Deformable Mirror

Didn't See it coming (So soon)

2011-12-23T01:58:00.000-08:00

I thought United Russia were doing well, so didn't foresee either the protests or the good showings for the communists and social democrats.

I'm no fan of the communists but it is good that the social democrats are doing so well and that so many Russians want genuine reform. One of the reasons I started blogging was to defend United Russia against the dumber accusations on hitlerstalinism, though I've never disputed their real faults in economic policies and civil liberties. But given how neo-liberal ideologues are trying to leap on the protest bandwagon I just have one question: did any of the parties which have rocketed in success campaign for the release of Mikhael Khodorkovsky and the dropping of criminal charges against Berezovsky?

Thought not.

Caliban's Face in the Mirror

2011-12-21T12:35:00.000-08:00

For someone who reveled in Schadenfreude, used utter malice in attacking his enemies and was overall a pretty obnoxious guy, it's interesting how little schadenfreude I've actually detected over the death of Christopher Hitchens.

Of course, death of anyone is always horrible. But Hitchens felt few qualms at joking about Princess Diana's horrific death (young, attractive woman who didn't call for any nation to be bombed and accuse those who didn't of being 'soft').

I'd say there are three main reasons for this:

-Firstly, he died a darling of the modern right. A bizarre ideology that's as emotionally incontinent as it's ethically and philosophically incoherent. For them he was a secularist and lover of freedom. Because he supported the causes they did. He spoke in their favourite paradigms which often overlapped with those of the mainstream 'humanist' movement. This meant two of the most aggressive mainstream ideologies were happy to be respectful.

-Secondly, he was partially right about the modern left and I think this is as evident in some of the fiercest obituaries of his that I've read as it is in the general lack of interest. It makes me feel a bit uneasy that one of the major charges I've seen against him in left obituaries is a pro-life piece Hitchens wrote over two decades ago, as if it is unthinkable that any sane human being should think that an unborn child should be respected on any level at all, far less be regarded as possessing human life. Simultaneously I think it is ironic that many of the same obituaries accuse him of Islamophobia. Hitchens was not Islamophobic, nor was he secular. He pronounced liberal platitudes about the Muslim fanatics in Bosnia and Kosovo when it was fashionable to do so, and which resulted in secular Serbia being bombed and destroyed. He pronounced liberal platitudes about the Islamic fanatics in Chechenya when it was fashionable to do so, and when they were blowing up children. He pronounced liberal platitudes about how the Islamic world was ready for a revolution when it was fashionable to do so, and this led to the war in Iraq.

This was to counter 'Fascism with an Islamist face' as personified by Saddam. 'Fascism with a Islamic face' is a very stupid expression. Fascism was a pyramidical power structure based on nation state and a leader. In as much as it resembles anything, Islamic fanaticism resembled anarchism. Sure, Islamists use horrific and oppressive states when they can (including Kosovo, Bosnia and Algeria), but these metastasize out of popular movements which can themselves outlast states. Just look at how Osama Bin Laden continued to call for bloodshed from Pakistan, protected by numerous sympathisers. The phrase 'Fascism with an Islamic face' (and his wars against this supposed entity) are far from being Islamo-phobic and actually based on far-left extreme liberal ideas of internationalism.

The fact that he was so wrong don't lesson the significance of his pointing out this tension in the left. Even if he did not clarify it.

Lastly, as David Lindsay pointed out, Hitchens left no real political heirs. OK, so there's Nick Cohen (who can't be much younger), who still holds the 'decent' corner with such wisdom as: 'the "leftist" in question was George Galloway, who saluted the "courage" of the secular fascist Saddam Hussein, went on to apologise for the regimes and movements of Sunni and Shia clerical fascism, and – lest we forget – led millions in demonstrations against the war to overthrow Iraqi Ba'athism without the supposedly moderate and respectable voices of liberal England uttering a word of protest against his presence.'

Cohen adds 'In conversation he was the most intellectually generous man I have ever met. More writers than readers like to imagine are fretful and suspicious. They bite their tongues and hide their thoughts in case rival authors "steal their ideas". Hitchens was too much of an enthusiast for life and debate to waste time being pinched and cautious; too engaged in the battle of ideas to worry about others taking his.' Yeah? Maybe that's because he realised anyone who tried parotting his ideas without his gift of the gab would sound a bit of a dick.

Hitchens' lack of intellectual heirs is perhaps reflected in how the fights he fought were lost on the ground. Aggressive secularism is growing in Britain, though this is in itself more akin to the consumerism that itself feeds secularism. Whilst few people disputed Hitchens' position as a 'secularist', he was only so in the narrow sense of being rude to Christians in a secular society. He showed little fraternity to the overwhelmingly secular Russians and Serbs (and never took back his support for Algerian terrorism against the French), and was happy to praise Islamic fundamentalism when aimed at people who don't speak English. Maybe Hitchens would have had a quasi-heir in Johann Hari, had Hari not taken his hero's sloppy and illogical style a bit too far. Yet Hari had pretty much perfected the 'secular' editorial: mention something Muslims have done, attribute it to 'the religious', finish with a pretty platitude about how Islam is sure to turn into the CofE thanks to heroes like, cough cough, us.

Perhaps in the end Hitchens was a figure more to be pitied than hated. I didn't come to this view so much because of his cancer, but because of one of his more balanced articles: a review of Mark Steyn's 'America Alone'. I thought there was something oddly wistful in his telling Steyn: 'He need not pose as if he were the only one with the courage to think in this way', when later on Hitchens supports: 'Unconditional solidarity, backed with force and the relevant UN resolutions, with an independent and multi-confessional Lebanon'. Those who noticed his deafening silence in 2006 might find something excruciating about the dissonance between his ideals and his actions. I suspect he felt this most of all.

Whilst Hitchens comes up with a pompous 10 point plan to fight Islamism, it is mainly based on the feeblest of platitudes. If there is any optimism for Europe, then it must come from the high birth rate of the German and French Catholics and Russia's growing demographic recovery. Far from supporting this, Hitchens warned the faithful:

'How else were we going to reply to the rising menace of Islamic jihad? How were we going to have, for example, to deal with the emergence of probably the most reactionary papacy since the mid-19th century? A very reactionary eastern Orthodox church if it comes to that, as well the eastern Catholic forces now ranged behind the dark and sinister figure of Vladimir Putin? Then one mustn't exempt of course the millennial settlers in Palestine who believe that by bringing in as many fanatics of Jewish origin as they can and forcing out as many Palestinian Arabs as they can they may bring on the Messiah and indeed the apocalypse, and look forward to the destruction of our species with relish.

At this present moment I have to say that I feel very envious of someone who is young and active and starting out in this argument.'

I find it astounding just how ignorant Hitchens is, and how little he expects of his audience. Who are these 'eastern catholic forces now ranged behind the dark and sinister figure of Vladimir Putin'? And who does he expect to fight them and how? How is my church 'very reactionary'? And why should we care what someone thinks who didn't have the moral courage to condemn the use of white phosphorus on civilians?

In truth I think Hitchens and the politically correct left that he maligned were two sides of the same coin. They might have hated him for 'Islamophobia', but that was only because he essentially agreed with them that the Muslim world was very similar to that of the west.

If anything I think that his death could mark a turning point for the European left: that it will be divided between a neo-liberal left and a left that in nations such as France may have to make common causes with social conservatives. It will be interesting to see what happens, but it is unlikely that it will inherit much wisdom from the life and writings of Mr Hitchens.

Dis-United Kingdom

2011-10-17T06:17:00.000-07:00

Reading this article and the comments under it was a strangely confusing experience for me. Whilst I have been a supporter of the SNP for quite some time, I don't think I've ever felt quite so certain that 'Britain' isn't my country. I've felt distanced from Britain because I think left economic liberals/ foreign policy interventionists and right economic liberals/foreign policy interventionists will always form a plurality and trump democracy. My first thoughts after reading the article were that Blond and Glasman will be forgotten sooner rather than later: meaning that 'Britain' will not exist much longer. But I now think I'm wrong: they may well get stronger when Britain ceases to be.

Could England turn into Poland with an economic right and social right waging war against each other? Judging by the comments I wouldn't be entirely surprised.

Who knows?

I've now officially joined the SNP and the greeting letter showed a very Celtic looking lad waving a St Andrew's flag (here). I felt oddly refreshed by this: I don't hold the view shown by some that self-hatred earns moral superiority. Perhaps this is shown in the hypocrisy of how the neo-con left adopted thewomanwhowasdefeatedbygeorgegallowaywhosenameiveforgotten as their figurehead. As someone whose life has been enriched by people from other nations and who thinks non-ghettoised, non-politicised multi-culturalism is a beautiful thing, I do think that a dominant ethnic group at peace with itself is the key to this.

Save Youcef Nadarckhani

2011-09-30T02:16:00.000-07:00

http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=88&ea.campaign.id=12209

Not much comment. Yes, I'm entirely opposed to any military action against Iran. But many criticisms of Iran do carry weight. Please sign this.

Interrupted Silence

2011-09-20T11:05:00.001-07:00

Not much time for blogging lately, but if anyone hasn't already done so, please sign Amnesty's Troy Davis petition.

Capital punishment isn't a topic I like writing about. I feel it is profoundly wrong in principle, and as such I always feel a bit awkard saying 'the form of execution will be excruciating' or 'the prisoner's trial was a farce' when even if there was an easy means of execution and the prisoner's guilt was beyond all doubt, I would still oppose it.

Having said that, I would find it difficult to think of capital punishment (in most cases in the developed world) as murder but Davis's trial was so ridiculous that if he is executed then it really will be akin to murder.

Portrait of no-one Grey

2011-08-17T06:28:00.000-07:00

I'm not being chauvinistic in pointing out that Salmond was right: the riots called 'British' by the media were English. Just as the ongoing blood bath in Northern Ireland is an ongoing bloodbath in Northern Ireland.

Maybe it's something to do with Scottish politics. Just saying: a new found sense of national pride and a genuine belief that even if we're obviously not all in it together, the well-off can offer to subsidise education as a social contract means young people aren't so alienated even if we have our fair share of trouble makers.

But guess what? It seems the media's listened to Alex: now I've frequently seen the riots described as 'English'.

Try telling that to the all too aptly named Mr Grey (think Ian Duncan Smith without the charm, charisma or gravitas) who tries playing politics by saying that Salmond's good point is just playing politics and showing a failure of solidarity. I've stopped wondering if Miliband could find a greater political talent for Scotland and started asking if he could find a greater political anti-talent.

It's certainly not about a lack of solidarity with English people, but about a lack of solidarity with a culture where young people are given the option of the dole, wage slavery or extortionate education whilst being demonised by people with vastly more privilige than they could dream of. No, it's not especially sunny for young people in Scotland at the moment, but it would be a lot worse without Salmond.

The Only Thing Worse Than Engaging With News International

2011-08-06T12:18:00.000-07:00

Is being ignored by them. Seems to be the message from Scottish Labour and Scottish Lib Dems. I don't know if Murdoch knows who that grey chappie is. Nor do a lot of Scots probably. The SNP victory owes a lot to Tony Bliar turning Britain into a News International protectorate, but don't let that get in the way of some finger-wagging Mr grey.

But it gets better. The head of the Scottish Lib Dems has accused Salmond of 'blatant sycophantic behaviour.' Too bad we don't have Nick 'the iron man' Clegg in charge. Don't know how often Murdoch's met Clegg (never mind whatsisname from the Scots lib dems). Murdoch doesn't really need to meet Clegg: why waste time talking to a lapdog when you can talk to its master?

And the gifts Salmond gave to Murdoch? Tickets to see Black Watch. I don't think Columbo could have done better. As usual, Salmond emerges as the standout talent of Scottish (possibly British) politics.

Anyway, a really nasty virus disabled my computer. Given various difficulties in my life, blogging will be sparse in the immediate future.

Stolypin's neck n neck tie

2011-07-14T11:25:00.001-07:00

You know that bloke who's rehabilitated Stalin ? Well, he's just ordered a large memorial built to Peter stolypin, the scourge of communism.

Clever bloke that Putin. He's cunningly making it look like his efforts to 'rehabilitate Stalin' only exist in the minds of our pig-ignorant neo-con commentariat. Sayeth Te Graun:

'Analysts say Putin sees himself as a successful analogue to the former PM who will survive, suppress any protests by foreign-backed wreckers and ensure Russia is the glorious, strong state his mentor.'

Pop psychology? Check
Anonymous 'analysts' quoted? Check
Bad punctuation? Check*
Caricaturing Putin's politics by caricaturing someone else's politics? Check

Later on:

'Stolypin came second after the 13th-century warrior prince Alexander Nevsky in a state-sponsored nationwide poll to find Russia's greatest historical figure in 2008.

The organisers later admitted in private that Joseph Stalin had won, but the results were fixed to avoid the embarrassment of having a dictator in first place.

"I doubt Stolypin would have even come in the top 10 in a real poll," said Belkovsky. "He's not well known outside the elite."'

No source for the Stalin coming first quote? Check

'the organisers' are anonymous and admit stuff in private? Check

'A real poll'? In other words it wasn't a real poll that found Stalin numero uno? Eh?

Well, apparently not. Nothing about Uncle Joe winning the day here. Too bad for Te Graun.

I really won't miss Te Graun much when it finally has the plug pulled. Being a leftist and visiting Te Graun is like ordering haddock, chips and coffee and being handed a semi-raw mackerel (did you know I'm allergic to mackerel?) and a cup of stagnant pond-water. Then being told you can write down any complaints in a log book. Then seeing your complaint being crumpled up and thrown in the bin.

I feel really chuffed that it was the lefty blogosphere that owned Johann Hari: I hope it means we will move away from 'star columnists' and mainstream papers to a more open and democratic system. However, the only problem will be to support a genuinely objective media to report on current affairs. Not 'unbiased' as 'a compromise between left and right journalists'

*Yeah. probably a case of the pot calling the kettle black in my case, but they charge for this stuff.

Why I love my Country

2011-07-12T03:56:00.000-07:00

I've never met one person dumb enough or crazy enough to enjoy reading Melanie Phillips.

Need a Heart of Stone Not to Laugh

2011-07-07T09:49:00.001-07:00

One reason why I didn't write anything about Johann Hari's hilarious humiliation was because Splintered Sunrise wrote about it far better than I could. Not just about what did happen but what would happen. Thus spake SS:
'I think Hari will be all right in the end. Were he an actual jobbing hack this might kill off his career, but he’s high enough up the food chain to survive. He’ll go to ground for a while, perhaps claiming the criticism is all motivated by homophobia (thanks to Laurie Penny for rolling out that alibi early), then resurface with a tearful interview on Women’s Hour about how sorry he is, but now he’s learned from his mistakes and won’t ever do it again, honest guv. He certainly has a tribe of devoted fans who’ll forgive him anything, and will probably keep some kind of writing gig; but he’ll never live this down. Private Eye will be repeating the story for the rest of his natural life.'

Surely enough, the porky wunderkind (who seems to be morphing into Nick Clegg) has no sooner flagellated himself, than he's started banging on about 'the religious' again.

Afraid I found myself reaching for the cotton wool after five mins (sounds a good cause, if he's not speaking bullshit, but maybe someone less whiney can summarise the supposed document more precisely in a couple of hundred words) but his opening speech is comedy gold. He supports freedom of speech, doncha know. He supports people's rights to criticise him, if you please. My golly gosh, I bet the thought police were just about to round up his critics and feed them to starving rats before he spoke in favour of the right to criticise porky, z-grade Indy journalists.

Or so the people who rapturously applauded his mea culpa must have thought.

The ironic thing is that I regard myself as a humanist and generally a supporter of empiricism. Hari's combination of dishonest journalism and vitriolic hatred towards 'the religious' demonstrates he's neither. If he does survive then The Independent will be devoid of credibility.

Notice, incidentally, that there's no comments section under his self-aggrandising video? Very meaningful in itself.

Bronze Statue, Clay Feet

2011-07-06T12:37:00.000-07:00

Interesting article by Ian Dunt. Regular readers of talking politics will know that Dunt is generally attacked for being 'left wing' by the same kind of crowd that turns up on CiF. But I'd say in this instance he's really caught the zeitgeist. A lot better than our neo-con corner. Who are running the country.

In some regards the level of hatred in this comments thread actually makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. As with so much else, friendship with America is harmed rather than helped by our grovelling leaders.

Mystery of the English speaking Weevils

2011-07-06T09:52:00.000-07:00

In one columbo episode that din't quite make it into my top 10 there's a scene where he's invited to a podium to speak about being a police officer and admits he often liked the murderers he had to arrest. I think that being interested in politics, it's best to have a Columbo outlook, and not try to totally dehumanise your opponents.

And I am sorry that the Gipper had to go through Alzheimers. I get the impression he would be an affable and charming enough bloke to speak to.

But, really: what on earth is going on here? For Conservative Brits, Reagan was a supporter of the IRA and Argentina. For lefty Brits he was a friend of death squads throughout the American Continent.

He wasn't a friend to either of us. He charmed Mrs T, and through her the British nation.

It's debatable if he was even a friend to the American nation?

The Scottish writer Alasdair Gray wrote that the Scots are 'a nation of arselickers.' Maybe he's not far off, but I do like to think that we've learnt a few things over the centuries, like:
-Don't make out you like it too much
-Don't back the wrong horse
-Try to keep as much self-respect as possible

Of course, that advice would only be applicable to someone with an iota of pride in their own country. Which William Hague self-evidently doesn't feel.
"You may be sure that the people of London will take this statue to their hearts."

Why? did they ask for it or something? What was his full quote:

"On behalf of the British Government on this moving occasion, as a Briton, as a Conservative and as a passionate admirer of America, I am proud that we have made a home here in the centre of our city for President Ronald Reagan. It is a great honour for me personally to take part in a ceremony for a man who changed the political landscape at the time I first became involved in it He joins the ranks of great men and women whose statues adorn our London streets; Nelson, Wellington, Lincoln, Churchill, Roosevelt, Edith Cavell and Nelson Mandela. Statues bring us to face to face with our heroes long after they are gone. Ronald Reagan is without question a great American hero; one of America’s finest sons, and a giant of 20th Century history. You may be sure that the people of London will take his statue to their hearts."

Passionate admirer of what? The poor whites? The African Americans? The blue collar workers in Reagan's native Illinois? The homeless? The elderly? The Hispanic labourers? Herman Melville? Edgar Allan Poe? The large areas of public land?

Or of a political system with entrenched inequality? The ridiculous media? The banks that caused a global economic meltdown? The businesses that give billions to the Chinese dictatorship? The military industrial complex?

My feeling about this isn't outrage, so much as embarrassment. Reagan was a bad president, who should have been impeached over the Iran-Contras affair, who damaged the American economy and who empowered the Mujaheedin in Afghanistan. Yet he gets the fawning adoration of a tiny number of middle aged middle class Brits, most of whom have inherited their position and/or benefited from the post-war consensus. Most of these aging men feel virile by supporting bloodshed in any nation the USA decides to attack, yet are so fat and unfit they know they would never be allowed to serve even if they volunteered (which they wouldn't').

In coming centuries, people may very well walk past the Reagan statue and wonder 'what on earth were they thinking' installing this here.

Camera and Chimera

2011-06-27T02:25:00.000-07:00

But which is scarier?

RIP Peter Falk

2011-06-24T13:19:00.000-07:00

A really gifted actor and one of my favourite TV icons. I especially loved his episodes of the 70s. My favourite Columbos:
Any Old Port in a Storm
Etude in Black
Now You see Him
Fade in to Murder
Short Fuse
How to Dial a Murder
Double Exposure
Swan Song
By Dawn's Early Light

All Bottoms with you Americans

2011-06-22T11:54:00.000-07:00

To quote the wisdom of Basil Fawlty when he has to deal with an American tourist. Said American tourist was true to American tourist stereotypes of the time: tall, strong, brash and very, very rich. Not one to take any crap from an 'aging brilliantined stick insect', brown suited pompous Imperialist nostalgist fogey in a post-Imperialist country. We’re the empire now was the pretty implicit subtext.

It’s been a while since I’ve seen Americans being portrayed this way in British TV. I suppose that there’s the rather disturbing feeling that we are a post-imperialist country that has shackled ourselves to a failing empire.

But that’s not to deny that I think there’s a lot of good things about the USA. One thing I especially like is the generic fiction, especially horror and sci-fi which I think does create a kind of group culture of a sort that generally isn’t very strong in modern culture in general (I haven’t watched twilight and don’t intend to, just so’s everyone knows).

However, I did have to admit to being somewhat stunned at seeing where American science Fiction is apparently going. In fact Dan Simmons’ latest sounds like a madder version of Red Dawn.

Things I especially loved:

-The protagonist is called ‘Nick Bottom’. The fact that he obviously didn’t expect grown men to snigger at that name says all you need to know about the growing culture gap between Britain and Middle America
-'too many’ young black men adopt the name 'nigger'. Yes, I'm sure it really hurts Dan to type the 'n' word.
-'For all of Israel's vaunted vigilance, the attack, when it came, was a complete surprise. More than six million Jews and hundreds of thousands of Arab citizens of Israel died in three hours of concentrated nuclear and thermonuclear fire'
A cynic might say he's trying to appeal to the self-pity and paranoia of the Zionist lobby, but of course, they'd be wrong. Hobviously.

-‘The new American economy with its National Identification Card and its billions of near-worthless newbucks replacing real money struggled into existence… Most people -- ex-homicide detective Nick Bottom included -- have found a way to survive in the new not-quite-real-economy. More than a few chose not to. Internet sites showing how to rig explosive suicide vests for best results -- including dipping the hundreds of shrapnel nails and tacks and marbles in rat poison -- received more than a million hits.’

I’d guess at least 75 million. But would anyone actually use them? Or would they just blubber about it like all those Randians at Mat Rodina who said they were going to move to Russia to take advantage of the flat tax, when they probably never even touched a Russian lexicon never mind looked at visa requirements.

-‘There are about 23,000,000 new colonists in the great swath ranging from the border with the Republic of Texas on the east, including all of what had once been New Mexico and Arizona, small swaths of Nevada, and irregular parts of southern California up to Los Angeles, ending at the Pacific Ocean. This is Nuevo Mexico -- pronounced in the proper Spanish-Mexican way -- and while the civil war continues to wage in the south with Hugonista rebels, trained in Argentina, reportedly occupying everything from the former southern border to Veracruz, Nuevo Mexico itself is reported to be calm and self-sufficient. Except for stories of starvation. And for stories of entire cities (such as Las Vegas, formerly of New Mexico) having to be abandoned because of water shortages. And except for Hugonista raids from the south and for Nuevo Mexico's constant border war with the Republic of Texas.’

Can I guess that Simmons gained his knowledge of Hispanic culture from a Cheech and Chong boxset?

- ‘Europe, in our not-so-far-away Flashback future, is -- more than anything else -- old. Evidently it had neither the heart, stomach, energy, or armies for struggle. The E.U., save for the convenience of the euro in parts of the continent, has ceased to exist. Most of the nations of Western Europe -- as nations qua nations -- have similarly ceased to exist. What the hell -- most of them had long since been embarrassed by anything so crass as patriotism or "nationalism". Those ideas belonged to a bloody and dusty past.’

Oy! You stole that from Red dawn. But before any of my Tory compatriots snigger about ‘cheese eating surrender monkeys’

-‘So the Global Caliphate is vital across Western Europe and the U.K.’

Thankyou Tony Blair, you really raised Blighty in the esteem of the Americans

-Canada, used to dividing itself into smaller parts to appease ethnic groups, languages, and claims to prior ownership, now divides itself gracefully into parts of the Umma and scores of local Canadian enclaves, many run by First Peoples, others by gangsters and terrorists, some by both groups combined. Ottawa's seat of government has control over Parliament Hill -- on a good day -- but little more. The most common baby name in Canada in the time of Flashback is Mohammed.

Yeah, Muslim Terrorists and First People pagans would obviously join forces, cause they’re all darkies who hate white folks. Sob, poor us.

-‘Medical services in America continued to be provided, of course. When your diagnosed cancer calls for chemotherapy, you get in line. (Unless you're very rich.) The first state-insurance-funded chemotherapy sessions will arrive, on average in post-Die-Ought-If America, in eighteen months or so. No one talks about Death Panels any longer. There are no panels. Everyone is truly treated equal in post-Die-Ought-If America. (Except, of course, for those who can pay in Old Bucks or gold.)’

If we don’t let the feeble die, we’ll kinda like die. Or something.

I find it amusing that such a demented, reactionary fantasy should come from a secular, self-described political centrist and science fiction author. Not that there haven’t been equally right wing ideas before, except that they are usually a lot more optimistic. And this doesn’t even sound like adrenalin pounding dystopia so much as a protracted spitting the dummy out at the lot of the middle class white man in modern America.

The curious thing is, I’m not entirely unsympathetic to some of the themes attacking monotheistic fanaticism and extreme multiculturalism. Yet theses are not apparently themes so much as skewed political points. I think it’s to Canada’s supreme credit that they have treated the native Americans with respect and helped them to preserve their culture. By contrast I think American Democracy and free speech has been greatly damaged by the ridiculously named ‘Anti-defamation league’. Yet who comes out best in Simmons’ middle American tract?

Still, be interesting to see how it is received.

Give the Police a Chance

2011-06-19T10:12:00.000-07:00

I heard while back there was going to be a 'slut walk' in Edinburgh. when walking through the streets one warm day I wondered if it had been arranged for that day because the average girl was wearing, uh, not very much actually. Fine by me.

Anyway, turns out it wasn't a 'slut walk': it was just an average day. But the point is that 'slut walking', as well as not being a term that makes any grammatical sense also has to be the most lame and puerile 'demonstration' ever. Even the pro-cuts demonstration at least had a genuinely minority position.

However, Te Graun really outdoes itself:
'The – mainly very young – women went wild with delight. They hate rape and all who protect the rapist, from police to the media.'

'Hate rape'? Eh? The police and the media protect rapists? In recent times the rozzers have hardly covered themselves with glory. They brutally killed Jean Charles de Menezes then told fibs about it. They brutally killed Ian Tomlinson and then told fibs about it. but if Ms James has knowledge of a vast police conspiracy to protect rapists. then it must be the scoop of the decade. Similarly, I'm no great fan of the public-schoolboy heavy neo-liberal skewed media: but is Ms James also onto a great scoop about the entire media protecting rapists?

I don't have any idea about this last one, but my guess re the police is that she is alluding to the conspiracy theory that a vast number of more rational than thou mainstream leftists adhere to: that the quota of alleged to convicted rapes is so low that the only possible explanation is that the entire legal system is rigged to stop men being convicted of rape.

This could well be true. The only problem is that I haven't seen one shred of evidence to support this position. And whilst Johann Hari and Laurie Penny both take this conspiracy theory for granted, they have failed to state what should be done. Furthermore, the heavy handed praise they offer themselves as rationalist free thinkers is utterly undeserved if they can't be open minded about the possibility that many women make unconvincing cases in rape trials. This isn't something I'm arguing; rape cases are very complex. But those who call themselves rationalists rarely actually have a purely scientific mindset, but just take for granted that their findings will support their moral biases.

I take it that the Penny/ Hari left think that if the British Legal System cannot convict a higher number of alleged rapists that a quota system should take over. If they are the faces of the young English left, then role on Scottish independence.

Values and the Price of Union

2011-06-17T12:02:00.001-07:00

(I haven't had much time for blogging recently. I hope here to tie in some ideas I wanted to write about. Sorry if this is a bit haphazard)

I: On Scottish Nationalism

Recently I've lost trust in a view I never was aware of having: that politics in the West is basically a smooth process, in which society evolves towards a certain system. Maybe it is the SNP victory that has made me change my views on this.

A few years ago I would probably have scoffed at the idea of voting SNP. I suppose many of my compatriots who voted SNP earlier this year would have been similarly sceptical.

But now that the SNP is a real force, I can't help thinking that maybe it offers a direction out of Britain's current political impasse. And for another thing, raising the question as to whether Scotland is really British has made me ask if I'm really British: perhaps in some rather strange ways.

The traditional narrative of Scots nationalism goes roughly along the lines of Braveheart, with the intellectual crudity expanded over centuries: we were happy savages happily living at peace with the stags and midges until yellow toothed Saxons came along and stole our land, slaughtered us for being Covenanters, slaughtered us for being Jacobites and then starved us to death and stole our land again in the Highland Clearances.

As a historian I have always scoffed at this tale. Yes, Edward I was a dastard of monster proportions. Yes, I feel pride in Bruce and Wallace. But it was largely thanks to the Balliols and the machinations of the Scottish nobility that Edward had anything to do with Scotland. Whilst Bruce (one of the world's greatest politicians of all time) managed to hold the country together for several centuries, the Covenanter and Jacobite wars were largely civil wars. Similarly the Highland Clearances were generally the work of Celtic landowners. And as for Culloden, that cornerstone of Scottish victimhood, the maggots had hardly finished eating the dead before Jacobite Clans were sending their scions to Jamaica, North America and India to prop up the British Empire.

However, modern British history is something else.

II

The Other Diaspora

In some ways it is thinking about Northern Ireland that makes me support Scottish Independence. If it came to it, would I die for Northern Ireland? No. Would I die for Scotland? Yes. Is this the question that defines nationhood?

I just don't know the answer to that question. I have very little time for either the Irish Republic or Northern Irish Protestantism. And I think this is a huge mis-step. What is sectarianism? Whilst I am generally a libertarian as regards free speech I would like to ban Orange Order marches, and maybe also Celtic and Rangers football clubs. But five year prison terms? That is ridiculous.

At the top of this section I've attached photos of two proud Scots of Irish Catholic ancestry. The first is the comedian Billy Connolly who said 'I used to be a Catholic but I paid a fine and they let me go'. Whilst the other is Peter Mullan who made the film 'The Magdalene Sisters' which depicted the horrific abuse that took place in the Irish Republic (which I would point out to those who fanatically want to disestablish the CofE is officially secular). Is this sectarian? Whilst I would regard myself overall as a friend of the Catholic Church (and even more of the Catholic faithful) the fact is that in Ireland the clergy have been embroiled in some pretty serious scandals. I am myself of partial Irish ancestry and the fact is a large number of diasporan Irish people actually are grateful to live in a country where there is a lot of religious freedom and I feel a degree of pride in how patriotic many Scots of Irish ancestry are. This freedom is something to preserve and it will not be preserved by statist laws.

III: England: Centre or Chasm?

I can't name any young conservatives in England. I'm guessing that Richard Littlejohn and Melanie Phillips will die before anyone more sensible comes along to articulate their positions. And when they do retire or die their successors will probably be equally misanthropic and crazy.

But the rising stars of the English Left really terrify and depress me no end. There is Johann Hari who is still a fan of Christopher Hitchens, used to be a Harry's Place contributor, and wrote that Vladimir Putin killed one third of all Chechens in the 1990s (when Putin wasn't even President, but hey, facts are silly things). He's now a fan of Noam Chomsky and says that the 'Ardship of Cambry supports Sharia law (which he doesn't), which I don't think is so much an intellectual odyssey as a quest for a narcissistic image with wider appeal. See also his genuinely stupid and bigoted articles about Catholicism, which Brendan O'Neill brilliantly skewered.

Then there's Laurie Penny who says 'The notion of taking special exception to one religion over and above any other dodgy cult cobbled together by deranged desert patriarchs should be abhorrent to any secularist who believes in freedom of thought.'

In other words, moral philosophy is too complex a concept for the modern atheists: Jim Jones, Socrates, the Ayatollah, Fydor Dostoyevsky: not a cigarette paper between them. Maybe she should go to Tehran or Islamabad to outline her position on 'deranged desert patriarchs'. Other wise words:

'I now can't help grinning every time I see prim ladies in office suits reading the Millennium books on public transport...

Lisbeth Salander is an immensely powerful character, a misandrist vigilante with a penchant for black fetish wear and ersatz technology, like the terrifying offspring of Batman and Valerie Solanos... Salander is smart, she's brave, she always wins, and she won't let anyone tell her what to do. No wonder so many women secretly want to be her.'

It would at least be nice if the writers paid to represent us could at least spell the names of the sociopaths they admire, but, uh, Valerie Solanas was a maladjusted, mentally ill woman who attempted to murder Andy Warhol (and in the long run probably helped his early death) for no other reason than that he found her terribly boring. And she's good?

I wouldn't even mind these demented ravings if it wasn't for the fact that Hari and Penny so obviously think they are the voices of reason and unwavering moral and intellectual superiority.

Their country certainly isn't my country and their values are certainly not my values.

IV Conclusions

Ideals and views often sneak up quietly before roaring aloud. Ed Miliband might not be an especially idealistic man and he might not have wanted to become Labour leader at this time. But dramatic as it may sound, I think he may be the only chance for saving Britain as a geopolitical entity from corroding by misanthropic left and right. Not by distancing himself from 'liberalism', but by reclaiming a word that has been tarnished by market fanatics and identity politics and in demonstrating how true liberalism should be sceptical of both state and markets. I don't know what to make of his chances given that the 'Left Wing' media has long been denigrating him and is now playing up the most recent (and uninteresting) gossip about him and his brother.

Conversely, despite his ego, I don't know if Salmond even especially wanted such a stunning victory in the recent elections. Scotland now has a leader in the European Christian Democrat mode, which is assertive in its identity without (overall) jettisoning the best features of modern liberalism. Imperfect he may be, but it seems to me that Britain as a nation is undergoing an identity crisis that is difficult to deny.

Quote of the Day

2011-06-12T05:56:00.000-07:00

"The rest is soap opera of which I want no part and the public have no interest."

I never would have thought I'd say 'Well said David Miliband', but well said David Miliband.

I'll never tire of pointing out the irony that the 'left wing' Graun is very much on the economic right, yet when it comes to the supply/ demand side of things (which I admit capitalism does excel at) they are worse than any Soviet satellite. Really, does anyone write in to say 'Please sir, we think your newspaper prints too many intelligently written debates on political philosophy and too much in depth foreign affairs reporting. We just want more gossip about the Labour party please. Oh, and we still haven't lost interest in Blair/ Brown. More of that please. I start sweating and getting insomnia if a week goes past without reading at least 10,000 words on how Brown wanted to make Britain communist and Blair wanted to keep liberal democracy going and how they always had daggers at each others throats.'

I've made a resolution that I'm not going to visit The Guardian for another week. Not even to marvel at how stupid its getting.

Return of the Video Nasty

2011-06-07T13:21:00.000-07:00

When I was in a charity shop a while back I was quite bemused to look at a DVD horror film about cannibals. The marketing team thought its chief selling point was that a board of people had decided that the world was better not watching 'Cannibal Atrocity' or whatever this work of genius was called.

So it seems that Human Centipede II is being banned, presumably for one of two reasons: 1) Someone might think it sounds like a sweet romantic comedy and go in and be horrified that a movie marketed as being one of the sickest films ever made is actually one of the sickest films ever made and not a film about puppies bounding through fields of dandelions 2) Modern parents know they don't have the spine to risk unpopularity in telling their kids they can't watch something so will secretly be grateful to the state for using censorship to stop it happening.

Frankly if the answer is '2' then as a society we may very well deserve censorship of films. But I'd still fight against it. No, I'm certainly not going to watch it. But I don't want anyone to tell me I can't.

Quote of the Day

2011-06-06T14:19:00.000-07:00

'Grayling peddles a Just So version of English history, breathtaking in its crudity and complacency, in which freedom has been on the rise for centuries and has only recently run into trouble. Dawkins touts a simple-minded, off-the-peg version of Enlightenment in which people in the west have all been getting nicer and nicer, and would have ended up as civilised as an Oxford high table were it not for a nasty bunch of religious fundamentalists. Who would pay £18,000 a year to listen to this outdated Victorian rationalism when they could buy themselves a second-hand copy of John Stuart Mill?'

Terry Eagleton on top form. I'm not sure about Eagleton's Marxism but at least he is an intellectual intellectual as opposed to a secular vicar like Grayling.

Thoughts of Scottish Nationalism and pan-Saxonism

2011-05-18T11:19:00.000-07:00

It's almost a decade now since the 9/11 atrocities. Perhaps the SNP victory at the local elections seems to be about as unrelated as any political event could be. Yet in my heart I do not think this is the case.

Maybe a decade is a long time to come up with something as trite as 'only by defending our best values will we prevail'. Yet it's the only moral I can draw from the ten savage years that have intervened. Christopher Hitchens described his response to 9/11 as a mood of exhilaration as everything he loved was pitted against everything he hated. I would disagree with the sentiments, but not the thoughts and certainly not his conclusions as to what course of action to take.

Still, maybe one should respect Hitchens for taking out American citizenship. Britain is if anything the chief political victim of 9/11. Whilst British soldiers are being killed and injured in Afghanistan because a group of Saudis massacred thousands of Americans, just look at what's happening at home.

I personally don't want to defend Britain's presence in Northern Ireland. I could make all sorts of far left arguments for this position, which would be good for self-righteousness but would be fundamentally dishonest. I just have to admit it's because I don't feel British. Whilst I tend to agree with David Lindsay on economics, the unborn and US-English relations, it is somewhat rare for me to agree on Britishness, but he does make an excellent point in saying:

'stretching from high letters and the theatre to football and horse-racing (in all of which fields England has significantly closer links to all parts of Ireland than to any part of Scotland).'

The simple fact is I'd be all for cutting off Scottish ties to Northern Ireland if only because I can't think of a more alien culture in either its Orange Order or Celtic Catholic tendencies. Like many Scots I'm of partial Irish Catholic descent. Like nearly all Scots of Irish Catholic descent I think my ancestors made the right decision in coming over to Scotland. Like many Scots of all denominations and none I think that any Irish immigrants of any denomination who want to take their bigotry with them should be forced to leave Scotland. How many people of any denomination wouldn't prefer to live in a secular Protestant social democracy than either a quasi Francoist Irish Republic or indeed Northern Ireland itself which contained the worst of imperialist bigotry and theocratic backwardness in one?

Some people may well object to my tone in saying this. But I wonder just what they think of our being sued for killing terrorists when spending a fortune on 'fighting terror'?

Furthermore, whilst 'British' identity takes upon itself a degree of responsibility for the thorny politics of Ireland, look also at Britain's relationship with Israel and England's ghettoised Jewish polulation, one of whom wrote about his 'pleasure' that a young peace activist was killed? The delightful editor who published the delightful Mr Alderman's views later attacked the reporter who wrote on the piece and then clarified:

'UPDATE: Ms Sherwood left me a voicemail after seeing my initial post below, complaining that she did not scream. And you know what, listening to the conversation, it's a fair point and I'm happy to change that. It felt like screaming to me as her voice was very loud on my phone. I've edited the post to take that out. I've also changed the post so that it's made up of verbatim quotes, now that I have been able to transcribe the conversation.'

After reading this, I checked The SNP line on Israel-Palestine:

"Things are going from bad to worse in the Middle East, and the EU as a whole continues to send precisely the wrong signals to the increasingly intransigent Israeli government. At least Mr Lieberman does not pretend to have any regard for human rights, where a number of his predecessors have pretended to talk about peace while all the while undermining any chance of a viable Palestinian state at all.

"The EU has to recognise that the Israeli government is not a partner in peace, it is the primary opponent of it. Until we use our collective economic and political power to bring them to the negotiating table we will only continue to watch things go from bad to worse"

Excellently phrased. How many English politicians would have the nerve to say that? How many English parties would have the nerve to post that on their websites?

The ironic thing is that they'd be too scared of the 'right wing media'. Ironic because the right wing media that whinges about a left that supports political correctness, multi-culturalism, ghettoisation, anti-Britishness actually uses these things as tools because they themselves are pretty ghettoised: upper middle class plutocrats who fear and hate the majority of the British population.

I've traditionally regarded myself as anti-nationalist because I find it so silly, that I should be proud that people living here might have worn nice clothes a millenium or so ago, or that I should somehow feel that I deserve some glory for Watt and Maxwell's inventions despite the fact I can hardly erect a clothes horse, or that I'd have kicked ass at Bannockburn despite having severe asthma.

I still do think that kind of nationalism is immensely silly. But I also think I was previously immensely silly to take Scottish values for granted and to assume that they are universal values. They are not values I share with Northern Irish bigots, they are not values that belong to Eire bigots, they are not values shared with any of England's many ghettoised populations, they are not values shared with America's Bible Belt white supremacists and fundamentalist Christians, they are not values shared with East Anglian uncle tom Atlanticists. Whether culture forms values or values form culture, the two are interconnected and subsequently I don't feel much cultural affinity for these people either.

Do I share values and cultures with the English as a people, when their national identity seems influenced by so many competing interest groups?

I really think it is up to them to prove it is the case.

To come back to the twin towers, I do again find it curious that Christopher Hitchens did sum up my feelings to a large extent. The coastal USA did make an invaluable contribution to Anglo-Saxon culture in the 60s-present. Whilst I agree with most left wing arguments about capitalist exploitation, it is the case that media consumerism did help to make African American culture more mainstream and to revolutionise music and culture and attitudes towards race (which were never as pleasant here as many nostalgic Brits like to pretend). It is also the case that the American film industry made many excellent and thought-provoking films. The American print industry provided the modern West with some of the most articulate criticisms of our government's action. And finally, and in some ways most importantly, the internet really revolutionised the modern world and spelled the death of mainstream political writing. It was this America that Bin Laden hated. It's this facet of Anglo-Saxon culture that we should feel obliged to defend.

Yet it is not one that we can defend by either being violent (dropping bombs, turning over civil liberties and human rights) or by bowing to numerous ghettoised populations or interest groups.

The simple fact is we can only defend our values if we use our values for defence. Our values were shaped in Ancient Athens, further refined in Ancient Rome, further refined by Christianity and further refined by modern Democracy.

I think in many ways the SNP does embody these values. Does any mainstream party in England? Does any mainstream party in the USA?

Could the SNP lead the way to more of a fracturing in the Anglo-Saxon world? Could geographical fracturing ironically lead to greater interactions as smaller more culturally homogenous states force themselves to appraise their values?

Rebel, Rebel

2011-05-17T04:53:00.000-07:00

Tracey Emin out to prove she's no conservative at London retrospective

Sayeth Te Graun:

'After two decades scaring the horses with her drunkenness on TV and sexually explicit art Tracey Emin now risks becoming part of the establishment by dining with the Tories and opening on Wednesday a mid-career retrospective at one of Britain's most important galleries.

Well, almost.

Telling John Humphrys on BBC Radio 4's Today programme that she wanted her epitaph to be "fuck me while I'm sleeping" may mean she's not quite there yet.'

No? But what is 'scaring the horses'? Does that mean being embarrassingly puerile and boring? And as for being 'no conservative', if being boorish, vulgar and self-adoring for having money is in some way opposed to modern conservatism it's news to me.

Eye for an Eye

2011-05-14T12:24:00.000-07:00

So, the high court of theocratic Iran has decided that the best way to punish a gruesome thug is to sink to his level and blind him with acid.

Repeat after me brave, western, snug, middle class self described 'opponents of religious tyranny' who use their computers to praise Christopher Hitchens and Johann Hari: all religions are equally bad, all religions are equally stupid, if you read the old testament there's lots of cruelty, it's only thanks to us that the Christians don't do this kind of thing, if we didn't whinge about prayer sessions in council buildings then Britain would be a barbaric theocracy as well, and only racists object to large scale Muslim immigration, and only racists make out that Turkey shouldn't join the EU, only racists and far right groups make out that there's any difference whatsoever between the tenets of Islam and any other monotheism.

Anyway, already we've wasted too much time on the subject when we know we're already right. Back to the important issue. Do you realise how much we pay in subsidies to kids travelling to faith schools?

Celebration Times Come On

2011-05-12T12:47:00.000-07:00

Time for a Lib dem victory dance, don't you think? at least this clown that te Graun plucked from someplace thinks it is:
'In Scotland, the people dealt Labour a resounding defeat – because Scotland was a place where, if you didn't like the coalition, you didn't have to vote Labour'

Let's see, compared with the last election:
Labour won 37 seats, down from 44
Conservatives won 15 seats down from 20
Lib Dems won 5 seats, down from 17

The dems are finito. Why can't they just drink up and go home? The funny thing is, they can't even make their own mistakes. Timmo must have read someplace that Scotland was a solidly Labour country, when in fact Labour has a fairly weak presence North of the industrial Central Belt, so he decided that he'd adopt a bit of a swagger.

What really gets to me is how swiftly the dems have morphed into the caricature of itself that New Labour had become in the late noughties.

Mystic Greg

2011-05-06T10:55:00.001-07:00

I guess it would sound arrogant and tautologous to say 'I thought I'd be right', but whoa Nelly!

And being smug about being right just wouldn't be fun if it weren't for a certain gent who (to quote Commissioner Dreyfuss in A Shot in the Dark) 'will go down in history as the greatest prophet since Custer said he'd surround those Indians':

"I'm just not seeing the levels of support for the SNP you're seeing in the polls. I'm just not seeing it,"

Thus spake Danny Alexander. And let's look at his boss. A man of genius I'm sure we all agree, who presciently warned his party not to turn left. As the big guy says:

"I totally understand that some of these people are not happy with what the Lib Dems are doing in coalition with the Conservatives. The Lib Dems never were and aren't a receptacle for leftwing dissatisfaction with Labour. There is no future for that, there never was."

Well done sir, well done.

Seems my predictions held up pretty well. Labour didn't actually do that badly: clinging on to the industrial south. The SNP were snuffed in the Highlands. Their campaign literature helpfully told us who to vote for to get them out. Thanks guys. They tried to get us scared that our local rozzers would be subject to reform under the SNP. For all I know we have one of the best police forces on earth. But given that the Northern Constabulary showed such appalling criminal negligence in the 70s and 80s that they've made it into books on the paranormal, I'm afraid that I couldn't get too excited about the prospect of their being subject to centralised authority.

The Tories have gone from bad to dismal: the times when they could depend upon Morayshire Wing Commanders and Perthshire apothecaries are finito.

As for what's next, I think it's all up in the air. I suspect the urban south will still vote Labour in the General Elections. Central Scotland and the Highlands will have few alternatives but to stick with Alex for the time being.

Alia Iacta Est

2011-05-05T11:55:00.000-07:00

So, voted SNP and yes to AV. Here's hoping that I've made the right decisions.

Bohemian Threnody

2011-05-01T11:05:00.000-07:00

Royalty, eh? I’ve heard that folks around them have been stoking up bad feelings by speaking of ‘common’ people. I guess I feel bemused both by the sort that use this word and the sort who are offended because such words as ‘commoner’ will never really apply to me. Not because I’m posh, but because I’m such a weirdo and I think that the hatred of the Royals is Caliban seeing his own face in the mirror or something. I can just imagine if for some reason William and Kate decided to pay me a visit just how flippin annoying I’d probably find them. Bet if I asked them what their favourite Byzantine Cathedral was they’d probably be puzzled. Maybe if I asked them what their favourite sedimentary rock is they’d be puzzled. Bet if I asked them whether they think The Rats in the Walls is better than The Call of Cthulhu… well, you get the point. I bet even if I asked them about one of my favourite historical episodes, the White Terror in Jacobin France the ignorant blighters would look blank. There’s me thinking it would be pretty cool prowling like a werewolf and taking out the Masonic republican Jacobins before they can create their cult of the supreme beings, and the Royal so-and-sos would have no idea what I’m on about.

But perhaps because Willo seems like a good natured sort and I feel no animosity to the guy. I am a fairly lukewarm monarchist, though I think they should be taxed far more heavily.

Still, for evidence that you don’t need to be a royal to have a stupid sense of your own self-importance, can I present Martin Amis.

Mart is writing an obitu- eh, tribute, or something, about his friend Hitchens, which is solid gold. He tries to portray Hitch as an existentialist warrior poet, an edgy outsider, a spare tyre Stavrogin, a BO Byron, but really makes him look like that boorish Cockney businessman that Harry Enfield used to act. But try telling that to Amis, whose definition of a rebel will spare you having to read Camus:

'This is the way to spot a rebel: they give no deference or even civility to their SUPPOSED superiors (that goes without saying); they also give no deference or even civility to their DEMONSTRABLE INFERIORS. Thus Christopher, if need be, will be merciless to the prince, the president, and the pontiff; and, if need be, he will be merciless to the cabdriver ("Oh, you're not going our way. Well turn your light off, all right? Because it's fucking sickening the way you guys ply for trade"), to the publican ("You don't give change for the phone? OK, I'm going to report you to the Camden Consumer Council"), and to the waiter ("Service is included, I see. But you're saying it's optional. Which? … What? Listen. If you're so smart, why are you dealing them off the arm in a dump like this?").'

Demonstrable inferiors? Demonstrably inferior to someone who thinks it's clever to write:

"Unkind nature, which could have made a perfectly good butt out of his face, has spoiled the whole effect by taking an asshole and studding it with ill-brushed fangs."

The only way that the people Amis mentions are in any way 'demonstrable inferiors' is that they have less money than he has. It is perhaps bitterly amusing that the self-styled 'bohemians' (i.e. spoilt public schoolboys) of yesterday are the most vulgar plutocrats of today, but it does make me feel there are worse things than royalty.

Now's the Day (well, Thursday will be)

2011-04-30T12:27:00.000-07:00

'Anybody I speak to up in Scotland says that he’s done a great job and sometimes I watch him on Scottish TV in Parliament and he wipes the floor with everybody. He’s great on his feet.'

Jack Vettriano

Can't say I'm a big fan of his painting but I think he's right. Alan Cumming also made an interesting endorsement, based on Salmond's vision for Scotland. A gay thespian might not seem the most self-evident figure to support a patriotic candidate, yet I think social liberalism is never going to be as screechy and narcissistic as it is in England. We are proud to be a nation and proud to be a tolerant nation.

I notice that few of Alex's celeb fans seem to be especially political, and I would say that as a political talent, speaker and brain, Salmond towers above the shower of his opponents.

His primary opponents in terms of sheer demographics are Labour, mainly in the industrial lowlands. Whilst I have some sympathy for the Labour party, they are a pernicious presence in Scotland: sending Blairites to deprived Glaswegian areas and then boasting that their being elected is a sign of Blair/Mandelson genius. In the general elections, I think this area will still be a Labour stronghold, but when travelling through Scottish cities, St Andrews Cross flags and Stuart Lions are omnipresent: on Thursday, I think this region will probably back SNP.

In more direct competition there are the Lib Dems in the north. Beaker comes from not a million miles away from my constituency, but you're more likely to see a 1930s Soviet photo of Trotsky driking to bruderschaft with Lenin than you are to see Beaker in any local lib dem leaflets. The Dems are pegging all their hopes that voters will be mightily furious with the SNP for making administrative changes to to the running of the northern Scottish police force. Sadly, I think that taking Blighty into a double dip recession will be a more pressing concern, along with the small matter of the Dems knifing their voters in the back. The Lib Dems have always depended on their not being Tories and not being Labour for their popularity. I guess this is correct, given that they don't have the spine of the Tories nor the spine of Labour. Which means anything could happen and the same lack of spine that's led to their supporting Tory cuts could see Clegg telling the population he would vote for everyone to have a microchip implanted in their head if he formed a coalition with John Reid.

Lastly there are the Tories. What to say? Annabel Goldie looking at her prospective demesne like a plantation owner's wife looking at the 'natives' and a message that is utterly out of step with the vast majority of Scots. 'Right Wing' in the sense of wanting to lick American and Israeli arse and believing that John Galt will pull some jobs out of the ground when the state withers away, I don't think the Tories can really compete with the genuine patriotism of the SNP and their understanding that market fanaticism is not beneficial to the Middle Class. Subsequently they will probably get a good hiding in the South/Central Scotland where they were owned by the SNP in the general election.

As for independence, I don't have a clue. As for the Donald Trump golf course, I'm with these guys. But in a day when politics is ruled by various insipid flavours of spineless nonentities, I'm definitely backing Salmond for First Minister.

Oh, and if the celeb endorsements so far aren't enough, Brian Cox has joined the line. This is a clip of him in one of my favourite films, Steven Seagal's demented masterpiece The Glimmer Man (I take the Borgesian view that meaning is a dialogue between viewer and auteur so readily praise the American action movie as one of the most superb schools of satire, no matter what they were trying to do). Say what you like about Seagal's acting talents, Cox is brilliant here. Also a way better Hannibal Lector than Anthony Hopkins.

Prometheus Unbound(ed self congratulation)

2011-04-28T12:16:00.000-07:00

A while back I think I made the same point, but I increasingly find that my disagreement with the mainstream vociferous atheists is not so much about faith (except they don't seem to understand the term), or reason (which they often equate with 'the most likely answer') or even history (about which many of them are astoundingly ignorant) but their absolute lack of irony. Seems the case with the Prometheus Publishing House.

For those not acquainted with Aeschylos, Prometheus was a titan chained to a rock for stealing fire and giving it to humanity. At the end of the play a creepy little guy comes up to him and gloats that as punishment Prometheus will have his liver pecked by an eagle every day. To which Prometheus replies 'Know clearly I would not exchange my misfortune for your subservience'.

Pretty powerful stuff. Though I'd guess the nobility of Prometheus might make him one of my favourite characters, but certainly not someone I'd really want to compare myself to, given that I've never had my liver pecked out for the good of mankind and if I'd been told I would, I probably wouldn't be in the mood to feel chuffed that at least I wasn't a snivelling little sycophant. OK, I'd love to think that if I was told I'd have my liver pecked out for the good of mankind I'd feel chuffed with myself for not being a snivelling little sycophant. But the thing is, I might suffer from chronic self-esteem or something but I tend to ask to be judged on how I've actually acted, rather on how I'd love to think I'd act.

Such quibbles are of no interest to Prometheus Books who have 'spread free thought world wide'. No kidding? Presumably they have publishing houses in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan? Or does that just mean they holler to secular/lapsed Prods about the evils of religion and then make out they are freedom loving titans for doing so? Let's have it in their own words:

'It came into being to fulfil what we viewed as a critical need, namely, publishers willing to produce and distribute dissenting books on religion and the paranormal... We selected Prometheus as the name of the press by reference to the mythological Hellenic Titan, because he was the symbol of achievement: he stole fire from the gods and he bequeathed fire and the arts and sciences to humankind, challenging the gods on high. He did so, according to legend, because he loved humankind, and felt that without the arts and sciences, humans would huddle in their caves in fear and ignorance.'

My goodness, dissenting books on the paranormal? Do you mean you could be shot for criticising Yuri Gellar or something? Were people broken on the wheel for saying the spoons weren't really bent? My goodness, we'd be living in caves if we didn't have such dissidents. Anyway, I don't think you've congratulated yourselves enough, Surely there's more?

'were an advocacy press fulfilling a mission: to cultivate reason, science, humanistic values, and free inquiry in all areas of human interest. Some of the first books we published were on Humanism, Atheism, and Biblical criticism – all challenging the reigning ‘sacred cows’ and all going against the grain.'

Going against the grain and the reign of sacred cows must have been awful. But guys, surely you haven't finished congratulating yourselves yet, have you? Oh, you've not finished starting.

'We were like Prometheans, challenging the powers that be and resolving to publish books that we thought ought to appear. I am proud of the dedicated professional staff that we have since developed. I doubt that such a venture would succeed today, as we are confronted with fierce competition from huge publishing and marketing conglomerates.'

You know what I think guys? I think you're being to kind to Prometheus in claiming to be his disciples. After all, what's having your liver pecked out compared to the raw courage of 'challenging the powers that be': in taking on the beardy lay line enthusiasts, the UFO specialists, the prince of spoons and all the other armies of irrational darkness that were enveloping the Anglo-Saxon world. But guys, hrmhrm, whilst the compliments are flying so thick and so fast, any words of praise for the sophisticated geniuses that buy your books?
'Our effort throughout has been to try to bring to the educated public books of high quality on themes not generally covered by the large conglomerates. Our readers are for the most part seriously interested in controversial books, and they are educated and knowledgeable.'

Obviously. If they weren't educated and knowledgeable they would have been looking for the Loch Ness Monster or reading about the Philadelphia Project or something. But anyway, you've spent enough time complimenting other people, surely you should get back to praising yourselves:

'We are gratified that we remain the leading rationalist, humanist, freethought, and sceptical press in the world, offering provocative and controversial viewpoints.'

Leading in the world? And 'offering provocative and controversial viewpoints'. Offering these throughout the world, surely, not still banging on to secular prods about how awful religion is?

'Since we founded Prometheus, the entire publishing industry has been radically transformed. First, most of the finest independent houses ceased operations or have been absorbed by large conglomerates, which now dominate well over three-quarters of the total books published in the United States. Second, the independent bookstores have largely given way to chains, and books are now marketed primarily through wholesalers. Third, with the advent of the worldwide web, books are now sold over the Internet, and there are alternative sources of information beyond traditional book publishing. The fact that we manage to survive in the light of these factors is, in one sense, a publishing ‘miracle’.

We hope, as we move beyond our first third of a century, that readers will continue to welcome our books for themselves, their children, their friends, and their colleagues. For, in the last analysis, satisfying the insatiable interests of educated readers is the best guarantee of our viability. The invention of books, a truly remarkable creation, in our view, still provides the most enduring thought of ages to the public.'

Eh?

Perhaps the irony is that whilst attacking myths they see a dichotomy in choosing an ancient Greek myth as a metaphor. And yet, whilst I don't see faith as a metaphor, I do think that such tales as Prometheus do give a kind of faith and come from the Ancient Mediterranean that provided the intellectual and verbal tools for discussing Christianity. Whilst the vociferous 'rationalists' like to criticise faith in a confrontational manner, it does seem to me that our classical civilisation is also under threat in a more insidious way. Just look at the barely literate Melanie Phillips being given a Sappho award and Spectator era Boris Johnson raving that he is inspired by Pericles... presumably because 'freedom' means being a surveillance state liberal interventionist tax bore.

Ceci n'est pas une spoof

2011-04-15T10:47:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm with Johann Hari: I'm up on my high horse with self-righteous indignation at the Royal Wedding. And at the religious. What a wonderful country Britain would be with no religion and none of the royals. I love my country, sniff, we're such wonderful people, and it just hurts me so much that my compatriots could be so sick as to want to celebrate a young couple being married.

Of course you could say this is really sick and no matter how indifferent you are to a German-Danish bloke who's no right to any throne getting married, you feel that it's not Blighty's no.1 problem. But that wouldn't be hip. And unless you make out that this is just another sign of how bad men are (cause lets face it guys, this is the sort of thing we'd buy our daughters, isn't it? Uh, isn't it?) then you could get into hot water for questioning the PC status quo.

Moving Homepage

2011-04-14T11:09:00.000-07:00

Of course, Britain is an advanced country, held back from a golden age of art and technology by religion.

Had yahoo as my home page, but think it's time to move.

700,000,000 Screaming Chinese

2011-04-12T12:51:00.000-07:00

Red Dawn: one of my favourite films. Maybe some day I will immeasurably enrich the culture of our world by writing an essay on the Nietzschian and Platonic conflicts in that 1980s masterpiece.

But today is not the day. I'd just like to link to this article. For quite some time the Hollywood vultures have been circling John Milius's 1980s work of genius, with plans of remaking. Certainly, of all the films you could remake, at least Red Dawn is one with lots of shooting. And (though it lacerates my soul to admit it) it wasn't exactly perfect.

But then there's the name. I'm sure they'd love nothing more than a bit of Russophobia and have a despotic Russian tyrant, but the Russian Federation doesn't have a red flag. Luckily for the film makers, or so they thought, there's still China. With the world's largest population, 2nd largest GDP and 3rd largest landmass, China was the one to go for. Quite why they would invade America is open to question: they'd be at risk of damaging their own assets and the effect on the American economy could stop them from getting back all the dosh they're owed.

How the film makers answered these questions, however, we'll never know. They've now digitally altered their fillum so that America will be invaded by North Korea. This sliver of the Korean Peninsula might have the 154th highest per capita GDP, a population of 24 million and a landmass that's smaller than the state of Mississippi, but- uh, well that's the point actually: China has too big and too rich a population. Seems these days Hollywood can only be smug and self-righteous about nations that are too poor to make much of an impact on the overseas box office. Don't know how it will go down at home: America being owned by one of the puniest nations on earth. Maybe they just take it for granted the average American is too thick to know how small and poor North Korea is.

I feel a bit sad reading about the entire thing. I'm no great fan of Hollywood, but the American film industry I suppose was an icon of Modern Western civilisation, and films such as the original Red Dawn demonstrated a potential to make challenging and interesting works. Now it seems as well as being intellectually bankrupt, Hollywood will also crumble in its defence of principles (which I don't entirely share or not share) just to benefit at the box office.

Gone are the days when a possible Stalinist sympathiser could be 'run out of town'. In future it could be the democrats.

Words from 'the religious'

2011-04-12T04:39:00.000-07:00

'In the last two years, Christians have been burned alive by Muslims in Gorja, Pakistan, and by Hindu extremists in Orissa, India. Christian churches have been torched and scores of the faithful massacred on holy days in Iraq and Egypt. Few of these atrocities have received the media attention of the Rev. Jones’ stupid stunt or the Danish cartoonist’s irreverent scribbles.

Before America sends more of her sons to die for the freedom of Arabs and Muslims, perhaps we ought to have a better idea of what these folks intend to do with that freedom. For across that Muslim world, the faith that created our world, Christianity, is being persecuted and in some sectors annihilated.

To neocons and liberal interventionists, the goal of U.S. foreign policy should be to use our wealth and power to advance freedom until the whole world is democratic. Only then can we be secure.

But if democracy means rule by the people, ought we not to inquire a little more closely what it is these people, down deep, really want, before we bleed and bankrupt ourselves to win it for them?'

So writes Pat Buchanan. The kind of thing our PC atheist bigmouths would have trouble saying. I generally suspect that in future Christians in the Apostolic Tradition will increasingly become the spokespeople for secularism. Between the CJ Grayling school of self-help and the English Defence League, it seems to me that mainstream atheism is becoming increasingly irrelevant from the debate.

Dissidence and Conformity

2011-04-12T02:43:00.001-07:00

Reading Te Graun's as-per-usual stupid coverage of East European politics, it got me wondering what's happened to Luke Harding. Seems he was given the bum's rush for his disgraceful journalism. By the Russian Government that is, not his employers. Of course this (in some ways justly) was criticised, but I find it quite difficult to get too smug about Ivan's lot given that Harding's journalism was so pathetic. In fact he was as much a propagandist as any statist hack. It seems to me that the Russian Federation did what Te Graun's editors should have done a long time ago, but didn't. See also how principled te Graun were regarding free speech when Anatoly Karlin wrote a fairly objective take on things.

Perhaps its curious that for all the eye-rolling contempt with which right-wingers treat The Guardian that The Exile was the only publication to really stick it to Harding. I suppose the left and right were both equally willing to give up the utopianism that powered Soviet era dissidence. Now I doubt if anyone in the modern left or right would treat Alexander Solzhenitsyn with anything but embarrassment. Yet it seems to me this writer, Orthodox Christian and maths teacher summed up both the spirituality and analytical mind that could have helped to guide Russian in a more pleasant direction and offered a REAL alternative to the populist capitalism of the United Russia party.

Still, whilst the mainstream western media might once have insincerely praised people like Solzhenitsyn, in some ways I think they will not fall into that trap again. Their main problem is that they have to fight a perpetual war against people who think that Western atomised plutocratic consumerism is vulgar, nihilistic and undesirable. They'll have a hard time running out of people who think that.

In the Bad Books

2011-04-04T07:04:00.000-07:00

Te Graun has a corker of an interview with CJ Grayling. CJ provides a veritable trainwreck of logic, which he no doubt thinks is a razor sharp and ice cold analysis of the situation that is facing us:

'It's only in the past decade that these three strands of thought have developed into a public campaign against faith – but it wasn't the atheists, according to Grayling, who provoked the confrontation. "The reason why it's become a big issue is that religions have turned the volume up, because they're on the back foot. The hold of religion is weakening, definitely, and diminishing in numbers. The reason why there's such a furore about it is that the cornered animal, the loser, starts making a big noise."

Well, call me a cornered animal CJ and it really is a red rag to a bull. But who is the 'cornered animal'? It seems to me that the C of E is too much of a poodle to really be much of a cornered animal to have you quaking in your boots CJ. Or is it the Islamists, who seem to be going strong and increasing in numbers? Or is it the unmuzzled rabid dogs of the American Evangelical right who are getting increasing power and seem to have slipped their leashes that are making this thunderous noise so beloved of losers?
He continues:

Well, firstly, I think the charges of militancy and fundamentalism of course come from our opponents, the theists. My rejoinder is to say when the boot was on their foot they burned us at the stake. All we're doing is speaking very frankly and bluntly and they don't like it," he laughs. "So we speak frankly and bluntly, and the respect agenda is now gone, they can no longer float behind the diaphanous veil – 'Ooh, I have faith so you mustn't offend me'. So they don't like the blunt talking. But we're not burning them at the stake. They've got to remember that when it was the other way around it was a much more serious matter.

Well, that's it CJ. Never again will I be able to float behind a diaphanous veil. In fact I think I'd plummet like a lead balloon if I tried. I've heard tell that you can still float behind a diaphanous veil in Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia... but can I take it you're not going to set up office there to bring them down to earth with a thud?

Still, I suppose we 'theists' who have never burnt anyone alive at the stake, or stoned people, or thrown acid in faces, or murdered Ossetian schoolkids should be very grateful that you have chosen to make your priority the Census methodology which will really free us from the manacles of the Inquisition and has no doubt saved countless people from being burnt at the stake. But... what's all this about 'they' and 'them' and 'us'? Its like a right libertarian talking about 'government': some bizarre abstract entity that justifies their persecution complex. Except I actually find right libertarians a bit less scary (not to mention a bit more rational given that the world really does have some horrific theocratic regimes, but the Humanist Society's heroic assault on 'Thought for the Day' will do b***er all for the victims).

Still, all is not doom and gloom so let's lighten up. Cj has a very original line in side-splitting humour, which will leave you with aching sides:

'The little jokes and kindly bearing can make Grayling sound quite benignly jovial about religion at times, as he chuckles away about "men in dresses" and "believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden"

I feel poleaxed by these utterly original aphorisms. They are a hammer blow to my faith and make me want to run like greased lightning to embrace atheism.

Guardian Quiz

2011-03-19T07:09:00.000-07:00

-Too quiet for whom?

-Too awkward for whom?

-Too left-wing for whom?

Apart from the increasingly irrelevant print media?

Liberalism, Nationalism and Rationalism

2011-03-19T04:39:00.000-07:00

Above is a photo of a fossil I found called 'Osteolepis'. It's a rhipidistia from roughly 400 million years ago; the branch of fish that it belonged to are the ancestors of most land vertebrates from snakes to eagles to humans.

An amazing thought which for me is full of awe, which for me is one of the wonders of science and why I feel faith and science go hand in hand. I feel considerably greater awe at this than the thought of visiting a creationist museum where rubber cavemen in pigskin nappies wander around at the feet of plastic dinosaurs.

In fact the creationist museum would only be entertaining compared to some outlets of the modern atheist movement like this website which is so profoundly vulgar and self-congratulating. In its own words 'it's commentary from a secular, rationalist, skeptical, somewhat lefty-liberal, sort of perspective'

Weirdly enough I think it is more as a Scot than as a Christian that I find these unqualified congratulatory adjectives so alien. I don't know what sort of patter you get from the author of 'the pod delusion' but I'm betting that irony isn't really their forte.

Which is probably why they invite Johann Hari to tell them how wonderful and moral they are and why modern Britain is so wonderful and moral. Being rational and sceptical he's probably come armed with reams of facts and figures to support this claim, hasn't he? Well, no. Apparently gays and women are better of in an atheistic nation (like the USSR or Cuba?).

Whether or not these are the sole criteria for morality, Hari provides as much objective evidence as to their correlation with noisy atheism as he does for any of its other 'achievements': zilch.
And I don't remember being given a questionnaire as to whether I believe in God and whether my faith makes me want to oppress women or gays.

But his idea of womenkind's exalted place in secular Blighty isn't really a consistent theme in his writing, as in this article he proudly linked to recently.

Whilst the theme is hero worship of men who are brutal to women I have to say I emphatically don't worship William Jefferson Clinton who bombed my Orthodox cousins in Serbia. But I would hesitate to call him a rapist given his lack of trial by jury, sound conviction and all (and maybe best not to bring Christopher Hitchens in as star witness when criticising fawning articles about Norman Mailer).

Yet when you read on you get the impression that trial by jury isn't something that matters much to secular atheist fanaticism:

'Why do we so carefully turn a blind eye to the bruised bodies of so many abused women? This selective blindness isn't confined to news coverage; it informs our political life. Imagine if in Britain today, hundreds of thousands of men were being pinned down – in hotels, living rooms, and back alleys – and anally raped by their "friends" or acquaintances, and virtually no one was ever punished for it. It would be one of the biggest issues in British politics. Yet it really does happen to women – so it is a third-tier issue, wheeled out once a decade.'

Uhm, no sane human being denies that rape is a horrific crime. It's just that the law of the land tends to go about these things on a case by case sort of a way: not a quota.

Yet, I increasingly feel that in future this could well change. I feel sympathetic to any primary research on why there is a dissonance between convicted and alleged rape and welcome any rational constructive recommendations (which is not the same thing as increasing conviction anymore than it would be to decrease conviction), but I do feel worried by the thought that anti-male bigotry should be a blinding force for irrational legal reform.

More and more I feel that England is going down a divergent path: that liberalism is growing increasingly intolerant and irrational as its ideals divert from reality. There are certainly aspects of Scots nationalism that I find embarrassing (for readers' benefit I don't have a kilt, Glengarry, Corries collection or Claymore). However, I increasingly think if there is a political division then this will be due more to the irrational energy of mainstream English liberalism than atavistic nationalism on either side of the border.

The Soluble Problem

2011-03-15T05:17:00.000-07:00

Can't say I much like the tone of Brian (not the Queen guitarist) True-May. But I actually suspect that he might, just, possibly be justified in his view (if not the implicit wish) that rural Blighty isn't actually much of a melting pot... purely based on the fact I can't name any non-white folks or even East European immigrants in any of the towns I've lived in.

So here's a scientific solution to accurately reflect how multicultural rural Britain is. Howsabout 'Midsomer Murders' has to have an ethnic minority character for every ethnic minority participant on 'Bargain Hunt'?

Yes? Yes!

A Decent Perspective

2011-02-25T10:13:00.000-08:00

A while back I came across a blog by a young man who claimed to be a professional writer and whose hero was Cristopher (sic) Hitchens. I'm not connecting to his blog because I never want to visit it ever again, but I was curious to see that new decents are still sprouting up.

Of course, decency never died; to paraphrase Frank Zappa it just smells funny: just look at Te Graun's constant attack on the Russians for not electing an oligarch-friendly regime. For those lucky enough not to know what a 'decent' is, it's someone who claims to be left wing. Just that they support American Imperialism and often support neo-liberal economics.

However, there is actually a really thin line between decents and a vast section of the left. In a sense their major crime in the eyes of other left-wingers is to ally some left wing ideals (hatred for religion and patriotism blended with an apocalyptic view of a preordained moral order that is unavoidable for any country) to the neo-conservative goals of a Pax Americana.

In some ways this isn't as daft as it sounds, especially if you take the historicist view that Western values are universal and that secular economic and social liberalism are unavoidable destinies for all nations. In fact I thought during the Bush presidency that Pat Buchanan and The American Conservative actually put forth the most convincing arguments against neo-conservatism, avoiding the fool's game of how many corpses would be on either tab but arguing that the Christian West has ideals that are not common elsewhere, that invading a sovereign state is wrong, that killing is wrong, that using state violence is wrong and that respect for one's country and respect for other countries are two sides of the same coin.

It does seem to me by contrast that the mainstream left failed for trying to play the utilitarian arguments against military intervention when it was all up in the air. However, going deeper I'd say that for all its hatred of religion, the mainstream left has a profoundly religious mindest which makes it an ally of fanaticism, both Islamic and Neo-Con: the axiomatic view that all manifestations of all religions are all uniquely bad and stupid. Subsequently the complex history of faith, reason and politics in the West are just simplified into a morality fable where 'we' (meaning people who've achieved very little) have defeated 'the religious' and managed to find art and science ex nihilo in the 19th century.

You might think that this is drifting a bit from the topic of decents, but in fact this is a core plank of decency: that the Nosferatu of faith will skulk way when the bright light of atheism appears: maybe this bright light will need to be white phosphorus, but a bright light nonetheless.

The problem is that if you sign up to this historicist view, then you are signing up to a view of history which is very similar to that of the decents and of the neo-cons and (for opposite reasons) the fundamentalist Christian right.

It is because I cannot share this view of history as a morality play that I tended to think of myself as a conservative who supports cradle to grave welfare, nationalised industries, nationalised land, full negative liberties for all minorities, generous immigration, freedom of speech, opposition to censorship, employee's rights, skepticism about the power of the state to control drugs, trade unions and tight regulation of banking.

Whilst I think it's quite a bit simpler just to call myself a Christian leftist, I do wonder indeed if being 'left wing' really does carry this curse of historicism. Of course the mainstream neo-liberal right not only is more historicist, it is also more influential whilst the paleo-con right has its own flaws and indeed seems to have gobbled up the majority of decents. Still, whilst the most prominent decents have either repented or jumped ship, I do think that the left needs to really rethink its views on the philosophy of history and whether all the nations on earth should be forced to 'progress' towards a culture created by white guys who speak English.

Para-Consumerism

2011-02-19T02:56:00.001-08:00

Checked some of my favourite culture blogs this morning. Then, in the resigned mood of visiting a rubbish charity shop in the nothing-to-lose hope of finding a rare book, I checked te Graun. The creator of 'knob brick' is apparently like William Blake.

Yaawwn.

What this emphasises is the ambivalence about economic and media liberalism.

Liberalism is in some ways seen as synonymous with the free market, and the free market with a kind of economic Darwinism.

In which case why is fat, greasy tit Jonathan Jones employed to write such utter rubbish, whilst so many interesting culture blogs are amateur works?

You could say that Jones is superb at writing for a certain group: those who are incapable of appreciating genius or skill or beauty but who can discern ambivalence in utter crap painting. He just helps give them the confidence they need that the 'knob brick' Michaelangelo is really a genius not a talentless poser who milks gullible bourgeois idiots.

And the peripheral audience who loathe (rather than despise) Emin and will re-read this article, bumping up the hits.

Yet, I do wonder if this is really economical on the longterm? Personally, I wouldn't buy any newspaper. I think they're all crap and even if they occassionally have some excellent foreign correspondence, their habit of subsidising opinionated oafs like Jonathan Jones really deters me from pumping money into the system.

I'm not someone who likes to rail against 'modern art'. From a modern perspective the mass media allows us all to see the entire history of Millennia as a snapshot.

Yet the 20th Century saw a revolution in art. The 21st Century's painting does seem chained to the past, and to me tedious abstract art is anything but 'modern' but rather a plodding homage to a movement that was started at least 70 years ago. But then, I think that the camera (the film camera especially) has taken over from the canvas partially because it is a more democratic system and our increasingly sophisticated mass media can give us information on anything from Spaghetti Westerns to Soviet era surrealism, whilst art is dominated by ostentatiously smoking drinking leathery wannabe tweenagers.

And, by today's standards, it is their very desire to shock both in content and in form that is so bourgeois and conformist.

Trapped in the Past

2011-02-13T01:36:00.000-08:00

I've had a busy weekend so no time for much posting. But I wanted to share this with readers. As I've said in my last post, living with an elderly person has really been an eye-opener to how lucky I think we are today. And it really made me reconsider this clip from 'The Trap' which I thought was vastly exagerated when I watched it a couple of years ago, dealing with RD Laing's radical views on bullying in domestic relationships.

For someone of my generation, 'bullying' is a fairly blunt term: generally it makes you think of a barely civilised neanderthal who shouts a lot and confuses noise with profundity or cleverness.

And certainly, I don't think that any society or culture has ever lacked such people. Our modern Britain certainly doesn't. However, I think that this highlights the weird paradox of modern Britain: we have a 'mainstream culture' that doesn't have the confidence in itself that everyone should really conform to it.

I guess if anyone wanted to know my place in British society it would probably best be the affable slacker films of Simon Pegg. Not that I'm a massive fan, but I do quite like the fact that someone reflects this offbeat and indefinable culture. Oddly enough, within this culture I think there is a golden age of good manners in Britain. This might seem odd given how informal we are, but those who have spent time with older middle class people will also know that barking 'what' at those they consider socially inferior is taken for granted.

A culture incidentally, which isn't for everyone, but which survives largely tolerated.

But it was not always so. The British mainstream society did not always take the view that its own views were incidental or optional. Which brings me back to bullying and the video I've linked to from Adam Curtis's excellent series 'The Trap'.

As I said before, people of my generation would tend to think of bullying as a personality disfunction. But in a genuinely bourgeois society, it is a fairly integral part of existence. Not so much aggressive bullying but emotional bullying.

This is most evident from opinions. When a bigmouth ventures their opinion (no bully worth their salt of any kind has ever doubted that they are a fount of knowledge) then they force the lucky recipient of their vast wisdom to either show cruelty of their own in rudely rejecting it, or else appearing submissive.

And then there are the so-called 'stupid questions'. Which aren't questions at all. But in recent months I've discovered that 'do you really like/want' actually means 'You shouldn't like/want'.

I am just so grateful this wasn't my world. Modern Britain has its problems but it seems to me that the left really has to accept that many features that we take for granted in our society are not default social settings but aspects that we'll have to proudly claim as our own: whilst condemning the truly hideous features of economic liberalism, the intellectual shortcomings of the banking economy and addressing the potential that modern Britain has to create lonely and depressed consumers. It's ironic how some people on both left and right will hint that we have Maggie and Norman Tebitt to thank for social liberalism: two cold and repressed Middle Class Brits who wouldn't even want the compliment.

And it is a compliment, though eclectic consumers might not think so: thinking instead that in those days you could have your pipe and slippers and when the wife was out playing bridge you could say you're going to watch Dam Busters, but then whip out Dawn of the Dead or a Lucio Fulci boxset and sit there puffing contentedly. No chance, back in the day. Not because the wife would give you a knock with the rolling pin but because your own inner bourgeois nosey parker would prevent you from watching anything without the Radio Times seal of approval.

And, whilst my left wing economic arguments are usually founded on how much we can learn from France and Germany, in this case, I don't think the left can necessarily look to the continent for ideals. Take it away Jean.

How I learnt to stop worrying and love economic liberalism (in a very, very limited sense)

2011-02-05T09:45:00.000-08:00

Posts will possibly be sparse for a while due to ongoing care concerns. However, I would say that living with someone born in 1920 should be pretty much compulsorary for anyone (like me) who was given to idealising the past.

Don't get me wrong. It resulted in some wonderful Ladybird books. Must have been sound being a bloke back in the day. No Calvin Klein models flexing their six-packs on every bus, no Sex and the City harridans giving the missus ideas. Just nice family life with your pipe and brown suit, a newspaper to read aloud to the wife as she does the housework and a pair of slippers to wear on warm nights or to quieten the sprogs if they interrupt the wireless. Pretty sweet, eh?

Well, no. I think if I were transported back to the fifties I'd scream like a schoolgirl and try to wangle my way into a 'Lunatic Asylum'.

Go to bed before 11PM? You go to bed TOO early. Wake up before 7PM? You wake up TOO early. Not good at staying awake when making smalltalk? You speak TOO little. Like chatting about philosophy/ ideas? You speak TOO much. Have a job involving reading and also like reading for pleasure? You read TOO much. Unless there's one and a half litres there, there's TOO little water in the kettle.

The only thing you can't have TOO much of is food. No, wait. You can have TOO many vegetables. But you can never have enough fried meat, only TOO little.

Maybe I am being harsh. I guess the thing is that my relative was the son of a town grocer. He's like one of those lower middle class clerks in 1970s costume dramas set in the Edwardian times. Utterly well-meaning and incessantly offensive always striving to instill mediocrity in others and trying to put them in their place if they seem to want to get above their station. If you accused him of being patronising he'd probably ask what that word meant and upon being told say 'Isn't that what white middle class men are supposed to do'? He seemed pretty horrified to see me learning a bit of Latin. The old Romans are good enough for coffee-table books, but their lingo isn't for the likes of us.

I got a bit of flack here a while back for not calling myself middle class when I've got a desk job. I certainly wouldn't be ashamed to call myself middle class if current employment is the sole criteria. In which case I may well be part of an underclass menace 2 society if Cleggeron's grand pan to boost GDP by slashing employment is anything to go by. But I guess my strongest feeling is that we have choice as never before which has largely destroyed the class system and this is not something to be sneezed at.

For example between them I can blether with two of my closest Brit friends about 80s action movies, 60s avant garde rock, Ancient Rome, 70s horror films, French New Wave cinema, Sammy Franco fitness, Columbo, HP Lovecraft, retro-Brit comedies, Bill Hicks, Noam Chomsky and numerous other niche interests. Their place (and mine) as relating to the means of production really isn't none too important.

I have another good friend (proudly Northern English and working class) who is a hexagenarian Orthodox Christian who shares my fondness for Dostoyevsky. I always like to pump her for gossip about Ennismore Gardens. So much for 'religion' v liberalism. I can't imagine my petit-bourgeois east coast forebears would like me keeping such company.

What really strikes me most is how mainstream Anglo-Saxon culture really was in a bit of a cul-de-sac in the mid 20th Century. Like a lot of teenagers I read 'A Clockwork Orange' as a teenager. Then had the slightly surreal experience of looking out other Anthony Burgess novels and discovering appalling, flatulent, middle-brow works with laughable delusions of profundity. Yet he regarded ACO as an embarrassment and thought his widely praised middle class middle brow snoreathons were where it was really at.

And he was one of the better writers. Who now could stay awake reading Iris Murdoch, John Braine or Kingsley Amis?

And the music. Please, let's not talk about white Anglo-Saxon music in the early 20th Century. What's that? The only guy who ever tried had his tongue cut out and thrown to a pool of piranhas? OK.

But then, there is the great irony that African-American culture (an oppressed people who had been largely neglected by their government) had a really huge impact on post-war Britain. Until I spent time with my elderly relative it never really occurred to me just how vastly alien this culture must have seemed to early-21st Century Brits, given that they'd probably guess someone was foreign if they didn't like warm beer or if they drunk coffee. I'm sure numerous German spies must have been rumbled after setting the toaster TOO high or TOO low.

One thing that struck me as weird, seeing a documentary about Enoch Powell, was how calm and quiet a lot of his fans were in contrast to the contorted English Defence Leaguers. I couldn't help feeling they weren't too bothered that Indians would import Sutti or Thuggees. It was more like they were worried they might have haddock rather than roast lamb for Sunday lunch. Or maybe drink tea that was TOO strong for Blighty.

I guess whilst they can't help but be paradoxically humbled by their mountainous reputations, Lennon and MacCartney must have decided that black musicians showed a way out of the world of corned beef and steak and kidney pie (though speaking of post war cuisine, there seems another paradox that the generation that hated vegetables seemed to love that most unlovable of vegetables: the brussel sprout).

And then there was also the cinema. Quite something to think of how few years separated Night of the Living Dead from The Guns of Navarone. Yet this was another aspect of popular culture which really threw some pretty exhilarating ideas to the population.

Even on the one issue where my views would be regarded as 'right wing' (despite the fact they are more prevalent in working class Catholic rather than Middle Class East Anglian culture due to lack of interest in Britain's own recent history, obsession with the USA and secular anti-intellectualism) which is my view that unborn children have right to life, pro-abortion legislation was largely voted in by the post-war generation and something of a formality anyway given that backstreet abortion clinics were widely tolerated.

In saying these things I don't take back what I've said previously that I think modern popular culture has lost the way: that films like 'Saw' and 'music' or 'TV' involving Simon Cowell are a betrayal of any ideas or ideals that popular culture often claims for itself. Our younger rock stars seem more white and middle class than UKIP. As for the older ones, whilst I acknowledge that the fox-hunting ban is hypocritical given the existence of factory farming, I do find something vaguely dubious about the Countryside Alliance lineups given that they were howling with rage against the haves not so long ago.

For all that I am grateful that pop culture kicked down so many doors. And, though it is difficult to admit this, I am sort-of grateful for SOME aspects of consumerism: even though I suspect that modern day fans of 70s slasher picks could have congregated quite well without Norman Tebbit, thank you very much.

The question as always is 'what must be done'? I think it is tragic that so much of the good things about the post-war-settlement are declining. But will my generation be able to do anything about it? I feel optimistic in a sense. Not wildly so, but I do have some optimism.

Irrational Atheists

2011-02-05T02:31:00.000-08:00

Whilst I'm pleased that Philip Pullman is speaking up for the library service, I could have done without the glaring historical error in his first paragraph:

'others have hacked into theirs like the fanatical Bishop Theophilus in the year 391 laying waste to the Library of Alexandria and its hundreds of thousands of books of learning and scholarship'.

Ok, I suppose what I really meant was I dislike the bigotry, but find it interesting that a myth from Georgian England, itself one of the most intolerant societies on earth, has resurfaced in a spokesman for rationality and liberalism.

Similarly the myth of Hypatia (pictured above in a Victorian artist's conception of her 65 year old birthday suit) was nurtured in a conservative era of British history. I've heard they've recently made a film about her about which I know little but I think I can guess if she is stripped of her clothes she won't be acted by a 65 year old*. Hypocrisy easily leaps from generation to generation.

Similarly the self-righteous bigoted pseudo-history of devout philistines destroying the priceless pagan heritage of southern Europe was inherited from Georgians and Victorians (whose own societies owed much of their learning and knowledge of the classical world from Byzantine exiles in Italy) by our modern atheists who are both theoretically and practically wrong about the relationship between early Christianity and the Classical world. Johann Hari similarly writes about the Christian destruction of the Alexandrian Library and the works of Sappho without seeming to realise the irony that someone who blabs cliches about free thought and empirical research is just going along with un-researched Victorian cliches which are wrong in theory and practice.

Theoretically they are wrong because they write as if the 1st Millenium Christians had the works of Darwin, Einstein and Bohrs at hand but decided that they'd have to burn all this stuff, and all that Aristotle and Plato rubbish as well. Or as St Andrew's History of Mathematics puts it:

'What certainly seems indisputable is that she was murdered by Christians who felt threatened by her scholarship, learning, and depth of scientific knowledge'

This definitely maybe certainly seems a load of rubbish from an entirely secular viewpoint. Both theoretically it is wrong and practically it is wrong. Not only did the Ancient Byzantines copy the works of the Ancients, but they also incorporated their style and ideas by osmosis because this was science at the time. Is this more similar to Protagoras or Genesis? And I don't think Apostolic Christians have ever feared science in its purest sense of empirical research. Drawing any very coherent philosophy or ethos from science is an entirely different issue.

And even then, do they know when and where the earliest parchments of the Ancient Texts originate? If they think that 2,500 year old manuscripts of these texts have been dug up by archaeologists then give me the comparatively modest claims of the 'new chronologists' any time.
Of course there is a great irony that that great pagan defense of savage censorship, The Republic, was copied by Christians.

And relatedly they are very wrong if they think that pagan Greece and Rome were paragons of any kind of virtue. Aesthetically I'm fairly pagan in my tastes, but orange vases and Corinthian architecture doth not an ideal society make. Yet I don't think that many of the 'new atheists' can escape from the solipsist worlds they inhabit to even imagine a perfect world.

*Quick check: Rachel Weisz, born 1970. Quarter of a century too young.

The Quiet Canary?

2011-01-29T07:09:00.001-08:00

Has anyone seen any major headlines about Boris Johnson since he said he'd prevent his Bullingdon chums from 'ethnically cleansing' Greater London?

I haven't. That's not to say that there aren't any, but like the dog in Sherlock Holmes, there's something notable about Boris keeping his big gob so quiet. And incidentally, had anyone heard anything from Boris in the months before he presented himself as the Archon of Greater London who would save his minions from the very party he belongs to?

After all, he should have plenty to brag about shouldn't he? Surely he's been turning his demesne from an apparatchik controlled briar-wasteland into a golden meadow of creativity and innovation? Surely his feifdom is now a veritable taedifer for the wisdom of economic liberalism, an effulgent acropolis of Reagan-Thatcher conservatism?

Well, no. As for the favourite saw of the libertarian right that financial freedom results in political freedom, one of the Pericles inspired Bullingdon boy's first tasks was to increase CCTV surveillance to public transport and ban drinking on trains.

Does that remind you of one of his brothers in arms who likes to rail against 'big government'?

Whilst London's finest seem to have realised that truncheoning someone who's walking away with their hands in their pockets is none too clever, the Metropolitan Police still kettle protestors.

And surely the city is a great demonstration of the wisdom of how unregulated capitalism works so well away from government interference? Well...

In short, has Boris achieved anything, either in his own terms or anyone else's? Or does the insipid blend of economic liberalism that these posh guys imbibed in the '80s just result in confusion in reality, when it's discovered John Galt doesn't exist and Promethean geniuses don't quadruple the GDP overnight when a few social services are slashed?

Frankly, I think his comments re housing (apparently aimed at Cameron and Osborne, but probably most uncomfortable for Nick Clegg: being attacked FROM THE LEFT by Conrad Black's erstwhile dauphin; take that 'real progressive' party) were a sign that Boris knows that the platform he was elected on was largely unviable and so is the coalition. No doubt he wishes it WAS but after the media spewed three years of unmitigated hatred at Gordon Brown, Labour did surprisingly well in old Londinium. No doubt he wishes that he was likely to be re-elected based on his original platform, but he knows that's not going to happen either.

As Ed Miliband has long been in the lead, according to many opinion polls, it is likely that the same thing is happening nationwide. But will Cameron listen to his Bullingdon canary? Or is he deaf to the ominous silence?

The Watership Down Generation?

2011-01-16T03:38:00.000-08:00

I'm afraid that postings are going to be pretty scarce for a while, due to work and caring for a relative. But I wanted to share an epiphany that I had when suffering from flu induced delirium. Like quite a lot of people of my age (born early 80s) I have a bit of a thing about 70s culture. Perhaps, quoting Foucault's Pendulum, everyone believes themselves to have been born just a bit too late.

But I sometimes wonder if this fillum which, uhm, indelibly marked a lot of 80s sprogs so perfectly refined the 70s Zeitgeist that it left us with a collective consciousness that was enstamped by the preceding decade?

Yeah, there was social democracy, a lack of Brit wars, vibrant rock music, old Ted giving the finger to Israel, lots of other good stuff from a lefty perspective. But frankly, most cultural figures were none to chuffed with the post-war status quo; using lefty rhetoric they helped pave the way for the hard right economic system that prevailed ever since.

But anyway, back to the film in question, like a lot of kids my age I somehow got to watch loads of 18s before I was 8. In case any nosey parkers are reading and hoping to prosecute, I don't have a clue how or who to blame. All I know is that I saw Terminator, Rambo and Red Dawn in childhood, but none of these left anything like as deep an impact on me as the sight of anthropomorphic bunny rabbits being torn to shreds, gassed and generally behaving like little bastards towards each other.

Perhaps this sounds like the rants of a weirdo, but two of my contemporaries entirely agree with me. There's no android getting crushed by a machine or Ivans getting taken out cathertically. Oh no, even when the nasty bunny gets owned by the dog, the goodies can only hop off to somewhere else that the black rabbit is lurking. What a way of introducing kids to the concept of death.

And what a flippin' existentialist work it was as well. And then there's the pure 70s aesthetic. Look at that shade of red-brown the bunny rabbits were. Surely that ochre/ sienna could only have existed before 1st Jan 1980? Judging from photographs of the 70s, it was always 7.00 PM in Summer or 3.00PM in Winter and the sunlight was always shining through dirty plastic. Of course, this is an animation but still captures that orange filter effect.

Furthermore, the whole warren thing: was this an attack on the communal aspects of the 70s?

Anyone else felt simultaneously traumatised and enlightened by this work?

Throwing the Fight

2011-01-06T05:40:00.000-08:00

The always excellent Neil Clark writes about Auberon Waugh, and stimulates some interesting comments about an alliance between the paleo-cons and left wingers.

My own view, however, is that the old right in Britain really WANTS to lose in a strange way, and in their opposition to neo-cons/ neo-liberals, there is actually a profound agreement to disagree.

During the reign of Charles I, which saw a great growth in architecture and aesthetics, people commonly observed that those who supported High Church Episcopalianism were lukewarm whilst those who hated it were passionate. This seems a certain paradox of British culture: that there is a kind of ferociously proselytising ugliness combined with an esoteric hoarding of beauty. In Scotland itself, much of the Reformation era vandalism was actually carried out by Catholic nobility, hoping to line their pockets in a time of chaos.

And today in Scotland, there are many palladian estates huddled behind conifer groves and sandstone walls, whilst brash plutocrats want their phallic brutalist eyesores to be as prominent as possible.

And indeed, it is the same with politics. The paleo-cons failed very spectacularly throughout the 20th Century to try and develop a universalist alternative from the Graco-Roman world to either Marxism or market fanaticism. Surely through having near hegemony of the classics departments they could have come up with something more than timid conservatism?

Just look by contrast at the drivelling of the historically ignorant neo-cons and neo-liberals who are entirely certain that there is no alternative to concrete malls. There are many for whom fried cow's rectum is as great an affirmation of modern Western progress as the basillica was for the Romans or the railways were for the British Empire. Adoring ugliness, being profoundly vulgar and lacking imagination are not obstacles to messianic zeal, but more likely preconditions.

Even in faith, the Church of England has been dismal at reaching out the to the people. Whilst it becomes increasingly decrepit, fundamentalist Christianity grows in tandem with white conversion to Islam.

And in art, the free market has free reign to revel in the ugly. The utter rubbish that changes hands is all we ever hear about. Whilst paleo-cons (in common with some old leftists) might enjoy huffing and puffing over how utterly crap it is, the truth is that there seems little drive to make great works of art more accessible to people through broadcasting.

It is unfortunate that the modern left generally speaking is no more Fabian than the right. The teachings of William Morris should be of interest both to genuine conservatives and genuine leftists. But instead they are neglected by both.

Just as gold and diamonds partially owe their value to their very scarcity, I doubt if the British old right really wants to share beauty, ethos or culture. If you see the scarcity of these things as a part of their value, then I suspect you could do worse than join forces with the Thatcherites.

Outspoken Contrarian with Cancer

2011-01-04T08:11:00.000-08:00

No, not the Fox News warmonger, but Brian Haw. Someone who had no contacts in the media, no financial backing and yet who really stood up against the thuggery of modern Britain's political/media establishing, making his voice heard in the rain and cold.

Let's hope there will be a 'Pray for Brian Haw' day.

The Road to Serfdom

2011-01-04T07:52:00.000-08:00

Presuming that book that the Tories banged on about in the '80s was a 'how to' guide, then you'd have to say they've chosen the blueprint well.

-Millions of skilled jobs are going to go. If they're lucky the people who will be fired might get to do unskilled labour, stacking shelves in Tescos or Sainsbury's.
-Plans are afoot to privatise 100% of England's forests to keep the dirty poor people out
-Whilst Squire Cameron hates big government (meaning paying people to do skilled labour which the free market cannot provide and getting him to hand over small change to look after poor people) this isn't to say he's too fussy about anti-terrorism officers stopping his subjects from getting uppity.
-VAT is to rise whilst our ultra-rich plutocrats can continue to exploit tax loopholes.
-200,000 low income Brits are set to be expelled from the nation's capital.

Still, I guess that economic freedom and political freedom goes together, and the trickle down effect keeps income inequality from getting too bad.

All I Want for Christmas

2010-12-26T03:12:00.000-08:00

Thanks to all readers and those who've commented.

A few petitions worth signing:

Save Britain's (especially England's) forests:
http://blog.38degrees.org.uk/tag/save-our-forests/

And stop Donald Trump from ruining a unique ecosystem:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/thebunker

And get the wealthy to pay their taxes:

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/osborne-pay-your-taxes#petition

I'll be away for a few days, but have a happy festive period everyone.

Cheap Shot

2010-12-19T05:50:00.000-08:00

I like cheap clothes, so much so that I only buy them in charity shops. But found the J'accuse finger pointing at 'cheap' clothes in today's Observer.

For this Observer lefty, Gap and Topshop are 'cheap fashion'. Flippin eck, I like to think that buying in charity shops is a way of opting out of the system (nothing to do with being Aberdonian, honest), but I probably wouldn't be able to afford 'cheap' clothes as defined by the Metropolitan media.

As is usually the case, in smug atheist sermons, it is always 'we' and 'us' who buy cheap clothes. Meaning of course poor people whom 'we' despise.

But here's an idea: why don't all the metropolitan luvvies start subsidising textile cooperatives or offer to take poor people to the tailor's to get kitted out?

Or is lambasting poor people as slave drivers for buying stuff from rich people really the best you can do?

White Magic

2010-12-18T02:40:00.000-08:00

When I started this blog, I hoped to write more about Eastern Orthodoxy. It is ironic that Brits are bombarded with anti-Christian propaganda focussed largely on fundamentalists in America, when the very liberals who shudder with horror at Palin's support for Intelligent Design or 'The Decider's' Methodist faith, share so many of their basic tenets: that there is little room for beauty or culture, that poor people should fend for themselves, that white people who speak English should enjoy a special place in the world, there is no alternative to liberalism or fundamentalist protestantism, an open horror that Russia's president is surrounded by 'cowled figures' (to quote a certain New Atheist, who presumably thinks 'dog collared figures' would be a lot less offensive).

However, I think it is more difficult to write about being an Orthodox Christian, largely because it is a very complex faith with a strong apophatic tradition. I believe in Christ the Redeemer, the Holy Trinity, His Resurrection. But I have no interest whatsoever in trying to draw lessons in biology or physics from the Old Testament or in feeling superior to other people based on faith.

For me Orthodoxy is something to be experienced, like art or scenery and I expect the same is true for Christians in other Apostolic traditions. Perhaps it is for this reason that I find this story a profound work of Christian art, perhaps as much for what isn't in it, than what is. There is no good v evil plot, no hero, no miracles. I especially love the following exchange:

'Besides, you have no business to be an unbeliever. You ought to stand for all the things these stupid people call superstitions. Come now, don’t you think there’s a lot in those old wives’ tales about luck and charms and so on, silver bullets included? What do you say about them as a Catholic?’

‘I say I’m an agnostic,’ replied Father Brown, smiling.

Another exchange illuminates Chesterton's outlook:

‘Oh, yes,’ replied Father Brown, ‘I believe in the Devil. What I don’t believe in is the Dundee. I mean the Dundee of Covenanting legends, with his nightmare of a horse. John Graham was simply a seventeenth-century professional soldier, rather better than most. If he dragooned them it was because he was a dragoon, but not a dragon. Now my experience is that it’s not that sort of swaggering blade who sells himself to the Devil. The devil-worshippers I’ve known were quite different. Not to mention names, which might cause a social flutter, I’ll take a man in Dundee’s own day. Have you ever heard of Dalrymple of Stair?’

‘No,’ replied the other gruffly.

‘You’ve heard of what he did,’ said Father Brown, ‘and it was worse than anything Dundee ever did; yet he escapes the infamy by oblivion. He was the man who made the Massacre of Glencoe. He was a very learned man and lucid lawyer, a statesman with very serious and enlarged ideas of statesmanship, a quiet man with a very refined and intellectual face. That’s the sort of man who sells himself to the Devil.’

Chesterton's Stuart sympathies weren't popular in Edwardian England, nor would they be popular now. Despite the raw bigotry of the Whigs, the Orangites and Hanoverians, it is the Stuarts who are hated for their lack of regard for Parliament and the Protestant faith. There is no irony that William of Orange was a friend of Parliament and he signed orders to authorise the massacre of an entire village. Human ethics can, and will, justfiy anything. So much for the Glorious Revolution, which militant atheists probably admire as much as any Orangeman.

No matter how much Britain has changed, or tells itself it has changed, Chesterton's Stuart message* has probably never had as hostile an audience as the current neo-liberal media coalition.

Still, maybe the ever more evident bankruptcy of this ideology will lead to British people casting it off forever.

(* It has to be added that Chesterton was far from being an angel and did demonstrate signs of anti-Semitism; but even then, his romanticism and Christian distributism were very interesting ideals).

Rats on the Sinking Ship

2010-12-12T01:48:00.000-08:00

Neo-liberals tend to have a very limited number of historical reference points: Hitler and Stalin are pretty much the only historical figures to cut it, but boy, do they like using these metaphors. Chavez in Venezuela, Ahmedinjad in Iran, Putin in Russia: Hitlerstalins all of them.

The thing is there actually is a bloke in Russia who admires Nazism and Stalinism: his name is Eduard Limonov and Western neo-liberals are surprisingly indulgent towards him. His party's flag is on top of this page. Hardly something you'd imagine the self-righteous Putin-hating Graun to be very indulgent toward.

But just read this piece of drivel about the 'possible future leader of Russia' (who would be lucky to get 5% of the vote).

The interview was carried out by Marc Bennetts. I know very little about Marc Bennetts, but I do know he's the sort of person that makes me embarrassed to be British; a sub-David Mitchell awkward square, albeit one who desperately wants to show his street cred. In just a few paragraphs he writes: 'Limonov may insist that his pogo-ing days are far behind him, but when I ask him if he believes he has a real chance of becoming president there is something distinctly punk rock about his answer' and 'I can't help but point out.' Can't you actually? But don't worry Marc, you is one cool dude, what with your reference to

'Sex Pistol-era Johnny Rotten's use of the swastika to unnerve middle England also springs to mind, but neither musician has yet to enter politics'

Being honest, I actually felt modestly impressed by Limonov's dismissal of his 70s experience of New York popular culture. Perhaps, unlike many middle class squares in Britain, he realises that the days pop culture had any power to shock or rebel are long past. Just look at how his tirade affects a compatriot of The Beatles:

"In Russia, fortunately, the people still have some barbarian spirit. But Europeans and Americans are just dying, sick invalids." He looks across the table at me for a reaction. I sympathise with what he is saying: while life in Russia may not be easy, it is, at least, never dull. But something stops me agreeing with him, and instead I voice an ironic, "Thanks."

This really sets out the Jekyll and Hyde duality of our political class. On one hand, they are feeble and flinching, unable to offer more than weak sarcasm in response to a tirade. On the other hand, they seem to have a weakness for 'barbarians'. Just think of all the public schoolboys who fawned over 'macho' George W Bush because he lived on a farm and declared war on Iraq. By contrast most Russians are happier with their dwarfish lawyer President than with a Nazi-Bolshevik.

Perhaps the saddest thing is how Garry Kasparov's coalition which involves both Limonov and Yeltsin's crew of economy wreckers overshadows real dissent in Russia. According to some reports Anna Politkovskaya (a real heroic dissident) suspected that many of the liberals were actually in league with the Kremlin. If the United Russia party really wanted an ideal strawman, they couldn't do better than Limonov. But then, The Guardian would probably be kinder to the Fascist-Bolshevik strawman than to an authoritarian but popular and patriotic leadership, seeing him as 'Putin's worst enemy' rather than 'Putin's dream opponent'.

Leaking Stupidity

2010-12-03T10:35:00.000-08:00

For those who believe Wikileaks to be a massive anti-climax of gossip and hearsay, one completely surprising side-effect is to prove beyond any doubt that Russia is becoming a totalitarian dystopia under the perpetual role of Adolf Hitlerstalin Putin.

On the day in which a website published documents revealing that an American ambassador speculated negatively about the state of Russian politics, the Russian media was deafeningly silent about the news.

"Russia is obviously stepping backwards", Johny Wright-Wynge, a left-wing journalist announced. "I mean, here they have an excellent opportunity to lie in the snow in a flea infested hair shirt and implore people who speak English to flog them for their shortcomings, and then maybe ask for mercy. But they've passed it up! Truly Russia is a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

'I mean, hey, I supported the Iraq war. It didn't go right. But really, if you think the sight of daft hicks sicing attack dogs on bare naked Iraqi civilians means that we don't have the upper hand, morally speaking, then you're living on another planet and I can only pity you.

'And, yeah, you know, I'm left wing; I think that Sex and the City is the greatest TV ever and Desperate Housewives is great, and cocaine good, Christianity bad, but you know, the Slav untermensch need to get their shit together, or we leftists'll kick ass. Or send some squaddies to get their arms and legs blown off. That always makes me feel cool about myself.'

Wright's comments were echoed by Fomenko Unkltomovitch who accepted to be interviewed in exchange for a packet of dog biscuits. Fomenko has been banned from working for the Russian media: a failure he attributes to his dislike of Vladimir Putin. Fomenko affirmed the significance of Russia's deafening silence and spoke to a Guardian journalist in flawless broken English and sycophantic platitudes "Yes, Russia is, uh, run by zuh gangster, uh, oligarchs. It is uh, megabig crime, vich ve are very sorry for. Ve can only hope zat ze vestern leaders see zeir senses and, uh, get behind Boris Berezovksy and uh, Mikhail Kho-dorkoh-vsky, uh, to clean up zee Russia and to, as you say, save it from zuh crooked oligarchs who uh doing so much damaging. As Khodorkovsky, ah said, in Russia ve sink British people are very clever, and zere is even folk song on subject, ve very sorry if Britain not like in folksong'.

For managing to struggle with 'Khodorkovsky' despite its being a Russian name, Fomenko was given a chew toy as a bonus prize. In return he offered to dress up as a cossack and sing about how wise British people are, but we feared for his safety in such an event.

Te Graunian, the left-wing newspaper of international influence, which is instrumental in forming American foreign policy informed the world of the need to 'reset American-Russian relations'. President Barack Obama is said to have written immediately to he Garudn to ask specifically what steps to take and immediately called Airforce One to take him to London. The article was cunningly encrypted to read like contradictory, pointless waffle with a touch of sabre-rattling to compensate for FIFA's decision to hold the 2018 world cup anywhere but England. However, this is a mere ruse to throw the NKVD off the scent.

the chief Gaurdin editor and President Obama's chief Russian affairs advisor spoke gravely of the necessity of media freedom.
"When I read the leaked messages, I was dressed up in a white sheet and banging a gong to warn the British people that the time of the beast is at hand: that Rupert Murdoch's filthy right wing paws are going to seize even more of the British media. I mean, the way media freedom works is that we publish alarmist editorials about scary foreigners and they publish alarmist editorials about scary foreigners and we publish editorials about the dangers of big government and they publish editorials about the dangers of big government. We both share the view that people who speak English have the innate moral superiority over those who don't and that nationalisation is bad, but it's important we do it for different reasons'.

(Sorry if this is utter crap, but I really couldn't begin to try and 'debate' te Graun's idiotic treatment of wikileaks. Yes, Russia has its problems and I would much rather see an economically left-wing civil-libertarian leader. but WTF do the current Western governments have to offer Russia aside from oligarchs, unquestioning support for Chechen terrorists and bombs in their parliament?)

Second Sight

2010-11-27T08:09:00.000-08:00

The old second sight must be coming back to me, because as soon as I read this article, I guessed that Hitch won the audience because (well, let's be frank) only fanatical atheists would be sad enough to watch a 'debate' between two dopey, half-crazed, war-mongering pseudo-intellectuals.

And blow me down, was I not right:

'Throughout the 90-minute debate Hitchens seemed to have the crowd's sympathy. That might have been to do with his ill appearance due to cancer, but was far more likely to be down to the sharpness of his verbal barbs and the fact that 57% of the audience already agreed with his sceptical position according to a pre-debate poll, while just 22% agreed with Blair's side. The rest were undecided.'

Don't get me wrong. I don't doubt for one second that Hitchens wiped the floor with Blair. But then, who couldn't (aside from Tory party leaders that is)? Surely the most interesting fact is that both men have such astounding arrogance and that belief plays such a large role in both lives: they are twins arguing over shadows.

And this, incidentally, is one of very many reasons I would have no interest in seeing Tony Blair debating. For me to appreciate belief you have to appreciate reason, research and logic.

Then there's also the fact that he sees himself as a paragon of Christian virtue after the 'dodgy' dossier. The thing is, we Christians can afford to be choosy. Given how long Hitchens has been lauded by the humanist fanatics, I wonder if they could say the same?

Updates

2010-11-20T03:46:00.000-08:00

Hi Folks
I've not had much time for the old blog recently, due to being away from the internet. But a quick roundup.

New Blog

Regular commenter and friend of this site, John, now has his own blog and very good it appears to be as well. It focuses on economics and cooperatives and is very well researched and full of interesting references.

Animal Rights, Logical Wrongs

You'd normally think that someone who brags about eating at Macdonalds would be someone highly unlikely to take animal welfare seriously. Or for that matter to think that anyone would respect their views on that topic.

But you would be unfamiliar with Johann Hari, who as per usual suffers no doubts that he has both the moral high ground and an unquestioning audience who will gulp down his every word.

I think sadly he is correct on the second one. As it is, I'm against Kosher and Halal slaughtering, and don't need the words of someone who stuffs their face with battery farmed chicken to bring me to this conclusion. But when you are sure of your own rightness as Hari is, the suffering of people is as beside the point as the suffering of animals:

'You can cry that we are "persecuting" you if we stop you committing acts of cruelty if you want.

It's what the religious – Christian, Jew and Muslim alike – did when we stopped you tormenting women and gays and anybody else you could get your hands on. One of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is that the howls you will hear are from the Men of God.'

Really? So glad to hear that Soviet Russia, Vietnam and Cambodia achieved such pinnacles of human kindness. And of course Iraq is no doubt becoming more kind now that Christians are getting massacred, courtesy of an invasion Hari supported. Still, this will be beside the point for the hysterical New Atheists who share so much in common with the American fundamentalists who can turn their eyes from the misdeeds of their televangelist heroes to revel in self-righteousness.

Been so Long

Neo-conservatism has the unlikely advantage that it makes so many gross errors that audiences struggle to keep track of them. Everyone knows Iraq was a disaster, but, uhm, that place in Europe they invaded over a decade ago, guess that must have been a righteous war since we hear so little about it, right? Wrong.

Blog Announcement

2010-10-25T09:50:00.000-07:00

I've recently been helping look after an elderly relative in a place with no internet access, and will need to help out for quite a while. Thanks to everyone for commenting; I hope to return to the blogosphere sometime.

Talk to the Hand

2010-10-17T12:29:00.000-07:00

As mentioned in my last post, I've gone done been bad and my CiF comments are being monitored: purely because I pointed out what a joke Rusbridger's scare tactics about Rupert Murdoch were. Seems that for all Rusbridger's talk of bouncing ideas around, etc., The Guardian only wanted ideas that flattered their editorial board.

Now I come across this. Johann Hari's twitter feed (largely devoted to flattering other journalists) advises people not to read comments on the Independent website, because they are all written by 'lunatics'. And this is the guy who attacks 'the religious' because they allegedly don't like listening to stuff they don't want to hear.

It seems to me that the mainstream left-wing media are utterly cut off from any kind of feedback and remarkably unintelligent in their inability to adapt to the changing electronic media.

The Snowball Effect

2010-10-12T01:30:00.000-07:00

Things are looking bleak for Britain according to Alan Rusbridger. Comrade Snowball has his snout in the trough and may soon get even more power and influence in the media, animals be warned!

Uhm, warned of what? That articles attacking 'big government' might be published? That he might publish all sorts of drivel about the United Russia party (or 'Vladimir Putin' to use the shorthand). I wrote on the comments section that as long as the Guardian continues publishing drivel by Julian Glover as one of its chief Op Ed writers, and as long as its Russia affairs are the domain of Luke Harding, then I frankly don't care how much media presence Murdoch has. One economically right wing, foreign policy militant, socially liberal publication barely differs from the other.

And guess what? They deleted my comments and now I'm being moderated. I find that really is quite laughable. Julian Glover has an idealistic view of the free market precisely because his chums are shielding him from consumerist ideas such as customer feedback.

If Te Graun really wants to frighten its readers that Snowball is at large and will crush Social Democracy, they really are going about it the wrong way.

Imagine if this Happened in Russia

2010-10-10T12:18:00.000-07:00

If an officer who knew a bit about military affairs bravely spoke the truth about an unpopular war brought about by blundering politicians and Putin said
"We thought for a moment about sacking him, but concluded that that would just make him into a martyr,"

Methinks liberals might not be quite so sycophantic but would deliver plenty of sermons about freedom of speech in Russia.

The wages of sin?

2010-10-06T06:39:00.000-07:00

Came across this comment on Youtube:

'Perhaps you are a old barmaid that does know Hitch and can confirm that certain parts of his body are in fact, fat and greasy. A double shot of the Hitch magic ? It all makes sense now 42 D.'

Ugh, how grim is that? The thing is that the cheek-hens think he's a bit crap. But I don't think this will stop a generation of frustrated men from delighting in his musky animal magnetism.

When We Were Social Democrats

2010-10-01T10:57:00.000-07:00

Whilst I don't like to idealise any type of society or overstate the influence of an economic system on the psychology of the people, it does strike me as interesting that before we were diverted from the road to serfdom, Britain showed resilience against terrorism that seems astounding to someone who has lived through the hysterical 'war on terror' in neo-liberal privatisation-mad Britain. From Simon Jenkins in The Guardian:

'In the mid-1970s, the Provisional IRA staged some 50 explosions in London, subjecting the city to far greater mayhem than today. Somehow we survived without the gargantuan counter-terror apparatus in place today. The bombing campaign came nowhere near toppling the British government or infringing the liberty of the state.'

Well, some Irish Catholic immigrants might not have felt that the British state was a model of liberty at the time and it would be ridiculous to ignore the very real human rights abuses that the state carried out against many innocent Irish people. However, it does seem to me that the British government overall did handle the IRA terror threat with a certain level-headedness. As a historian, I'm often interested in how Heath and Wilson will be remembered. Those who lived during their time seem to have remarkably low opinions of them (it is notable that Jenkins treats the attitudes of the time as common-sense without praising Heath or Wilson). Perhaps this is bi-fold: firstly social democracy may be more appealing as a dream than as a reality. Secondly, I think that the boomer generation spent so much time hating authority with values, that they would be hard pushed to recognise that we've gone backwards.

Be that as it may, I do think that history will be more generous to the people they fought against and criticised than it will be to those they supported and who are now destroying what their parents struggled for.

Ask Not What Essex Man Can Do For You

2010-09-26T11:08:00.000-07:00

I tend to avoid CiF, but got so miffed with Julian Glover's awful articles, I wrote a post today which got 81 recommends, facetious and daft though the post was.

Seems to me that the tide is turning against neo-liberalism.

What really gets me is just how desperate many on the 'neo-liberal left' as it were, are to save far right economic policies. Just look at this. 'Britain's in Love with the coalition' apparently. Ok, maybe a vast percentage of lib dem voters have regretted their decision, and the cuts haven't come into place yet, but lots of metropolitan journos love the coalition, so nuff said.

'One of the biggest reasons for Labour's failure at the last election and for its significant losses in the Midlands and the south-east was its failure to retain the votes of a particular group of voters, termed by companies like Experian as "Happy Families". These families tend to live in new-build housing, many have got young children, have a household annual income of £20,000 to £30,000 and are cash and time poor. They depend heavily on their car and really feel the pinch when petrol prices rise. They are utterly demanding of opportunities for their children and want the very best in terms of service provision. They increasingly expect public services to be tailored to them in the same ways private sector companies like Amazon fit around their needs. While they account for 10% of the total population, in southern marginals like Milton Keynes South, they account for nearly 40% of the electorate.'

The hard electoral arithmetic is that if you don't win with this group, you can't win.'

In other words, try to appeal to the most selfish instincts of lower middle class east Anglians and you'll win? Sounds an ideal policy. After all that's how Atlee got in isn't it? He told a few thousand East Anglians that they'd have some more dough in the kitty if they voted fat boy out? And that's how Harold Wilson won a string of elections?

The truth is that Britain is at an impasse. Neo-liberalism has failed. But what is to come next? I personally believe that Social Democracy is the solution. But will there be a force to articulate this? The money for 'progressive' causes seems all to go towards socially liberal AND economically liberal media sources.

It is mad that our country has such a narrow spectrum of political opinion. Yet I suppose the neo-liberals have something which no tyranny has had: a political and media establishment with a near complete consensus on economic and foreign policy. Given the mood of resentment NOW and Ireland's double dip recession from their slashing spending, I feel certain that some oposition will come up. But I can't guarantee it will be as pretty as social democracy.

What does it benefit a country if it polices the world and loses its soul

2010-09-19T02:51:00.000-07:00

Whilst I think the current Tory party are a sinister bunch of idealogues, and their lib dem lapdogs far more odious (because they immediately betrayed their election pledges), one positive outcome has been that I've noticed a marked decrease in Russophobia in the Brit media and political discourse.

Too little apparently for 'democracy' advocate Mikhail Khodorkovsky, AKA Russia's most unpopular man. This billionaire was sent to the poky for illegal dealings, resulting in his becoming immensely wealthy when other Russians were famished.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad to see Khodorkovsky idealising Britain as a land of 'democracy'. Just look at Nick Clegg's selling out, and The Observer's response:

'But read today's brilliant Observer leading article for an explanation of why Clegg is hugging the Tories close instead. He's not stupid. He's not a Tory in disguise. He's being brave and smart.'

Yes, it was very brave and smart of Clegg to tell voters that he opposed the Tories cuts in the run up to the election then totally support the Tory cuts when he was elected. If you ask me 'brave' isn't an adequately flattering term; he deserves a medal for being so heroic.

Glover later patronises a commentor:

'Oh - and if Tories are Tories and Blair is a Tory and Clegg is also a Tory then you will wait a long time for an election not to be won with a majority by "a Tory".

Labour did it in 1945, 1950, 1966, 1974 (just) - any others recently...? Perhaps it's just that voters like leaders you see as Tories.'

Yes, except that people voted for Labour to keep the Tories out and the coalition only squeezed in because the Lib Dems ran as a party far to the left of their current position.

It just sickens me what a country Britain has turned into. It isn't just that laudatory epithets are heaped upon dishonest plutocrats, but that they are done so with evident sincerity.

Unintended Consequences

2010-09-14T09:30:00.000-07:00

I feel very reluctant to write anything about The Pope's state visit to Britain. As a pastoral visit I am pleased and feel supportive for his traditional theology, his courage in fighting against relativism and the encouragement it will probably give to the British Catholics. As a 'state visit' I'm not so sure. This is primarily because there is a lot I don't really get about Catholic culture. For those who're baptised Orthodox, things are pretty simple: you're an Orthodox Christian if you say the creed and receive the sacraments. You're a culturally-Orthodox agnostic if you go to the occasional service to listen to the divine liturgy and meet people but can't recite the creed or receive the sacraments. And you're not Orthodox if you don't go to the services and hate the faith.

Perhaps because there doesn't seem to be such a thing as a 'lapsed Orthodox', I'll never get articles like this. 'I was baptised Catholic, I don't believe in God, couldn't recite the creed or receive the sacraments, but that's not to say it's none of my business. If I did go to church then I might not go to the church because I don't agree with the Pope so I'm entitled to be patronising towards people who do go to church and receive communion because I wouldn't agree with them if I did go to church even though I don't go to church and wouldn't go to church even if they did things the way I want them to'.

And because Benedict XVI is being invited on a state visit as a cultural figure, I don't really know what to make of it given that many people who feel affiliated with his culture don't seem to have much affiliation for the whole religion thing.

It's not entirely surprising that Johann Hari claimed that he got lots of praise from 'Catholics' for his piece of drivel here. Those who remember those 'secular cards' where white atheists use wisdom and rationality might want to read this. Or maybe even Hari's own links, which demonstrate that he's speaking drivel.

Speaking of which, Poly Toynbee tries to outdo him. I'm not sure which one of these intellectual midgets coined the term 'the religious', or indeed if either of them were (ahem) 'clever' enough to do so. But Toynbee plays it for all it's worth. Though she says something oddly illuminating:

'On Friday he meets the Archbishop of Canterbury, who ought to send him off with a flea in his ear for trying to seduce over to Rome Church of England clergy opposed to women bishops. His beatification of Cardinal Newman for converting to Catholicism is an affront, along with his claim that Britain's Equalities Act "violates natural law" for banning discrimination against women and gays.'

In case anyone doesn't get the politics of Anglicanism, I don't either really. But it generally breaks down to this: some Anglicans are Protestants who think that ministers are just people in general; other Anglicans are Apostolic and believe that the Priesthood is a succession carried down from Christ through men. Subsequently, a lot of the Apostolic Anglicans want to leave the Church. So why should that be of interest to Toynbee? Firstly, because the Protestant faith has given Britain a sense of being different and superior to Europe. Secondly, because Anglicans are uncle Toms in new atheist Britain who set a standard that other churches are judged by. Needless to say, it isn't as if they're respected or anything by the atheists (far less small-o orthodox Christians, in the Anglican communion and out of it) but they are a useful tool.

Also Toynbee has a curious obsession with women's bodies in the faith because it seems to me that oddly enough it's secular blokes who consider themselves feminists who really have a weird obsession. Take this article on Lady Gaga's latest stunt. If a bloke said 'I'm afraid of losing my creativity through my willy', would he be regarded as a silver-tongued wit, or maybe just a dysfunctional weirdo? But because a woman says this kind of thing it's clever to the secular feminist blokes.

Having said that, if anyone thinks that Blighty is a land of metrosexual drones, think again. Violence, rudeness and aggression are many-headed hydras that are omnipresent in our streets where pockmarked youths will start harrying anyone seen reading in public. Can we really feel so smug about secularism? Especially as they are outbreeding the (cough) middle class atheists. Yes, they might not have much more time for church than the Rationalist Association's archetypal atheist, but it's pretty clear that the Rationalist Association's ideal of an atheist wouldn't wear burberry and that their (cough) middle class atheist would be on their knees begging the vicar for a lift if he had a car and they were in an inner city region on a Friday night.

Still, back to the Pope's visit. Things are getting stupider by the day. This letter, however, is in its own way interesting for demonstrating how wrong Matthew Arnold was in his Athens/ Jerusalem dichotomy. Look at what a meagre bunch this lot generally are: Steven Fry is a likable and affable chap, but his achievements don't really go much further than being a famous Brit who's more likable than Anne Robinson or Simon Cowell. I was sorry to hear that Terry Pratchett has been diagnosed with Alzheimers, but really, is this writer of abysmal, adolescent farce really the best arts figure they can conjure up? And look at their points of condemnation:

'Opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of Aids.'

What? Not supporting efforts to stop poor people having children and instead supporting the surest method of stopping AIDS? The horror.

'Denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women.'

I think this really sums up a lot of the creepiness of many 'new atheists'. Are they saying they support abortion for 'the most vulnerable' but they respect the Vatican's view that unborn children shouldn't be disposed of if they are inconvenient? Of course not: they like to keep a foot in the camp of self-righteousness without going against the consumerist status quo about life.

'Promoting segregated education'

This hits home the suburban cosy view that secular schools are morally neutral and that it isn't the case that they will be exposed to values which have been pumped into other kids through the internet and TV. Maybe it's all very well for the Dawkins and Pullmans to send their kids to public schools in the 'burbs. But many working class Catholics might not want the same thing for their kids.

There are some criticisms of the Vatican I would find it difficult to dispute. But it seems to me that the open letter is notable for having two children's writers as its most popular literary figures.

Could it be that as it becomes increasingly obvious that secular Britain is a dangerous kindergarten that Titus Oates style hatred of a certain minority might be less appealing? Of course, it will be appealing to the childish people that our society lionises: but maybe the rest of us can't be bothered getting on our high horses. Furthermore, as a historian I see anti-Catholic predjudice as a great evil in British history that has never been addressed.

Of course, that isn't to say that the Roman Catholic Church is above criticism. But in an atomised and cold society, brutal demagogues find it easy to incite hatred at a close-knit diaspora. It is precisely because fundamentalist Protestantism had failed to unify British society that it found such ugly outlets. I suspect one can say the same thing for fanatical atheism.

History against Humanism

2010-09-08T21:34:00.000-07:00

I reckon that I'm opposed to humanism as a historian rather than as a Christian. Taking our own country especially, with the oldest and proudest history in the world, according to David Cameron, there are some evidently nasty things about human nature. Just read about the 16th-17th Centuries.

But some observations about folks in general:

-There are many people who inwardly find it hard to believe that something can't be their business
-Whenever the state has told people that something is their business when by any ethical standard it isn't, it never lacks its fair share of informants, nosey parkers and spies
-There are many people who like to think they share in other people's achievements, purely by believing/ not believing in something
-There are many people who like to think they are smarter than they are. And no organisation has ever lacked fanatical adherents after telling people that they are pretty sharp cookies by default.
-There are many very stupid people who like to think that they are cleverer than they are because they believe/don't believe in something.
-There are many lonely people who are looking for belonging, and they will owe strong allegiance to a group where they feel they belong.
-There are many selfish people who want to feel good purely by not believing/believing in something
-There are many people who will want to feel self-righteous anger at people who've never met them, wouldn't want to meet them and would have no interest in meeting them. Religion and irreligion can both fulfill this need.

For this reason I find this website really disturbing. Just look at its title 'rationalist association'. Sounds cool, how do I become a member of the rationalist association? An IQ test, or summin? What? Oh, just not believe in God. That's cool, but I was led here by this man. And Hari isn't the only atheist I've seen praising Melanie Phillips, who also stands for everything negative about religious culture. Then there's this cartoon:

Get it, the Pope is oppressing poor, stupid people in the third wor- oh, did I say 'stupid', I meant 'poor helpless victims', or does that sound patronising? Who cares, it's right isn't it. Especially what with him getting them to have kids.

Then there's these cards; clever white atheists and agnostics are beset by stupid darkies apparently. Such is the state of modern Britain. I suppose though, it is good to know that atheists are more exasperated than angry. Hopefully exasperation at the inferiority of other people won't lead to massacre of the faithful like what happened in Mexico, China, the USSR, Communist Poland, Nazi Poland, Viet Nam, Cambodia etc. And so great to know that the group that includes Hitler, Lysenko, Mao, Stalin etc. is so perfectly rational (and obviously I'm not saying that these people are typical atheists but that surely they should stop people from letting their egos expand purely because they don't believe in God; I mean even my benchmark for feeling good about myself is slightly higher).

Perhaps I wouldn't find these things quite so disturbing if I actually genuinely believed Britain to have a robust rationalist movement. I don't. The very success of Johann Hari's illogical, historically illiterate drivel* is evidence of this. And whilst the atheists like to patronise Britain as a land of rationalism due to low church attendance it is also a country that consumes vast amounts of drugs, alcohol, sedatives, depressants, anti-depressants, stimulants, sweeteners, TV, electronic gadgets, and which has a very low regard for reading or education.

Britain is also a country with a largely disenfranchised majority, vast differences of wealth, high unemployment and a high proportion who work in jobs they are overqualified for and immense anger and hatred. To me it seems a country full of people who are desperate for a sense of meaning, and if the economic crisis leads to a depression, then the bread and circuses might come to an end. I don't think Britain will be a pretty country when that happens.

It seems to me that 'humanism' offers an ideal religion for this outcome. It has a strong (though I think very superficial) sense of fellowship, an unembarrassed attitude towards narcissistic self-praise, a belief that rationality can be reduced to a few axioms, a moral code that is seen as equally axiomatic, a surprising degree of compatibility with racist views of Western superiority and (perhaps most of all) a common enemy which provides the cement between dissimilar people.

Of course, some would say that the same thing applies to many religions, and I would entirely agree. However, to say that because religious societies can have some flaws does not mean to say that the same primates in an irreligious society cannot have the same flaws. Surely to say so would be profoundly irrational?

*Hari wrote:
'The smart, questioning and instinctively moral Muslims – the majority – learn to be silent, or are shunned (at best). What would Christianity be like today if George Eliot, Mark Twain and Bertrand Russell had all been pulped? Take the most revolting rural Alabama church, and metastasise it.'

Presumably he means if writing by these authors was pulped, but if it wasn't for Anglo-Saxon writers then churches in non-Anglophone countries would all be in the (as it were) dark ages? Also gotta love Hari's idea that 'smart' and 'moral' Muslims 'learn to be silent'; in terms of being clumsy and patronising he pretty much outdoes Chris Morris's 'who says AIDS guys are puny'

Oh Tony Boy

2010-09-05T11:41:00.000-07:00

You'd need a heart of stone not to laugh.

Update:
Our dear ex-leader has cancelled a book signing in London:
He added: "I'm really sorry for those - as ever the majority - who would have come to have their books signed by me in person. I hope they understand."

Strange in a Stranger Land

2010-09-05T10:32:00.000-07:00

Following on from the Morrisey post and why I find it bizarre that people think immigrants are diluting British culture, I was walking down the street yesterday and I saw someone asking two young soldiers (who looked about 12 and 14 respectively) to pose for a photo.

This gave me mixed feelings. On one hand I was grateful that the guy was making the soldiers feel important and valued. I'd guess most of our soldiers know the two most recent wars we've been involved in are deeply unpopular, and whilst they also hopefully know that we hope for their safety and mourn at their deaths, it really must be psychologically gruelling knowing that you enlisted to defend the country but you could be horrifically maimed or killed for a war that the people don't want, and which has no ultimate goal. For this I thought it was quite touching.

On the other hand I think that it is dangerous to sentimentalise the military. I find that's a path that leads to the demented Fox News world whereby the very people who think no cause is too stupid to send American soldiers out to be killed in are the very ones who claim to be backing the military.

Anyway, as I was pondering this dilemma an astoundingly gormless (but nonetheless very confident) middle class young man started doing wolf whistles at the soldiers and saying 'sexy'.

That really annoyed me more than I expected. Bearing in mind the two soldiers didn't look old enough to shave, I thought that it was exceptionally disrespectful and offensive.

As far as I feel, Britain is a changing country. Thankfully I think overall Scotland has changed less than the rest. But I really don't see what migration has to do with it. Being a bit of a nutter, when reading for friends' children, I keep hoping they'll ask me to read a Dick and Jane book because I love the Britishness of it all (my friends kids are half-Greek by the way). But frankly, I'm sure that few modern Brit kids do read them: they're probably more likely to be shooting cybernetic police men on their playstations. The rudeness of modern culture is quite astounding, but instead of inventing straw men to blame (like immigrants) it's as well to try and make the case against such rudeness and trying to speak up FOR traditional British values.

Ringleader of the Tormentors

2010-09-04T01:05:00.001-07:00

It's always difficult when you see a person or a country that you admire being attacked for just reasons.

And this time, it really does seem that Morrisey has said something truly awful.

However, I can't help feeling that Te Graun's coverage is exceedingly poor. A journalist, whose name seems to have been invented by Chris Morris, Alexandra Topping writes:

'But tomorrow he reignites a simmering row about his views on race in an interview in Guardian Weekend magazine, in which he describes Chinese people as a "subspecies" because of their treatment of animals.'

Don't know if you can write in the continuous tense about tomorrow, but then Te Graun didn't get its nickname name for nothing. However, surely if it's so offensive Te Graun can decide not to publish the interview? After all, they are getting on their high horse because Morrisey's trying to attract attention by being offensive. Surely they aren't going to do the same thing whilst adding cowardly disclaimers? If anything that would be even lower. Especially from a paper that published an editorial saying 'Justice and reason have finally prevailed after nine months of mass hysteria on both sides of the Atlantic, hysteria and moralistic prejudices' after a middle class director who raped a thirteen year old avoided being extradited.

And did they have the same banner when Martin Amis called for people to get rough with Muslim kids? Did this receive so many throat clearing condemnations? No, because no one has any idea what Martin Amis 'thinks'. It's just a group hallucination that he is any kind of intellectual. And anyway, he offered the disclaimer that it was a thought experiment, which I'm sure settled a few minds.

By contrast, their coverage of the Morrisey song Bengali in Platforms is also completely idiotic. One of Morrisey's gifts is for ambiguity. Is this song written from the point of view of the Bengali or from the point of view of Morrisey looking at the Bengali or the point of view of someone else looking at the Bengali? It's never stated. That's the beauty of Morrisey's songwriting.

Then there is the same thirty year retrospective of Morrisey's supposed racism. Firstly, I find it amusing that wrapping himself in a Union Jack is so controversial. How many British rockstars wear the Stars and Stripes? In truth despite or because the USA has oppressed so many nations, it is seen as the de facto flag of Britain by many. Secondly, he write another cryptic song called National Front Disco.

Lastly there are his comments on immigration into England, which is far from being a simple issue. I notice that no-one actually tried to refute his view that British identity is diluted by large scale immigration. Personally, I don't care that much, because so many British want to assume an identity that is more American than anything else. Yet I think that it is precisely because it goes without saying to our elite that Britain should be morphing into a little America that they found Morrisey's comments offensive.

Is there also an element of class hatred? This is difficult to tell because Morrisey's comments on the Chinese sadly were very offensive. Yet I can't help feeling rather negatively about other Graun comments:

'And then, let's not forget, there is the rest of a vast catalogue that has nothing to do with race. In the best of it – from There is a Light that Never Goes Out to I Know it's Gonna Happen Someday – the words mix with the music to speak to a human condition that defines people of every race. And that, I am sure, is what will be remembered long after this silly old man has finally got off the stage.'

There is little thought that Morrisey might apologise for his comments, or redeem himself in some way. But then, could this be a thought articulated before Morrisey even opened his big gob on the subject of the Chinese? Could it be that they really don't want a rock star of working class origin to continue on the stage? Maybe there is a paradox in Morrisey's career. On one hand, he could be seen as the ultimate working class boy made good. On the other his career path was so contrary to the simplistic path of neo-liberal dogma, writing his songs when on the dole, writing 'Margaret on the Guillotine' when he was getting rich.

Indeed, whilst the sight of our national flag can bring so many 'leftists' out in hives, the brutality shown towards the industrial poor is one area where they have little dispute with the neo-liberals. Many of the others who showed anger at Thatcher (whose views on privatisation, manufacturing and the industrial regions are pretty centrist by today's status quo) such as Roger Waters are now happier with the Countryside Alliance than any working class movement.

In this day of middle class boring musicians, meaningless music with no social awareness, idiotic lyrics which only use ambiguity for sub Carry On style entendres and abysmal melodies, I think Morrisey's achievements look greater by the day, even as the idea of an intellectual, individualistic rock star whose work thrives on irony and ambiguity is seen as a dated concept. I would be sorry if indeed he did 'leave the stage', though sadly I think if he did he would have to admit it was partially his own fault.

There you Go Again

2010-09-02T04:06:00.001-07:00

Te Graun has been looking into the abyss of Bliar's memoirs and seeing their own reflection:
'We know all we want to know about Brown the grump; Blair says nothing fresh on this. But as to Brown the irredeemable statist, the roadblock to reform, as the Tories used to put it, he is revealing.
Their shared government was riven by an ideological dispute, not just one of personalities, from the start. The disagreement is most explicit at the end: Blair's attack on "state spending dressed up as fiscal stimulus", his mockery of the resurrection of Keynes by people who like big government.'

Yes, Tony the enemy of 'big government': unless that meant invading Serbia, invading Afghanistan, invading Iraq, wanting to extend the period of time someone could be held without trial, blanket CCTV surveillance, helping Israeli planes fuel when they were blowing up Lebanese kids, saying nothing when the Americans were dropping white phosphorus on Fallujah, letting civil liberties collapse, pumping money into the banks, introducing laws that photographers can be imprisoned for ten years without evidence of wrongdoing. Not to mention continuing the neglect of poor areas resulting in an uneducated underclass that will be dependent upon the state.

Of course, Tony was the enemy of 'Big Government' if this means the people owning the means of health, transportation, manufacturing and income. However, frankly, in 21st century Britain this is what the English middle classes seem to fear most. I just wonder how long it will be before Social Democratic Europeans will be the subject of French Revolution era caricatures of mindless, ape-like peasants?

Glover bends his knee to Fettes boy Bliar:
'Yet the impressive thing for such a commanding figure, the only rival to Attlee in Labour history, is that he confesses to an absence of control.'

Yes, Harold Wilson was a tactical and intellectual giant next to Bliar but he was somewhat common wasn't he? Let's focus on how impressive it is to show a lack of control and thought. Yesterday I ate fifteen pies. Isn't that impressive? What? Lack of control isn't impressive if it's in dirty commoners, it's only a madey upey sort of pseudo-compliment for sycophantic 'liberal' journos to give to a rich person who's failed by almost any objective standard? That's interesting. Are there plenty more where that came from?

'There are also standard grumbles, such as a sustained attack on the media – odd from a man who courted Rupert Murdoch and admits to "a grudging respect and even liking for him".

But since that is what he thinks, he is right to say it. The book is redeemed by such truths. Blair has a world view and is unafraid to describe it, bigger and bolder than anyone else. You can say he was mad. You can say he was a flawed genius. But you can't say he didn't matter.'

See it is redeemed because he's honest about liking and respecting a misanthropic Australian market fanatic whom he was allegedly saved to save Britain from? Would someone not from Fettes be 'redeemed' by that?

No, I suspect that the class system is stronger in Britain than it's been since the 1940s. The only problem is that our 'betters' no longer have any social conscience. Come a reborn social democrat movement.

21st Century Schizoid Man

2010-09-01T03:04:00.000-07:00

I'll never forget the day that Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair. Within an hour every tea-cosy, every sugar cube and waste paper basket was nationalised. When I stepped out into the street I thought they'd started shooting the remake of Red Dawn in my own town. Red banners everywhere, soldiers with AKs looking for enemies of the people. It was crazy.

What's that? It sounds like I'm speaking bullshit? Well spotted, I am speaking bullshit. In truth I have no recollection of what day, month or year it was that one plutocratic pro-surveillance, pro-humanitarian intervention, pro-privatisation, pro-banker New Labour type came and when another went.

And what with the absolute nothing of Bliar coming out with his (no doubt ludicrously self-serving memoirs) it seemed that Te Graun had really captured the Zeitgeist:

They even brought out their oily untermensch John Crace to come up with yet another of his sarky pisstakes for anyone who can be bothered.

Ah but what greeted me this morning?

Appears that the article last night was wrong. Mega wrong. Bliar's book is really a fount of wisdom for the young uns. And a careful analysis of how Brown lost the election.

'But his book reveals numerous occasions on which the struggle between the two New Labour titans sapped the strength and direction of the government, leading Blair to delay his handover to his chancellor.'

Just so's you know, when I previously described the Blair/Brown conflict as a clash of the Titans, I was being sarky.

'Blair nails his policy colours to the mast in his memoir by launching a sustained attack on the belief that the financial crisis means that voters want the return of the state as a major economic player.'

Really?

"Labour won when it was New Labour," Blair writes in his memoir. "It lost because it stopped being New Labour."

Really?

"The problem, I would say error, was in buying a package which combined deficit spending, heavy regulation, identifying banks as the malfeasants and jettisoning the reinvention of government in favour of the rehabilitation of government. The public understands the difference between the state being forced to intervene to stabilise the market and government back in fashion as a major actor in the economy."

Uh, yes. Brown was a notorious enemy of the bankers and savagely attacked them entirely unjustly by blaming them for their mistakes. And even before that Brown disastrously regulated the banks. The Brown in Tony Bliar's head that is. And look at his Reaganesque use of the word 'government' without an article as a commodity rather than as an immensely complicated construction. Couldn't 'government' take over public transport to make it more efficient? Can't 'government' do better at educating people? It's Bliar's very Reaganesque vocabulary after running a supposedly Social Democratic party that demonstrates the paucity of his thought.

Reading Te Graun really makes me feel that the left is pretty irrelevant now. It has never gotten over its yeoman servitude, and the idea that there is any interesting ideological debate between Blair and Brown only makes sense in the light of Britain's class system.

Perhaps the editors did try to feign a lack of interest in Bliar's big book of bullshit, but they just couldn't sustain it. Everyone knows that Bliar was a disaster, but the Fettes boy will still effortlessly gain kneebending reactions in the Metropolitan middle classes.

So I say, bring on a pure form of social democracy, divorced from identity politics and 'humanitarian intervention'.

Of course there is also a need for a civil liberties left, but it says everything that this interesting news piece was shunted out of the limelight by Te Graun in favour of Bliar's book. And in fact Te Graun showed little interest in the Tomlinson case which was primarily brought to light by responsible citizens. Could it be that social democracy can do better whith the Guardian, the Labour party and other neo-liberal sell-outs? Given the financial situation of the Labour Party, Te Graun and The Independent, we could be about to find out.

To its credit The Guardian does produce foreign journalism like this, which is very important, given that the right wing papers tend not to criticise that lovely outpost of progress in the Middle East. But I do think that it is untenable in attempting to uphold a kind of liberalism that is too right wing for social democracy and too socially liberal for the right.

So Wrong

2010-08-31T00:48:00.000-07:00

This Theo Hobson post is plain nuts. I can sort of see where he's coming from. But he's obviously never bothered reading any of the CiF comments, where right wingers will self-righteously tell you that it is only moral to admire Pinochet because the imaginary Chileans who would have been killed if he weren't in charge would be much greater than those he did kill.

And let's not forget (though almost everyone in the media seems to have) the attempts of supporters of the Iraq war to portray opponents as buddies of Saddam. And does anyone remember when our armchair warriors were handing out cybernetic white feathers to the bloody conchies who were saying that we should keep well clear of the tie chewer of Tblisi (where Saakashvilli's tanks machine gunned fleeing civilians: which is moral in their world)?

In fact, the archetypal merry Tory GK Chesterton hated warfare AND the free market. I doubt if the supposedly carefree and unjudgemental modern right would really sway him with their lovable lack of heavy-handed moralising.

Being a somewhat distant relative of Sir Thomas Urquhart, I think that being quite carefree and disliking the preaching tone is quite acceptable for a social democrat. However, given that only a maniac would think there is anything moral about the free-market or warfare, I really don't feel any attraction to the modern right. But even if a tree fell on my head and I did, I think the heavy handed moralising that they use to dress up their self-righteousnes would put me off.

War on the War on Drugs

2010-08-26T08:36:00.001-07:00

I'm hoping that Social Democracy is edging its way towards being a mainstream concept again because I think it is the fairest way to run a society and in so many ways neo-liberalism has been intellectually discredited.

However, I do also wonder if the modern 'left' can either get behind social democracy or become an intellectual force to be reckoned with.

Reading this article by Johann Hari really makes me wonder if the left is regressing. I actually do think most drugs should be legalised. But I realise that this is a complex situation and respect people who disagree. I acknowledge there would be a huge human cost to legalising drugs as well as a high cost to society. However 1) Making drug use an offence has created a vast prison population 2) It often results in unsafe drugs being released 3) It does indeed line the pockets of criminals 4) It's de facto legal in the West anyway if you have enough money and white skin 5) I don't know to what extent the state should be able to control what people consume and 6) The WOD has resulted in vast environmental damage and human cost.

However, Hari's work is just drivel:

'To many people, the “war on drugs” sounds like a metaphor, like the “war on poverty.” It is not. It is being fought with tanks and sub machine guns and hand grenades, funded in part by your taxes, and it has killed 28,000 people under the current Mexican President alone. The death-toll in Tijuana – one of the front-lines of this war – is now higher than in Baghdad. Yesterday, another pile of seventy mutilated corpses was found near San Fernando – an event that no longer shocks the country.'

Uh, no. The 'war on drugs' hasn't killed 28,000 people in Mexico. Most of these people have been massacred by drugs dealers. And leaving aside the poor writing of 'another pile of seventy corpses' does he know that this type of horrific event 'no longer' has the capacity to shock? Really? Did Hari check that out with people who live in Mexico? Or do the Hispanics not mean much to the modern left unless they're unintentionally helping union busters? Well, the opinion of Mexicans about whether drugs should be legalised are certainly of little interest to Hari.

But thankfully Hari demonstrates how we can all be wonderful people:

'To support the right side in the referendum to decriminalize cannabis in California this November - one of the most important moves on drugs in the world at the moment - please donate or volunteer for the campaign here.'

Whilst I have sympathy for this movement, when people speak about being 'on the right side', I do tend to be very, very nervous. The irony is that it is an expression I often see being used by the modern right and which seems very 'religious' in a fundamentalist way. However, I think of it as being profoundly 'unconservative' as it were, not just in its vulgarity and its stupidity but in its forceful rejection of dialectic debate that lies at the root of European culture.

In some regards this rejection of the Ancient Wisdom is a sign of how (as Frank Shaeffer said) the religious right and the new left are two signs of the same coin. They are both far happier with counter-culture narcissism and certainty than with classical thought. Whilst on a personal level I have a lot of time for popular films and music, I do think that people of my generation have to wake up to the fact that it has greatly failed in a greater social context.

Well, I'm very confused Ted

2010-08-25T11:18:00.000-07:00

Seems that coalition 'partner' Nick Clegg is angry with the suggestion that the 'progressive coalition' budget is going to lead to widening income disparity:

'Speaking this afternoon, Clegg said: "This IFS analysis is, by definition, partial. It does not include the things we want to do to get people off benefits and into work.'

The poor simpletons, Nick. You should phone the IFS up to explain to them that there are lots of imaginary people in your head who are going to get jobs because you 'want' them to. You can explain that the not-so-imaginary people who are certainly going to be made redundant by the reforms will also find work because you 'want' them to and everyone will be happy and drink lemonade with bunnies in the sunshine because you 'want' that to happen.

That is the state of modern Britain. The idea that the invisible hand won't find work for people seems to be a thought crime.

The Centre Cannot Hold

2010-08-25T05:14:00.001-07:00

So, the 'progressive coalition' will hit the poorest members of society hardest according to Te Graun which will be humiliating for the Lib Dems. The Treasury's response is brilliant:

'The Treasury said it did not accept the think-tank's analysis, saying it ignored the effects of people who would come off benefits and go into work.

"It is selective, ignoring the pro-growth and employment effects of Budget measures such as helping households move from benefits into work, and reductions in corporation tax," a spokesman said.'

So slashing jobs will drive people off unemployment benefits? Brilliant thinking lads, can't believe no one ever thought of that before.

At the same time, Labour contender Diane Abbot calls for renationalising railways:

'If Network Rail had to let go of 95 managers then it really is in a mess. Further to this there are allegations of sexual harassment against network Rail’s head of human resources Peter Bennett. All of this would be just about bearable if the railways were genuinely private but they continue to cost the taxpayer billions.

We subsidise train operators to the tune of £1billion a year and subsidise network Rail by £4billion. yet managers continue to pay themselves fat, private-sector salaries and bonuses and the companies continue to squeeze the travellers. That is why I believe it is time to take the railways back into public ownership. It was a mistake to privatise them in the first place as it’s allowed private companies to profiteer without regard to public interest.'

I've got my doubts about Abbot's electability though she is the most progressive amongst the contenders, followed by Ed Miliband (if Ed Balls or David Miliband take up the reigns we can say hello to one party Britain). However she has been the subject of some justified criticism and how tolerant a country Britain is is very much open to doubt.

Aside from that, I do think that the Tories are riding roughshod over their Lib Dem cup holders and progressives will no longer be given the third party option.

It will be curious to see what results.

Take a Chance on Me?

2010-08-24T10:59:00.001-07:00

I was reading about New Labour's near bankruptcy with mixed feelings. Being frank, they were abysmal: they failed to renationalise railways whilst splurging on CCTV, war and mass surveillance. However, they managed to get re-elected purely by telling the British people that even if they were the second worst party, they could still save Britain from the worst party.

So goes the two party system. Republican supporters have to pedal drivel about Obama being a Stalinist Islamofascist to hide the fact that Sarah Palin is apparently the brains of the outfit.

If Labour were stable, surely it would just mean that David Miliband would be a neo-liberal neo-con in a 'centre left' cap, just as David Cameron would be a neo-liberal neo-con in a 'centre right' cap and Nick Clegg would be a neo-liberal neo-con in a 'centre' cap.

However, Ed Miliband seems to be making a genuine attempt to change the Labour party. However, this leads to the question 'from what'? The 2010 labour party or the 1997 Labour party?

In fact Blair also ran on a centre-left pro-nationalisation platform. And see where that got to? However, Blair was in charge, when, to quote Maggie 'there was no alternative' from neo-liberalism.

However, the mood is certainly changing. The terms 'left' 'right' and 'centre' are all very stupid and have done a lot to damage modern political thought. Would someone who wanted to massacre half the world's untermensch me a 'centrist' by Nazi Germany's standards? Would someone who wanted to privately manufacture tiddly-winks be a demented mad right winger by Soviet standards?

The terms are intrinsically ridiculous and yet, the Brits have received such a rough time from neo-liberalism, the centre could be the place to watch. Whilst I disagree with him on some things, Ian Dunt who is supposed to be objective is a better critic of neo-liberalism than many Graun writers. And with this yahoo article, I wonder if the 'centrists' are just getting too hacked off with our economic system?

'Well, because the taxpayer now pays higher subsidies to private companies than we paid to state-owned British Rail. A report by Dr Richard Knowles, of Salford University, showed that passenger rail subsidies topped £1.34bn in 2002-2003 compared to £1.07bn in 1993-1994 under BR.
- But rail companies are still ‘profitable', that is, they still make money and pay themselves immense bonuses because the bedraggled taxpayer covers their losses and then pays through the nose for a ticket to ride one of their arthritic trains, before being absolutely wrung dry in the refreshments carriage if they weren't wise enough to stock up in M&S first.'

I think that the British people have long been waiting for an ideological clash of the titans which never happened: of left against right. In fact almost all journalists and politicians morphed into a kind of neo-liberalism: pro-abortion, pro-privatisation, pro-EU, anti-death-penalty but in favour of a large prison population, pro-immigration, pro-pop culture, in favour of 'humanitarian intervention (I.e. people who speak English dropping bombs on people) but against disproportionate violation of national sovereignty (people who talk foreign dropping bombs on people). Whilst I am obviously no fan of neo-liberalism, I don't disagree with all its positions but I think politics needs to have parties who disagree with each other.

Maybe Ed Miliband will bring the Labour party in a new direction. It will be curious to see.

Well, thank you very much

2010-08-17T04:23:00.000-07:00

Of all the surreal images left from Tony Blair's premiership, the sight of the Fettes boy in jeans and a donkey jacket at a trade union meeting has to be the maddest. It was so ridiculously insincere it actually contained a sincerity all of its own in its blunt condescension.

However, this moment must be Cameron's equivalent, as he pretends that his is the old fogey's party. Cue Americanised drivel about Britain's history being 'the oldest and proudest'. Some nations that weren't involved in the slave trade, genocidal violence against American and East Indians, rapaciously pillaging other nations, sending children to clean chimneys or starve to death etc might disagree. But then, saying that Britain has 'a complex and chequered history' might not get money to change hands, which is his sole interest in heritage. Aside from that, his party is the party of the old fogeys the way that New Labour was the party of the working classes.

It was the Tories who did the most to destroy British heritage projects. It was the Tories who did the most to support and economical system whereby drivel like Robbie Williams and the Spice Girls enjoy financial hegemony. Is it any wonder that Simon Cowell, the personification of all that's wrong with Britain, endorsed Cameron? After all, Andrew Lloyd Weber, his precursor in conveying vulgar drivel was a longtime Tory supporter.

Now heritage projects are guaranteed near total destruction under Cameron and Osborne because they have little market value.

It is curious that the reactionary Tories are now like the working classes, a major force which gets nothing but empty promises from 'their' party. Perhaps this will lead to a new drive for electoral reform. But I doubt it, given that most reactionaries like to blame 'socialism' for Britain's modern faults.

Anyway, chin up guys. Just as well we don't live in a socialist nightmare society like Venezuela where no doubt the nippers are taught to singe dirges about their great leader and his tractor factories, eh what? Just as well we live in the individualistic West where we have Big Brother, the X-factor and all those other life-affirming symbols of free-market victory.

Help Stop Stupid Swarthy Foreigners From Breeding

2010-08-11T01:29:00.000-07:00

Seems to be the gist of this article.

Argentina is a democracy with an elected government. But these backwards people have made a mess of it as usually happens when left to themselves. They need some nice benevolent cough, rich white, hrmph, people to take them in hand and stop producing so many kids:

'international human rights law says that women have a right to make decisions about if, when and how many children they have, says Human Rights Watch. In Argentina, those rights have been "systematically flouted for years", it says.'

Firstly, what is 'international human rights law'? Is this a law based on values that ,cough, splutter, white, rich harumph, people draw up? Can I guess that these countries include the enlightened nations of the USA, Germany, Britain and Belgium for instance?

Let's see what Wikipedia has to say:
'Its headquarters are in New York City and it has offices in Berlin, Brussels, Chicago, Geneva, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, Paris, San Francisco, Tokyo, Toronto, and Washington D.C'

Ok, so except Japan, Russia and South Africa it is solidly white and first world. It includes two countries that have attempted to exterminate entire races, five that have had savage foreign Empires, one which has an appalling history of racism one which unapologetically benefited from Nazi banking and whilst I don't like criticising Russia, let's just say I wouldn't relish being teleported to 90s Grozny either. Pleased to see that poor countries have such benefactors to make sure they have access to contraceptives and sterilisation procedures. Also interesting to note that with the very dubious exception of France there is none with a strong Apostolic Christian presence.

Nor of course, do they have any Latin American countries there, which may explain their far from stellar record in those parts. And their vocab:

'Many become pregnant due to negligent care that deprives them of the right to make independent decisions about their health and lives, such as when the government does not purchase or distribute contraceptive supplies that it has promised to provide, and legal sterilization procedures are arbitrarily denied.'

Get that? The poor and stupid inhabitants (specifically poor and stupid women) from poor nations are deprived of the right to make independent decisions because the government does not buy them contraceptions so they 'become' pregnant and have unwanted offspring.

Some might think it curious that a Guardian columnist can find common cause with an organisation that's turned a Nelson eye to the Honduran Junta. But expect this bond to strengthen in coming years.

Mrs Lucas goes to Scotland

2010-08-09T12:12:00.000-07:00

And good for her. Whilst I don't want to overdo the Steven Seagal metaphors, Donald Trump is just like the villain of Fire Down Below, except with even worse hair. Chris Kristofferson's blow-dried wavy mullet just can't trump, as it were, Donnie's hair.

For those who haven't noticed Trump has been getting hot under the collar because a bunch of Jocks don't want him building a gargantuan golf course on an area of ecological importance.
Mr Trump is less concerned with the rare flora and fauna than in creating 'the greatest golf course in the world'.

Now, maybe I've just seen too many bad movies, but that is exactly the thing a mid-80s-mid-90s action movie villain would cackle. And even if someone started cackling that they could build the 'greatest gold course in the world' by merely dynamiting a Tescos supermarket, I'd still be reluctant to let them do it.

Sadly, this is one area where Trekkie patriot Alex Salmond has let himself down. However, could he be having second thoughts?

Whilst Salmond has shown impressive backbone over Megrahi, he is a politician at the end of the day and an unusually clever one. Whether he merely wanted to avoid the 'Blair Effect' of grinning like a loon whilst unquestioningly supporting the world's only superpower waiting for something to happen or whether he was acting out of deep sincerity, I don't know. But his decision to both release Megrahi and not to send Kenny MacAskill to Washington showed leadership that was very popular within Scotland.

Maybe Lucas feels buoyed by this and Scotland will become a testing ground for progressive, grassroots movements. I think if Trump does a volte face on this one, it will help not just Scottish national pride, but British. If it achieves this, then I would feel even more proud to be Scottish. The worst thing that could happen for Scottish nationalism would be to develop and anti-English or anti-American outlook. But letting Trump destoy an ecosystem would not benefit the American people, as forcing Megrahi to die in prison would not benefit any American or English people.

Update: My friend Gareth pointed me to this website: http://www.trippinguptrump.com/

This was a very moving little video:

http://www.trippinguptrump.com/enter-the-bunker

Ironically the idea of little people taking on environmentally-unfriendly big business is a staple of Hollywood, from Fire Down Below and On Deadly Ground to that film with Julia Roberts where no-one gets shot and which I didn't bother to see. If they do force Trump's arm, I think people across many nations (including America) would be happy about it.

Thought for the Day

2010-08-08T04:12:00.000-07:00

,

"I think I'm speaking for many, many Scots people when I say we're just getting a bit fed up of being lectured to by the United States of America as to how to administer justice,"

Mwah, mwah, mwah, mwah, mwah. And he's a pro-life 'conservative' theologian as well. I think that the identity politics left has really failed to tell it like it is to the Neo-Cons who see us as their property. I'm partially hoping that a resurgent theologically conservative Christianity might give us more of a voice.

Of course religion, even a religion such as Apostolic Christianity where self-doubt is integral, can open a different can of worms. People can take too much unwelcome interest in others and with society. In common with the identity politics left they can espouse admirable ideas but then go into the field of litigation and statism.

However, the simple thing is that the people need a voice, need ethos and need certain institutions. Both modern 'left' and 'right' have failed to give these in Britain.

Political Correctness Gone Right

2010-08-05T01:27:00.000-07:00

I've never been one for tribal political ideas of 'left' and 'right'. I generally think of myself as being left-wing because I am an anti-war social democrat who supports a large degree of immigration.

However, I do see that in some regards the mainstream left and right are far more similar than either would acknowledge. One way in which this comes out is in what is called 'political correctness': in other words taking the view that minorities should be granted privileges. I say 'what is called' because I don't think anyone describes themselves as 'politically correct'.

Yet, whilst this is generally something that causes whinging on the right, in some ways they are the worst perpetrators.

Take the recent Shimon Peres comment that "There is in England a saying that an antisemite is someone who hates the Jews more than is necessary." Really? Who said this and where? Could it just be some self-pitying bullshit that he invented?

What gets to me is the apologetic nature of the responses to Peres' comment. Given how much theft and murder is committed by the Israeli state, I'd guess he was in a pretty poor position to lecture other countries about their record of tolerance. And even aside from insulting our culture, isn't this exactly the kind of ghettoising victim mentality that the right are supposed to dislike?

However, where is the right wing furore over this? Where is our Tory leader, who has just been acting Mr Big in South Asia to stick up for British national pride?

And incidentally, a word about some passports...

Blighty Fury

2010-07-31T02:50:00.000-07:00

If the cinema of Steven Seagal is any indicator of the 'special relationship' then it is very special indeed.

For those unaquainted with Flight of Fury, I can only implore you to rush to Asda bargain bin to pick up this deathless masterpiece.

Anyway, this film (in the off-chance you haven't already seen it) starts with the usual cliches: American pilot steals plane, goes to rendevous with terrorists: then it really pulls the carpet from under your feet. 'Are these Serbians'? My friend asked, seeing whitey terrorists in Afghanistan.

Good question. The Slavs in general are a gold mine for Hollywood: foreign enough for the audience to gloat over their being massacred by white people who speak English, white enough to stop the PC crowd from whinging.

But blow me down, as I expected them to start speaking weeth theek accents, did they not turn out to be Cockerneys?

And before they can say to the yankee traitor 'consider yerself one of the far-m-i-ly', have they not asked him to drop toxic weapons on Uncle Sam? No negotiations, no asking for money, no Blofeldian plan to take over: just death to America.

Two things to note. One: as I've already pointed out there are ample white foreigners waiting to be massacred by Americans for Hollywood to keep its pompous, self-righteous colourblind veneer. Yet of all the dodgy, backwards, foreigners that Middle American audiences believe inhabit the commie wasteland between Russia and Portugal, they choose 'our no 1 ally'. No wait, its us who call them that.

Secondly, whether because the script was pulled out of someone else's waste basket and they lost the pages with this cliche or whether they wanted to avoid this cliche or whether thy really think we Brits are the nastiest people on earth, they didn't even have the Brit terrorists blackmailing Uncle Sam. No, they just wanted these germ cannisters dropped on American schools and 'football pitches' (not meaning football at all, but that rugby they play over there).

This made SLIGHTLY more sense after reading the Wikipedia article on the film, which says that the leader is half-Iraqi. I missed this piece of plot exposition, whether they cut it due to it being bullshit or whether Seagal mumbled his lines so badly that it was unintelligible. It's worth noting that the baddie's sidekick, a Brit lass, is also somewhat swarthy. This seems to me that they are making a none-too-subtle point about the dangers of miscegenation on our sceptred isle.

I daresay that the Mark Steyn bullshit has seeped so deeply into American culture that even Seagal is making a hat-tip to the Eurabia theme: that Blighty is populated by grannies, neds, socialists and Islamofascists. And a handful of public schoolboys who will save Britain by spending a fortune getting us into stupid conflicts with countries that haven't harmed us. Except that Seagal and co didn't even have the common courtesy to include an uncle Tom Brit to balance the message. Even that wretched left-behind film I watched had the decency to include a Bill Bailey lookalike as the head of the Brit armed forces. Maybe he lasted two minutes on a computer screen before it went blank (signifying the snuffing out of our nation) but at least they made the gesture.

Flight of Fury doesn't even manage this. In fact the lead goodie (who does all the athletic fighting whilst Seagal spends five minutes waddling like a bear and twatting a bloke on the head with a metal pipe) is actually an Arab.

I have to admit I was chuffed by this. And horrifically sad as it is, I was even more chuffed that he was acted by a Greek actor, which made me nostalgic for that 80s masterpiece 'The Jewel of the Nile' which is set in an Arab country, the prince of which is acted by a Greek, whilst a Jewish actor is the nation's real leader. But really, I do think it's time for Britain to wake up to what this says about the special relationship.

Quote of the Day

2010-07-21T03:32:00.000-07:00

'Nevertheless, to this government, the private sector is automatically better. To suggest otherwise is heresy. That's why they're restructuring the NHS, in a way that will encourage more private enterprise, three weeks after the Commonwealth Fund declared it the most efficient health service out of the seven it had studied – that's ahead of Germany, Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, all systems with more private sector involvement. The NHS might well be, in terms of the results it delivers with the money it gets, the most efficient health service on earth. And yet the Tories are convinced that hasty and sweeping organisational reforms will make it even more so.'

I've always had a soft spot for David Mitchell. Perhaps it may seem ironic, but I like his portrayal of modern British conservatism as being rooted in misanthropy, shyness and awkwardness rather than any Hayekian idealism or Randian amoralism or even Churchillian nostalgia. I also respected his honest rebuke to fellow comedians who pointed the J'accuse finger at him for appearing in a commercial (shock horror) as if British popular culture really was a hotbed of revolutionary anti-capitalism not a pillar of consumerism.

Still, the comedy conservative seems to find it difficult keeping up with the pace of Cleggaron's 'progressive coalition'. Says it all really. Whilst I'm generally astounded by how inarticulate David Cameron is, his quip about Nick Clegg being his favourite political joke was actually cleverer than it appeared, as the little rich boy who claimed that the Lib Dems were the true progressive party sits vacantly and quietly as the Tories speak of tearing up the NHS.

Showbiz News

2010-07-20T06:06:00.000-07:00

Does Mel Gibson have a future in Hollywood? Given that every second film these days seems to be based on a comic strip, I think we could ask if Gibson would want a future in Hollywood?

The Three Stooges

2010-07-20T04:50:00.000-07:00

Isn't it interesting to deek the goons who've come to Roman Polanski's rescue?

First up: Salman Rushdie. To some he is most notable as the bloke who wrote a book full of slapstick humour and purple prose which resulted in some nutters who'd never read it wanting to kill him. Fair dues to the guy for defending free speech, but to me that isn't his most significant act.

No, for me his 90s/ early 00s blurb imploring blokes to read The Bridget Jones Diary was his most significant historical act. He was essentially saying 'if you're a fat baldy aging bloke then you'll love this book about a chubby thirtysomething lass trying to get it on with different men'.

In other words, if you're a bloke and you like reading books about a Waffen SS brigade in the Eastern front or people getting their faces eaten off by rats, then you're a deviant. Stick to girly stuff because girly is the new blokishness. As masterpieces by Sven Hassel and Guy N Smith criminally went out of print, I can only assume that a welter of office drones skipped to the bookshops to pick up their latest copy of the Bridget Jones saga to impress their girlfriends with.

But, it appears things are not quite so simple. If a thirteen year old girl is drugged and raped then Mr Metrosexual cuddly-wuddly the big teddy bear isn't quite such a feminist after all. At least if he thinks he'll bump into the shorty-eyes genius at a cocktail party.

Next in line, Robert Harris. His novels about Ancient Rome sound brilliant, just my cup of tea. And the Ghost seems a bit of a hoot. But Russophile that I am, I can't quite forgive him for Archangel. For those unaquainted with this piece of smug (though admittedly well-written) drivel, a historian discovers that Joseph Stalin has a son living in a Dacha in a giant forest. Koba Jnr's one skill in life is trapping nosey parkers in beartraps and reciting verbatim the old boy's speeches.

So what, you might be asking? Well, in the mind of a smug Middle Englander, this is Ivan's dream come true, politically speaking, a new Stalin which is just what johny foreigner has been looking for. Harris's book had two redeeming features 1) The hero was a historian and 2) The hero was a historian who makes snide comments to his pig-ignorant American sidekick (nothing against Americans, but it's a refreshing change to the usual arselicking). But overall the ant-European bigotry is just too much.

Yet, Harris's support for Western humanitarian values apparently flops when an artistic genius is at work.

Last, but certainly not least, Neo-Con goon and Kosovo Serb hater, Bernard Henri Levy. Fan of bombarding Eastern Europe with Western enlightenment. Once again, this moralising creep didn't seem to be too moralistic when it came to the actions of 'the director of the Pianist'.

One last thing struck me about it: the number of women who've come to Polanski's aid. Could this be one for the radical feminists to think about? Could it be that all the vitriol that is spread at men ignores the fact that feminism has actually failed to give women a feeling of solidarity or change their attitudes towards some things? I'm not saying that's the case, but it surely is worth debating.

Anyway, for now I'm satisfied with the blokes, as it were. I wish that there was a word meaning 'schadenfreud' but aimed at those who don't seem to feel much schaden.

Cleo's Revenge

2010-07-17T08:33:00.000-07:00

In the off-chance that none of my readers have seen Steven Seagal's masterpiece The Glimmer Man, then watch it this second, then come back and read this post. If you have seen it continue reading.

The one very minor flaw in this masterpiece for me has always been the ending where competing teams of dastards start fighting each other. Never happens in the real world I thought. They always form alliances against the goodies and they always win because the goodies are too busy fighting each other over self-righteous minutiae (just compare how many left-wingers criticise each other for not being anti-Putin enough with how many right-wingers have criticised Richard Littlejohn for his comments on the Rwandan genocide). Baddies fighting each other, never happens.

Until today. Russophobe historian Orlando Figes and Khodorkovsky groupie Rachel Polonsky are duking it out after Orlando was found (hehehehe) writing good reviews of his books and bad reviews of hers on Amazon.

Reading his reaction however, gave me mixed feelings:

'In a statement released on 23 April Figes admitted "full responsibility" for the posts, saying he had been under "intense pressure". He said: "I have made some foolish errors and apologise wholeheartedly to all concerned."'

Hnn, funny as it is to see a worm squirming, I do wonder what to make of a society where a grown man can blubber like this and (presumably) still be respected? Sometimes I could turn and live with Russian barbarians smoking themselves into early graves*.

*Those familiar with the Russian blogosphere will get the allusion.

Secular Puritanism

2010-07-16T04:55:00.000-07:00

'Catholics angry as church puts female ordination on par with sex abuse'

Now there's a headline from The Guardian. The funny thing is though that the article is mainly about how angry secularists and feminists are and there is no evidence that 'Catholics' are angry (except for some individuals; but I daresay that 'Catholics' would be angry at ordaining women as well). And what really gets to me is how strong their opinions are, and what they think to be their business:

'Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, called the document "one of the most insulting and misogynistic pronouncements that the Vatican has made for a very long time. Why any self-respecting woman would want to remain part of an organisation that regards their full and equal participation as a 'grave sin' is a mystery to me."

I'd imagine it is a mystery to you Terry, so maybe you should keep your mouth shut as you obviously have no idea of the tradition, its history or its culture. I daresay that all the 'self-respecting' women will all entirely agree with you and leave in a few weeks, then you can have a pint with Big Ian and rant about the popish harridans with no 'self-respect'.

'Vivienne Hayes, the chief executive of the Women's Resource Centre, said the decision to raise women's ordination to the level of a serious crime was "appalling".

She added: "This declaration is doubly disempowering for women as it also closes the door on dialogue around women's access to power and decision making, when they are still under-represented in all areas of political, religious and civic life. We would urge the Catholic church to acknowledge that women's rights are not incompatible with religious faith."

Ceri Goddard, chief executive of the Fawcett Society, said: "We are sure that the vast majority of the general public will share in our abject horror at the Vatican's decision to categorise the ordination of women as an 'offence' in the same category as paedophilia – deemed to be one of the 'gravest offences a priest can commit'.

Yes, I'm always sure that the vast majority of the general public shares my abject horror at the RC church defending its traditions.

"This statement follows a series where the Vatican, an institution which yields great influence and power not only in the Catholic community but also wider society, has pitched itself in direct opposition not only to women's rights but to our equal worth and value. We hope this is an issue that the government takes the opportunity to raise if it still feels the impending papal visit is appropriate."

If the almighty British state 'still feels that the impending papal visit is appropriate'?

It is curious because I remember a time when Brits used the words 'busybody', nosey parker' etc as pejorative terms. Now I reckon that these would near-enough be compliments. Everything, or anybody, is now an 'institution' or 'organisation' and every Tom, Dick or Harry has the right to feel 'abject horror' at its shortcomings within their own ethical outlook.

Not everyone has to like the Vatican's opposition to female ordination. However, I find it difficult to see how anyone can get on their high horses about a tradition and faith which they don't belong to and which anyone can leave. I notice that the word 'rights' was used twice, which seems incompatible with the voluntary nature of Catholicism. I think if these people are genuine progressives, they would do well to think about what 'rights' really are, and how they can be enforced.

Those were the days, where are they now

2010-07-16T03:55:00.001-07:00

I've never heard of Gilberto Gil or Caetano Veloso: Brazilian psychedelic rockers. Thought they sounded interesting, and it's nice to read someone putting in a good word for Blighty, albeit half-a-century ago:

"Lisbon and Madrid were out of the question as Portugal and Spain were under a heavy dictatorship. Paris had a boring musical ambience. London was the best place for a musician to be."
'''together they frequented museums, art galleries and football matches, and learned to love Monty Python's Flying Circus – Veloso says its surrealism influenced some of his more experimental music.
"But London is one of the most interesting cities in the world, and I am lucky to have lived there."
"We arrived the week the Beatles released Abbey Road, we saw the Rolling Stones at the Roundhouse, we jammed with great musicians, we met great people, we heard reggae for the first time," he says. "The fact you could walk up to a policeman and ask directions – in Brazil that just doesn't happen!"

Smashing stuff chaps, quite a place post-war Britain. Bulging with joie-de-vivre, creativity and originality and a time when you could say 'football matches and art galleries' with no irony. Ah, but what is that I see at the bottom-right corner of the page, like a bunch of Gargoyles bordering a verdigris basilica? What do I see like a raincloud behind a sun-drenched meadow? Could it be the worst crime ever committed against popular music?

Why it was the most important story last evening:

There was one thing I'll say about Take That: it was a hub for deeply untalented musicians. That might not be a good thing, but at least it stopped Robbie Williams and Mark Owen from pursuing solo careers. Owen's career seemed to grind to a halt at one point. Don't know if it was because he went thin on top or developed a spare tire or simply started snorting charlie. I would love to think that even the British people decided his music was so crap they wouldn't buy it. But in my heart of hearts I know that's not possible.

Still, I don't think that Take That was given priority by Te Graun for its damage limitation effect. I think the priority they've given it says it all really, and in a weird way highlights the strange paradox of modern British liberalism. There is a pseudo-nostalgia for a time when popular art was subversive, whilst really they live intensely in the petit-bourgeois present of pop music. It is sad that this broadsheet expects their readership to recognise the slogan 'Back for Good'. But in a sense it is sadder that I got the reference given that I'd rather eat my intestines with vinegar than willingly listen to Take That.

Last time I looked, they've taken the Gil and Veloso article off their front page. Take That are still there though.

Music from the Other Side of the Fence

2010-07-15T04:27:00.001-07:00

I don't know what possessed Te Graun to host an interesting video with an interesting person, but this Zizek piece is essential viewing (h/t Anatoly). Not quite up there with the opportunity to watch Peter Mandelson tributes of course, and he is talking drivel, albeit amusing and engaging drivel.

The weird thing, I thought when watching this was what a great demagogue Zizek would make, and ironically, how the capitalist system could prepare people for such a figure. Who cares if he praises Lenin and Mussolini if he comes up with such great one-liners? Think by contrast of Te Graun's man of the hour, Peter Mandelson, a smug little dullard who they adore because he reconciled the Labour party with being 'filthy rich'. All very well, but will the free-market love Mandy back and reward Te Graun for unrolling the red carpet for him? Will panting lefties be racing for the news-stands to grab their copies of Te Graun before it's all sold out, just so they can read about their hero? Imagine the collective sigh of relief when they find they've picked up the very last one?

By contrast, I think Te Graun grudged giving a few milimetres of internet to Zizek. His self-conscious interesting nonsense certainly upsets the humanist vicars, who are less interested in dialectical playfulness than pointing the J'accuse figure. And no doubt the blogosphere will erupt that Te Graun has come out as a friend of Stalinism or whatever self-righteous delusion appeals to them.

Perhaps strangely, Zizek reminds me of one of my favourite literary characters, Peter Stepanovich Verkhovensky in Demons. This character was very prophetic in my opinion, because he was attracted to anti-establishment politics just to be a troublemaker rather than for any concern about the poor of the earth.

Perhaps Verkhovensky is a favourite character because he knew this, unlike Christopher Hitchens say, whose observations of the American right led him to notice that caring about the world's poor was no prerequisite for self-righteousness.

I don't know if Zizek is any more idealistic than Hitchens, and his holding onto the commie card is probable a tactical masterstroke (so as not to join the clapped out last-chance saloon of lefty neo-cons: Henri-Levy, Hitch, Julie Burchill etc, who don't even know they're clapped out), but it is precisely because Zizek knows that he is a clown first, that as a consumer from a consumerist culture, I find him an appealing figure.

Out of Order

2010-07-15T04:02:00.000-07:00

Have been a bit busy recently not reading newspapers. Think I'll be a bit busy not reading newspapers for a while after seeing that te Graun has a Peter Mandelson extravaganza, about his efforts to save 'his beloved Labour party', no doubt by popular request of the thousands of left-wingers who were begging them to do so.

Once more it highlights the weird irony of the economic right: they adore the free-market and they are fans of Mandy for endorsing the free-market, but they are utterly oblivious to what their own 'market' would actually want. Furthermore, the most juicy piece of gossip, for these friendless metropolitan losers, is about the vast ideological struggle between Tony 'pro-Iraq war, anti-nationalisation' Blair and Gordon 'pro-Iraq war, anti-nationalisation' Brown. A real clash of the titans there.

As most of my readers come from Neil Clark's blog, I suppose it's pointless linking to this, which sums my views up but is well worth reading.

No-One Expects the Humanist Inquisition

2010-07-09T12:54:00.001-07:00

Following on from my last post on identity politics, the humanist association are concerned at people praying at council meetings:

'There are many — maybe even the majority — of local councils in this country that start their meetings with Christian prayers. Non-believers and people of other religions are put in the embarrassing position of wondering whether to participate or pointedly not participate. We believe that it is unacceptable for elected representatives to be put through this in carrying out their duty. A typical reaction to their protests is that they are told they can leave the chamber during prayers. We also know of potential candidates who will not put their names forward for election, appalled that they are expected to participate in prayers. This deprives local democracy of much-needed new blood and people who would better represent the full spectrum of the local community...

...We have been working on this campaign for some months and after complaints from councillors, top lawyers working on behalf of the NSS have sent a letter to one council advising them that prayers during council meetings are in conflict with human rights provisions. The council is currently considering our lawyers’ letter and we will publish details of the outcome shortly...

We now need to know which councils are including prayers in their meetings and which aren’t'.

What would my mate Pericles make of this? When democracy was under attack did he call some top lawyers to care for some cry babies and pretend their human rights were under threat? Some people have died for democracy, but in modern Britain people are so 'appalled' at taking part in a part of our heritage that they won't consider getting involved in our political system. Well, good, in my opinion: if they're such over-sensitive, whinging, miseries, then what would happen if they need to show a bit of backbone?

Backbone? But don't you understand, cough, cough. When people ask us to put our hands together and close our eyes, cough, cough, it means that our human rights, cough, cough, are actually being compromised. It makes us cry, cough, cough, and feel very, very sorry for ourselves, cough, cough. And mumsy calls for a top lawyer to take part, cough, cough. And the nice lawyer gets the bill involved, cough, cough. And he takes away bundles of cash, cough, cough. Which makes poor little me feel a bit less poorly, cough, cough.

Flip sake. Don't the atheists like to claim they have Nietzsche on their side? He'd probably be writing a sequel to Pilgrim's Progress if he could see this shower.

But don't expect any of this namby pambyism from top lawyers. They'll have smelt blood and can't wait to empty bank accounts and destroy reputations to get a few more Armani suits in their wardrobes.

Now, whilst I am myself a Christian, I do have sympathy for people being annoyed at these prayer meetings. Praying at a mixed denomination event like that sounds quite unpleasant to me. But really, you can bloody well leave for a few minutes: there's no cause to whinge about human rights and top lawyers and involve nosey parkers who think they need to know what people they never met are doing.

Incidentally, before anyone gets leftier than thou about this, I came across the NSS website via the very modestly and originally monickered Winston Smith. And what a lovely bloke he is to, hailing as he does from 'Scallysville' in 'chavshire'.

Maybe it's time to admit that all the identity politics and anti-Christian propaganda that the left focuses on now helps to feed a particularly sociopathic form of conservatism.

Declining The West

2010-07-09T06:30:00.000-07:00

Identity politics is an odd one, isn't it?

Maybe one of the reasons I dislike identity politics is looking across the pond (where most of this stuff comes from, not the 'Euro fags' that metropolitan softies like to snigger at) and seeing my Eastern Orthodox cousins and their bizarre views of victimhood.

Essentially, one thing I've learned in life is that the best way to be liked is not to be unlikable. Thank you oh Greg of the mighty intellect for showering us with your great wisdom, you might say. You're welcome. But the whole point of identity politics seems to be to whinge that you are unlikable and people think you're unlikable because they are wicked.

Just read this.

I did get the logic here right, didn't I?
-Hello
-Hello, I'm collecting money for a blowup doll to make love to; wondered if you'd have £50 on you?
-Ugh, that's pretty grim. Anyway, I think I have better things to spend my money on.
-Typical paedo scum!
-What?
-Don't you know Mr Wilson down the road was found with his hand down a boy's underpants?
-No, I didn't know that and why I should pay for you to-
-Then you are a paedo. I just want an artificial girlfriend and you won't give me anything, and there you are ignoring Mr Wilson. Evidence if any was needed that you're a paedo.

Now, you might be asking, this is about Israel. Why is an Orthodox Christian website blabbering on about Israel when Israel's major interaction with its Orthodox neighbours in Palestine and Lebanon is dropping incendiary bombs on them?

Well, that's what identity politics is. This movement of fanatical conservative converts has no interest in Orthodox religion, far less Orthodox brotherhood when it clashes with neo-conservatism, because their religion IS neo-conservatism.

Yet, mark the tone of self-pity? I only pity these people for being so stupid.

One of the things I love about Europe is (and I say this carefully) what an irreligious place it is. That isn't to say that I think its apostacy rates are good or to deny that I think Christianity should play a greater community and intellectual role in the continent. But that I am pleased that religion plays such little role in legalism, censorship or politics here.

Yet the Yanks try to combine religion with politics and in the end have neither Athenian political ethics or Christian religious scruples.

An ideal model of Athens and Jerusalem, or a trainwreck?

I think I can guess that will be an easy one for my readers, but it does demonstrate why identity politics will always work for the right in the end.

Novel Idea

2010-07-07T08:38:00.000-07:00

So sixty years of British fiction has been run through Te Graun's computer and discovered to be 'surpassed' by Johny Yank? There's a surprise.

'Any honest fan of modern fiction has to acknowledge the supremacy* of American writers since the 1960s. For this particular British reader, to discover the novels of Philip Roth and Thomas Pynchon, in particular, was to be released from the tongue-tied mumblings of postwar English fiction into a new world of generous imaginative reach and exuberant language'

This statement is actually quite interesting. Very, very stupid of course, but interesting in its own sense. Could the 'post-war English fiction' be despised precisely because it spoke about a time when our country had values that most modern middle class Brits really despise? Is A Clockwork Orange 'tongue-tied mumbling'? Or High Rise? Somewhere East of Life? Riddley Walker? The Serpent? Murdo Stories? After the Funeral? Lanark? Trainspotting? The Bull From the Sea? Nothing Like the Sun?

These are just some names that came off the top of my head, but one thing came to my mind. These are all either generic or Scottish. I find this interesting in a sense, because this demonstrates that for neo-Liberal Uncle Tom Brits, American pop-culture is valuable because it gives a certain zing to their petit bourgeois metropolitan blinkeredness. It gives a break from the dullness of East Anglian RP speech, without being associated with one of those poor, Labour voting regions. It offers middle brow narratives about mediocre things happening to middle class people without any of this sci-fi/history/detective nonsense. And sure enough:

'...Surely, if the novel in English has a master now at the peak of his powers, it is Ian McEwan.'

This is a good chuckle: precisely because McEwan is undoubtedly as middle class, East Anglian and safe as Brit writers come (which would be fine, if Jones didn't make a point of admiring the ballsiness of American fiction). I seem to remember Te Graun published the first chapter of Saturday, which was one of the most embarrassingly silly things I've read. Whilst overall, Te Graun was fairly good on the Iraq war, I think McEwan's reflections on the subject were amongst the dumbest 'these people probably don't know that Saddam was a nasty chappie' sort. Of course, one of the strengths of a novel is that it can give insight into how people may think without expressing themselves. In this note, it would be interesting if a fictional sympathiser of the war were to consider the none-too utilitarian, PC or neo-liberal question of whether being America's poodle would damage British self-esteem.

I don't think that the author thought about this either. Which is why he is still Te Graun's posterboy.

*Note, not 'superiority', which would be the word if continuing the British comparison but 'supremacy over all the nations of the world.

Will You Still Need Me?

2010-07-06T03:01:00.001-07:00

Now more than ever, Macca. Whilst so many of his fellow post-war rockers get more passionate about their support for fox-hunting than than for the thousands of children in unhealthy housing in this country, it's good to see that one rocker still has idealism.

Saving the whales used to be a fashionable thing in the 80s but now is probably rather passe, for the rock establishment. I guess at the time they were probably more interested in the potential hippy market than concern for cetacean well-being.

Of course, the entire area of animal rights is one of illogic and double standards on both sides. It is curious to me, as a Christian, that secularism has not brought about a greater standard of animal rights. I would never buy anything from Macdonalds or eat anything but free-range eggs and very rarely eat meat.

Yet factory farming is still very lucrative in Britain despite the animals being kept in horrific conditions.

From this view I actually have slight sympathy for the countryside alliance: it is hypocritical to ban foxhunting when battery farming exists. I feel even more strongly that efforts to ban bull-fighting in Spain are hypocritical. If I was a bull, would I rather die in the open air, lunging at a nylon clad ponce who's been throwing darts at me, or be herded into a reeking abattoir? Of course it's ridiculous to displace my Nietzschian outlook onto a ruminant, but then animal rights is all about displacement and empathy, no matter how illogical.

It is precisely because of the illogical nature of idealism that I do feel wounded at seeing the number of rockstars who campaigned in favour of bloodsport. It seemed to me that the post-war rock movement was all about living in a better world.

Whilst MacCartney was never the most charming of stars, his continuing support for animal rights and saving the whales is a great example to us all. Even if such a progressive cause was always going to look unfashionable as popular culture is coming to terms with what it really is.

That ain't the way to have fun

2010-07-03T11:18:00.000-07:00

As something of a not-terribly-coherent, none-too-righteous, endearingly modest Christian, I'm always astounded by just how embarrassing the 'new atheist' movement is because of how closely it mimics the all-out vulgarity and self-righteousness of Evangelical Protestant culture.

Now one of their leaders, Christopher Hitchens, fan of all things Neo-Conservative has cancer. Boohoohoo and all that, but I'm afraid that's the price you have to pay for being a middle aged bloke who's praised for doing something that only 12 year olds are usually praised for: smoking. Maybe 'the Hitch' should have invested in a BMX to really impress the spoilt wassocks who think smoking's so outrageous. If Hitch went cycling, it might have made the photos of the fat berk wielding a Kalashnikov less embarrassing. But anyway, Johann Hari tweets:

'And I forbid everyone from praying for him. He would HATE that. And rightly'

Yaaaaawwwnnn. Uh, I mean, how dare you, you razor-witted Zarathustran iconoclast you. Wait, where's me copper's uniform so I can impersonate Sergeant Howie doing Frankie Howerd facial expressions at the sight of bare arsed teenagers dancing around standing stones. I think I'll burn my Nietzsche, Russell and Voltaire books because obviously the atheist movement has gotten so much more interesting. But there's more:

'I seem 2 have sparked a wave of sanctimonious Xians praying for Hitchens.'

Hari doesn't provide links for proof of how he 'sparked' this 'wave', but I think anyone who's read anything by Hari will be bemused at the 'sanctimonious' bit.

Still, for all you can say about Christians, at least we have some nice etchings. Sure beats the 'new atheist' idea of fun: riling non-existent Christians.

Let Me Out

2010-07-02T05:25:00.001-07:00

Just following on from my last post about how nosey parkers keep spying on one of the few creative American directors, was I fast asleep one morning when Pro-Americanism was declared the state ideology of Britain?

Just reading Empire (after a link on another forum, don't read the thing meself):

'Reeves has done fans of the original (and John Ajvide Lindqvist’s novel) proud. The footage shows a remarkably faithful translation of the film (virtually shot-for-shot in some cases), perfectly capturing the bleakness of Alfredson’s vision.

Remake detractors may turn their self-righteous noses up at the the need to rework foreign language classics for the Anglophone masses but this is definitely one to keep an eye on.'

So Johny Yank just has to steal without messing up too much to receive praise? I did read that right, the director was praised for not messing things up with his own ideas? That's where Western civilisation is heading? He's done 'fans of the original proud'? By stealing from a film they enjoyed? And Lindqvist as well? He can be flattered that someone made a film that was based on a film of his work?

Leave Mel Alone

2010-07-02T04:54:00.000-07:00

See that Mel Gibson has put his foot in it again. Some nosey parkers apparently managed to obtain records of him making racist and sexist comments (which counts as an achievement in our society: look he bad, we good, let's congratulate ourselves).

Now, Mel way indeed be an utter pillock for all I know, but he is possibly America's greatest living director. No, I didn't like Braveheart, but Apocalypto was one of my favourite modern films. Intelligent without being pompous, mystical without being dogmatic, visually stunning but with a tense script.

Furthermore, he doesn't make out that he's some kind of goody-two-shoes like Steven Spielberg. Which really says it all: I'm sure Spielberg wouldn't have the guts to speak in a derogatory way to any man, woman or child for fear of being owned. But sure enough, watch Munich 'wicked Middle Eastern darkies being taken out by European stars acting Middle Easterners' and see how genuinely progressive he is. Not that I'd really care, if the film wasn't everything Apocalypto wasn't: pompous without being intelligent, Judeo-Christian puritanical self-righteousness, visually dull despite the contrived set-pieces. But the different attitudes towards Spielberg and Gibson demonstrate just how daft political correctness has been.

No-one has to respect Mel, but no-one has the right to feel self-righteous after peeping into his private affairs.

Classy Britain

2010-06-30T11:34:00.001-07:00

I: There's a whole Lots of Times I wish I Could Say I'm not Middle Class

But after reading this, I think I'll have to. Mrs Elliot writes an article 'Why I use the term Middle Class as an Insult'. Her answer appears to be that it is because Te Graun pays middle class feminists to spout all sorts of illogical socially liberal gobbledegook that self-flagellating metropolitan leftists lap up.

But Elliot describes why she isn't middle class:
'It's also because I probably am a bit of a Marxist in that I don't believe material things define class so much as power does, along with some ownership of the means of production, and I know we don't possess either of those...
This is the key when it comes to talking about class. It's about knowing, when push comes to shove, which group or class of people has your interests at heart. And it's this that I'm referring to when I use "middle class" as an insult.

People who have never known anything but privilege and wealth, who went to private school, then Oxbridge, and who, thanks to mummy and daddy's connections, has had doors opened to them all their life, cannot possibly know what it is to be poor.'

See! Unless you've been to Oxbridge and have high-level connections, you're working class, and entitled to feel a victim.

Given the government cuts that are coming up there's a good chance that I'll soon be joining the proletarian class in employment terms (and of course by Elliot's definition I can't be middle class anyway). Not that I would regard being fired as meaning anything but moving to a different type of workplace (or possibly the rock and roll if I'm unlucky): I'm hardly living a middle class existence now, either socially (by choice) or economically and I myself have criticised the 'middle class' as an institution. This was because I was diagnosed as 'ill' for not being too good at sums and for not being able to tell when someone is speaking bullshit. But given how Michael Gove has climbed the social ladder and doesn't seem to be regarded as too deviant, I can't say I'm complaining that I was deemed unsuitable for work in a professional office environment.

Still, I would define myself as middle class purely because I don't want to make out that I can really claim to share in the suffering of those who are truly impoverished.

And that is what gets to me about people like Elliot, who provoked the charming (and evidently very popular) rebuke captured above.

II: Opposites Attract

The irony is that Herremott actually has more in common with Elliot than either of them would think. Whilst I don't know if Herremott has enlightened anyone with his opinion on the subject I'd be very surprised if he didn't share Elliot's attitude towards abortion. The weird thing is though that the feminist left that patronises the working class does seem to be moving towards union with the very neo-liberal right that is full of hatred for the working classes. Elliot fully supports a pro-abortion advert, even though it is obviously aimed at getting rid of people that the powers-that-be want rid of (who they think are too stupid to know that a missed period is a sign of pregnancy). However, she is smug because her opponents are the 'religious right', or at least she defines them as such for their opposition to sexual equality legislation. whilst I am myself very squeamish about the way in which many Christian groups focus on homosexuality, especially whilst bankers, weapons-traders and war-mongers are ignored, I do think equal rights legislation can often increase the role of statism, censorship and litigation in our society.

But even then, I think Elliot has little right to be smug about the company she keeps. Just look at Ian Dunt's neo-Malthusian attitude towards the liberal eugenicist argument for abortion:

'The excellent and challenging book 'Freakonomics', by Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner documents a fascinating case study showing a sudden decrease in serious crime in American inner-cities. The authors posit, with a commendable indifference to the controversy they would detonate, that this began the first year that Roe Vs Wade, which effectively legalised abortion in the US, began to have an effect on society. Suddenly, the up and coming criminals, born of families which could not care, love for or afford them, were simply not being born. They were being aborted. Crime plummeted.'

Did crime really 'plummet'? And if so what type of crime? Is it better for someone never to have been born than to be born and steal a handbag? And how many others would would it be worth depriving of the right to life so that someone wouldn't be born to steal a handbag? Also note the creepy way that Dunt implies that those who disagree with his subjective comments is mentally ill or a religious fundamentalist. And this isn't even taking into account that Roe V Wade came shortly after Johnson's Great Society movement (though it was introduced during Nixon's presidency). And look at the strange neo-Puritanical idea of people being destined by economic class to be criminals. No idea of spiritual development: people are pre-destined by their income bracket to be eligible for being killed with a vacuum cleaner. It is for this reason that whilst I am generally sceptical about Christian involvement in politics (and find the ID/creationist movements very embarrassing) I'll always be 'Orthodox' philosophically.

I would be the last to say that abortion is an uncomplicated issue and I realise that social democrats who oppose it have a long struggle ahead. However, I do wish that others would look at how it is marketed. Nick Clegg's jumping into bed with the Tories could be a more sinister sign than many appreciate and a demonstration of how the social leftists and economic rightists who destroyed the British working classes in the 1980s are still in tandem and won't miss a few unborn 'council estate scum'. The Malthusian idea of Britain and the world being overpopulated is actually quite popular in upper class circles what with it being an interest of Prince Charles. Though to be fair the Prince only has one sprog himself. Did I just say that? Sorry, I forgot about his younger ginger-haired 'son'. Anyway, Boris Johnson is also worried about population growth, but evidently doesn't think a surplus of Johnsons is a problem if his brood is anything to go by.

In my humble opinion a plague will come upon the earth and create vast depopulation, but even if that did happen, our betters would still be concerned that the underlings are having too many children.

Lefty Entropy

2010-06-20T11:38:00.000-07:00

I: It’s been so long.

I’ve been really busy recently, which is why I’ve not been posting so much. But whenever I've thought of returning to political blogging, I've found obstacles. When summing up my political views I described myself as ‘an economic old leftist’. I guess it would have been easier to call myself ‘an old leftist’ of the Clement Atlee school: supporting universal health care and nationalised industries, but not caring about identity politics, and coming from a supposedly ‘less-enlightened’ time when unborn children were given legal protection and presiding over a time when a Brit socialist was weaving a far out fantasy of a Britain covered in CCTV. Also, whilst I don’t think immigrants should really have to earn respect, I do think that the commonwealth immigrants in the 40s-50s did so by showing a strong desire to conform to British values despite often receiving shameful discrimination. I suspect this was partially because the old left, entirely correctly, welcomed people of all colours, but asked them to respect the country.

Changed days now. One of the reasons that I was deterred from writing about politics was that I was utterly poleaxed by this article from one of Britain’s supposedly nice supposedly leftist supposedly intelligent journalists: Sunny ‘brown people should vote Tory’ Hundal.

Sunny didn’t let his previous words of support for the Tory party stop him from setting down his very own litmus test for what a leftist is: thinking people should be rewarded for breaking laws designed at helping prevent capitalist exploitation. In other words, no need to respect our laws aimed at helping the poorest citizens: in fact if you help to destroy these laws and subsequently help the middle classes find cheap labour, then welcome on board. If Brown disagrees he 'is not fit to lead the country (neither is Cameron of course, but I was always going to say that'. Course you were Sunny.

Whilst I am very much a part of a largely immigrant community, and spent the best part of a week recently helping elderly ladies who don’t speak English, I really hope I’m not alone in thinking that Hundal is speaking typical atomised middle class self-righteous drivel (I know nothing about Mr Hundal but I can’t help noticing that most our media class as well as being predominantly posh white also contains ethnic minorities who generally have no more to do with poor immigrants than their Eton WASP buddies). As far as I’m concerned the number one issue for British leftists is in restructuring the economy to help the millions who live under the poverty line, the large numbers of long-term unemployed and the millions living in unsanitary accommodation. Otherwise, incidentally, things will get even worse not just for the indigenous poor Brits of all colours (who the ‘progressives’ don’t care about) but for the immigrants who move into the bad accommodation and work conditions that our corrupt politicians have allowed to exist.

However, coming back and reading this really made me want to go away and leave the ‘left’ blogosphere for even longer. According to Hari the gay community were all for Cameron when he was talking about getting tough on the poor. But when it came to allying himself with social conservatives in East Europe (about which more later) they suddenly found their social conscience.

Hari (who previously attacked the ‘disastrous’ nationalised industries that disastrously provided employment for the urban working classes) also tries to lever the Lib Dems towards seeing things his way. The reason? The majority of Lib dem voters are ‘left wing’.

Again, is this what the left is really about? Thinking that a bloke should be allowed to become another bloke’s husband? I’m all for gay rights in oppressive regimes, and have signed Avaaz petitions to that effect, but really: living in a G8 country where tens of thousands of children are malnourished I don’t quite find it the most pressing issue of the day.

Furthermore, he speaks about the famous incident of Chris Grayling voicing his support for the B & B owners who turned away a gay couple: equating it with racism. Whilst I don’t think such discrimination is nice, I don’t think that lifestyle is the same as race (and incidentally, whilst I would find it extremely distasteful if a B & B owner did want to reject a black couple, I would indeed support their legal right to do so).

The third thing that deterred me was reading this and watching this. Yep, I find Alf Garnett more entertaining than Tanya Gold. Is that a sign I’m not left wing?

I'd say not. I think the Alf and Arthur sketch is so funny because it plays on male insecurity (and yes, I think 'Marigold' could have been a bit less camp) and it is funny how after roaring about 'pooftahs' they go all sotto voce when speaking about Lesbians. However, for today's PC squad who love to condemn because it makes them feel good about basically doing nothing, it could only be seen as a hate speech. So in the end everything challenging has to be edited out, and we are left with Tanya's 'hilarious' article about being a fat chick in a plastic costume. In the 'left wing' Graunland, where 'we' take three foreign holidays a year. And where people who 'never had it so good' would be 'under the poverty line now'. Some dafties make out that's because of inflation, but for Graun lefties the poor are just whingers.

II: The PC Dialectic

When I was younger I used to love watching wildlife programmes. One thing that still remains with me was the way that the lions would gracefully bound after a wildebeest, chase it, kill it, and then after a short-lived triumph they'd very often skulk away as a pack of scabby hyenas would scare them off and guzzle the prey.

That really reminds me of the story of modern Brit politics. The cultural left get very self-righteous, they try to destroy traditional values in the name of 'equality', they attack the language, the sense-of-humour, the faith the institutions of a country: then generally makes themselves so unpopular that the rightwingers come along and take advantage of the atomised miserable society the cultural Marxists have created where everyone hates each other and sees each other as devoid of value.

After that it's just a matter of making a few supermarkets with different prices and carrier bags: then watch friendless inadequates whose chief achievement is buying tomatoes in Waitrose go off on a Leni Reifenstahl about how much superior they are to us poor sods who go to Lidls.

Now there is nothing to choose between any of the three parties in anything but mild economic differences. All are anti-poor, anti-industrial, pro-abortion, pro-battery farming, anti-gun ownership, pro CCTV and in favour of saying whatever it is fashionable to say.

What is to be Done

In the words of Neil Clark:

'By organising a mass pan-European movement to oppose privatisation and cutbacks in state provision of health, welfare and education, we can defeat today's anti-democratic, money-grabbing, pinstripe-suited tyrants.'

Yes, by organising this we can. But can we?

I'd make a few points:

-The 'mainstream' political left will probably continue to fluff up any efforts to attract the large East European voting block in Britain that could be expected to be sympathetic to 'Old Labour' values.

Firstly because barely any Labour MPs are. Secondly, even those socially conservative leftists on the outskirts of the political system: such as Neil Clark and David Lindsey tend towards Euroscepticism, especially regarding immigration.

Whilst I realise that there is a lot wrong both with the EU and with Britain's immigration policy, I think we have to seize the opportunity of using the influx of foreign workers to revitalise the Old Left.

As my friend Bogdan says:
'Those who have turned the UK into a huge social engineering laboratory meant to create the new (politically correct) human being won’t stop'

This is very true and is reflected in our weird society, where many blokes think (or pretend to think) Sex and the City is a work of genius: rather than a stupid piece of materialistic consumerist crap aimed at the dumbest members of the fair sex.

I think few socially libertarian leftists really understand just how totalitarian the PC movement is: especially in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Whilst I have no desire to own porno, it was astounding how middle class radical feminists were quick to feel that THEY were the true victims of impoverished girls being exploited and team up with the right to take statist censorship policies in the USA.

For this reason, I really do think the most liberal prodigal sons of the left movement would be best returning to the fold (and incidentally, I don't oppose civil unions or generous immigration: I just think the focus of the left should be the urban poor).

I also think that there should be a left-wing web campaign designed at mocking the most self-righteous leftists.

Lastly, I think some leftists more intelligent and cultured than me should revitalise Atlee's vision of Brit TV as providing quality culture. Being honest I'm not above watching some pretty dubious stuff, but the Big Brother/ Stars in their Eyes mush is a powerful tool in the capitalist arsenal.

Hello Again

2010-06-17T08:36:00.000-07:00

Hi Folks

This is me bringing the old blog out of hibernation. I'll probably ultimately ditch this and switch horses, but thinking about what's what first. Or in other words why I ultimately felt pretty unsatisfied with this blog.

Those who followed my blog will pretty much know my politics: I'm economically 'old left', socially ambivalent (pro-life, against the right to sue for discrimination except in very compelling circumstances, no views on civil partnerships, in favour of legalising handguns, most drugs as well as prostitution), internationally isolationist, anti-war, in favour of multi-ethnic patriotism though against politicised multiculturalism and ghettoisation, and in favour of intelligent pan-Europeanism though fairly ambivalent about the EU, in favour of high immigration, but immigration in tandem with a sensible housing strategy (an area where the self-righteous left and atavistic right are equally bad). I'm generally libertarian in terms of civil liberties/ surveillance but think it worth noting that many social-democratic countries have better records in this regard than capitalist ones.

Whilst this is a wide list of my political views, not all of them hold the same weight. I don't even take caffeine after early afternoon, but can't see what we gain by giving the drugs trade to criminals. Likewise, I'd have no interest in visiting prostitutes (or indeed in becoming one) but can't see what society gains by putting vulnerable people from poor backgrounds under the 'protection' of savage pimps rather than the police. However, I think the priority should be in creating an egalitarian and happy society that prevents these things rather than in using statist approaches to the outcomes and for that reason would support dirigisme social conservatives.

My cultural tastes (which I hope to focus on more) might be less well-known: lots of (generally pretty naff) music from the 60s-80s, Brit films of the 60s-70s, books with lots of drama from Aeschylus to HP Lovecraft. I think I'll bring more cultural reviews in partially because I relate to Britain more through its popular culture than to the country Britain has become.

Anyway, I think my bitterness towards modern Britain came out too much. There is a lot that's very badly wrong with modern Britain, but I think it is possible to unintentionally multiply the historicist solecisms of the very people who are ruining our country. For instance, we keep hearing about what a rotten country that Russia is because of its history. In fact Russia was a deeply enlightened country during late Tsarism. But if you want to attack a modern country based on its history, just read accounts of people being hanged, drawn and quartered in front of massive, baying crowds in England.

But even then, on a more personal level I do love Britain or Scotland at least: though spiritually, linguistically, demographically and historically I see Scotland as largely Northumbrian (and whilst I have some sympathy for the Gaelic movement West of Kingussie, I find it positively creepy how they're inveigling their way eastwards). There is an open-mindedness and a sense of humour that doesn't exist in many countries. Yes, there are uniquely odious creatures spawned on the humid flatlands of the South and, being honest, reading George Orwell's views on Britain (i.e. a small patch of South East) leave me cold. But overall I think many Brits are really amongst the most open-minded and friendly people on the planet and the British language has a great flexibility and beauty.

I'm hoping that I might be able to make a contribution to debates on British politics which might be coming up whilst possibly also focusing on what I think the left should do. But as we don't know what our masters are scheming at present, it is difficult to know what to say.

Thanks to all the people who contributed comments to my blog; it is always encouraging to get feedback whether positive or negative.

(If this reads like a very badly thought-out-ramble it's cause I've been feeling really, really rough: summer cold/ hayfever combo).