The Rape of the Poor

 

Try not to live as a pretender,

But so try to manage your affairs

That you are loved by wide expanses,

And hear the call of future years.

Boris Pasternak – It is not Seemly to be Famous – stanza 3

It is now well documented that while the super rich have grown richer the poor have travelled in the opposite direction. According to several economic writers the blame lies squarely with the neo-liberal economic model*, and, that its demise signals the last rites for capitalism. It’s a stretch to suggest that because one economic model has failed that we must prepare for a new world order.

However, there is one truth and that is that the poor have been raped. They have been raped of income, of opportunity, of prospects, of their self-esteem and of their very dignity. Let’s draw our picture with a few succinct and powerful quotes from notable writers.

The USA, under neoliberalism, boosted profits by impoverishing its own citizens.” Paul Mason (p19)1

“…income inequality has reached extreme levels not seen since the 1920s, and before that, the 1890s.” James Rickards (p236)2

The general thrust of these quotes are supported by other economists that I have previously quoted in earlier posts: Stiglitz, Chang, Rodrik, and Krugman. There can be no doubt that the poor have not kept pace with the distribution of wealth that has been generated. The push to globalization and its fellow rider free trade have cost the poor of the western nations much.

*www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism    

 Multinationals have simply used their capital to invest elsewhere, mostly in Asia and China in particular, to utilise the cheap and at times slave labour. A prime example, quoted in several books is that of Apple. This company pays to have its phones etc. manufactured in China by cheap labour but when the finished product comes back to USA and Europe, Apple charge a price that would equate to the phones being manufactured in America or Europe. The company makes huge profits from such an arrangement. Huge!

We are all now aware why the big boys have been promoting globalization and free trade; it’s of great benefit to their profit margin. The rest of the populace can go take a hike!

Banksy

But wait! The hoi polloi have not sauntered off with their cap between their legs. No, they’ve used their democratic right to vote against the elite. They have done what our politicians have been afraid to do.

Stunned, the elite stare in amazement at the audacity of the low-life. Some have voiced their anger at this popular wave of sentiment: the Brexit vote in UK, the Trump victory and the referendum outcome in Italy. Shit! they cry. The bastards are ganging up on us! However, the real reason is that the elite have been blinkered by “decades of denial” Rickards (p230) Paul Mason (p258)

Nonetheless, the elite have sent out their Stormtroopers to defend their rights. Politicians of various hues have marched to the given tune. Jean-Claude Juncker, head of the European Commission has made it clear that events should not be dictated by populism. John Major, ex-Prime Minister of Britain bemoaned the “tyranny of the majority” (John Stuart Mill 1859). Meanwhile, Labour MP Chuka Umunna, speaking on the BBC News channel spoke of the “elective dictatorship”.

·         These little men are so full of their own self-importance.

Let’s try and explain to these political hacks why populism is so in vogue:

“Once the election is over, voters are ignored and winning elites carry out preconceived plans”. Rickards (p238) Ring a bell? Been here before?

This leads nicely to philosopher Michael Sandel, (p13) 3

“Disillusion with politics has deepened as citizens grow frustrated with a political system unable to act for the public good, or address the questions that matter most”.

I would make one quibble with Sandel with his use of the word ‘unable’; I would have used the adjective ‘unwilling’.

Michael Sandel’s book was published in 2012 and was probably written therefore in 2011, if not before. Five years later and the elite still had not grasped the significance of what was happening right under their noses! The logical explanation is that they couldn’t give a shit. And now the shit has hit the fan!

One can only learn if willing to. It seems our political masters are unwilling. Their attack on democracy, for that’s what it amounts to, is a clear attempt to diminish the power of the majority. We cannot as a society, have a democracy that does not adhere to the majority vote, whether we agree with the vote or not. Let those who talk of the “tyranny of the majority” stand up and demand a dictatorship.

I appreciate that Karl Popper in his work the Open Society had a dilemma accepting a majority vote in favour of a fascist party. My response to his concern is that society should never get so low down that it is faced with such a prospect. A democratic society has failed if it reaches that stage.

In the midst of a crisis people hanker for a solution, a solution with the least trouble. The question is should people push forward in a direction of which they are unsure, full of doubt but advised to dare. Or will people be more cautious and look for something vaguely familiar or perhaps rely on the political party that appears to know what it wants and how to get everyone there. The road to fascism!

Democracy: The Only Road Forward

In the general election of 2015 in the UK, the Conservative Party polled 36.9% of the public vote and secured power as the next government. The Labour Party won 30.4% of the popular vote and is now trying to override a majority decision of 52% that voted to leave the EU.

The Scottish nationalist with 4.7% of the national vote are busy screaming in alto from the upper circle; joined by the Liberals who saw their percentage of the vote fall by a staggering 16%. The refrain of this unlikely choir is, ‘All we are saying, is let’s stay in’. They’ll still be singing as the gravy train goes rolling down the track – out of sight.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

We have reached an impasse, will the political class respond positively and accept that the times are changing or must they be pushed to the wayside. Will it be the death knell of capitalism as espoused by Paul Mason and James Rickards? There is little doubt that neoliberal policies have proved a nightmare for the overwhelming majority. Those at the top end of the table had a feast out of neoliberalism. The question is are they now willing to share?

Perchance they will remain in denial as both Rickards and Mason state. If so what are the consequences? I doubt the elite can carry on much longer on their present course. The deep frustration with the elite will turn increasingly to anger which will beget activist groups taking up the cause of the people.

Such a scenario will not strengthen the elite as the use of force against these factions will break down quickly. It will not bring out the silent majority against the perpetrators. That old reliance was only solid when there was trust and most people felt good about their lifestyle. The rise of populism is a clear indication that many are genuinely feeling downtrodden.

Many of the elite may feel just as Mitt Romney does, “…inequality is the kind of thing that should be discussed quietly and privately.” J Stiglitz (p33)4  Those days I’m afraid are gone, if they ever existed outside the comfort of elite homes and country clubs.

Winter for all Seasons

According to Paul Mason (p262) quoting from a survey from the OECD that world development will be weak for the next 50 years and that inequality will rise by an estimated 40%. If these figures are anywhere near accurate then winter is going to be all year round for the poor. And if winter is all year round people are going to get mighty fed-up! Guy Fawkes might get reinvented for real.

Mason also states that the only way to keep globalization and free trade is by having the costs borne by the poor. Again if he is right – its winter! He gains support for his view from James Rickards (p227) who argues, “Yet free markets and free trade are flawed in theory, non-existent in practice.”

This assertion is proven when we look again at the practises of Apple and other conglomerates. Such businesses gain comparative advantage because their money buys more in China and the cheap labour make it a double whammy. China also gains comparative advantage by having the investment and the jobs. Who loses? The workers in America and other western nations!

Further examples are the manipulation of the Chinese currency the yuan or of their interest rates. Other nations have also made great use of the manipulation of both as well as the corporate tax which for example, is due to reduce from 28% in 2010 to 17% in the UK by 2020. Therefore there are no free markets or free trade; everything has a fix.

Nonetheless, the lack of truly free markets or trade does not spell the end of capitalism. The system has witnessed upheaval before, several times, and by hook or crook the system has mutated or morphed and we carry on. In living memory for some is the horror of the 1920s and 1930s – ‘Buddy can you spare me a dime’.

Another period of uncertainty was in 1968 when many of the young at the time believed they were on the brink of revolution particularly in France. In the USA there was the anti-Vietnam protests, civil rights, the rise of the Black Panther movement, and woman’s lib. The Prague Spring, trouble was brewing all over the world. “Many protests were a direct response to perceived injustices…”

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_of_1968

Most recently the 2008 financial crash has kicked many, right where it hurts. Ouch!

What is increasingly likely is turmoil in the EU. The euro () has never been stable and the single market is hurting many countries. These nations: Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland among their number have been on the receiving end of the slump that followed the 2008 crash. For eight (8) years they have held to the philosophy of the single market but, and it’s a big but, for how much longer.

Paul Mason (p261) argues that the EU is just one ‘political accident’ away from collapse. In this I would be in agreement with him. The self-interest of politicians from one of the nations mentioned above may be the trigger in a struggle to stay in power.  Moreover, the euro () was a political construct not a financial one and therefore weak from, GO. The bureaucracy is too big, and wields too much political power. A bureaucracy should never hold political influence; otherwise we enter the realm of Stalin.

However, any possible collapse can and should be managed. The EU needs to reinvent itself and those in power must surely be aware of the need for radical reform. The euro is but a starting point. It’s about the political class’s ability to face reality. If not – KA-POW!

Moreover, Mason and Rickards are not the first economic writers to predict the fall of capitalism. Joseph Schumpeter (1883 – 1950) had a whole school of economics named after him and prophesied the evolution of capitalism into socialism. It didn’t happen, as you are aware.

Schumpeter recognised that capitalism adapted and adopted but felt that the very nature of the system and the changes it goes through would cause its mutation.  Schumpeter  termed it ‘creative destruction’ thus the process of regular change and the growth of multinationals and management teams would stymie the entrepreneur, as a result  the system  would lose its dynamism and, the bureaucracy and the State would play a greater part in the new socialist world.

Of course others preceded Schumpeter. We can look back to Marx and Engels, to the world of Lenin and Trotsky, to Mao and the likes of Ho Chi Minh. With the exclusion of Marx and Engels, the other attempts at the promised land directed by the state from the centre came crashing down. The failure in all these enterprises was the insistence on ‘democratic centralism’ – basically the central committee told everyone what to do. It was the vision of the Politburo or nothing.

The other side of the coin of failure was trying to control development and trade in a predominately capitalist world. In essence they could not compete which forced their leaders to become increasingly totalitarian. And as usual the workers paid the price!

Market Economy?

Nonetheless, the state has a role in the capitalist system. Neoliberalism may want a minimalist state but we’ve never heard the big boys moan when regularly bailed out. In every economic downturn or crash as in 1929 and 2008 the state stepped in with tax payers’ money to prevent the catastrophe that would have followed in consequence.

Ha-Joon Chang (p456)5 is adamant that the state has a crucial role and may even be critical in maintaining a society for the public good. “The economy is much bigger than the market. We will not be able to build a good economy-or a good society-unless we look at the vast expanse beyond the market.” He cites Herbert Simon of the Behaviourist School, that 80% of economic activity happens inside organizations not in the market. (p159)

So what can the state do to help rebuild our broken economy? Many jobs can be created by investment especially by improving infrastructure: build more and better roads etc. Even Donald Trump threatens to help America get going again by infrastructure programmes.   

Retreat is another way to help our economy, retreat to the Bretton Woods agreement of July 1944 and claw back the free rein given to the banking sector through deregulation by Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Perhaps there’s a need for another clever intervention as with the New Deal 1933-1938 which held back the growing tide of anger at the depth and extent of poverty at the time. Of course the economy really took off with the Second World War but I’m not advocating a third.

The Bretton Woods agreement was an attempt to bring lasting stability to the world economy, and it worked until dismantled. The team which drafted the programme described the world of finance as “…a casino instead of a driver of economic well-being.” Rodrik (p97)6 Rodrik (p111) after examining a lot of evidence, stated, “The inevitable conclusion is that financial globalization has failed us.”  

Trade globalization can also be restricted and more power shifted to domestic governments. Let’s leave it to economist Ha-Joon Chang (p446) to lay down the case for a rethink:

“In the last three decades of hyper-globalization, economic growth has slowed down, inequality has increased, and financial crises have become far more frequent in most countries.”

Michael Sandel (p64) adds, “Economists often assume that markets do not touch or taint the goods they regulate. But this is untrue. Markets leave their mark on social norms. Often, market incentives erode or crowd out nonmarket incentives.”

Sandel argues that to put a price on everything diminishes the human interaction. He gives several examples such as the selling of kidneys and blood. Such enterprises hurt the lower class the most; it is therefore unfair, as here survival often necessitates the action. His philosophy demolishes the logic of neoliberal economists that we are all motivated by self-interest.

The trafficking of women and children for sex is a clear example. The kidnappers / sellers are self –interested as are the men who pay to use these unfortunates. But can it ever be justified? Would we or should we ever permit it as a legitimized trade transaction?

The human factor cannot be discounted from any understanding of how the world works. Money is but one example of a motivator. However, it’s also regarded as the ‘root of all evil’. Somebody knew something. Economists don’t like nouns like ‘altruism’ because they can’t quantify it and therefore can’t add it to their constructed model.

Let’s refer once again to the philosopher Michael Sandel (p130)

“Altruism, generosity, solidarity, and civic spirit are not like commodities that are depleted by use. They are more like muscles that develop and grow stronger with exercise. One of the defects of a market-driven society is that it lets these virtues languish.”

This is an area that I don’t think Mason has fully taken on board; emotion is a most powerful part of our makeup and can lead us in many directions. I’m thinking of religion and its hold over people and their decision making. Any move to socialism may be blocked, unless we let God in, because religion can be very intractable.

Obviously, the market is not all that the neoliberal /classical economists would have us believe. But is the capitalist system doomed as Mason and Rickards suggest. I have an alternative view of what is taking place. I believe it’s a war of the elites.

Clash of the Titans

Wealth creation has a direct relation with power and consequently the Middle East has become one of the richest areas on the planet. Therefore, presumably, it could become the prime powerhouse of the globe and its elite the most powerful group. Add to that scenario the emergence of China and its record breaking productivity which casts it into a power player. Then of course, we have the West, led by America.

On the outskirts of this game lies Russia, rejected by the elite of the West because Putin won’t play ball by the set rules. Putin cannot be trusted to conform to the big picture. So, Russia gets up to as much mischief as it can in an attempt to be heard and still retain some credibility as a big player.

So here we have it, three main players at the table and an outcast screeching on a bench nearby. The Middle East has vast wealth and can turn on a tap to get as much as it wants. China has been accumulating significant wealth over the last few decades and can screw its people for more if needed – bang goes their saving plans.

The West has a fair back up but needed a whole lot more, hence the rape of the poor. It needed to replenish the coffers to make the banker feel good. But the West had an ace up its sleeve; it could cause big trouble in little China and particularly in the Middle East.

War! The Iraq war was only partially about oil and more about destabilizing the region. The Arab world was then encouraged to turn against each other. In Libya, under the guise of introducing democracy the West invaded – the nation is still torn apart. A similar ploy was utilized in Syria. For generations the different brothers of Islam, Shiite and Sunni lived in calm cohesion, now there is nothing but killing of their brothers.

 China has built a powerful industrial base but this has been on the back of Western capital. The multinationals can at any time transfer their allegiance back to their home nation leaving China with a major industrial wasteland.

It may seem that the West have the resource to come out on top. Perhaps, but the rise of populism has taken the gloss off their cosy abode, unless they come up with something new damp and rot will set in and they could lose any advantage.

Therefore the contention is that the world is in trouble because the elites are at war. Once this battle is resolved it will be back to business. Thus capitalism is not falling apart; it is being used by the elites to fight their respective corner.

There is so much more to this theory: industrial espionage, the deliberate interference on manufacturing of products. In this war some industrial giants are being forced to recall damaged goods which have been sabotaged, costing them $ millions. It’s nasty out there!

Notwithstanding, neoliberalism has proven a disaster movie: the steadfast, independent and strong individual (read – elites) have fought off the greedy bandits’ (read –poor) and secured world domination. Not quite! Ordinary Joe is back with a new army armed with the knowledge that:

·         Financial globalization has failed

·         Trade globalization has failed

·         That inequality has greatly increased.

The people want a better managed, more fair, more decent society than the ‘grab what you can mentality’ of the present system. Citizens want a ‘civic spirit’; they want to flex those ‘muscles’ to strengthen the positive values to take us forward. The people want a fair share of the goods they help produce.

So we are getting close to the crossroads, there will be change but I don’t think it will be revolutionary, it will be a while yet before the end to the capitalist system. Capitalism will not meld or morph into socialism; we are simply not ready intellectually for that stage of development. How damned unfortunate!

Instead governments will spend as Keynes advised. They will also introduce a degree of protectionism while continuing to promote free trade. Currency, corporate tax and interest rates will be manipulated. The financial world will be regulated as before. This will be a period of stabilizing the economy. Government investment will become a crucial element in future development.

Much may be determined by the political class. Whether they have the nous to change, the strength of will, the character, and a sense of civic duty. Or will they besmirch the aspirations of the people and cry foul as have British politicians over the Brexit vote.

We move on, perhaps a tad slower than before but hopefully happier.

1.       Paul Mason        POSTCAPITALISM A Guide to our Future.

2.       James Rickards The Road to Ruin

3.       Michael Sandel                 What Money Can’t Buy

4.       J.E.Stiglitz            The Price of Inequality

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

6.       Dani Rodrik         The Globalization Paradox

 

Nationalism: A Child’s Philosophy?

nationalism_cartoon[1]“Nationalism is an infantile disease…It is the measles of mankind”. Einstein

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

 

Measles: find out the latest at: www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Measles/treatment.aspx

Was Einstein’s view blurred by the atrocities of the Nazis on the Jews and others? He lived in a period of great barbarity that utilized nationalism to forward its cause. Hitler’s ally Mussolini did likewise. Several leaders past and present have played a similar game. Is it just a tool used by leaders to mobilize their people to march, not knowing to where or what?

Some will say it’s the love of their country. But they don’t love a country and, there are people in the country they don’t know and others they don’t like. The neighbour for one! It’s pride but where does the pride emanate from? Is it natural or instilled? The answer is obviously instilled and that means we have been manipulated into a belief that we may not have otherwise endorsed.

“Contrary to popular and even scholarly belief, nationalism does not have any deep roots in the human psyche”. Ernest Gellner

www.newlearningonline.com/literacies/chapter-1/gellner-on-the-logic-of-nationalism

Nationalism for many writers was akin to the slogan ‘workers of the world unite’, long before Marx coined the phrase. It was driven by the desire to free the masses from their servitude. The breaking down of feudalism and the growing knowledge that there was life beyond the village prompted the growth of nationalism.

There seems to be a consensus, a ‘modernist’ view that the emphasis was based on the rights of the individual and, “the human community as above all national divisions”. www.britannica.com/topic/nationalism

Exemplified by the French nationalism as expressed through, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, that such expression was a proclamation for all people not one distinct group. Hence Britannica.com can state, “Nationalism is a modern movement”.

Change was the spring as society moved from the ‘mechanical solidarity’ to the ‘organic solidarity’ as Emile Durkheim has expressed it. It was a move away from a feudal society to a capitalist system of production. In its early gabardine it looked to the wider community and not an ethnic one.

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

Philosopher, A.C. Grayling describes nations as ‘artificial constructs’, “their boundaries drawn in the blood of past wars”. Note the powerful point made in britannica.com “The nation state was non-existent during the greater part of history”. 

Furthermore Grayling reminds us that, “…there is no country on earth which is not home to more than one different but usually coexisting culture”.

It is obvious that Grayling has no love of nationalism as he says it’s ‘inherently divisive’, ‘potentially oppressive’, and allows manipulation and thus control of the masses.

This view gains support elsewhere, “…but the very nature of nationalism requires that boundaries are drawn”. www.legacy.fordham.edu

thI9DEC6BPth[6]

Max Weber the eminent sociologist points out that ‘powerful charismatic’ leaders used nationalism to establish their power. Wikipedia.org. This movement of nationalism has brought us an understanding of the term that we all recognise from 20century history books and the kind that Grayling wants to berate.

Another great writer and thinker, George Orwell lambasts

Lead on!

Lead on!

the whole concept of nationalism. He states that those involved are “…power-hungry tempered by self-deception”. Wikipedia.org

His vociferous attack suggests that nationalism is akin to classifying people like insects. That it becomes an obsession that folks will defend even if proven wrong. Blind adherence?

Similar to the other great writers he denounces it as a ‘desire for power’. Moreover, Orwell retains some bile for Celtic nationalism which he portrays as having a ‘strong tinge of racialism’. www.orwell.ru

The problem with nationalism in our everyday understanding of its meaning is the mix of jingoism and propaganda. In the build up to war we are fed a daily diet of jingoism and propaganda as the media become xenophobic.

However, true nationalism can be found side-by-side with propaganda. In the work of the poet Rupert Brooke:

If I should die, think only this of me:

That there’s some corner of a foreign field

That is for ever England.

Contrast that with the later work of Hugh MacDiarmid:

Auld Moses took

A dry stick and

Instantly it

Floo’ered in his hand. (Flowered)

Pu’ Scotland up,

And wha can say

It winna bud

And blossom tae.

From: A Drunk Man Looks at the Thistle. (Is there a clue in the title?)

These works give credibility to nationalism as they come from seemingly intellectual sources. Therefore nationalism does not differentiate on the bases of mental ability. It’s political!

The world cannot grow until men learn how to!

 

The Left and the Brickwall.

 

th83MEZBW5The Left in UK politics as elsewhere are remnants of lost tribes. There are so many groups and factions, so many one-dimensional believers. Their voices do not resonate with the people but rather sound like interference over an inaudible crackle. Little wonder that the public are left bemused by the Lefts’ call for change. The vision of the Left is blurred by yesterday and the lack of a policy of representation and comradeship. Past infamies forgotten, the Left in politics strive to keep their dream alive.

Many on the Left cannot understand why capitalism continues remorselessly, and why the people do not rise in opposition. However, like their (so called) intellectual brothers the people have no vision of a future as they are too tired from everyday routine and pondering every night on a tomorrow that will be the same.

The poor retreat into a come-what-may attitude and religion. Meanwhile their erstwhile leaders scramble for a foothold in tomorrow’s world by borrowing a Liberal overcoat. All the people hear is rabble-rousing of a thousand diverse voices challenging them to join the battle. But food must be put on the table and a semblance of self must be given space.

In essence, the Left are more lost in the political wilderness than their poor brethren. Karl Popper, sums it up neatly, “…we hate the very idea that we may be mistaken. So we cling dogmatically to our conjectures, as long as possible”. Oxford Dictionary of Quotations

Reluctance to change has been emphasized just recently at the World Economic ForumthXCVP4YWC in Davos, Switzerland, when a couple of the protesting groups decided to end their campaigns at the venue after 15 years. For over 20 years various groups on the Left have been protesting against the participants at Davos and what they represent. Sad to say but the protesters have achieved nothing.

Attacking the Dmen on site is a waste of time and energy. It brings the media to their defence and has the protesters demonized. What good does it do for the ordinary Joe?

Scenario:

Pub commentator: What’s it gonna change? Nutting mate. So, what’s the point mate, thN7AC3ES5eh? (Should be on Radio 4)

Old Granny: They should do something with their lives instead of all that screaming and stuff; causing trouble. Why don’t they get a job?

Conspiracy theorist: It’s a gang of fascists paid by the Dmen to make sure they get publicity. No kidding!

The Davos meeting is of the rich and famous in business and the political wanna-bes who have been holding an annual meeting for over 40 years. The blurb they issue says they’re committed to improving the state of the world by:

  • Sustained economic growth
  • Mitigating global risks
  • Promoting health for all
  • Improving social welfare
  • Fostering environmental sustainability

I’m afraid the Dmen have not been very successful; 40 + years on and they haven’t achieved any of their goals. During their watch we have had several financial crises culminating in the debacle of 2008 which is still smouldering. And every day the environment takes another battering: oil spills, plastic islands in the ocean’s and rain forest depletion. Throughout Europe and elsewhere wages are falling, employment rights ‘tossed in the dustbin of history’ (Trotsky), welfare payments cut and slavery on the increase.

thB7VOPRTBIt is simply incredulous that they have the balls to turn up every year. Well, with 5* accommodation, 5* food, 5* wine and 5* scotch (can I join?) lots of hobnobbing to size up a good deal and photo shoots galore to impress the natives back home, who wouldn’t. After all, they are of the Clan ‘Id’ which Freud describes as “…knows no judgements of value: no good or evil and no morality…” The Clan ‘Id’ thrive on instinctive and primitive urges of the pleasure principle. For us, well, there’s always a pint and a kebab.           www.psychology.about.com

“Professional men, they have no cares;

Whatever happens, they get theirs.”    

Ogden Nash

And where are the defenders of the people? Marxists, Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists, Anarchists and piss-artists, so many ‘ists’, factions by the score. The sheer number of groups is evidence that the Left is split asunder. Out of date and out of touch, for the workers they won’t do much. That they cannot agree on a platform is an indication of the number of little Stalinist’s out there. It’s their way or no way. The people don’t need a shepherd, some understanding and a touch of guidance would help. The hearts of the Left are beating soundly but their solutions are awry. They need to stop chasing rainbows! It is not about equality in life, it’s about quality of life.

We will never be equal in all aspects of life. There are too many variances of input into a child’s upbringing and a whole myriad of interpretations that determine the adult outcome. This is why we have artists, bookworms, those who love figures – the maths kind, and others who will be happy to do-up old bangers. It’s what makes us so damn beautiful. But one thing we should all agree upon is that no human being is more important than another. It’s about fairness and a tad of respect.

A failure to understand, a failure to listen, and thus a failure to open their mind to new possibilities is what has the Left stuck in a mire of righteousness. Their dogma conditions them to push, demand and force the people into their vision. The die-hards scream and the sycophants follow as they seek to impose their philosophy on the majority, blind to the fact that such a move is fascist. Stand-up Josef Stalin!

“We become the makers of our fate when we have ceased to pose as its prophets”. Karl Popper   The Open Society and its Enemies

In cahoots with the Liberal and wishy-washy Conservatives, the workers are entitled to feel abandoned by the Left. A case in point is that of political correctness. There was no discussion with the people, no opinions sought, just accept or you’re a —- train load of abuse. It was a forced-march and many felt violated by the incursion into their everyday use of language and violated by the abuse they had to endure. The same can be said about multiculturalism. Again many felt they were being frogmarched into an ill-conceived agenda and it all seemed very much one way traffic.

But to treat Human Rights (HR) as a political whip is inexcusable. Again holding onto the coat tails of the professional classes the Left made HR a source of ridicule and much pub banter to such an extent that it is almost discredited. HR is too important to be bandied about as a politically correct minority case study. And then to try to create divisions in society by suggesting a split between the older and younger generation is the ‘last refuge of a scoundrel’. (Samuel Johnson)

Made brazen by their fervour for minority point scoring they let their passion rip on a biased political agenda. No thought, except of contempt, for the majority view is indicative of what is wrong in politics in the UK. This is not the politics for the people but the indoctrination of the people. Fascists everywhere will be amused by the flexibility of democracy.

A belief has grown among politicians and those who term themselves the intelligentsia that democracy can be utilised to impose their specific political agenda. Beware of arrogance or you may find that when your Lexus breaks down you may need a tank to get back.

Left to rot or to fester the people are let loose to make do as best they can. To contendthZL6SLM4X with the vagaries of the system and at the mercy of the capitalists who are riding roughshod over them. The belief in the democratic process will wane in consequence and poverty will raise its ugly head and snare many more aimless drifters. The traditional ‘life net’ afforded by the Left and the unions are gone; for the parties are estranged. The future is now a guessing game and a case of come-what-may.                                                  Out of context but nonetheless poignant:

“Something was dead in each of us,

And what was dead was Hope.”

Oscar Wilde   The Ballad of Reading Gaol

 

 

 

 

Social Dmocracy:Blind Man’s Buff (Blindland 9)

Social democracy (SD) the harbinger of change was planned to transform society for the good, to the betterment of all. As society progressed through the social democratic vision the poor would gather the greatest harvest. In general terms the whole of societythBHNITY72 nationally and internationally would accrue a massive uplifting. Oops, the bubble burst! All the thinking, all the slogging, all the good intentions to make the world a better place thwarted by a little pinprick of a gene called self.

The promise of a better world, dating back to the late 19th century, has been left by the roadside. The thoughts of Lassalle, of Marx and Engels among a host of thinking people who tried to give a scientific rationale to accomplishing socialism, gather dust.

From the start there was contradiction on the best way forward, revolution, proposed by Marx or evolution which was to win the day. Marx (1878) would eventually accept that parliamentary democracy could secure better conditions for the workers and social democracy became the main vehicle to drive the whole of society forward.

It was in Germany with Ferdinand Lassalle followed by August Babel and Wilhelm Liebknecht (1869) that the Social Democratic Party (SPD) would be founded. Latterly, Eduard Bernstein would add his considerable intellect to the debate and it is he who is generally viewed as the main proponent of the social democratic ethic: “… a better society can be achieved by working within the existing political order”. www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551073/social-democracy

In the UK the voices of the Fabian Society and the Independent Labour Party (ILP) gave their weight to the peaceful route. Only where no democracy existed did revolution occur, Russia 1917 and China 1948. As the franchise was extended it was the obvious hope that the majority, the lower classes, would hold the balance of power and the Social Democrats would have all the power necessary to implement the changes to benefit all.

The stimulus for these pioneers to put themselves at the vanguard of revolutionary change was more than self-interest. Their altruism was fed I’m sure by the horror of everyday life which they witnessed unfold before them; the abject poverty of the many as opposed to the spectacular opulence of the few. These thinkers were not looking for recognition to enhance their financial state, they genuinely believed in the betterment of mankind.

Over the years some significant changes did materialize in the UK, the vote for women 1918/ 1928. The rise of the Labour Party as a credible opposition and Party of power which would lead to the seismic shift in 1945/51 with the nationalisation of many industries and the setting up of the National Health Service (NHS). The welfare state has without doubt saved many, many people from fear and anxiety and saved many lives.

Defining social democracy also has its contradictions:

  • Political ideology that advocates a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes.   Britannica Concise Encyclopaedia
  • Social democracy is a general term for political doctrines that claim an important role for the State and the community in shaping and directing a society’s economic and social life. www.sociologyindex.com/social_democracy.htm

Note the omission of ‘from capitalism to socialism’. The Times they are a changin’ Bob Dylan

Major changes were afoot in 1959 when the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) dropped its Marxist programme which it had held since the days of Babel and Liebknecht in 1869. In that same year 1959, Hugh Gaitskell the leader of the Labour Party (UK) tried to do the same but was outvoted. A portend for the future, Margaret Thatcher became an MP. It seems that being electable became the prime focus. Being elected is fine, if the politicians, once elected provide some legislative muscle to the benefit of the people. Instead the politicians recognised the growing global economy and didn’t know how to deal with it.

Entrenchment and a narrowing of outlook dominated the thinking of the hard core socialists. The Left held on like bindweed but with little hope of choking the life out of capitalism. A few concessions here and there maintained the Left’s belief but politics was no longer about the big picture of socialism; the massaging of capitalism was the new vade mecum. The other problem for the Left was that the electorate were on the move too and the old tired message of socialism had lost its impetus.

thBZNBAEI3Unfortunately, socialism came to conjure up a picture of the little Red Book of Mao Zedong, of everyone dressing the same, of repression and monotony. The Cold War of Gulags and the Berlin Wall allowed the Gibbers of the media to exercise their wit and their propaganda sang like a bird on the wire. For some, socialism was devoid of emotional input and of exhalation. Individualism had become the key to self-fulfilment, the condition manufactured and satiated by the multinationals. The thinkers had gone to make a career for themselves in TV etc. And the fast buck became the essential buck.

One of the few concessions made came in 1976 when the Germans spread the notion of workers participation via Co-determination, first introduced in 1951. Naturally, the new law was bitterly opposed by the employers. A year later the Bullock Report commissioned by Harold Wilson of the Labour Party proposed the introduction of Co-determination in the UK but it never happened. A few years later the EU tried to introduce the Fifth Directive which would have granted workers’ rights similar to the German model but it was allowed to drift beyond the clouds.

www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/GERMANY/CODETERMINATION-DE.htm

The spiral downwards speeded up during the seventies and the eighties. Crippling inflation of 25%+ in the UK saw the Labour government introduce wage restraint, it worked, and inflation gradually fell. However, the cost was borne by the workers’ as wages did not keep pace with the cost of living. James Callaghan who had taken over from Harold Wilson in 1976 kept wages in check. In 1978 when Callaghan had an opportunity to go to the polls he forwent the chance and continued the policy of wage restraint.

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)

Disaster struck in the form of the Winter of Discontent when union members came out in droves. The scale of the strikes and the nature of them, dead not buried, meant the Gibbers in the media created stories of hell. People were disgusted by the actions of some unionists and come the next election (1979) Margaret Thatcher was elected the new Conservative Prime Minister.

Between 1980 & 1993 there were six major pieces of legislation that boxed the unions in. The miners’ strike of 1984/5, which Thatcher had prepared for and won, allowed her a free hand to bind the unions more thoroughly than ever. Union membership has fallen since; from 13m in the 1980s to just over 7m in 2000 and below 6m by 2012. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_United_Kingdom

During her period in power Margaret Thatcher was to batter at and bring down the ramparts of old Labour. Under privatization of Water, Electricity, British Gas and BT and several others the self-gene was let loose and people rushed to buy shares. Share ownership rose from 7% to 25%. The sale of council houses likewise brought its own stampede with over one million being sold. The gold rush was on and all the Left could do was watch.

The final blow to any pretence that social democracy still held a glimpse of a socialist future came from the Trojan Horse of New Labour. “These days, many social democrats are largely indistinguishable from their Conservative opponents, as a result of both types of parties converging around the centre of the political spectrum”. www.rationalwiki.org/wiki/social_democracy

And so it proved when Tony Blair became leader of Labour. He set the warning flare in 1994 with an article in the Fabian magazine and in a special Easter conference in 1995 sealed the fate of Clause 1V. (Sydney Webb 1917) However, the game had long been up for the social democrats since the Bad Godesberg conference in 1959. It was clear that the leadership both in Germany and the UK where seeing the world from a different perspective than the traditionalist. When the mind has wondered off course it is easy to get lost, or find what you have been looking for.

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clause_1V

Leszek Kolakowski in 1982 pointed out that social democrats merely offer, “…an obstinate will to erode by inches the conditions which produce avoidable suffering, oppression, hunger, wars, racial and national hatred, insatiable greed and vindictive envy.” Quoted from Ben Jackson

www.academia.edu/1763736/Social_Democracy

By ‘inches’ will take a very long time and the idea of socialism will have disappeared into the fog of history. For example, the social democrats control the EU but have failed to utilise that power. The EU is essentially an economic club to assist the nations of Europe to fare better in the global market. Therefore workers’ rights are not a priority and if challenged the EU leadership will bring out their present stock answer; if the workers fail to let them control the vagaries of capitalism there will be no treats. And there you have it children, capitalism is the one true master. Overlords rule, ok!

In the UK the outlook is cloudy, e.g. Anthony Giddens in his book: Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics writes, “Socialism is the pursuit of ideas of social cooperation, universal welfare, and equality-ideas brought together by the condemnation of the evils and injustices of capitalism. It is based on the critique of individualism and depends on a belief in group action and ‘participation’, and collective responsibility for social welfare”. Has it not always been so? Giddens has his detractors and so the squabble goes on. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Meanwhile, the Labour Party leaders of the past walk hand in hand with their partners along a secluded beach: the Kinnock’s walk away to make their millions (£), the Blair’s do likewise, and the Miliband’s will likely continue the trend. Where’s Robin Hood when you need him, alas, he’s just a fictional character! Obviously they have never read, William Blake:

I will not cease from Mental Fight,

Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand

Till we have built Jerusalem

In England’s green & pleasant Land.

The Oxford Library of English Poetry Vol: 2 edited by John Wain

th171YMN79The Left have long been lost and have lost the prospect of galvanizing the people even with essentials like human rights. They have turned the issue into a peepshow by advocating the rights of individuals to have a sex change and legal assistance for illegal

Human Rights at a glance

Human Rights at a glance

immigrants. They were batted off the field when the Conservatives pushed through same sex marriage in church. Thus a trivial tit-for-tat plays out while the need for real human rights continues unabated: slavery, child labour, mass sexual exploitation of women and children, et cetera. Human Rights have become a money spinning industry, in need of a soul.

Environmental issues are also a graveyard for the Left as they try to cherry pick specific areas such as fracking. The opponents of fracking probably turn up in their cars and use their smart phones to implore others to join them; meanwhile, taking pics of police brutality. And not a moment’s thought about their personal carbon footprint. No thought either for the slave labour used to manufacture the phones or the carbon cost of the car. Phones and cars are a tangible experience of individualism and are viewed as essential items; being such they have become divorced from conscious thought about others misery and global warming. Dah!

 

Same Sex Marriage: The Sheep Dogs are Out!

Those who believe that democracy is a sham now have before them a proof that they can hold up in public. The political agenda of the ‘elite’ has taken precedence over all the usual democratic procedures. In the UK and France the issue of Same Sex Marriage (SSM) is being forced through both parliaments without due regard for consultation with the electorate.

Lead on!

Lead on!

The French government under President Hollande claim legitimacy on the basis of 53% of the vote at the election last year. This premise is false as SSM was not overtly discussed at the time of the election. Many of the electorate would have merely cast their vote to get rid of the previous incumbent, Sarkozy. Some 400,000 people protesting on the streets suggest that it does not command wide support. In England no political party had an overall majority and thus no mandate to impose SSM, which no Party raised prior to the election. The coalition government are simply pushing it through.

It does not matter what your individual stance on the issue is, the real story concerns the political agenda of the ‘elite’ and why single sex marriage is being rolled out globally. Who is behind this agenda and why single sex marriage at this particular time?

Let us not pretend that society welcomes this change to their otherwise orthodox lives. Let us not pretend that this is a necessary change. Let us not pretend that politicians are pursuing their course of action because of a groundswell of support. This is part of a much larger political agenda with a comprehensive perspective in mind. That it is being promoted worldwide tells us that it is not a locally generated programme. It would seem that local politicians are not in control and many no doubt will be against it but are, like us, being railroaded into accepting it.

There are many stories and films about conspiracy theories and some may suspect that I am perpetuating another. Some may also suspect that if I opened my door that the ‘men in white coats’ will be waiting to usher me off. I have no plans to open the door just yet!

However, suspicion needs to be clarified and in a democracy open and frank discussion is supposed to be an integral part of the process. But as with immigration, when people have voiced an opinion or doubt they have found themselves quickly attacked as: racist, bigot, nimby, homophobic and Neanderthal etc. This is the way now with our new brand of politics, intimidation. Where intimidation is allowed to thrive a democracy cannot exist. Intimidation was and is the preserve of dictators.

I don’t know of any religion that would openly welcome homosexuals into their church. So why are political organisations, predominately of the ‘left’ (more susceptible) intent on making same sex marriage into law? Why is it so important? Many people, probably the majority get married in a Register Office, while others chose a venue to suit their preference: castle, hotel, village hall or up a mountain etc. Humanists who are non- religious provide their own wedding ceremonies. Millions don’t even bother to get married at all. So why the sudden clamour for same sex marriage in a church, a synagogue or a mosque?

The suspicion must be that marriage in a church is not the real issue. Rather it is a determined action to loosen the yoke of the church, in effect to destabilize religion. Therefore we have to consider the possibility that the Gay community is not so much being supported in a campaign for equality but are being used as a battering ram by those who want to contain religion and its perceived power now and in the future.

Homosexuals are different; they acknowledge that fact and celebrate their individuality in various ways: clubs, bars, meetings, parades etc. On the other hand, perhaps these insular settings are because they feel ostracized in society. However, they are to all intents and purposes an independent body within our community. They want respect for who they are and if respect is forthcoming it will be reciprocated. That is community!

Unfortunately, Gay people know that not all agree or accept them. That some faiths will

Let's talk!

Let’s talk!

never reconcile themselves to acknowledge that being gay is okay. Have we reached an impasse that can only be remedied by recourse to a legal gavel? Is this a case of intransigence versus intransigence; of a simple, I will not accept ‘no’ as an answer? Is there a principle at stake? A principle is merely an opinion that your view is superior too or supersedes the other. That your view is correct is a political construct and becomes a motivation based on your belief. Is it really about equality for that is a whole different equation.

Can equality be a dictated policy handed down by those who hold power? Oh, laws can be passed; in fact we have laws; Equal pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1985, have they delivered the sought after goal? NO! Both these laws came up against the ‘One Great Demagogue’ – Capitalism! Not that the ‘One Great Demagogue’ would interfere in gay marriage but it’s illustrative that you can’t just pass laws and expect compliance forthwith or on going. You cannot force people to download your beliefs and delete their own. Who is right them or you? It’s a political catch 22. Take it away, Frankie – ‘Two Tribes go to war…’

Recent history has given us a lesson on forcing people to live together. With the disintegration of the Communist Bloc and in consequence the great communist experiment of forcing people to live cohesively, burst. The resultant break up of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia witnessed an eruption of sectarianism, and hatred spewed from every vent. Thousands died, neighbour murdered neighbour and genocide was only avoided by sending in the troops.

Now that the Junta has relaxed their iron grip on the people of Burma sectarianism has raised its ugly head and scores have died. Pent up feelings need to be let out and rationalized before they become a source of hatred.

The riots in Turkey this week (June 2013) are an indication of how pent up anger can suddenly explode onto our streets. The decision to bulldoze a local park in a small town fed into a national frustration and the petrol bomb came out.

An interesting point is raised by the Secular Society in their statement that “…individuals have rights, ideas do not.” However, if the individual has a thought and wants that thought to be transmuted into a benefit for themselves and/or those who share a common view, then they are promoting a political doctrine. Therefore taking a lead from the secularists, the idea has no rights. A further point of clarification is required here; does the individual have more rights than the community or society? If so, what is the point of democracy?

thCA2WEO4VAnother point raised is as follows: “Secularism seeks to ensure and protect freedom of religious belief and practice for all citizens”. All sounds positive until you read the ‘rider’. “…insofar as it does not impinge disproportionately on the rights of others”. The question therefore is; how does the marriage of a heterosexual couple in a church ‘impinge disproportionately’ on the rights of others? The answer may lie with another statement, “Secularism champions human rights above discriminatory religious demands”. It would seem to me that the church simply want to maintain the status quo, to continue a process that has been in place for centuries, without causing harm to anyone. As alluded to earlier, there are many places and different ways in which a couple can get married.  Is there an ulterior motive for insisting on a church wedding? Also, note the word ‘above’ in the sentence, this tells us that human rights supersedes all religious conviction. We now have a clear political hierarchy that supersedes all other belief systems.

What puzzles me is a further statement from the secular group, “It ensures that religious groups don’t interfere in affairs of the state, and makes sure the state doesn’t interfere in religious affairs”. Hm. Colour me blushing.

It’s a very complicated business this philosophy lark. Especially when you read more of what the group believe in. “Secularism is about democracy and fairness”. Good, I can agree with that wholeheartedly. But in light of previous confusion I thought I had better examine this statement in more detail. Using my Oxford dictionary (the world’s most trusted – according to the cover) I looked up the word democracy:

  • A form of government in which people can vote for a representative to govern the state on their behalf.
  • A state governed by elected representatives.
  • Control of a group by the majority of its members.

I then looked up the word ‘fair’.

  • Treating people equally.
  • Just and reasonable in the circumstances.

Needless to say I didn’t find anything that suggested the imposition of a diktat by a minority. I thought how do you treat people equally by taking away one person’s or group’s right and belief system and impose another’s right and belief system upon them? A funny old thing is equality. Excuse my cynicism!

Especially when one considers more thought from the secular school, “…does not seek to challenge the tenets of any particular religion or belief”. Back to the dictionary, I couldn’t resist, and found that a ‘tenet’ is a central principle or belief. Thus I would humbly suggest that marriage in the Christian faith is a ‘tenet’ and probably is in all religions.

It was not my intention to pick a fight with secularism, in fact I support a number of points they raise:

  • Separate the state and religion.
  • Ensure animals are stunned before killing them.
  • Democracy and fairness ( with intent and clarification)
  • Secular education for all – state and private

If you truly believe in education as a fundamental necessity for an open and constructive society then by principle you must oppose any notion of indoctrination, however, well meaning. How is a child to grow and be in control of their own thinking if the cloud of indoctrination pervades their every thought? To close to brainwashing for me! WE must remember Descartes, ‘I think therefore I am’.

If the advocates of human rights truly want equality then we must look to an old socialist principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. Louis Blanc 1839, Karl Marx 1875. That I would imagine is how you treat people equally; anything else is a political sham. Made up for and by political hacks!

We must be aware that human rights is based on human belief, it is a doctrine; as is religion, as is humanism, as is paganism and so on. Which one is ‘above’ the others will depend entirely on who holds the power.

Few should need reminding that two of the greatest proponents of equality in the 20th century were: Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, both devout religious men. A little earlier, we had Karl Marx, who advocated equality without the ‘opium’ of religion. Going back even further we have William Shakespeare, who through his character Shylock, in the Merchant of Venice, questioned religious prejudice and inequality with the retort; “ if you prick us, do we not bleed.” I would contend that religion at its inception and by character is about equality. History is abound with champions and still we labour.

We may never know the logic behind the compulsion to introduce same sex marriage into the church. From one standpoint it is all about control, to ensure that in the future religion cannot override the liberal outlook of society. A further viewpoint that should be considered is that human rights legislation is being used forcibly to manipulate society. The law has become the ‘Great Oracle Deliverer’. Be warned, imposition is the tool of the jejune.

 

 

Human Rights: A View from the Circle

 

You are entering a brave new world of human rights (HR) law. A chapter in human development in which you are a participant but not directly involved in its creation or direction. What change will this law bring; will the sun shine just as bright in the mornings to come? The harbinger of this immense change is the European Convention on Human Rights, now adopted by 45 countries across Europe.

One law to rule them all, One law to find them,

One law to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

Apologies to J.R.R. Tolkien

When you read through the ‘articles’ that make up the HR law, it all seems rather nice, rather benign. But under the colourful cloak lies subterfuge so colossal that you might not believe it. 1984 and the advent of ‘big brother’ may seem like tiddlywinks and Animal Farm a fairy tale for toddlers. Some may view the law as a master stroke of human evolution while others may think that Beelzebub has come.

Where the secret lies is in the law making. The Judges are duty bound to build-up ‘common law’. This means that they set a series of legal precedents so that future judges can refer to them as though tablets of stone. Once a library of precedents has been established then that constitutes common law. Therefore there is no need to seek to reference outside the common law and in consequence all law that preceded the introduction of HR law is defunct.

This is no fiction, it is happening as you read. All law prior to 1953 will cease to be relevant, it will be: scrapped, deleted, abandoned, dumped, “into the dustbin of history.” (Trotsky) You are living in the midst of a revolution! Didn’t they tell you? They not let you into their little secret? Oops!

the ring, the power.

The all powerful

One law to rule them all; no parliament, assembly, city council or other government body will be able to block the advance of elite forward guard, the Judges. Their power will grow exponentially while everyone else’s diminishes. And we all know that: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” (Lord Acton) Be afraid, be very afraid!

Down the line parliament itself becomes an irrelevancy. The main function of the parliament is to legislate but once ‘common law’ has become established the Judges can utilize the ‘living instrument’ element of the HR law to make any change required; as with the addition of ‘protocols’! A body of bureaucrats can administer under the watchful eye of the law makers. Councillors too will have no function and therefore be surplus to requirement. Many already view both parliament and local councils as little more than talking shops, already run by the bureaucrats. “The Withering away of the State.” K. Marx.

Once equality has reached its zenith then the bureaucracy too can start to wither and all will be in perfect harmony. For all will have achieved their ultimate goal of complete dignity and seek no other. Hmm?

Wait. Wait! Don’t run yet to the door to paradise. Be warned, there are three (3) very big and equally powerful bulwarks ready to block your way. Be careful, don’t look into their mirrored eyes; what you see may terrify you.

O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us

To see oursels as others see us.

Rabbie Burns

Each is strong in their own but together they are almost omnipotent. They are the Triumvirate.

Through the ages the Triumvirate have met the challenge from Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. These four (4) riders of the Wise have hacked at the battlements to no avail. They have laid siege and faltered and their armies have dwindled in the knowledge that they cannot persist and cannot resist the lure of Self.

Undefeated still they stand, a barrier to the promised land. Capitalism, Self and Libido, the most powerful forces on earth. They will not hesitate to defend their right to be and use whatever means necessary.

The Triumvirate

The Dark Lord

Every day the Triumvirate send out their army of the ‘id’ to probe and skirmish. They are a fearsome horde, who have no conscience and serve only Self. They laugh at the lax defence of the lawgivers and feel contempt for their pious ways. Their determination is fed by a powerful ego which energizes their whole being. If captured in their pursuit of self-gratification they simply adopt the ways of the lawgivers until released and find their way back to Self.

The lawgivers promise all will be better soon and honest folk gawk in amazement. For as long as stories have been told, the armies of the Triumvirate have never been defeated. As the honest folk walk away burdened by the travails of everyday life, they feel only contempt for the lawmakers, and as they brood, ponder on the ways of Self.

Yet this is no tale of fiction, it is stark reality. The notion that the HR law can solve all the problems of equality is absurd. Their argument, their belief; that is a piece of fiction!

However, the human rights legislation does need serious examination. The law holds a stranglehold on the law making in 45 countries. That is immense power and therefore requires the most detailed scrutiny. There should be hiding place for such a crucial piece of legislation.

Q. How will the HR law overcome the wanton desires of the armies of the Triumvirate?

Q. Who will win this critical war?