision is blind (or in theological terms his soul is corrupted).
  • If his narrative is the only history of consequence then everything else must be invalid, invalidated and expunged from the historical record.
It is a very dangerous mindset and one that explains our inaction when confronted with the wrong kind of genocide.  Genocide is political and therefore unexceptional, even irrelevant.  It is why the world did (does) nothing about the Syrian civil-war and its’ almost half a million dead until its instability and fragmentation negatively impacts homeland Europe.

It is why George Orwell’s concept of brainwashing, a central theme in ‘1984’, has always been with us.  It just takes longer to impact society than the book portrays.

We have been too gentle with our fascist friends. Their life is filled with the absolute certainty of their cause and it is only by rudely exposing their collaborationist philosophy that we can prevent a dystopian future.  We will not be thanked for exposing the bedrock of their beliefs to ridicule. Their indifference to you will remain unchanged and their hatred will help them to overcome any doubts that may linger on the margins of their minds-eye.   The Jeremy Corbyn’s of this world are the perfect example of a grotesque political phenomenon.  They possess an unwavering certainty in the justice of their cause alongside of an inability to comprehend their opponents’ humanity.  Their incapacity to change direction and a lopsided intellect that can explain and justify anything is buttressed by a lack of emotional facility to intuit any countervailing possibilities.

As a politician there are some things you should not do. One of those things is to be caught out with a contemptuous / idiotic response to an obvious question.  When Jeremy Corbyn had only recently been elected leader and given his controversial associations he was asked if he was antisemitic (see “Jeremy Corbyn and a Case Study for Fascism”).


His answer was to ask the following question: How could I be? My father fought at the Battle of Cable Street (a legendary anti-racist fight against black-shirted fascists, fought in 1936, thirteen years before Jeremy Corbyn was born).  It makes a thief of the leader of the nation’s main opposition party – to steal someone else’s virtue as a means of disproving ones own iniquities is however, worse than theft because it sullies the memory of an honorable past with the duplicitous and detestable present.

That is what makes for a conflict between good and evil.

I feel sad.  On a personal level I now realize that someone I once called a friend, perhaps because of his life-long ideological commitment to ‘liberation theology’ (just not Jewish) or an Arab fascist agenda (Pan-Arabism), he would have as easily stabbed me in the back, as betray me to the KGB or the SS.  For my kind, is there a difference?

Thursday, July 7, 2016

Institutionally Racist?



This is a guest article by Alan Melkman whose own blog can be found at the following site:

http://alanspolicyblog.wordpress.com/

While it is now dated by publication of the Shami Chakrabati report, subsequent behavior by Jeremy Corbyn’s (JC) fellow travelers in Momentum (a grassroots but influential movement of JC acolytes), his ongoing nonfeasance and dishonorable behavior at the launch of Shamis’ report simply reinforces the impression that the report into widespread allegations of antisemitism within the British Labor Party was no more than a face-saving whitewash.

The tragedy is that it distances the Labour Party even further from future electoral success because in dismissing any need to examine its own toxic antecedent history as well as contemporary antisemitic behavior it only encourages recidivist antisemitism within the Left.  As such, it can only promote further public extremism which decent people will reject along with the party that practices it.

 
Institutionally Racist?

Let’s be clear – crystal clear.

Anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jews. It is the hatred of a people, of a race, not for their beliefs, but for who they are. It is the hatred of Jews because they are Jews. It is holding them responsible for evil without any substantive evidence. It is to make them the centre of conspiracies of enslavement of the rest of the world and the instigators of unspeakable collusions. It is race hatred in its purest form.

Islamaphobia is, as its name would suggest, the fear of Islam, the religion. Adherents to the Muslim faith come in all varieties and from all races. It is a fear of the teachings of Islam which inspire a small minority to commit despicable atrocities such as: acts of indiscriminate slaughter, violations of young and not infrequently older women, intimidation of those who resist their pernicious ideology, homophobic insanities and much, much more. It is not, as antisemitism is of Jews, a hatred of Muslims because they are Muslims. It is a fear of a small minority for their outrageous religious beliefs. It is not racist.

So, if these two phenomena are entirely different, why are they so often conflated?

For example, the British Labour party is undertaking an investigation into itself, led by a member of its own party, into allegations that it, through its members, has exhibited anti-Semitic behaviors in recent years. It has created what is politely referred to as an impartial enquiry, headed by Labour party member Shami Chakrabarti who has, amongst other things, broadened the enquiry way beyond focusing solely on anti-Semitism to include an equal consideration of Islamaphobia.

These two phenomena, as explained, are completely different. It is like insisting any enquiry into bribery within World Football must include an equally hard look at endemic political corruption in Venezuela. Rationally, including Islamaphobia and anti-Semitism is totally absurd, almost laughable. So why has Shami chosen to include fear of Islam in the same brief as hatred of the Jewish race? Why has she chosen to ‘muddy the waters’?

Perhaps there are a number of reasons why Shami has decided that Islamaphobia and Jew hatred are essentially the same. Perhaps it is because their investigations will show that Islamaphobia is more widely spread than anti-Semitism, particularly among members of the Conservative party, thereby diminishing the perceived size of problem whilst putting the Conservatives ‘on the back foot’. It might be that they discover that attacks on UK Muslims and their properties, in absolute numbers, are greater than on Jews which again diminishes the perceived extent of anti-Semitism. Most importantly it conflates racism with the fear of an ideology and thereby exonerates the Labour party from the accusation that it is institutionally racist.

I suspect that most impartial observers have already had some reservations on the likely conclusion of this Labour navel gazing exercise. The veracity of their report might, and I suggest should, be judged against the following criteria for which I am indebted to Stephen Spencer Ryde stephensryde@googlemail.com who has been carrying on what appears to be an almost single handed campaign against the perversions of natural justice that the Labour party, under Jeremy Corbyn, is masterminding.

1.     The inquiry’s scope only covers the rules in future cases of antisemitism.  It will not examine existing cases that remain unaddressed, such as the case of Sir Gerald Kaufman. It may point out that there has been a balance of Islamaphobic inferences and this historical issue is beyond the remit of the enquiry
2.     The Labour Party’s antisemitism problem is not so acute because the rules were too lax. The enquiry might conclude the Party’s leadership and structures have failed to identify antisemitism and condemn it. But then the same comments will be made about Islamaphobia. The inquiry should then logically examine the conduct of the Party’s leadership, but it will not.
3.     The Vice Chair of the inquiry is Professor David Feldman, who has already dismissed claims of antisemitism in the Party as “baseless” and “politically motivated” in an open letter. It is ludicrous to appoint as judge and jury someone who has already made up his mind in opposition to the vast majority of British Jews. However, he will show his impartiality by putting equal weight on the Islamic scale to balance the anti-Semitic evidence.
4.     The inquiry seeks to concoct its own definition of antisemitism.  There is already a definition that is used by the Government, the College of Policing, and even foreign institutions like the EU Parliament and the US Department of State.  The definition is called the EUMC definition (presumably also used by All Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism), and it covers precisely the kind of antisemitism that has invaded Labour’s immune system: antisemitism disguised as political discourse.  The EUMC definition is not up for debate, but we know that the inquiry will not adopt it because Professor Feldman has argued for its abolition every time he has been given the opportunity. It is likely therefore that the Shami definition of anti-Semitism will be vague enough to include a completely different animal, Islamaphobia.
The report will almost certainly conclude that that mere criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic and that this label is thrown about to stop legitimate disapproval and the stifling of free speech. What it will almost certainly not conclude is that the Labour party is both institutionally racist and in deep denial of this fact.

Monday, June 27, 2016

Meander through a shared American and Israeli Exceptionalism



When Americans looked at World War 2 Europe, what they saw was a continent addicted to war where protection from tyranny took a barely material second place to what was clearly a wholly discredited nationalism.  When Americans tried to understand why war was second nature to Europeans they concluded that Europe was fatally flawed by its inability to move past its narrowly regimented ethnocentric national interest.  And so the Marshall Plan (before it became overtaken by the Cold War) was the first volley fired in the war on the bellicosity of European chauvinism and towards the creation of a supranational union that would bind all the old enemies into one united super-state.

It has been observed that Europeans and those people of the ‘old world’ viewed strategic decision making based on their history.  It was backward facing and unsuited to resolving its own issues without recourse to violence.  The USA had a mere few hundreds of years of history to proclaim, so it made its own future, based on imagination and idealism.  It is here that its entrepreneurial spirit was nurtured. 

This forward looking approach is the reason that Israelis and Americans are usually vilified in the same breath. Both nations are representatives of the ‘new world’ - implicit in the name is a rejection of the old ways and its tainted history.

Both nations have been forced into defensive or offensive positions by their ideological enemies.   Both are yet to come to terms with the ‘old world’ reality which is an intellectual incapacity to learn from history. The question is not whether a clash of civilizations can be appeased (because it cannot) but how and whether, mutually exclusive ambitions are capable of reconciliation?

If the over-arching principle that drives the USA is safeguarding its national political institutions, the subsequent failure to protect human rights is a fundamental failure of strategic understanding. It should be noted that Britain is similarly deluded in its approach to tyranny. Without a philosophical commitment to freedom for all, political liberty may be used as the means by which tyranny spreads and infects the body of the nation.  Like a microbial infestation, fascism, which is the application of tyranny, honors no borders. Universal human rights can only be possible if they are equally understood and crucially, applied equally. Without certain fundamental rules of engagement (see next paragraph), political liberty is little more than a vehicle used to expedite fascism which in this case signifies both a pretense to equal human rights and a particular bias against equal protection before the law.  That final conditional inequality undermines society.

The fundamental rules of engagement are the most simple to apply.  All people are welcome to take shelter under the cultural umbrella that defines the society into which they have sought refuge, as long as they do not cherry pick what they are willing to accept. Democratic nations are united by the consensus they live out and not by the selective tolerance they provide to people who reject any accommodation with them. Similarly, the so called ‘nanny state’ is created, not by being too caring but by failing to inculcate in everyone a narrative of personal responsibility both towards each other and towards the society they share.

According to Michael B. Oren the refusal to accept responsibility is the largest single obstacle to fostering democracy and forging peaceful co-existence between peoples of different backgrounds. (‘New Essays on Zionism’ 2006)

Zionism is the Jewish right to self-determination. Its failure was that in its wider utopian Universalist naivety it did not appreciate the opposing Muslim theological narrative of religious triumphalism and an Arab conquest narrative that was (and remains to this day) inextricably intertwined with Islamic identity, revanchism and a need to sow discord among its competitors and ideological enemies.  Again, Michael Oren expresses this well when he says: “Islam developed during a period when Muslims ruled most of the civilized world” therefore “Islam harbors no misgivings regarding power – the attainment of power is incumbent on every individual Muslim. Arab Muslims thus have a problem with a palpably powerful Jewish State.” – ibid

Zionism’s failure to understand the hegemonic nature of Islamic society should have served as a lesson for Europe’s enthusiastic proponents of integration and unity.  In Britain, the head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (Trevor Phillips OBE) publicly decried multiculturalism claiming it was out of date and legitimized what divided communities rather than encouraging what united them.

Israel does need to fight harder against the coercive, voluntary segregation of culturally disparate (Arab and ultra-orthodox) communities.  Michael Oren proposes that we flag-waivers for Zionism bear a weighty responsibility “to prove to ourselves, and the world that the phrase ‘Jewish State’ is not in fact a contradiction in terms……(to shoulder) the responsibilities of reconciling our heritage with our sovereignty, our strength with our compassion, and our will to survive with our desire to inspire others.” – ibid

Put another way, Zionism must show its equal benefits to all its communities so that the compulsion to embrace it becomes not just 9 till 5 but 24-7.

For the USA it is free markets and open borders, where liberal values are a means to an end (social and economic comfort).  People who are comfortable do not go out of their way to kill each other (unless they are political or theological sociopaths). Prosperity should be the end result of a free market economy.  However, like all absolutes, theory and reality are dependent on the strength of human laws to hold back the darker ambitions of human nature: greed, peoples’ blind passion for being right all of the time (which inevitably means that they are wrong most of the time) and peoples hunger for exercising power over others.

Neither restraint nor intellectual pluralism is the modus operandi of a missionary faith or of a zealous political ideology.  Communism is a political ideology with many of the attributes of an embryonic religious faith. ‘Progressives’ and others on the extreme left of the political spectrum inevitably share aspects of fascism.  They include intolerance (they will mask it as ‘zeal’) for any world-view that has not been sanctioned by their political bible, vigorous attempts to ostracize those people who disagree with them and their tactics, and, proscription for any counter-narrative. The gauleiter of the secular Inquisition thus ensures the right to free speech is no more than a delusion, a basic right that is only enjoyed by his or her followers. 

American and Israeli Exceptionalism have at their (separate but connected) heart and soul a Universalism that has the potential to benefit all of humankind. It is only through intelligent engagement and careful language that their shared idealism can be demonstrably proven correct, serving as a light unto the nations of the world.

Sunday, June 19, 2016

The BREXIT Campaign – The Facts


We will soon be voting on whether to remain members of the grand European project or to leave it.  I present below some observations. 

Britain is currently the world's fifth largest economy based on total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – Britain’s GDP currently stands at $2.8 trillion. The list below (at least in terms of relative position) agrees with the World Bank, UN and CIA world Factbook position on global GDP trends.

IMF World GDP Ranking 2015

Rank
Country/Region
GDP (Millions of US$)

      World
73,170,986
1
      United States
17,947,000

16,220,370
2
      China
10,982,829
3
      Japan
4,123,258
4
      Germany
3,357,614
5
      United Kingdom
2,849,345

World trade declined 1.7% in the first three months of 2016.  It is this trend that is the main threat to British prosperity and not the hysterical projection of BREXIT proposed by champions of the Remain campaign.

The reverse projection, bumper growth, would put Britain on course to become the world's fourth largest economic powerhouse ahead of an ageing Japan and Germany in the 2030s, according to the Centre for Economic & Business Research’s latest world economic league table.  The total cash value of the UK economy will grow to around $4.7 trillion by 2031, but is expected to be quickly overtaken by Brazil in fourth spot by the 2040s.


That is if we place our trust in economic star-gazing.

The UK is the fifth biggest economy in the world.  44% of our exports go to the EU. However, the EU benefits from maintaining a healthy economic relationship with us to a far greater degree.  Britain in the year ending 2015 had a £68 billion trade deficit with the EU.  So no, the European Union is not going to threaten us with dire consequences when the potential material damage would be far worse for them than for us.

Europe is declining in financial importance while Asia and South America are ascendant.  The EU currently represents about 20% of Global trade but that percentage is declining. It is estimated that in the future the EU will be no more than 10% of the global economy.  The EU has no trade deals with the worlds’ largest economy (the USA).  Nor does the EU have trade deals with Brazil, India, Australia, or China.  If we left the EU we would remain its biggest single export market. 

We are a net contributor to the EU budget (we give Europe £10.1 billion per year more than we receive from Europe).   The Remain campaign focuses on the £350 million that the exit campaigners remind us, is sent to Brussels bureaucrats every week, to be spent by unelected European politicians. They aren’t entirely straight with us. We receive in terms of university, research and agricultural grants (amongst other items) £156 million per week from the European Union. That still leaves Britain with a net figure of £194 million per week haemorrhaging from British coffers. This is where the excess payment figure of £10.1 billion originates.

I do not have a principled objection to paying money into an integrated Europe except that Europe is neither integrated nor is it unified towards one purpose.  I will explain.

A friend of mine is a keen cyclist who likes to follows the route of the Tour de France on his bicycle.  He does cycling trips around Europe.  On his trips to Spain he has observed that there are entire stretches of A-class road that he and his friends would cycle along where they would not see a single car, often for many kilometers.  The hundreds of millions of Euros those roads cost to build across Spain were simply the visual manifestation ‘proving’ the power and influence of corrupt local Spanish politicians.  There was no local benefit to their construction, there was certainly no regional or national purpose served by their planning and implementation.

What those empty, meandering roads epitomized were the corruption as well as the greed at the heart of the current European project.  That attitude we know from history is core to any project or grand historical scheme benefiting entrenched tribes or factions usually at the expense of some other tribe or faction.  The issue the EU faces today is that there is no accountability and no public recognition that anything is wrong.

The reluctance to forego any diminution of its own financial benefit is the big problem killing the EU – corruption facilitates decline, it does not engender democracy, human rights or world peace.  Corruption creates national bottlenecks that embitter the losing faction (the ones missing out on all those truckloads of cash).  ‘Priorities’ may be significant for one nation but completely insignificant for another.

The EU, if it is to successfully pool its resources and focus on integration of all of its citizens has lots of questions it is not even beginning to discuss. For instance: If countries have entirely different pension or taxation policies then their individual cost and revenue streams are going to be always out of synchronization with each other. Inequality breeds exploitation and resentment.  If the people in each country in the union do not enjoy the same opportunities then the basis for a stable relationship does not exist. Good governance is measured by equality of risk. That also means however that in order for the EU to succeed it must have fiscal integration as an end target and that requires uniformity of fiscal policy.  Without it, the perception of institutionalized corruption will continue to drag down the EU project. Shouldn’t we be addressing those issues? 

In the United States of America there are 50 states and the District of Colombia.  Only the federal government is permitted to run a deficit while individual states are forbidden to do so.  But then, the EU is not a federated system but a confederation. The difference is crucial.  A confederation is a union of States individually maintaining primary sovereignty over their affairs while devolving some authority to the central bureaucracy. In a federation, primary sovereignty is given to the central government which exercises control over every member state in areas defined by but not exclusively including the military, diplomatic relations and the economy.

The predicament of the EU is that political unity means having a single army, a single currency and unified border controls.  The contradictions that define a confederation make it inherently too weak to maintain the union and too conflicted to bring about the equality that is needed to unify its separate units. In order to work the European Union has to be an integrated i.e. a federated entity.

If the European Union is working towards a federated, possibly even a two tier unity then it explains the Incrementalism which is fundamental to current EU policy. But because of the inherent dishonesty within this approach the EU must be reformed and this reform is not liable to happen under current conditions where the debate over intentions has not even started.

In one lecture I attended (with thanks to Professor Brendan Simms) it was proposed that Europe was not a club that many were clambering to join but a shared destiny. “Europe is Greece, Rome and the Enlightenment” (apologies but I don’t know who said this).  The rejection of enlightenment principles (some Eastern European nations as well as Turkey have little experience of the Enlightenment) means that common interests are not always the reason for joining.  Turkey understands the union as a confederation rather than as a union so it can never agree to fulfill all of the conditions of full membership. It is on record as having repeatedly reminded Turkish expatriates that their primary loyalty is to Turkey and that they must not integrate into their host society (going so far as to threaten those people who stand aside from the Turkish nation).

People are selected for a European political sinecure as a means of rewarding them for past service to their party or as a means of ridding the party of an individual who has become a political liability or embarrassment. Direct elections to the European parliament and for top jobs in the European Commission would enhance the prestige of the European Parliament; it would also herald in an era of political transparency and accountability. Both are necessary for a healthy democracy to remain so and entirely missing from the current European project. 

Brendan Simms pointed out that Poland in 1717 and the Holy Roman Empire (in 1806) disappeared because they could not reform.  Contrast this with The 1707 Act of Union which consolidated power in the United Kingdom and similarly the USA in the 1780’s.  Both created frameworks for unity and a common identity guaranteed by the power wielded by centralized authority.

“There was a pharaoh and he knew not Joseph” (Exodus 1.8) this refers to the arrival of a new Egyptian king who did not know Joseph or his generation of immigrant workers. The textual reference to forgetting Joseph raises questions about the extent to which oppression is linked to a minority group's involvement in, and commitment to the larger society.  But it also raises questions about the historical tensions between host societies and their guest workers/immigrants and the fears, whether rational or not that makes the debate so difficult to present.

Simms said that the World War 2 generation are dead and even their children are in the 70’s (at the very least).  What happens when they forget the war? The German people are still very embarrassed by it.  But is it not relevant that Poland, Germany, Greece and France have all got significant voting populations that have embraced the National Front?  I will just point out some of the other countries with recent electoral results below.

The Swiss People’s party is a right wing, populist, political party and the largest party in the Swiss Federal Assembly.  It is also Eurosceptic.  In Denmark’s general election in 2015 the Danish People’s Party (described by the media as right and far-right wing) secured 21% of the vote; in Hungary, the far-right Jobbik Party (described as radical nationalist) won over 20% of the parliamentary vote.  In Austria the Freedom Party polled 49.7% of the vote on 22nd May 2016. Norbert Hofer came within 0.6% of being elected President of Austria.  His party, founded after WW2 by “former” Nazis is nationalist and anti-immigration, its credentials are toxic.

Throughout Europe, nations are not rejecting greater union; they are fighting an identity crisis they do not see being adequately addressed by their political elite. The issue of immigration and refugee absorption are part of the debate over European identity that again, is being ignored because the issues they raise are apparently too complex for our simple brains to comprehend.

It is this disrespect that politicians and bureaucrats have for us all that is at the heart of the rise of fascism in Britain and throughout Europe.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

The BREXIT Campaign and why they think we are Stupid




How to examine the issue of our European identity and Britain’s current campaign to decide on whether we stay in Europe or Leave it?

The EU has held up identity politics as a means of empowering minorities at the expense of the majority. The EU in its current form has marginalized the working classes, impoverishing successive generations of the poor. Given the extremely high unemployment position of European youth (the EU average is 19.4% as at February 2016) it is not surprising that traditional fascism is once more on the march.

Britain has betrayed the working classes, effectively reneging on its commitment to narrowing the gap between the classes.  In Britain, since 1976 there has been a continuous deterioration in the position of the lower classes vis-à-vis the middle to upper classes. Since 1976 every British parliament has recorded progressively fewer MPs who were not educated within the private school system.   We have been told that only the ‘lower classes’ vote to leave - so now it is a simple class issue and we can assume the implication that ‘they’ should stay ‘down’ in their ‘rightful place’.

So are immigration and economics the only vital issues in the debate? Must our vote on the 23rd of June be based on these two issues?  There are many issues causing unease within society.  Unless we are able to discuss them all without fear of being labeled something we are not then all we are going to receive are insults and platitudes, and that is the summation of the debating tactics of both sides.

The half-truths thrown about by both sides of the Brexit campaign have helped to discredit the campaign. We are told that leaving will destroy much of the nations’ wealth and bring to an end our comfortable way of life. We have even been told a Brexit could precipitate a World War.  The one constant of this campaign has been the contempt demonstrated by all parties to the debate.   Former Prime Minister, Sir John Major described Boris Johnson as a likeable man and a court jester. Lord Stuart Rose who is fronting efforts to keep Britain in the EU dropped a bombshell when he admitted to a group of MPs’, big business favors membership of the EU because it is depressing British wages. (Daily Express Mar 3, 2016).   The corollary is that a Brexit would boost British workers' wages. The truth is that a Brexit would cut off employer access to an unimpeded and excessive flow of cheap labor.

It sounds bizarre that no-one has criticized the low level of debate. Our politicians and business leaders, panels of experts and the unions, across the board they have all been guilty of engaging in a campaign of mendacity, half–truths sold as gospel and derision universally waged against opponents.

This has not just been a dirty campaign, it has been a campaign that has assumed we are all either too stupid or too greedy to listen to any intelligent debate.

Binary prejudice is the idea that we are blind to anything that does not fit into neat dualistic categories defined by the most vocal or forceful group within society. It sounds like something that could explain why our politicians and business leaders treat us so badly.

Something is or is not and there is no room for shades of colour.  It is the simplistic argument of an uncomplicated, more brutal era. It is not that old hatreds are returning; in many people they never went away but simmered with malevolent patience just below the surface; a veneer of civility and calm.  And then we are made to feel guilty that arguments over immigration are just about prejudice, when they are not. Society has lost its post World War 2 inhibitions which prevented the bigot from expressing their prejudices or acting out their fantasies.  Partly as a consequence of this renewed nihilism we are witnessing a return to the expression of many of our old fears. Our security is conditioned on practicing a McCarthyistic mantra (in the UK it is mostly left of centre but in much of Europe, fascism is also emphatically right-wing).  An unintended consequence of our appeasement of Islamism has been that it has encouraged both bloodshed and prejudice. Of greater threat to the stability of society, it has led to a lack of credibility in government’s willingness to protect the people. And that is a fundamental break in the social contract that is at the centre of modern government.  When government does not acknowledge or address people’s fears over the personal threat that extremism creates, a direct consequence is the counter-radicalism response.

Economic and physical insecurity has returned and we have also lost our moral compass. But are we that different to the Europeans many of us want separation from or are we all assumed to be equally stupid? 

We have lost our way and a simple example proves it:

On the 5th of June 2016 the Swiss government ran a referendum which proposed providing every person with a basic income as a constitutional right.  Put another way, it proposed paying all its unemployable citizens a wage for life. Switzerland argued that recognizing some jobs as having ‘disappeared’ meant that society was responsible for not financially penalizing the ‘unemployable.’ The resolution was defeated by a margin of over 3:1 (76.9% against to 23.1% for).

23% of people voted in favor and many who voted against it would have done so from personal greed only!

Maimonides was a Sephardi philosopher, astronomer, Rabbi and physician who lived from 1135-8 to 1204. He proposed ten levels of charity, of which the highest level (and therefore the greatest act of charity) was that a man (or woman) gave a fellow human being the means by which they could support themselves and their family.  If in the name of globalization we have lost that Maimonidean understanding of human dignity as the Swiss surely have, then truly, our society has lost its way. It is the obligation of society to care for its people. It is not a national right for a nation to right-off its vulnerable members of society, either by ignoring them or by paying them off.

If Europe is not just a club but part of our shared destiny then it is an integrationist enterprise which will one day come about through full fiscal union, creeping legal annexation and the final act of creation - a federal European super-state.  Policy will then be imposed: with federal diktat from the top and local negotiation on implementation passed down to national parliaments.  Am I exaggerating this scenario?

In the three year period 2011-2014 66% of laws and 67% of new offences enacted in the UK parliament came from the Council of Ministers (European Commission). This Incrementalism is fundamental to EU integration on a policy level.  The issue not being debated is that without political transparency and accountability the EU is travelling at speed down a path to becoming no better than one more corrupt dictatorship.

The EU is incapable of reforming itself without a serious scare (which a Brexit would provide).  That is something we should have been discussing.  The EU has a vision – that shared destiny I referred to earlier.  We are not discussing any of the issues that arise out of that vision.  We are not dealing with any of the issues that have always confronted human society because they are both philosophical and political construction (and politics is by its nature, prejudiced).  To discuss anything in practice would mean getting our metaphorical hands dirty. Far easier to speak in generalities and leave the detail to future generations.

This is the real reason everyone in the debate is being so coy about the question of our relationship to the European Union.

If no nation can stand alone then what are the real differences between remaining in Europe and leaving the Union (given that even then we will be enormously impacted by our relationship with the EU)?

The issues are of huge importance and yet all anyone has done so far is to insult us and to attempt to scare us without attempting to provide any serious discussion of the pertinent issues. The one thing we know with certainty is that all predictions are forecasts and therefore not factual but based on personal bias.

Monday, May 23, 2016

The EU Referendum On Brexit. The British Housing and Rental Crisis.



Am I the only person in Britain who notices the sophistry and lies of our politicians? Throughout the period of debate that precedes the vote on our continued membership of the European Union the nature of that debate is truly indicative of the casual contempt our politicians hold us in. An example follows:

On Friday, the 21st of May I read two negative articles on the same page in the British press, on the consequences of Brexit (Britain leaving the European Union). The first, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer (George Osborne) said “A UK vote to leave would cause an ‘immediate economic shock’ that could hold back growth in house prices…by 2018 houses could be worth up to 18% less than if the UK voted to remain (in the European Union)”.  But what this means is not what it initially sounds like.  At current rates of growth, if we stay in the European Union then house prices (in London) will go up by an annualized rate of 30% or more by 2018 but only by 12% in that same period, if we leave the EU.

Any rate of growth approaching either magnitude of increase is unsustainable and potentially catastrophic for the British economy.

The second article by the Labour Party's shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer reported that “Councils could be given the power to limit ‘skyrocketing’ rent increases under new Labor proposals.  Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell will pledge to help people who are ‘at the mercy of an unforgiving, unrestrained housing market.’”

HELLO.  Skyrocketing rents are a direct consequence of failed government policy on housing construction. Both of them are also, a direct consequence of immigration strategy (whether ‘do nothing’ or otherwise) by governments and parties of all political persuasion.

The British housing market is highly subsidized by the state.  Prices are kept artificially sky-high by huge government subsidies cleverly packaged as humanitarian aid to immigrants and the poor.  By giving almost cart-blanche to local councils to pay out enormous sums of money to housing associations, in rents (actually an improvement over the limitless amounts that were paid out in the recent past) there is no market incentive for rents to ever reduce. And the rental market is driving the construction market, not as it should be, the other way round.

If a ‘correction’ is coming it will be catastrophic and it will be 100% the fault of the government and her loyal opposition.  They have refused to offer an alternative model to the current housing finance model (which encourages buy-to-let) and its’ associated, artificially inhibited construction market.

If you refuse to alienate your environmental lobby, upper middle-class and rural voters - and make mass housing construction on green-belt land almost impossible to get through the planning application stage (which in any case, takes years to complete) then you have to build thousands of twenty story skyscrapers to house the estimated 323,000 net migration to Britain which is the latest figure we have for the year ending September 2015. Note, this figure may only include those people who according to the United Nations definition of a migrant; have been resident in the UK for at least 12 months.  Note also that this net figure does not include illegal immigrants.

If you only build, nationally, forty thousand housing units every year, you have a growing deficit, a gawping, massive, unassailable abyss that has opened up between the available stock of housing and the requirement for affordable housing.  The result is that prices will ‘skyrocket.’ It is called ‘supply and demand’ and that is something most high school student can tell you about – we do not need to be mislead by leading economists or politicians as to the reasons for the housing crisis.

If the government obligates all British local councils to pay the rental accommodation costs of all people living in its area (assuming they are unable to afford local accommodation) - irrespective of their legality or status, then you force local councils to encourage a speculative housing market.  Anyone with excess funds and a sympathetic bank manager is able to buy up almost all the existing housing stock as soon as it becomes available. They then offer it for rent at ever-escalating and exorbitant prices because they KNOW the local councils must house everyone and will pay almost anything they are asked to pay in order to comply with central government’s diktat.

Now why do both the government and her Majesties ever loyal opposition then try to scare us all with the two aforementioned articles in the Press?

Is it because they think we are all both greedy and stupid?

They want us to vote affirmatively, to stay in the European Union on June 23, 2016 even though government policy (and that includes, but not exclusively, our membership of the EU) is responsible for our housing shortfall, for the ridiculous price of housing and for our insane rental costs. And they (the Labor Party, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats) have no intention of ever rocking that electorally popular housing boat.