Drawbridge Brothers (2) Diversity

Banksy

Diversity ‘the great leap forward’ engineered by the Liberal elite was set to lead the whole population in a new and dynamic direction. But, they didn’t bother or merely forgot to invite the rest of us on their planned run. Now we have to be corralled. Little wonder therefore that there’s been a backlash.

Being intimidated to follow a diktat rubs most people up the wrong way. Especially so, when they have to consider every utterance they make for fear that someone will report them to the politically correct (PC) Stasi.

However, it’s more than just being PC:

  1. University of Edinburgh – “Diversity aims to recognize, respect and value people’s differences to contribute and realize their full potential by promoting an inclusive culture…”
  2. University of Oregon – “It means understanding that each individual is unique, and recognizing our individual differences”. E.g. race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs etc.

http://www.ed.ac.uk/equality-diversity/about/equality-diversity

http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~asuomca/diversityinit/definition.html

It would seem that the advocates of diversity do not fully comprehend their own philosophy as they find it difficult to talk of opponents without the use of abuse (racists, bigots and Neanderthals). In doing so they fail to:

  • Build an inclusive culture
  • Recognize individual differences.
  • Others political and religious beliefs.

A question arises as to, which ‘individual difference’ takes preference, e.g. if a Christian landlord refuses to have a homosexual guest; which has precedence? If a religious body cannot accept homosexuality as an ‘individual difference’, which has precedence?  If women in a certain section of society are downtrodden, which has precedence?

We fast move along to a political hierarchy! So, are we recognizing that the other ‘differences’ are more important than religious belief? In that case should we not have a prescribed list in order of importance? But wait, if we have a list of preference are we not moving away from an ‘inclusive culture’?

  1. So is religious tolerance in or out? Or must it conform to the ideological script to be allowed on board?

Let’s leave it to the courts and sneak further from democracy.

  1. Is it justified to put right yesterday’s wrongs by over indulgence of the present generation of minorities?
  • Justification?……….. Leave a reply!
  • What of equality before the law? Has it been kicked into the long grass temporarily or permanently?

Political belief is a hot potato and many on the right-wing do not like the concept of diversity and so, should be – disenfranchised – allow only Labour and Liberal and, maybe a smattering of Conservatives – but only if they denounce Thatcherism! That darn woman!

In America the concept is wrapped up in the political agenda of Affirmative Action (AA) which has been in force for over 50 years. Again the term ‘inclusive’ strikes a hypocritical chord with many because they feel excluded. Since the 1940s the U.S. government has issued executive orders to ensure that sub-contractors are employing workers on an equal opportunity basis. This has led to cries of ‘reverse discrimination’.

Others, such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suggests it creates a “cult of victimization” because it implies that black people need a leg up. It has also met with political opposition with the states of: California, Washington, Michigan, and Nebraska refusing to implement AA.

A study by Thomas Espenshade and Chang Y. Chung (2005) found a bias against white and Asian students trying to enrol in ‘highly selective private research universities’. A further study carried out by T. Espenshade (2009) found a similar bias in college intake, with Asians at the bottom of the pile.

Such has been the build-up of resentment that a survey in 2007 found that 52% of whites thought that AA should be abolished. Of course this could be as a result of better right-wing propaganda or worryingly, a strong feeling of being left out. The latter is certainly the case among Asians as in 2015 a coalition of 60+ Asian-American groups filed legal battles to gain equal opportunities. Up to the present law cases are pending.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States#Arguments_against_affirmative_action

It is true to say that AA has helped a lot of people and was perhaps, the best option at the time. This is the attitude of Noam Chomsky, but he also recognizes that, “… you find plenty of things to criticize”.

Noam Chomsky, How The World Works (pp211-212)

Some may argue that only the negative view has been expressed. However, if the intention of diversity is ‘inclusive’ then surely we must examine the voices of discord to ascertain where things are going wrong.

In the UK in recent times we have witnessed the Labour and Liberal parties institute an all-female panel for the election of prospective Members of Parliament (MP’s).

  • Is this justified?
  • Is it legal under equal opportunity?
  • Is it patronizing?
  • Will it cause any resentment?
  • Will the candidate have the respect of her fellows?
  • How will having more females in parliament make it more democratic or work better?
  • Is it all a cynical ploy to garner the female vote?

I suspect that many of the issues concerning women have more to do with the economic demands of the capitalist system than the backwardness of male MP’s. I could of course be wrong! It may be a combination of both.

The introduction of diversity was an attempt to dictate the thinking, acts and actions of the people. Which other regimes tried to dictate the thinking, acts and actions of their population? I’m thinking Germany and Russia, China etc.

It is a tough ask to change people’s thinking, acts and actions especially if it must be done now. There is nothing wrong with the concept, if we walk together. It’s just the terrible hash made of its introduction. It can only be considered thoughtless in the extreme. The Liberal elite and the political class have learned nothing from business that has long been aware that the top-down approach has serious drawbacks.

The political class have set back any hope of achieving diversity by their lack of vision and their childish rush. It may take two maybe three generations for it to take a hold on the psyche. Of course there’s always the possibility that it was a purposeful screw up!

A blanket approach to diversity as has been adopted is a severe weakness; pampering to every group and the individualist outlook is much too general. Individualism can only exist as long as the great majority are tolerant.

Moreover, a set agenda is a blind spot. Though it does lead to a piece of clarity from Karl Popper, “Who plans the planners”? Because, “…our actions in any case are likely to have unintended consequences”. Does this strike a chord??

Bryan Magee, Popper (p100)

Diversity was born of intolerance of others bias and grew in intolerance. Such was the zeal of improving the lot of many; it produced an army of zealots. That’s the nature of political emotion. The army of zealots and the patronizing attitude of the politicians played a major role in the advent of populism. Reap…..

Democracy: Can it Survive?

 

Democracy holds more emotion in its wake than any other political theory. It has stimulated a considerable amount of discussion and hyperbole from the earliest philosophical writers to the present day. But the burning question is whether democracy can work, and, can it work for the majority of society or is it a pleasant guise for control by an elite?

Certainly, the thought of democracy has wetted the thinking of many writers considered among our best intellects over the centuries:

Plato: was not a fan as he condemned it “… followed citizens’ impulses.” rather than the common good.

Nietzsche: was not enamoured either, he wanted to be, “… beyond the lowlands of the herd conscience.”

Machiavelli: likewise; as the intellects would be the prisoner of the “whims of the people”.

Charles Maurras: believed we should accept that we have, “natural hierarchies”.

JS Mill: was concerned by, “…the moral coercion of public opinion” that the individual was sovereign and bemoaned the ‘tyranny of the majority’.

www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-democratic_thought

Without being disparaging these were yesterday’s men with yesterday’s prejudices, when the very concept of democracy held a fear of control by the ‘herd’. Mill’s focus on the individual is little more than a scream of a narcissist. Along with the others mentioned their fear was brought on by the prospect of the uneducated rabble who survived in vermin infested hovels having jurisdiction over them.

They saw no potential in the hoi polloi. They simply looked at the uneducated mass and contrasted that with their own highly educated self and, were blinded by that fear and blatant snobbery.

Would a look at a more modern picture reveal a more sympathetic view?

Robert Michels: opined “… that democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite…” He suggested that democracy naturally slides into an oligarchy. He himself moved from being a socialist to become a fascist. Can we see a trend?

Rabbi Elazar Shach: had no doubts, “Democracy is a machinery of lies, false notions, pursuit of narrow interests and deceit.” His preference was to follow the teachings of the Torah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_democracy

Not much succour there for believers so let’s come right up to date:

A study carried out by Martin Gilens & Benjamin Page (2014) concluded that the majority of the American public had little influence on U.S. government policy. I have encountered that view several times and have raised it on previous posts.

A more damning assault on the weakness of democracy comes from ex U.S. president Jimmy Carter (2015) who is reputed to have said that the USA is now “… an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery.” Wow! Don’t mince your words Jimmy. Again, it is a slight that has its own choir of substance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

We have come across the term oligarchy a few times and can now add other nouns such as plutocracy and fascism.

  • Fascism – strict rule by a leader & a small group of supporters.
  • Oligarchy – government by a small group.
  • Plutocracy – government by the wealthy.

Political scientists and sociologists will no doubt condemn me but the terms come across as much of a muchness. Or to put it more informally – money talks!

The political class will scream and bring forward an array of quotes from notables to try to establish that they don’t fit into any of the categories above. The social democrats in particular will holler their disapproval of any such characterization. In response I would suggest that they look in the mirror and learn the true insightfulness of reflection. They have ruled, especially in Europe for the last few decades, so anything that has gone wrong has done so under their watch, e.g. the rise of fascism and far-right groups.

“…extremism flourishes in an environment in which respectable voices offer no solutions as the population suffers.” Paul Krugman (p19) End This Depression NOW!

We’ve had ex-president Jimmy Carter, Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, so let’s hear from political philosopher Noam Chomsky. “It’s getting so that when I hear the word ‘democracy’ uttered by a politician or government official I automatically reach for my BS detector.”          Chomsky – Language and Responsibility There are a whole, whole lot of people do exactly the same as Chomsky.

So nobody likes democracy from the educated of the past to the educated of the present. What shall we do? Dump it in the rubbish can or just leave it to rot. For me, sitting on the next to bottom rung of the ladder of power (big ladder), I say keep it. As it has not yet completed its cycle.

There are weaknesses but there are in all political philosophies. There are also solid strengths as experienced in 2016 with the march of ordinary joe who shocked the political establishment with their voting power.

The body blow to the political class in UK, USA and Italy is a very hopeful sign, though a move to the right it was not a bridge to far. A thoughtful and inclusive campaign can swing things around.

A further strength of democracy is the ability to remove poor governments and the dirtbags whose back pocket is weighing them down. The system while open to abuse is also open to voices of descent and those who aspire to a good society. It’s just unfortunate that the latter voices cannot sing in harmony and as a choir.

Note what Charles Handy (p89) writes, “In a democratic culture, if it is not to degenerate into a battle between interest groups, it is particularly crucial that we find a common cause.”               Handy – Empty Raincoat

False Hope

To this end the social democrats and the general left of the British political scene probably thought they had found a ‘common cause’ with their promotion of political correctness (PCism). They were very wrong. It may have been perceived as a positive step forward towards a good society but it was clumsily introduced and implemented as tactfully as a bulldozer at a F1 race.

One can’t condemn fascism and communism as totalitarian regimes then seek to impose a political agenda, even if that agenda may be construed as for the common good. But to then lacerate opponents and doubters with vile accusations and, invoke the law to enforce its acceptance is hypocritical. It is not equality at work.

Any political agenda which is imposed may be considered as totalitarian. “What is a totalitarian regime but one in which variety of opinion is suppressed and conformity to a particular ideology is enforced.”  Catherine Rowett, www.academia.edu/1766239/A_dangerous_opponent_of_democracy

A more moderate view of PCism comes from Graham Good – University of British Columbia: “… it catches a certain kind of self-righteous and judgmental tone in some and a pervasive anxiety in others…”   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

It may be shrouded in Karl Popper’s term ‘piecemeal social engineering’. Others may liken it to B.F. Skinner’s (1904-1990) view that society should develop ways to condition people to behave in a more appropriate way.  Book: Walden Two 1948

Some will associate it with George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (p241 (Appendix)) and his version of Newspeak, which was devised, “…to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism.” The sole purpose of Newspeak was to, “…to make all other modes of thought impossible.”

http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/piecemeal-social-engineering

Nonetheless, many right-wing activists believe that PCism is ‘indoctrination’ an attempt at ‘brainwashing’. Can the left in politics answer this view without being curt, inflammatory and dismissive? Dialogue is our only way forward in a positive vein.

Moreover, PCism was introduced throughout the western world. This would suggest a concerted and determined plan to impose it by the social democrat political elite. However, their haste was their undoing because they never took the time to talk it through with the electorate which suggests a contempt for ordinary joe. This fervent flurry to have it implemented and cemented before the likelihood of political change may have forced their hand to try to secure it with the weight of the law.

The law may remain in force, even after political change and, will stop people from openly voicing an opinion but will not change their mental attitude. The use of the law will foster resentment and that resentment will fester. The cost will be high.

There is a considerable loss of trust between the people and their elected representatives, admittedly, not solely due to PCism but it is a serious nail in the democratic coffin. Other costs include:

  • A decided move to the right in politics.
  • The rise of fascist parties in Europe.
  • People ‘feel’ the contempt of the political class.
  • Division in society.
  • A set back in the quest for a good society.

Of serious concern is that once people move to the extreme right in politics they very rarely move back to the centre ground. They become entrenched.

A chasm has opened between those in favour and those against PCism. A vehement opposition has emerged. In some parts of America it has reached fever pitch, with radio talk show hosts lambasting PCism at every opportunity and shows like South Park taking the mickey. It has given the right in politics a ready-made platform from which to pillory the left.

Jokes about PCism may not be heard much on television in the UK but are common in local pubs and clubs. And every time a silly case gains media attention it reinforces the held view and encourages others to join in.

Such a rallying of opposing loud hailers may appear as a positive thing for a healthy democracy but it is not. Entrenchment on either side makes it nigh impossible to find common ground, and a ‘common cause’. Thus the advocates of political correctness may have set back the very principle of equality because they failed to make it inclusive.

Call me a cynical conspiracy theorist but could the failure have been deliberate. In order to maintain the alliance of the political class and business interests and the windfall that comes from corruption.

Without doubt democracy has many challenges but still has room for development. In my opinion PCism is an exemplary example of the dangers inherent in democracy; it was too one sided and the brain child of a cabal of thinkers. The result is that we have factions of right and left at loggerheads or at worse entrenched and bitter.

People Power?

The weaknesses of democracy are apparent if we re-examine the views expressed earlier. We can dismiss the fear of the ‘intellects’ of the past as their vision of despair did not materialize. On the other hand there is a degree of truth in the more modern analyses.

Michels view that democracy is a ‘façade’ for rule by an elite is insightful. If we think in terms of the political class and the present feeling of alienation by the people, that gives credence to Michels’ observation. However, we do have opposition parties and organizations; perhaps not as strong as they should be but that could have as much to do with our lack of involvement as their whispered voice.

We can add to the voice of Michels the study of Gilens and Page and their conclusion that the electorate of America have ‘little influence’ on government policy. The obvious point being made is that the public are simply ignored. That being the case gives credence to Michels other contention that democracy slides into oligarchy.

I would lump together Rabbi Shach’s view on ‘deceit’ with Jimmy Carter’s condemnation of ‘bribery’. They both contend that corruption is rife in the political hierarchy. We should all be aware that corruption plagues our political system. It’s as widespread as trees in a woodland. There is not a country in the world which you could say was squeaky clean. Daunting, isn’t it?

In America, supposedly the great democracy corruption is second nature to the politicians. It is given the name ‘clientelism’ which simply means; you scratch – I scratch and both our backs are covered because the money given to my campaign is just a donation. And my vote for particular legislation is that I support it. A whole lot of $millions is involved.

The problem is so embedded in India that the government has recently changed its currency; new notes for old in an attempt to flush out corruption. As the Indian government has recognised corruption harms the economy. Good luck. However, we should take our hat off to them for such a bold move. Good to see some politicians with a large degree of bottle.

Another positive story comes from South Korea where the president Park Geun-hye has been impeached on bribery charges. The head of Samsung has also been questioned (for 22 hrs) about donations totalling around $25.5 million. The authorities are now trying to secure an arrest warrant for the head of Samsung. President Park’s future will be decided by their constitutional court.

China has only recently set up a new agency to investigate the agency they initially established to counter the growth in corruption. It makes me think it’s a lot like a dog trying to catch its own tail.

A more recent example comes from a report in the Daily Mail January 11 2017. The story outlined that a businessman flew $500,000 in a private jet to Liberia, Africa to bribe two officials in order to have the law changed to suit his mining company.

One more case to hit the headlines is that of Rolls Royce the engine manufacturer. Several areas of the media have given it some prominence with its fine of £641m or around $810m for bribing foreign officials to secure contracts. Daily Mail 2017/01/17

The Guardian claims that along with the BBC they exposed the scandal in October 2016. However, the investigation had been on-going since 2012 with the cooperation of the company. The good thing is that it was exposed. Let’s have a monthly column on corruption in all media.

These are but a few examples and as already alluded to there are few clean bums in the political world. On a serious note we should listen to J. Stiglitz (p165)  “Corruption undermines faith in our democracy.”  The Price of Inequality

What should we do next? It seems like an impossible task to rid the system of the pirates. It’s especially difficult in that we need the existing politicians to implement a programme of corruption busting. Progress is being made based on the evidence above. Fighting corruption is a big job which requires a considerable amount of mental strength and the belief that ending corruption is essential work.

I’ve illustrated with the examples of India and South Korea that it is possible and that there are good guys out there. I’m also of the opinion that there is considerable mileage for politicians to pick up the cudgel against corruption.

Can democracy be saved?? Will the Fantastic Four come to its rescue? The Guardians of the Universe! James Bond, even? Unfortunately, we can’t rely on the fantasy world to help us.

Though I’m reminded of an old movie I watched on TV; it was Michael Douglas playing the role of the American President, Andrew Shepard. He’s addressing the assembled press and uses a one liner which struck me as apt: “Democracy isn’t easy” and goes on to attack his republican opponent Bob somebody.

And that’s the reality, democracy isn’t easy. I wish I had a blueprint, all the answers but I come up against the pure logic of Karl Popper The Open Society. He argues, correctly, that there can’t be a blueprint that we cannot lay down a set path that people will follow because we want them to. If we can agree on something, then let’s have a go, see if it works, if not change it. It’s a slow process but eventually we get to where we hope is a good society. That should be our common cause.

I’m encouraged by the electoral votes of 2016 and hope that the movement continues into 2017 in both France and Germany. I just hope that the political elite can hear the alarm go off.

I was struck by the speech that British Prime Minister Theresa May gave at the UN in September 2016 when she reminded the assembled that:

“We must never forget that we stand here, at this United Nations, as servants of the men and women that we represent back home.”

Colour me surprised but intrigued by her reference to representation, which was positive. But the bit that got my real attention was the use of the word ‘servants’. Was this purposeful as a means to curry favour back home, an ideological slip or a clear understanding of what democracy should look like. Of course, as a believer I hope it was the latter and like me she is a true disciple. Arrrh! My cynical personality is coming out!!!!

Nonetheless, we know in which direction we need to go, for our sakes, for our children and our grandchildren. Let’s keep our common cause in mind every time we vote or want to voice an opinion. Our motto: we know where we’re going. If politicians or businessmen don’t want to come along – stuff them. A good society is too important to be side tracked by the merchants of greed.

We must also be aware that we can’t get everything we want. Let’s walk and talk and see where it leads us.

 

 

 

Bubble Wars

thXJDRNI6Q

Bubble Folk are the creation of a lack of reliable informative information the cause of which is mass media and political spin. It also has to do with peoples need to be a part of something. Television and newspapers promote the views of those who own them or who run them (BBC). Thus the predominant opinions we are given are those of the elite.

It’s increasingly difficult to find an objective opinion out there. Without a truly independent analysis of events that uses ‘why’ at the beginning of each question we never get to the crux of the matter. Basically we are treated as cannon fodder by the elite. We the public don’t need to know the ins and outs of an issue; it is their job to look after our interests. They ain’t doing a good job!

A Case in Point:

Recently after the Brexit vote in the UK and the general rise of people power across Europe I’ve heard Jean-Claude Juncker the EU commissioner state on three different occasions that they, the political elite, should not be held back by the rise in populism. Such statements suggest a number of things to me:

  • He does not accept democratic accountability.
  • There is by association the view that people have no idea what they need or want.
  • The political class see themselves as an elite.
  • That he and his ilk are Bubble Folk!!!
  • They have no desire to listen and no intention to act on the public vote.

 

Thinking.

Thinking.

Notwithstanding, we can only make decisions on the bases of the information we receive. Being bombarded by one view or by two strongly opposing views makes it all the more difficult to reach a rational, objective conclusion.

The other problem is that time on TV isth1zoq2kiv restricted and so much of what we get comes down to political sound bites. We have become the peoples of puerile language: texting, twitter and Facebook and all the rest. Billions of text messages are sent every day, much of the content of little relevance. I know I’m one of the culprits! E.g. what’s for dinner? Put the kettle on etc.etc.. I fancy a pint?

Moreover, politicians are their own worst enemy when it comes to presenting a point of view. Invariably they do not answer the question put to them but chose to state the message they want to get across. In so doing promote their own belief and their political party. They are cheap car salesmen! However, people have started to doubt whether politicians know what the truth looks like.

th13r6b7kgEventually political spin wears thin and the electorate switch off when the politicians start to speak. This acquired deafness is now a worldwide phenomenon as people realise that the political elite represent themselves. Reality of their living situations has forced ordinary Joes to recognise this simple truth.

 

Case in Point:

EU – Canada trade deal due to be signed this month, October 2016. The package was worked out in secret its conditions to be imposed on the populace. Business gets what it wants and the people, well, there might be some jobs created. But others will be lost! There will be some scraps left on the table.

Bubble Orgasm:

The political class were stunned by the recent referendum decision to ‘Leave’ the EU, June 2016. The ‘Remainers’ were apoplectic, overcome with convulsions of disbelief, some wanted to storm the barricades of working class areas and beat the …. out of them. It seems democracy is only permitted when the electorate vote according to diktat.

Those who voted to Remain cannot accept the vote and cannot give up on the issue, so convinced are they that the people have made a mistake. Little or no thought is given to why 17 million voted to Leave. Here in lies the crux of Bubble Folk – only they can be right.

  • Why did so many people vote to leave?
  • Why did they feel so disillusioned?
  • Why had this disillusionment not been addressed before?
  • Why have the ‘elite’ not shared more of the nation’s wealth?
  • Why were the ‘Leavers’ lambasted as racist etc.?

I‘ll go back to a point made earlier that the reality of their living situationthII1V3PKP forced the electorate to think of their needs and not those of the elite. There is a lesson in this situation for the elite to comprehend: – when you treat people like …. they will react.

 

Abortion: the Bubble War

There are few other issues that raise blood pressure more than abortion. This is trench warfare in the modern age. No middle ground, no room for compromise, not even a smattering of space for dialogue. No game of Christmas football here. The antagonists are trapped in their respective bubbles.

While there is logic in both arguments it is absent in the antagonistic approach each side has towards the other. There concrete stance has become the home of intolerance. It has become a war of attrition.

In political terms support in the Houses of power is determined by the numbers in each district. Whichever group has the largest number gets the politician’s backing. In these circumstances democracy is pushed along not by what is best for all of society but who has the loudest gob.

New Picture (1)Shout loud and shout long seems to be the best route to get your way. One more reason why ordinary Joes are fed up with the political system is that they are not heard but any minority with a loud gob is.

 

 

We Trust in God:

All religions are made up of bubble folk. Many use their belief system to promote their political aspirations but cannot identify the hypocrisy in so doing.

It’s a Long Way to Tipperary:

So the old song goes. It may well be a long way but it’s even longer to get to true democracy. It’s a steeplechase with so many ditches and a host of hurdles. We are transient folk, all of us, but politicians take it to a different level by their pre-election pledges that quickly become obscure and the newly elected abstruse when in power.

Our failure to make progress comes from the sheer lack of information that the people receive as to what is best for the whole of society as opposed to the demands of the elite. We have tranche after tranche of interest groups intransigent in their defence of their patch. There is much talk about the need of interest groups in a pluralist society.

Of course very few would like to live in a Stalinist environment or any fascist state. However, when groups become adamant in their approach and almost puritanical in outlook they become a hindrance to progress as they develop Stalinist tendencies.

Numerous environmental groups of various hues claim to have the best interest of society as their prime concern yet never stand together. Their interest seems parochial and in this sense serves the interest of the establishment and not that of society as a whole. They are the bubblers! thm83e71td

The Common Good and Trade Unions.

Europe is in the midst of an economic and social crisis, deepened by the migrant situation. At times like these we all tend to look at our own basket of goods and become a little self-oriented. However, throughout the ages, pioneers, our conscience, have tried to steer us in the direction of a better society. A society that does respect the right of the individual within a community made up of active and participatory citizens. And a goal of working towards a society that gives prominence to the notion of the common good.

This is an area were the Trade Union (TU) movement could take the lead. It has the resources and the organisation to have an immediate impact.

To speak of the common good is to open a can of worms for several reasons. Some philosophers will immediately jump up and scream of Utilitarianism (what’s best for the majority). Other politically minded servants of the present establishment will merely shout ‘bunkum’! Loudly, of course! Others on the left in politics will nod and add their wisdom; ‘good luck with that’. Those on the far left will raise their banner and advise; ‘call for revolution’!

Without doubt it is a tall order and needs a unity of purpose that has dissipated over the last few decades. Once there was a definite class aspect to politics but now it is much more diverse with ‘identity politics’ Fukuyama (p438) a whole host of interest groups pursuing their own campaign. In so doing the opposition to right-wing government’s has weakened considerably.

The poor have no champion. Once it was the Trade Union movement and then the Labour Party but both have been weakened over the past decades. To some the Labour party has lost its soul as it searched for credibility from the business class. The TU’s have never quite recovered from the Winter of Discontent of 1979 and the years of Thatcherism.

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent

Identity politics is a gift of huge magnitude for the 1 percent. As it disperses the opposition into small and at times, irrelevant bodies who shout a lot then drive home for a ready-made meal. Alternatively, they agree to meet at the out of town shopping centre (Mall) for a big mac. Here they castigate those who go to football matches, are at home watching TV or hanging around the betting shop all day. Meanwhile, other campaigners are demanding a halt to air pollution.

Individualism is the cry of the day by the horde that cannot see beyond the mirror. It is also the cry of the neo-liberal economists whose view is the predominant one and the voice of the austerity economic programme. These economists opine that we are all rational individuals that know what we want and act accordingly. But wait, pay heed to the wisdom of Ha-Joon Chang (p194):

“There cannot be such a thing as an individual without society”.

Contrast the ‘rational individual’ opinion with that of the philosopher Jürgen Habermas who suggests that the press feed us celebrity gossip and we behave as “mindless consumers”. The quest to be in fashion, regardless, that garment suits or not. The insistence, almost, of only wearing a designer item and having the name brazen across the garment. Leaves me in little doubt, I’m with Habermas!  www.britannica.com/biography/Jurgen-Habermas

Consider also the opinion of John Stuart Mill, “One whose desires and impulses are not his own, has no character, no more than a steam engine has no character.” Sandel (p51)

The Santa Clara University adopts a stance that the common good is unattainable because it’s in direct conflict with a pluralist society. And that a pluralist outlook is more in tune with our individualistic approach to life. Pluralism suggests that interest groups counter each other and thus create a political balance. I dealt with this issue on my previous post Europe: Moving Politically Right by quoting Francis Fukuyama that powerful interest groups with substantial funds seriously undermine democracy. www.scu.edu/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/the-common-good

Moreover, the common good and pluralism are not conflicting ideologies. One of the premier thinkers of pluralism Isaiah Berlin notes that we have to be thoughtful, listen carefully and sympathetically to the needs and wishes of others; therefore we are in the same ballpark. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_(political_philosophy)

Furthermore, when we examine the philosophy of the neo-pluralists the political understanding is in tune with other thinkers, “the political agenda is biased towards corporate power”. This analysis gains wide support from Francis Fukuyama and others illustrates that we cannot rely solely on a balance of interests to aid democracy. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_(political_theory)  In essence we need people power!

Jim Hightower is unequivocal: “The corporations don’t have to lobby the government any more. They are the government.” Chang (p172)

The Workers Struggle

The demise of class politics makes it more difficult, in some ways to create the environment to promote the common good. The sheer number of diverse groups with their niche political views means it’s harder to find common ground. Nonetheless, I believe it can be achieved, the philosopher John Rawls maintains that we can find, “certain general conditions that are [   ] equally to everyone’s advantage”. Sandel (p143) My list would be:

  • Free health care. An end to the slicing down of the NHS.
  • Clean Air Act. An approximate 40,000 deaths annually in UK.
  • A focus on good education for ALL.
  • Municipal community services, e.g. sports centres, swimming pools etc. What Michael Sandel (p243) refers to as the ‘infrastructure of civic life’.

This leads nicely onto the view of Karl Popper, as cited by Bryan Magee (p80)

“We must demand that unrestrained capitalism give way to economic interventionism”.

A view that finds resonance with Noam Chomsky, (p217) “…it’s ridiculous to talk about freedom in a society dominated by huge corporations”.

Building a powerful foundation for the common good would be a long term project. However, the TU movement has the wherewithal to be the standard bearer which can raise the issue of the common good, not as a political crusade but as an essential part of everyday life.

To achieve this end the TU’s would have to stand independent of the Labour Party on this specific agenda to reach as wide an audience as possible. The Labour party has not done much for the working class since 1945. The economy and what’s best for business has dominated their thinking.

A Potted History

Back in 1969 the then Prime Minister (PM) Harold Wilson tried to introduce laws to limit TU activity and hold wages down – In Place of Strife. Ironically, his plans were scuppered by James Callaghan, who ten years later would attempt something very similar when he broke the 1974 Social Contract agreement which lead to the Winter of Discontent 1979.

It proved to be a disaster for the Labour Party. Callaghan had made several errors of judgment which lead to the electoral victory of Margaret Thatcher.

Eighteen years later, and with most of the gains of 1945 privatized (A beautifully orchestrated hoodwink of the populace). In came Tony Blair, and the expectation, was that he would rescind the anti-union laws that had been enacted by Thatcher’s governments. Not a finger lifted!

www.libcom.org/history/1978-1979-winter-of-discontent

www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7598366.stm

The poor have gained very little from the Labour Party except for numerous platitudes. The TU’s also stand bereft, constrained by the power of the law while successive governments have allowed unrestrained capitalism. More privatization, welfare cuts and some 800,000 + zero hours contracts; the poor continue to pay for the banking crisis.

Here then, is a new recruitment drive for the TU’s; a fight for the common good. A simple programme that few could disagree with but with the powerful message that we should all gain from the wealth created. The TU’s are in a strong position to organise local and national meetings to promote the single agenda.

thVWJRZYWDHowever, if I were a member of the 1% I would not be too worried as too many high ranking Union officials are in a position to declare, ‘I’m alright Jack’. The Trades Union Congress (TUC) are trapped in their mindset, “the way we help business” in its opening blurb. The very strong Stalinist tendencies of the Left in politics suggest that they would want to dictate policy as viewed from their particular bent. www.tuc.org.uk

I revert back to Popper to put them in the picture:

“The fact that change is never going to stop renders the very notion of a blueprint for a good society nonsensical,” Magee (p116).

This then is the prime reason we cannot have a list of demands to suit every possible group with a political agenda. Moreover, it should not develop into a left V right shoot out at the OK corral. The common good is for the benefit of the community as a whole e.g. clean air!

“The environment is mine,” said the individual.

“And mine!” said another.

“Ours,” said their sister. It’s time we bound hands.

But first let us begin our campaign with an online petition whereby those who sign up, agree, that they will only vote for the political party that commits to enforcing the policy in the next parliament.

Colour doesn’t matter, policy does!   Power is the peoples.

Do some good – join Robin Hood.

Ha-Joon Chang      Economics: The User’s Guide.

Noam Chomsky     How the World Works.

Bryan Magee         Popper.

Michael Sandel      Justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Faith Schools: A Broken Society.

brainwashed-dngg[1]Faith schools are the perpetuation of indoctrination and brainwashing, in essence the control of thinking. This is everything that should be abhorrent to anyone with a liberal mind. But we find that in the name of multiculturalism that liberal minds have abandoned logic so as to subscribe to the adverse dogma of political correctness.

The frenzy that surrounded political correctness is characteristic of a body that had come from the wilderness with the assuredness of divine right; and sought to impose the PC bible, without hesitation, on all. There was no thought of consequence and the pace of imposition gained momentum as acolytes joined the trend.

Of course faith schools have been with us for generations. They were never so much about bringing God to the people as to ensure that the people followed the rule of law. The church had realised that their future was tied to the masters of the day.

However, once the church became powerful it did not demand equality. No, the church ruled as an erstwhile Emperor using the fear of God and the threat of Armageddon to impose its will. The Catholic Church today is still issuing diktats.

Therefore the church was never about –make-love-not-war. It has always been about self-preservation.

In 2011 (there doesn’t seem to be more up to date data) there were 7,000 faith schools broken down thus:

  • 68% Church of England
  • 30% Catholic
  • 12 Muslim
  • 3  Sikh
  • 1  Hindu

A study by the Guardian newspaper in 2010 found social bias whereby lower class kids

No where to go.

No where to go.

were omitted and that faith based schools were increasingly becoming the preserve of the middle classes. Such that in 2013 a Fair Admissions Campaign was launched to demand that children be able to attend a school irrespective of faith.

The Observer newspaper June 2014 carried out a survey and found that 58% of people were against faith schools being funded by the government. This falls in line with other opinion:

“We consider the promotion and public funding of religious schools to be divisive and detrimental to social cohesion”. www.secularism.org.uk/faith-schools.html

The Independent newspaper 2014/12/31 held a story citing Mathew Taylor of the Social Integration Commission (SIC) suggesting that the government was obsessed with faith schools. The conclusion was that it, “breeds social and racial segregation”. Taylor was also quoted as suggesting that consequentially, “Britain’s society would be characterized by ‘ugly’ divisions”.

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/

In March 2015 the Telegraph pulled information from a survey by the SIC of 4,300 people aged 13 – 80. One conclusion was that, “…teenagers emerged as less integrated than young adults”. This drew a further damning statement, “Multiculturalism has effectively gone into reverse”.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11457650

Faith schools by purpose teach intolerance. They promote their interpretation of the bible/Quran and thus by extension their God as the real one. Thus millions of needy souls are not following the word of God but a contrived version of the bible/Quran.

thVVX2B7D6Most people believe that the church is there to help the neediest and the poorest in our society. Yet it seems that the faith schools walk in the opposite direction. Isn’t it ironic?

“England’s faith schools are on average failing to mirror their local communities by shunning the poorest pupils in their area”.

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/mar/05/faith-schools-admissions

Thus faith schools are condoning and therefore perpetuating the class system and religious division in the name of God. In the name of God, swallow your ambition and raise us all in the joy of humanity!

Moreover, once lost in a religious fervour one becomes intolerant of others. We are living in the midst of it today in the Middle East, India and Pakistan. The UK has had decades of hell in Northern Ireland where religious divide still dominates political dogma. Over the centuries religious wars have caused the deaths of millions.

A cross on every hill

A star, a marinet

So many graves to fill

O love, aren’t you tired yet?

Leonard Cohen, The Faith, from the album – Dear Heather

I don’t believe that God, (are you there mate?) would condone the actions of the church, any church. Men and their dictatorial tendencies are the true authors of fire and brimstone.preacher-angry[1]

The world cannot grow until men learn how to!

 

Morality: Will it Ever Exist?

thXJDRNI6Q

There is talk and talk and then some more until it becomes irrelevant. Talk about the justice of human rights and the need for a moral landscape. A landscape that holds all equal. It has never existed. At present it’s as far off as never-never land!

For those adherents of morality it is time to remove the blinkers. They need to stop walking into a crowded room wearing sunglasses. Many of the smiling faces they will encounter will hold dark and at times barbaric secrets behind their chic exterior.

We try to make our children aware of morality and while some take it on board others I fear need a more intensive and extensive programme of study. That we are not meeting the needs of many highlights our own lack of understanding.

A moral code cannot be imposed; ask the Catholic Church. It has tried for centuries and as often as not has resorted to force, intimidation and war in their quest for rectitude.

The failure of the Catholic Church is obvious. Even among the ‘saints’ they sent out to deliver us, abused their position. In doing so they turned many off the very notion of morality.

True moralists are as rare as gems in a coal mine. In the modern era we can look to Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King all of whom were subject to or breathed the air of persecution. Does this mean we must live in servitude to understand that it is wrong? NO!

We do not have to walk in the shoes of Pastor Niemoller on Nazi persecution.

http://hmd.org.uk/resources/poetry/first-they-came-pastor-martin-niemoller

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

It does mean we must step back from the mirror, open the curtain and realise there are others out there. That we need and depend on them for everything we have. We are born, in all aspects, naked.

History should teach us lessons. World War 2 was a barbaric conflict and should have been enough to lift the shades from our eyes. However, genocide is still a part of our life. War reminds us just how basic we are. How the limbic brain still controls the neo- cortex.

http://www.humantruth.info/limbic_system.html

  • Khemer Rouge nearly 2 million slaughtered
  • East Timor 200,000 Catholics
  • Bosnia – 200,000 Muslims
  • Biafra – 400,000
  • Kosovo – 300,000
  • Rwanda – over 1 million Tutsis
  • Darfur – 400,000
  • Congo – 6 million and counting

There are several more examples but genocide or ethnic cleansing is still very much with us.

A story of bitter discrimination is taking place In the Dominican Republic (DR).  Here around, one- million Haitians, many of whom have lived there for 30 years + are under threat. The government of the DR now wants them removed and in 2013 introduced a law which strips the children of Haitian illegal immigrants of citizenship. The Guardian 5/8/15

Ancient Celtic Warrior

Ancient Celtic Warrior

Meanwhile, we play with our gadgets by the score which feed our intrinsic desires. We unashamedly flash them as an ancient may flash their trophies. Technology has eased our lives, freed up time and given us more experiences. BUT! Technology has not served our moral being or made us more empathetic. We have taken giant strides but remain static.

Where in the world will we find: no persecution, no discrimination, no child abuse and no slavery? In 1833 slavery was abolished throughout the then British empire. In 1948 the United Nations issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which banned slavery globally. In 2007 Mauritania made slavery a crime.th1HIFN26V

 In 2015 there is more slavery than ever!

We suffer greatly from the complacency of politicians. Many speak with a liberal tongue but their taste buds are immune to anything other than delicate compromise. In the world of compromise there is no clear water only mud baths.

We can learn! (Hope) Every fool you have ever come across or are likely to come across is looking at you. Mirror, mirror on the wall. The learning curve is to be conscious, understand and develop in consequence. Unfortunately, testosterone has power over male brains as well as their genitals!

The world cannot grow until men learn how to!thI9DEC6BP

Do some good….join Robin Hood

Immigration: The True Cost of Cheap Labour

thD11S73YEIt’s a strange phenomenon but both the Left (includes Liberals) and Right in British politics support mass immigration. But it has nothing to do with helping the poor. The latest figure published was a net annual increase of approximately 250,000. That’s a population growth of one (1) million every four (4) years not including the birth rate. It comes as no surprise that business is unashamedly in favour of mass immigration, it’s good for business. The support from the Left is a bit more bewildering. Nonetheless, what are the costs to our society?

There are several areas upon which immigration has a serious impact. The first of many is on wages and this hits the people at the bottom the hardest. A large body of people entering the country seeking work obviously keep wage levels down and forces them down further. This can only be good news for employers. How does it help the local workers?

Working conditions also suffer as migrants do not unionise. This is mainly because they are too scared for fear of losing their job. Going on strike outside of union support is a non- starter. Therefore they are subject to added pressure to work longer hours than their local counterparts. In addition over one (1) million migrants are illegal and have little choice but to do as they are told.

We can then add the large number which is controlled under gangmasters. Their working conditions are as they find them with no method to bring about change. Likewise their living conditions can be well below the standard acceptable to the rest of our society. This virtual slave labour market should be abolished forthwith.

It is true to say that migrants do take jobs from the local indigenous population. Localsth[10] cannot manage their households on the wages offered and pay rent/mortgage, council tax and the cost of getting to and from work and other associated costs. In most cases the ordinary Joes’ would have to accept a lower standard of living in order to take up a job.

Their refusal to live on less than what national state benefits allow has the poor castigated as scroungers. They are hit with a volume of abuse that would definitely not be tolerated if they were composed of one ethnic group. These people are almost demonized.

The unemployed and those who have been on benefits long term tend not to own their own home. Many are corralled into Council run estates and left to fester. It is well documented that employers don’t look favourably on such residents when jobs become available.

Thus we are allowing the continued development of sub culture districts. The clear thBNJC2GU0knock on effect is that families become increasingly dysfunctional. In consequence, we are condemning many thousands of children to a miserable existence. A sizable number of these communities will disenfranchise themselves. The danger is that they become increasingly lost to the wider community and delve into crime etc. Such disassociation will end up costing a lot more in the long run.

Of course we have had slums since the Industrial Revolution but up until the modern era there have been jobs that catered for the labourer army. However, labourer jobs are not as numerous and cheap competition means many are not as accessible. Factories up and down the country employ cheap /illegal workers, usually paid below the minimum wage.

In this new environment those without jobs have become dependent on benefits to survive. Even for the skilled the cost of relocation, (north to south) is not an option either due to the financial implications of finding accommodation and surviving until the first wage comes through. And the prospect of training or retraining is just another scribble added to the Santa Claus wish list.

th[2]A further consequence of mass immigration is that we fail to train the locals for the jobs that need doing. A recent example is that of nurses, whereby 80,000 applied nationally for a course but only 20,000 got accepted.

Meanwhile, we are employing many from abroad. It is cheaper to bring them in than train our own young people. Not a moment’s thought is given about the needs these workers leave behind in their home country. We are as leeches on the poor abroad. Employers are saving £millions not having to provide training. What is the message to our young people?

The differences in societal precepts emerge as migrants naturally bring their own cultural norms, can and do bring tensions. In the past this has led to a clash of cultures which in turn leads to ethnic ghettoes. In these districts the residents become fair game for gangs and political opportunists. The areas become increasingly shut off from the mainstream and the aspiration and value of the individual lessens and the community becomes more insular.

Immigration on the scale we are presently witnessing is all about money; it is about big business getting the cheapest possible labour and therefore making the highest possible profits. It is not about people. It is not about helping the poor of other nations. It is not about helping this country and it’s poor. It is about exploiting the poor from abroad and in doing so degrading the workers already here.

No doubt there are heart-warming stories of some migrants who have made it good. However, for every positive there will be 100+ heart-breaking stories of young women and children forced onto drugs and prostitution and slave labour. There are thousands out there just surviving in lives of unimaginable misery.

We have failed to advance the livelihood of many young people in the UK whatever their background. Without adequate training programmes we compound their difficulties, we leave them on the shelve like last year’s hot toy, hoping someone will take pity and do the right thing. It is a testament to their character that they carry on without causing an upheaval.

Whatever happened to Education, Education, Education? Ask Mr Blair and his party.

The present government’s flagship for youth is the apprenticeship scheme. According to the most recent study it is not all it aspires to be:

  • 70,000 less applied than the start year of 2010.
  • 15% of all apprentices are paid below minimum wage.
  • 21% get no formal academic training.
  • 93% of those aged 25+ already worked in the place before being put on the apprentice scheme. Wow! Does this mean that their employer simply turned them into apprentices to get the grants from government?
  • Small to medium size firms can get £1,500 per apprentice. How much do the big boys’ get?

The idea behind apprenticeship is a wholly positive one; it was to cut youth unemployment but here’s the irony: there has been a 520% increase of apprenticeships in the over sixty (60) age bracket. I wonder if they all had to dye their hair.     Independent Newspaper 1/1/2015

The real story is that it has become just one more money spinner for business at the taxpayers’ expense. Their greed knows no end.

Why has the Left supported mass immigration? It is beyond my simple political thinking. I can only assume that they have been beguiled by human rights activists and have gone on a binge of HR rhetoric. It would seem that they are still pissed on said rhetoric or suffering from a huge hangover. How else can they justify the damage they are causing all over the country? Our society has become fractured.

The conspiracy theory:

We are all participants in a global experiment by the Liberal/Left to change the fabric of the world. In this brave new world, we all speak the same and everyone’s right is tolerated no matter how bazaar. However, we will be separated by education, wealth and nepotism. So what’s so different from today’s world?

Joe wants to matter now.               Join Robin Hood and do some good!thSJMZ0920