I am having my car fixed and have three hours to kill.
I continue to be angered by pc attitudes. I have 3 stories, one that happened to me, one that happened near me, and one that I read about, all illustrate self-righteousness, but not only self-righteousness but the right these people feel they have to impose their beliefs on others.
When I was young an ex-friend called me a “right fucker”. It was not meant in a pleasant way, it was meant that I always had to be right. I don’t object to that description although it was not meant as a compliment. I talk about many things in this blog but I always try to tell the truth – be right. This is especially difficult because in this covert political world we live in it is hard to discern the truth. I like to think that where I cannot discern the truth I don’t try to claim that what I say is the truth. I am pretty confident that Assad did not drop the chemical bombs. How would he benefit? Trump wanted to promote jingoism, it would not surprise me if he, or hos strategists – directly or indirectly, instigated the chemical bombing but I would never be able to prove it. So this is not truth but it not intentional lying.
I work hard to varying degrees at truth and in Buddhism truth is predicated on morality. Through meditation I have developed a certain level of insight which has given me a conviction about what I do, about what I say is the truth. I would recommend the practices and moral code associated with the 4 Noble Truths – I would recommend as strongly as I possibly could BUT I would never force anyone to follow them. Even if I was government I would never try to force anyone to do something. The pcbullies feel they have the right to set rules governing all the people at their universities because they have been voted for. OK the voting gives them some rights but demanding such minutiae of social behaviour in my view is censorship and dictatorship. I would argue that their moral code is not as strong as mine because they are so young; they do not have the experience to judge. yet they still feel they can impose.
To the 3 stories. I was in Oman, and parking at a supermarket. I found a space, moved past it, turned the car, and stopped preparing to reverse into the place. It was my view that I had begun the parking manoeuvre. I saw a motor-bike whip past me from the left (I was in a left-hand drive), and cussed the stupidity of these idiots who drive near the knuckle. But he hadn’t driven past, he had nipped into my parking space. I was driving a Pajero and there was no way I could see that he had gone in, having started the manoeuvre it should not have been necessary. Suddenly there was a bang on the back of the 4by4, my truck had hit his bike. Why didn’t he stop me before I hit him?
A policeman came over, and I was explaining that the problem was caused by the reckless driving of the motorbike and that I had started the manoeuvre. But here is the liberal involvement. A white woman came over. I am assuming, I don’t know, that she saw a tall angry white man with an Arab police officer picking on an Asian man. She said that the bike was in the parking place, and that I reversed into him. Whilst he was parked before I hit him, the fact is that he had been “slick” and drove into the parking space after I had started the manoeuvre.
By this time my self-righteousness had completely lost it and I was literally hopping mad with frustration because I had started the manoeuvre and yet this woman said I was at fault. The police officer took a back seat in all this, and effectively allowed the woman to fight the battle. From within my own anger I watched her become entrenched, at the same time I saw fear as I was so angry. Typical liberal attitude – entrenched fear. She came over, interfered when it was not her business, and then gets upset because I was angry with her.
The policeman should have resolved the issue but he stood back and watched white people arguing. In the end when I calmed down the police officer saw my side, I think – nothing said, but asked me if I would pay 20 rials – just over £30 for the damage done to the bike (more than the damage cost). I did so as I didn’t want to get all liberal and righteous in courts etc – with all that expense.
My assessment as to why this was liberalism. In my view the woman had not understood that I had started the manoeuvre, had come over because I was a white male who was angry (and could therefore be an MCP); she wanted to defend the “underdog” Asian – Indian on the motorbike. Did she drive? I did not have the presence of mind to ask. In Oman these motor-bike drivers nipping in and out of traffic were a menace on the roads, I now question whether she did in fact drive. Why didn’t she understand about the manoeuvre, or was she simply too entrenched to listen?
The second incident that I observed was on an overnight bus travelling from London to Manchester – maybe 40 years ago when smoking was not so universally condemned. A person started smoking, and a liberal man stood up and shirtily started to complain about the smoking and grabbed the cigarette out of the smoker’s mouth – he was quite obnoxious about it. A black man in front of me soon after started smoking, and the liberal stood up presumably to act in a similar way. The black man simply said to just try it. I didn’t want the black guy to smoke but I almost cheered the way he put this obnoxious self-righteous man down. Cowardly liberalism again.
Finally a story where the consequences of interfering liberalism mattered – in the above instances the liberalism was only irritating. It happened somewhere in Scotland, maybe 20 years ago. A man’s young daughter, maybe 8 years old, had been having trouble with her teeth for days, had been complaining so the father eventually took her to the dentist. When she got to the surgery she refused to go in; eventually he spanked her and she went in. I am not condoning the father’s actions but he was her father and it was his right to resolve the situation as he saw fit; so I accept what he did – I would not have interfered. However the dental receptionist liberal did not, she phoned the police and reported an assault. Because the matter had been reported the police by their code of practice (again a liberal imposition) were forced to respond, came to the surgery and arrested the father. He was imprisoned overnight.
Part of the reason the father had taken the girl to the dentist was because it was Xmas Eve and he didn’t want his daughter moaning all through Xmas – spoiling Xmas everyone. Because of the liberal receptionist – who takes no further part in the impact of her interfering actions, a family was divided over Xmas because the father was in prison overnight.
It turns out the father was a teacher and because he was involved in a case of child abuse the headteacher could not risk the father being in the classroom – in case of liberal parents complaining, so he was not allowed to teach. He was pushed into being the school librarian – and I have a feeling his livelihood was further threatened but I cannot remember the details. The following June the case appeared in court, and because the father had assaulted the daughter he was found guilty and the judge fined him a £1. What devastation was caused in that family because of the interference of the liberal receptionist.
The characteristic of all this liberalism was that they wish to interfere and impose their values on others. I personally have not met any liberals who are clear-minded and who have thought through the implications of their thinking – their liberal thinking stops at emotionally accepting a human right. But then I disagree with them so I wouldn’t think they were clear-minded. I have no doubts that they are community-minded, and for that reason should be commended. But being community-minded is not the same as interfering and imposing their values on others without responsibility or consequence. Such liberals are not famous for standing up in court as witnesses against violent criminals. I have done that and it is not pleasant, and it affects your life. In my view this type of liberal walks away from such. They will impose when they are in charge, in other words they are bullies – liberal or PC bullies, the violence of the state forces supporting them.
Does that make them any better than other forms of bullies? Such as racists or sexists. Well it does to some extent. Abuse against women or children (not parental punishment) is worse than liberal interference. But such interference has consequences as in the case of the father at the dentist, and the liberal did not face any of that with her interference. It reminds me of the abortion argument. Rich US right-wing Christians demand that poor people give birth into a life of poverty and sometimes ill health when they have the money to prevent both, but they feel they have the right to interfere.
We have to respect the rights of individuals and not impose liberal values (ill thought out in my view) on other people.
It is this self-righteousness that the MIC manipulates to cause war and therefore profit. Liberals have been condemning Donald Trump especially since he became president. But then he drops bombs and the liberals support that, where is the compassion in the dropping of bombs? Liberal mainstream media (such as Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee, John Oliver) has been condemning Donald Trump for lies – or alternative truths, yet they don’t question whether the chemical attacks are from Assad – an assumption that has no logical basis. How much do these liberals know about Syria? Are they informed enough to make a valid conclusion? I am not. What about the “mother of all bombs”? Are they informed about that? And North Korea? They say Trump lies but when it comes to war he doesn’t?
For me this is typical of ill-thought-out liberal thinking. There is an element of emotional compassion but it is superficial – poor babies. Their fear dominates their thought processes. The establishment pronounces there is a threat from radical Islam. Afghanistan, North Korea, and instead of questioning and the demanding of accountability as to the validity of such actions the fear of these liberals allows for unwarranted acts of war (in my view). As usual the MIC gets its profits, and in this case some say Trump has personally profited – I don’t know but I assess it would be possible of such a man.
And with all of this so many people have now been convinced that such people are left-wing!!
This is always worth watching, it is about Occupy – “Rise like Lions”:-
If I am seeking Unity why do I make such a scathing attack on liberalism, surely I want also to unite with these Liberals. The problem is they are so divisive. Firstly their self-righteousness is arrogant. On an individual and global level they interfere because of this arrogance. Secondly they are not analytical. Whilst their approach has a superficial basis in compassion – anti-racist, anti-sexist and pro-LBGT as well as human rights – their fear does not allow them to progress beyond this superficial emotionality. In terms of feminism Bell Hooks described two types of feminism – reformist and revolutionary (non-violent hopefully). Reformism means working within the system, and in general this system known as neoliberalism has proven not to work. The 1% are not going to relinquish their power easily, and a touch of arrogant self-righteousness is not going to produce the change. The fear of these liberals turns a blind eye on the systemic problems such as the profligate wars for profits as evidenced by the support for Donald Trump’s acts of war. So whilst there is Unity with the ideals of these people the arrogant self-righteousness is divisive. This can be evidenced by the stance of US liberal media (Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee and John Oliver) who throughout the election attacked Donald Trump, and now continue to attack him on party lines – they could be seen as humorous party political broadcasts. Yet quite clearly there is support against the Liberals as evidenced by the presidential vote. These satirical programmes which were once of a flavour that was left-wing and progressive are now a pillar of the mainstream media, and as such are causing division because they are not part of a movement against the 1%.
My personal aggression towards these liberals is based on personal experience, and also because their superficial approach has enabled the right to attack left-wing principle by identifying liberalism with the left-wing. Historically on the left genuine socialists have worked within the mass movement such as Labour in the UK and Democrats in the US but now the character of these mass movement parties has changed. They have become Liberal establishment rather than moving towards genuine socialism. Whilst movements such as Momentum surrounding Corbyn and Our Revolution around Sanders are movements that genuine socialism can unite behind, the character of these movements has to be firmly based in anti-1% positions with their wars for profit and this character has to eschew the liberalism that alienates the genuine working-class perspective. How can a working-class perspective ignore the legitimate claims of white working people who have lost their jobs? How can these white people be ignored because they may or may not be racist or sexist? Yet these Liberals did, and continue to do so if Liberal media is anything to go by. Liberal positions might sound acceptable with their compassionate rhetoric but the Liberal fear concerning their materialism and way of life prevents them from targeting the 1% who use their Liberal fear.
Liberalism is divisive, and as such it needs to be attacked for what it is – effective 1%-support. These Liberals need to identify themselves with the 99% and stop allowing their fear to be manipulated by the 1% to divide the 99%.
Archive for the ‘Struggle’ Category
Perhaps I need to state (although I am probably being pedantic) the promotion of the 21st century anarchists is a strategy and not an aim in itself. As usual the 1% are only interested in their own gains at whatever the costs, and the obstacle to their accumulation is collectivisation. This collectivisation has to be genuine collectivisation as opposed to the liberal state that is part of neoliberal control. By promoting internet anarchy the 1% are trying to destroy an already-weak collective response as the 99%.
Whilst there is an ongoing battle between the anarchic pundits and the mainstream media, whilst the liberals continuously attack the populists and vice versa, the political leaders are acting with authoritarianism in a typically anarchic fashion. Consider Syria, where is Trump’s consistency? In fact there is an intentional inconsistency to prevent a collective response.
Occupy has these (1 and 2) analyses about neo-fascism and appropriate collective responses. It talks about the end of neoliberalism, I wonder whether that is the case. I suspect there is an element of brinkmanship in what is happening now. I cannot see WW3 being in the interests of the 1%. But whilst there is Trump’s aggression I fear more for what is happening behind the scenes. Environmental protection is being hacked whilst Trump is dropping bombs. Trump is sufficiently chaotic and has sufficient opposition that once the 1% have made sufficient gains and brought the world to the brink, it would not be difficult to remove him – and bring in a new era of relative neoliberal peace.
We allow this to happen.
I am not sure why I hadn’t seen it before but there is a very clear pattern to the global political manipulations – and that is ANARCHY. When we look at US politics this is clear because what we have in the president is anarchy.
To create anarchy is very easy if you are prepared to finance it. Let’s consider the fictitious Brett O’Keefe in Homeland S6. His populism was financed by a rogue deep state but was not difficult to do – internet, cable and a trolling boiler room. And yet in the fiction he became a powerful “independent” media. Sol Berenson’s analysis was also interesting, (40 second clip blocked by Fox) Homeland s06e11 starts at 16 minutes. CIA tactics – disinformation, street demonstrations leading to an elected government that couldn’t take office.
Throughout my life this sort of analysis has been associated with left-wing analysts advising a collective mass movement. This analysis was based on the understanding that the bourgeoisie’s only fear was a rising proletariat (as represented by the elected in Homeland), and that the collective had to be aware of machinations against it – the CIA tactics against the collective.
In the US the democratic process has always been well controlled. I am not a big fan of the hypocrisy of Obama but his term of office shows the way it has been controlled recently. Obama could not put forward any policies because the Republicans controlled the senate. “No gun laws” was the obvious example, the other was to remove Guantanamo. The advice of such left-wing analysis(above) was to demonstrate this establishment control, and through collective struggle enact change.
In Homeland it was the Deep State which was manipulating the political situation (in the movie a rogue deep state with rogue CIA director, a general and Israel in the background – a marked change from the pro-Israeli positions early in the life of Homeland). It was a Deep State of rogue individuals – a common “escape clause” when the system goes wrong; in this Homeland was true to its origins. And it is consistent with the new 1% paradigm, the promotion of anarchists.
As an aside the understanding of Deep State has been changed by this 1%-paradigm. In Homeland the Deep State is treated as an organisation per se but it is my understanding that left-wing analysis has always recognised the Deep State as the 1% in government. As part of the 1%-anonymity paradigm the Deep State is now being characterised as Obama, democratic, anything but 1%.
In my view (no evidence) Occupy scared the 1%, for the first time the political spotlight was put on them. The activists of the Occupy movement in its origins of Horizontalidad, in the Arab Spring, and Occupy movements globally pointed at the 1%, and sought to unite the 99%. This was a public attack that could not be allowed to grow, the 1% needed to deflect attention away from themselves.
And they have done this by promoting anarchism on the internet. It is cheap and easy to promote such anarchism, financing hardworking committed individuals with webcams, webspace and newsletters – even bots and boiler rooms. There is no need for the 1% to control these anarchists because their very approach carries out what the 1% wants – a diffusing of the power of the 99%. And the pc-police with their tactics of censorship and state control have walked into this anarchy-promoting political paradigm.
What is a fundamental characteristic of an anarchist? The lack of willingness to work within a collective, they are anti-collectives, anti-government, anti-state. Although they claim to be pro-99%, ordinary people, what they do is attack all collective organisations including those who do some work for the benefit of these ordinary people. Instead of the 99% working together, these anarchist egos call themselves activists, pull followers together, and are scattered fractions across the internet with a characteristic of mutual separation. Here is a workable Unity Platform typical of the sort of approach that could effectively work against the 1% but has no chance of getting off the ground because of these anarchist egos.
Look at the anarchy that has been created. In the US Trump is 100% a loose cannon. His anarchic egotistical approach to a nationalist agenda gets quickly knocked on the head with Syria. But that does not mean there is an end to the anarchy. His policies will continue to be all over the place. But look at the “independent” media having a field day discussing Syria, the attack was on 6th April; by today the 13th April the internet is awash with individuals putting forward theories as to the causes of the attack – false flags, deeper so-called analysis – warning to China about North Korea. The internet is simply easily-funded anarchist media – chaos.
Look at Brexit in the UK. The withdrawal from the EU has thrown British government into an anarchic state, it has no direction. EU laws are up in the air, and behind the scenes lobbies are working to control those laws – to the benefit of corporate tyranny (1%) against the interests of ordinary people (99%). In this anarchic state it is difficult for collective organisations to function and fight the powers of the 1%, and this is the achieved objective of the anarchic funding.
Is there a commonality amongst the internet egos? At first inspection it appears they are all over the place and that there is no commonality. There are egos on the left, egos on the right, but with no apparent commonality until you identify these egos as anarchist, and then there is a common thread – a move against collective action – action typified by Occupy. It is this characteristic of anarchy that is shown by the chaotic world we live in. And only one group benefits from such anarchy the 1%. Who can resist the power of their money but a united 99%? Lobbying increases, behind the scenes laws are manipulated to benefit the 1%. Tar sands, coal anti-environment have all followed from the anarchy that is Trump, and the only people who benefit are the 1%. And when you see the 1% benefitting you know there is a strategy it is just a question of identifying it – funding anarchy. The 1% now controls the internet with its funding. There is no need for concerted activity amongst the internet egos because their very separate anarchism is what creates the 1%-strategy and the climate for their manipulation.
And what follows from anarchy but agreed fascism – to control the anarchy. Infringements of liberty, a more controlled workforce, and greater profits for the 1%. How do we fight this? Collectivise, promote compassion and morality. Unity.
Finance – It is clear to me that “independent” media is being financed – we know mainstream media is corporate (1%). My own insignificant blogs and my website is funded by my pension – a pension gained by a life of compromise in teaching.
I have been unhappy with the recent obfuscation of political terminology, and activism is a word that significantly comes under that obfuscation.
There is a recent history that is so important in understanding the current division in politics. And that is Occupy. Occupy grew out of global movements of horizontalism (horizontalidad), and became prominent in the West with Occupy Wall Street. At OWS the terminology of 1% and 99% became fashionable, and people were uniting under a common banner. I remember personal anger at the time when a libertarian posted Occupy Thailand. It felt like he had appropriated OWS but instead I should have sought Unity. Occupy did bring the 99% together adversarially against Wall Street (to me Wall Street means finance corporations and the MIC). They developed an approach which negated previous means of diffusing mass movement approaches – see Occupy tag.
Significantly the 1% did not want the left and right to unite against them. Since Occupy, Liberals have been exploited as the tactic to divide the 99%. Liberals demand identity politics and have created a PC-police enforcing adherence. This has enabled a division to be created in which the mass movement left-wing approach has been submerged within a legitimate attack on this liberal separatism. Disadvantaged white people have been manipulated into supporting a right-wing populist whose very essence is an anathema to all that is compassionate and moral. And within 6 years of Occupy we have a huge and bitter division of the 99%, not just in the US nor just in the UK but everywhere that is neoliberal.
What is needed is collective action working together against the 1% and their manipulations. Activism means a call for and participating in action, it is not a discussion of political analysis alone. Yet that is what has happened over the internet. Typical of this is Activist Post. Look at the names of the people on the rreading list, but where do I read calls for action on Activist Post?
Unlike liberals I expect there to be conspiracy theory, the Deep State does act in the interest of the 1% and works against the interest of the 99%; here is Samantha Bee’s misguided discussion of Deep State. It is only recently that I have realised that many of the people informing of what I considered to be left-wing positions are actually members of the intellectual right.
But there are two big differences – nationalism and activism. Activism in my view requires activity – and not simply analysis. Analysis alone divides – creating divisions. Analysis whose purpose is to clarify appropriate activity is beneficial, analysis alone just creates frustration. So I ask Activist Post, where are your calls for action? Your first read George Orwell went to war for his activity, Naomi Klein was prominent in Occupy, and is regularly promoting activity. Analysis alone has no power, and can be misdirected as can be seen with Trump.
So where is the power in Activist Post? Where the calls for action? Are Activist Post on the Dakota pipeline? What about mindful consuming such as boycotting GMO, BDS – boycotting Israeli products, using the power of our wages and money to affect the actions of the 1%-corporations? Exposing conspiracies is legitimate but where does it take us without action? To the next conspiracy to expose …. and so on. Conspiratorial action will always happen whilst the 1% have control, and whilst they control the Deep State and the electoral process through neoliberalism. The only vain hope we have is to unite people behind a programme of activity that will take power away from the 1% and their puppets and back into the hands of the people. And this cannot be done by ideas alone. The internet is not real, it is a collection of information and ideas. If we vent on the internet we have done nothing real. Reality occurs when we carry out actions that affect the 1%, consumer spending that supports ONE Planet. Activist Post, where is your activity?
The greatest sadness of the internet is that people have been deluded into thinking the internet is real, that their participation on the net has a real impact, and meanwhile the power of the 1% has increased and the exploitation of the 99% has worsened.
Activist Post – be active – not simply analytic.
Trump and Brexit have indicated a change in mainstream politics. When I listened to Pilger on Trump then it became clear that there has been a change in the political paradigm. I grew up with politics on the left, mainstream politics that discussed a centrist-right battle of Labour-Conservative with the 1% functioning somewhere towards the right end of the spectrum indistinguishable from the Tories. With Blair the liberals have come into the mainstream. With an ineffective Liberal party, clinging to power in a coalition that provided none of their policies, these liberals have worked with the Blair opportunists and now Labour has even further lost its class identity. Corbyn has been trying to reclaim that identity but these parliamentary Blairites (with the support of the media) have fought him all the way, and whilst Corbyn has Labour movement support these mainstream attacks are affecting the ballot box. Meanwhile these liberals have appropriated a stage in mainstream politics, and their agenda is two-fold:-
• Promoting an alienating agenda of identity politics – PC police
The power of these two positions within mainstream politics has enabled a right-wing reaction throughout the western world, promoted UKIP in the UK, and voted in Trump in the US.
As a consequence of this liberal rise, there has been a profound change in the political paradigm. The left wing (as a purist I do not include liberals as left but most do) has become a legitimate target for the right because of these alienating liberal policies. At the same time the arrogance of this liberal purism (as exemplified here) continues to label the right as racist, sexist and anti-LBGT even though there has been an emergence of some legitimate compassionate populist right thinking and analysis. Within this division the 1% seem to have disappeared, and a naïve liberal agenda continues self-righteously to fan the flames of the division especially in the US.
As a response to this shift in paradigm there needs to be a political change as exemplified by the Unity Platform:-
Once I saw Trevor Phillips “Has Politically Correctness gone mad?”, I watched more. There were flags, and then …. In the intro to political correctness he spoke of losing out on 3 extremists, Brexit May and Corbyn; that was a flag he saw Corbyn as extremist. He spoke often of being the liberal that people like Farage are against so “being liberal” was a flag. When I watched “Things about race etc”, I was pleased to see him raising issues that Liberals don’t usually discuss. Things were going well.
I did however note his discussion of Jews, and he brazenly put up J ……
Yes some Jews do have too much power because some Jews are very rich and powerful. But at the same time some Jews are not rich and powerful, and attack their own “rich and powerful”. He did say they were richer on average but that still does not mean all Jews are the same. Trevor criticised people who said “All blacks are the same”, further discussed diversity training as suggesting erroneously “All whites are the same”, yet he is saying all Jews are the same – rich and powerful. I learnt from black people how not to be racist, because black people should be treated differently and I should not accept media stereotypes. I learnt from Jews through the 6 tenets how not to be anti-semitic, Trevor needs to examine himself in terms of these 6 tenets.
It is not usual for me to describe black people as racist. I subscribe to the maxim that Power + Prejudice = Racism, but in the world of the liberal elite Trevor Phillips has power so he has the potential for misuse of power. In describing the Jews in this way he is being racist, because he has the power to influence. This was a bad flag. When you talk about “all” in terms of race then you take a risk because all black people are not the same nor are whites nor are Jews. I understand this position on Jews, it is common amongst liberals and the left because some Jews are powerful – are 1%. I have to recognise ego in this.
I was also disappointed that he did not confront some black issues. When he addressed the violence of black youth he was extremely careful not to offend black people. This negates the whole point of his programme – to expose the racism that is propagated by liberals avoiding causing offence. At first he used police figures to say that Colombians controlled violent street crime in South London. In the 80s word said it was the Jews in Camberwell who were controlling the street crime because they were supposed to have bought the stolen goods. Then when he discussed the actual figures of violent street crime, Trevor used the sentencing figures rather than stating that black youth were carrying out violent street crime. This was liberal avoidance. There are many institutional issues involved with the criminalising of black youth but how much is there a propensity for black British to be involved in street crime? I cannot answer this as I don’t live there now. In the 80s all the arguments concerning the criminalising of black youth by institutional racism, police racism and the general racism in society were true, but some of the black youth themselves still choose to participate in street violence. In my view Trevor is completely correct in confronting the liberal avoidance embodied in political correctness but in doing this his approach has to be almost perfect – above criticism; again in my view on these two issues his approach has to be questioned.
But the above is nothing compared to what he came out with concerning Muslims – “What British Muslims really think”, I was horrified. After seeing so much good stuff about exposing PC bullies it was a surprise. But in the context of the above flags it is not a surprise, a black person can show prejudice. In my view he also showed typical liberal weaknesses. He criticised violence yet ignored the violence perpetrated on Muslim countries. He focussed on criticisms of homosexuality – a liberal issue, he concentrated on Muslim minority views, and he also criticised the Muslims because of a small percentage of violent views.
He began by quoting Cameron talking about British values, this is well-established code for racists who insist that others adopt a British way of life – whatever that is. It is not an appeal for what non-whites should do but trying to appease white people with having non-whites in the country. Gina Yashere in a comedy routine talks of the anger of her Nigerian mother at immigrants coming taking her jobs. Rather than being an advert for diversity Trevor appears to be adopting Gina’s comic caricature.
To me there is a good deal of inconsistency in his position. I mentioned already that Trevor was “around” when I was learning about racism in the mid-to-late 70s. I am now going to make a comparison between black activists in the 70s and Trevor’s criticism of Muslims. This is a subjective comparison. As this is not an academic blog I offer no proof, and I am making assumptions that the position of black activists I am putting forward is the same position Trevor held at the time – I have no right to do this but I don’t believe I am wrong. My point is this. I believe that many of the criticisms that Trevor has of Muslims parallel criticism of 70s and 80s attitudes towards black people. I assess that he and many people consider that black people have sufficiently integrated now, so by drawing the comparison I am saying “give it time”.
I first want to begin with the issue of terrorism. Evidently there are some British Muslims involved in what the world calls terrorism – as defined by the West in their War on Terror. In the 70s and 80s black people were supporting violence. This would be the violence in which black people were overthrowing the British (or European) colonialists, this would also be the violence of the slaves in terms of their suffrage. There would also be many black people who would be supporting struggles against the neocolonial puppets who were in charge throughout Africa, freedom movements or freedom struggles would be common descriptions.
In Trevor’s programme on “What British Muslims really think?”, he based his criticisms on a Channel 4 survey. The survey asked whether Muslims supported violence, and the answer was 4% did. In the 70s and 80s if black people had been asked if they supported violence, I would suspect far more than 4% supported violence; and many more would have said they understand the use of violence – such as the criminalising of black youth.
In the 70s and 80s the recent history of black people had been affected by the violence of colonialism, and their response at the time would have been to accept that violence could be a legitimate response. The degree of violence that Muslim people have been subjected to since 9/11 is comparable to the violence that black people suffered – I use the word comparable loosely because measuring the violence that black people suffered through slavery as well as colonialism as compared with wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen are horrendous events to try to “compare”. But the violent attacks on these predominantly Muslim parts of the world are “recent”, and therefore feelings amongst Muslims would also be “recent” – comparable with the acceptance of violence by British black communities in the 70s and 80s.
But Trevor did not attack support for violence, the survey discussed the acceptance of violence but Trevor jumped to interpreting the survey’s acceptance of violence as accepting terrorism. This is a big jump. British governments might well have described the freedom struggles of the African peoples as terrorist, history now sees such struggles as legitimate, and because of white control of media little mention is given of the true nature of colonialism and neocolonialism.
If Muslims feel that violence is a possible response to dictatorship in the Middle East, or if Muslims feel violence is a possible response to wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, or if Muslims believe that violence is a possible response to the drone strikes on Yemen and Somalia, this would be totally consistent with history’s support of freedom struggles in Africa – totally consistent with any black support of violence in their freedom struggles.
But support of freedom struggles is not support of terrorist acts. If the survey had asked “do you support acts of terrorism such as 7/7 or the other bombs within the countries of the NATO hegemony?”, I very much doubt whether the figure would have been as high as 4%. When NATO troops invade Muslim countries for whatever reason, isn’t violence a legitimate response to invasion?
To me Trevor appears to have forgotten his history.
Over the years I suggest that British black attitude to violence has become aligned with the “general” population, and there is no reason to think that British Muslims would not also align themselves as they become distanced from their recent history of experiencing violence.
On homosexuality there is an interesting article in the Guardian on its practise in Muslim countries. When I worked in the Middle East (Muslim Arab countries) I had the feeling – no more than that – that homosexuality was tolerated in those Muslim countries. However there are other Muslim countries where the attitude to homosexuality is so different. I surmise that the attitude of the Taliban towards homosexuality would be very different to that of more tolerant Muslims in the Middle East. Traditionally black communities have not been tolerant of homosexuality, and some African countries to this day show intolerance – Uganda and others. However over the years this intolerance by black people in Britain has liberalised, and has aligned more to that of white people. It would not be unreasonable to expect British Muslims also to align themselves with the more liberal attitudes that are accepted “generally” in the wider population.
On segregation Trevor is again fanning flames. When I grew up white middle-class lived separately from white working-class, and held different values. In the middle-class community of my youth it was not written but understood that these classes were separate, and bringing home a working-class girl was almost as bad as a black woman. Separation is not a problem, and is normal for British life. How many people have been invited to the home of a lord?
This is also inflammatory. If this was going to be used as an indicator of Muslims creating problems through segregation, it would have been an appropriate comparison to ask now how many white people have been in black homes. Back in the 70s and 80s it was just as rare for black and white to meet outside work – sunset segregation. Equally it was rare for Indians and whites to meet outside work. Again my point is that it is not Muslims creating this issue.
How many white people invite Muslims into their homes? If such an invite occurs, how many Muslims have not reciprocated? I have only known Arab Muslims, and not in Britain, they were hospitable but I was never invited into their parents’ home because I was a lowly teacher. Back in the 70s and 80s I was in and out of black peoples’ homes but that was because my personal life involved black people but I doubt very much whether there was anything other than sunset segregation for most of the teachers. I also think it significant that white culture accepts drinking, but on drinking Muslim culture is better (not dependent on drugs) as it is expected that people abstain. Much sunset socialising is done in pubs after work, I don’t know whether Muslims would join in – I know how uncomfortable I feel when I watch friends deliberately moronicise themselves when drinking.
Separate schools for Muslims is always considered a segregation issue yet back in the 70s and 80s British black people advocated supplementary schools. If black people are now considered integrated such an advocacy hasn’t hurt.
In the late 70s and early 80s I taught in Brixton, and also taught part-time at Gresham. This was a black only school, and it was a tradition that came over from the Caribbean where black children were additionally taught in supplementary schools. These supplementary schools were especially important for black students because teacher expectation in mainstream schools, amongst other factors, was lowering their achievement. Bernard Coard’s book “How the West Indian child is made educationally sub-normal in the British school system” was typical of black viewpoints at the time. It was written in the early 70s, and is discussed here in the Guardian 10 years ago, and here.
This separate schooling was part of a Caribbean tradition of “Saturday schools” (supplementary schools) to promote their cultural interests, and to avoid the institutional racism that existed in schools.
What is wrong with Muslims wanting separate schooling now? In fact it could be considered that the issue is worse for Muslims because of the War on Terror which has been turned into a powerful Islamophobic movement across the world. This probably means that the anti-Muslim racism is far worse in schools; when I taught in the UK in 2003/2004 there was a serious tension regarding Islamic students. It must be worse when teachers are expected to report on potential “student-terrorists”.
In general Trevor confronts liberal weaknesses, this is positive. I have observed certain characteristics, this is not all liberals but these characteristics can be seen. Some Liberals I have known have not overcome their own racism, they do not have a deep commitment to equal rights and tolerance. There is a level at which their commitment turns to fear. Typically Liberals welcome black people who subscribe to their same Liberal views, would welcome black people in their parties etc., but they are still afraid of meeting a black man on the street. This is not all Liberals, and it might be a bit dated as a scenario but it illustrates liberalism. There is not a commitment to black culture – whatever that is, there is not a deep tolerance but if black people want to behave the same liberal way (Cameron’s British values) they will be welcomed. This liberal fear is significant because such liberals are afraid to face themselves, they don’t want the depth of their commitment to be questioned. It is similar to the difference between intellect and insight, there is intellectual acceptance when there is agreement but there is not the insight that is committed to accepting difference. In this Trevor is the same because he cannot accept the illiberality of Muslim dogma.
What is this iliberality? The usual traditional Muslim bugbears – anti-gay, women walking behind men, etc. Let me be clear I dislike those attitudes, as a compassionate man I cannot accept such. But I completely accept the right for communities within any country to have such values, and so long as they comply with the laws of the country there is no conflict. There are conflicts that arise with such communities within a liberal country. When traditional Muslim children attend Liberal schools such conflicts are exposed. Liberal education would expose such traditions, but so long as such conflicts are resolved within the community there is no issue. In many ways there is a requirement of such communities to live separately in order to maintain their Muslim identity, no problem with this.
As a leading Liberal I would have hoped Trevor would have stood up against Islamophobia but his programme propagated it disgracefully. My Google search showed only the right wing press commenting on his efforts, did he achieve his objective in questioning liberal attitudes? Perhaps not if he was fostering Islamophobia and antisemitism. Confronting liberal prejudice is a noble aim but is no excuse for prejudice – overall disappointment.
To consider Trevor Phillips’ contribution it is useful to consider the old maxim
Prejudice + Power = Racism
Back in the 70s/80s many black people would use the word “honky” to speak derogatorily of white people. As a result white people would say black people were racist. But there was a big difference, these people dishing out this insult had no power. White people controlled jobs, housing – basically the money black people could receive, so when white people applied their prejudice it had an effect; being called a honky qualifies under “sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me”. What I want to get at here is that because Trevor is black does not mean that he is free from prejudice. With regards to Jews and Muslims Trevor has shown prejudice, but worse because he has some power his poor attitude has impact. I welcome Trevor’s opening up of liberal weakness – weakness that means issues are not faced. In my view it is this weakness that has created PC madness, and the resulting alienation of so many white people. But because Trevor has shown his own prejudice, such questioning will have had its impact lessened.
In my desire to understand Trump and the right I came across this libertarian piece. Now I have a lot of time for libertarians because I consider them genuine people who hold freedom with high regard. I too hold freedom with high regard but I hold compassion higher. The main area in which I therefore have disagreement is deregulation, there are regulations in place to benefit the less fortunate – I want those. There were financial regulations in place that when removed led to repossession of homes, I wanted those regulations. Because of the nature of the world today libertarians working for freedom enable the 1% because they remove restrictions that hold back the 1%. But of course most regulation benefits the 1%, and I understand where libertarians come from.
There is an interesting libertarian article on individualism vs collectivism. Now I believe in collectivism and it is a very frustrating principle to hold. Because of this acceptance of collectivism I wanted to counter some of the arguments made by this libertarian because as I see it what he is describing as collectivism is his libertarian view of collectivism.
My history with collectivism has been involved with democratic meetings on the left where a policy is decided through putting forward a motion which is then debated and a collective policy agreed. Quite often attendees at such meetings are representatives and such policies have wider implications. In such debates positions are put forward, and a compromise position is agreed and there was some intention that all those involved in such a process (including those represented) would enact the policy.
In Occupy they never had voting either, what is the point of a policy voted in by 51%? How can that work? Look at everyone fighting Trump yet under the rules of the election he won. Is he still representing a majority? Occupy wanted a consensus for what it did. Under Occupy’s approach we would not accept “wars for profits” as there would never be a consensus. But such wars happen now because sufficient representatives are bought off.
The manipulation that occurred on the left happened because of intellectual egotism. Various intellectuals (Marxist of a form) would disrupt collective decision-making by repeatedly demanding that a particular position be discussed and voted in. There was no desire on the part of these intellectuals to reach a consensus of what the collective wanted, it was always what they wanted. They did not wish to compromise with what the mass movement wanted, they just wanted to drag the mass movement to their position. The Russian revolution would never have happened if the revolutionaries had waited for the mass movement so the left wing accepted a minority group, the Bolsheviks, because the left wing desired a revolution. This flaw dogged the whole revolution and the communist government (who accepted minority representation who then told people what to do) until it eventually fell.
What has become clear to me is that all the desires that I had for mass movement were so dominated by the ideal that the practise was completely flawed. The notion that the mass movement can be persuaded to accept a genuine democracy is never going to happen because of the power of the 1% to create division. As such there has to be a compromise. Equally I would say to those people who are genuine and compassionate on the right – such as libertarians, they also cannot make a dent in the 1% on their own; there has to be unity (see Unity Platform).
Until the rise of the populist right, as evidenced by Trump and Brexit, I had dismissed the intellectuals of the right as just being egotists. However that position was myopic – a convenient dismissal to avoid headbanging discussion. There could never be a united 99% until all 99% are working together – and that includes some kind of unity that would involve the left and right.
Before I deal with individualism and collectivism it is important to understand a huge stumbling block. This stumbling block I met on the left and on the right – and I am guilty of it myself – egotism. I am right, what I am saying is right¸ my ideas are the ones everyone should follow. Even if those ideas have some strength in numbers such as Marxism or Libertarianism, they are still just sets of ideas put forward by individuals. These individuals become invested in the ideas, and there becomes this idea set or ism that everyone has to squeeze into. Libertarians demand that all seek individual freedom, however free this sounds it is still an idea set that others must squeeze into – in other words, not free and not individual. Egotism has always been a problem on the left and it is a problem on the right. And the problem with such egotism is that it is so easy to buy off. The internet is full of individuals who are sponsored by the 1% to promote their egos and ideas. And what is the result – deep division of the 99%. These egos need to understand how deeply they are the problem because of their leadership, and learn to take a backseat. But the collective instead of following leaders needs to respect their own creativity and understanding, and come to their own conclusions based on understanding provided by leaders. Following per se needs to be discouraged because it creates two problems – ignorance of the followers and egotism in the leaders. Individuals need to be discerning and work within collectives, and the collective needs to be more active in their understanding and respect the individual; this is the yin-yang.
Now I want to look at this libertarian’s view of individualism and collectivity. And to do that I want to set two provisos:-
The priority is compassion and not freedom. I contend compassion is natural (ask the Buddha) whereas freedom to do what you want is not natural – not when it infringes on the natural. Freedom per se risks egotism. Freedom at a deep level is only compassion but more superficially desire diverts freedom to egotism, and needs discipline – personal or otherwise.
The second proviso is to recognise that government and collectivism is not now the same. Originally government “might” have been for the people and by the people, but it is now not that – it is 1%-by-proxy. The voting systems and other checks and balances have established a government that often pretends to be for the people but in fact benefits the 1%. If the individual contrast with government that is not the individual contrasting with collectivism as government is now not for the people. If the individual is contrasting with collectivism then that individualism might be putting the individual before compassion and as such is contradicting the first proviso and is exhibiting egotism.
So now to the article.
Free trade as a principle is not a problem, but how it is practised today is there to benefit the 1%. If trade is considered as barter or using money to represent value, there are no issues. But our economic system with a tenet of free trade does not happen in this way. Our economy is dominated by the 1% whose raison d’etre is to accumulate – increase their personal wealth. This accumulation is carried out by controlling trade through cartels, imposing tariffs to the benefit of the 1%, manipulating currency and finance to increase their accumulation. None of this trade is free, so although it is called free trade it is protectionism and protectionism is the dominant mode of business in the western world – because it is the 1%-system. Deregulation is one of the libertarian platforms. It sounds good in that it sounds as if it is supporting freedom. Because the power lies with protectionism, that is the system that would continue when there is some partial financial and trade deregulations; this will only benefit the 1%. Hence some deregulatory measures or partial deregulation lack compassion. Free trade as in an equivalent barter system is a compassionate trading system but that will not occur when there are corporations and protectionism.
Western societies have benefitted from exploiting the third world initially through European (mainly British) colonisations that then became neocolonial exploitation through a US hegemony. This is historical fact, and needs to be recognised for a proper contemporary economic understanding. Education needs to change to be telling this historical truth. But this is not the same as “imposing” diversity training. For there to be compassion in the US or other places there needs to be recognition of equality for all its peoples including whites – compassion. Privilege wherever it occurs needs to be discouraged as it is encouraging benefits for people who do not deserve them. Within a proper historical understanding some might choose “reparations”, this happens in Australia to some extent because of expropriation of aboriginal lands unfairly; is this not justice? Would it not be justice for Native Americans? Should there be justice for people whose ancestors were enslaved? These are difficult questions, and there should not be a carte blanche solution. Should a wealthy black business owner get reparations? Should there be gratuities paid to black gangs to further their criminal activity? Compassion and justice should deal with these questions but it is my view that if there were a wider sense of justice in society such claims for reparations might well disappear. When there is little compassion and justice unreasonable demands can emerge. “I can see how the leftist race activists have created such an environment of hostility and even violence toward white people, based on collectivism and ignorance,” This is just emotive. I have no understanding as to how awareness of history or issues of justice concerning black people can possibly be ignorance, and what has it to do with collectivism? The writer himself was not afraid of minority white America, why was such a statement necessary except as an appeal to populism?
Health care is a compassionate right for all. When a requirement for health care is insurance then insurance should include finance for “pre-existing conditions”. But a compassionate society that is working for all would provide health care rather than seeing health care as a business. The US health and insurance system needs to be radically reconsidered in the light of showing compassion to its people. Defending insurance practices is not defending the compassionate interests of the health of the people. Supporting insurance companies against the interests of the people whose freedom is being limited by health issues and corporate interests (insurance) does not sound like a freedom principle. Maternity leave – do we return to the days when a woman forcibly loses her job because she has a child? Do we return to the days where women were not employed because they might have to leave and have children? Obviously there lacks compassion in this position. Having children is natural, should a woman’s freedom be restricted in not employing her? This is not collectivist, this is compassion and respect for nature.
Trade agreements are part and parcel of the “free trade” practise that is protectionism. To adopt a position that says hands-off some protectionist practises whilst leaving others in place plays into the hands of the 1% who would benefit from such apparent “free trade” practises. The current economic practise benefits the 1% in corporations and lacks compassion. Once trading is compassionate, when protectionism at all levels has disappeared regulations need not occur. Setting deregulation as an objective without putting compassion at the forefront is a dangerous policy. Disband cartels, remove market mechanisms, remove the money manipulators, then you have free trade. But the 1% will not allow that. The free trade they want is trading without restrictive regulation maintaining existing cartel mechanisms, because they have accumulated money and will control the economy further to the detriment of ordinary people – no compassion. Eminent domain needs to be considered on an individual level based on compassion, the pipelines are disastrous ecologically and should not be allowed.
Taxation has to be considered historically. Taxation was introduced by the British in Africa because they couldn’t get anyone to work for them as the people were trading through barter. Once the people were taxed they got the workers, built the infrastructure that enabled the businesses to make profits. Will businesses accept infrastructure costs, environmental costs as part of production costs? Should a compassionate society not care for those who are unable to care for themselves? Should a compassionate society not educate poorer people? Complaining about taxes as a principle is a compassionless act. Examining taxation expenditure is common sense. Why do our taxes pay military businesses huge amounts of taxation money for wars that increase their profits, do not defend democracy, kill people and damage the ecology? Yikes, no taxes as a position lacks compassion, and puts principle before people.
When he talks of human rights and presumption of innocence he is talking compassionately and I have no issues. However he seems to associate disagreement with him on these human rights issues as collectivism. It is compassion, it might be called collective compassion – compassion for all. Individual human rights have to be respected; at the same time compassion for others has to be respected. There can be no principle here, if there is a conflict the matter has to be resolved through communication and justice.
Two paragraphs on immigration. Firstly criminal acts should be punished whoever you are – rich or poor. Small business people being arrested because they employ illegal immigrants is more difficult. If a principle is established that immigration is illegal then business people who benefit from illegality need to be punished, the immigrants come because they are looking for work. Because of the policies of the US hegemony as a whole, the US is rich and becomes a place where immigrants want to work. A more equal world means there is no such problem. People should be protected from inequities in the law. Of course these business people should be paying equal wages, do they? If they were I would want to defend them. Most pay exploitative wages taking advantage of the people whose poverty has turned them into criminals, I have far less sympathy with them because there is no compassion. Again principles other than compassion present a problem, people should not be free to exploit.
Why is blocking people entering the US collectivist? It is certainly against the freedom of an individual but why collectivism? It is protectionist, it is protecting the indigenous people (by this I mean the people of the US) by preventing people from entering and possibly competing on the job market. It is not compassionate, and if “blocking” is collectivism then it is against compassion, and I don’t support such “blocking”. But this is not in the interest of the mass movement although I must admit that in my years working with trade unions their policies were interested in such protectionist measures – something I fought against. I can understand this as a collective measure against the interests of the individual (the immigrants). But for me this was a small part of what mass movement politics was about, but I have to accept it was a weakness in many trade unions . My mass movement is the 99%, and I fight the interests of the 1%. Such protectionism is part of 1% divide-and-rule tactics, and is not part of any Unity of the 99%. To apply the sophistry of US territory as a property is just another form of protectionism.
“Collectivism is a bad thing” seems to me to be “inventing” an enemy leading to “the individual against the collective”. Applying such a paradigm tends to make compassion confusing, because there is collective compassion and individual compassion. It is the very paradigm, and the clinging to that paradigm that causes libertarians to be in conflict with what is happening. It is not the heart of these people who I believe think that the application of their paradigm would benefit all humanity. In the meanwhile compassion suffers as in the interim people will suffer.
The same benchmark of compassion can be applied to socialism and the paradigm that creates. When you have a dogma and apply that dogma, people suffer. Was the Soviet revolution acceptable when so many suffered even though theoretically in the long-term Marxism could benefit all? You cannot put theory before compassion so any libertarian measures in my view need to be placed in a pragmatic compassionate framework. What are the results of the actions? Not do the actions because they have a sound theoretical basis – freedom. This is a 1%-world, and freedom in such a world cannot be attained when 1%-governments are applying it. To describe the problem as collectivism, the individual against the collective, is a diversion against compassion.
But if we accept a Unity platform against the 1%, morally and compassionately all people should be included if they can leave personal egos behind.
It is interesting to consider the political spectrum given the current state of politics. We might have the Far Left, Near Left – Liberals and Identity Politics, then one might begin with the right wing such as homeowners who think they are bourgeois. With similar views might be richer owners who also adopt right-wing views because traditionally it is believed that the right protect the economy – a belief that does not have any substance behind it. The views of these owners are not extreme. They might say that having a black neighbour would lower house prices, and they might fear a son or daughter bringing home a black intended, but these are not racists who would attack others – although they might well fear being attacked by black gangs. And then there is the extreme right, the National Front, the KKK, the English Defence League, white supremacists; it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility that these people would commit hate crimes. With this spectrum in play different people would talk about left and right relative to their own position eg as a non-violent far left person I would consider Liberals as right-wing, whereas right-wing intellectuals would consider Liberals as left-wing. This is a standard spectrum in which we consider politics is played out.
But there is an important question about this spectrum, where are the 1%? Their politics is concerned with exploitation and accumulation. They exploit the poor and low waged on left and right, and they take the properties and small businesses of the middle-left and middle-right, but for them there is no political analysis. They exploit and accumulate but in terms of the spectrum their approach is indiscriminate – they will take from anyone.
So if the 1% are not on the spectrum then it is easy to conclude that it is in all our interests on this political spectrum to end the exploitation by the 1% and prevent further accumulation on the part of the 1%.
We have been intentionally divided on the spectrum but by recognising that the 1% are not on the spectrum we can see that there is an identity of interest amongst the 99% on the spectrum.
Why don’t we all resolve sufficient of our differences to accept the Unity of the 99% and stop the 1% exploiting us?
This Trevor Phillips documentary “Has Political Correctness gone mad?” has seriously disturbed me, this PC stuff is now just censorship.
I have known censorship all my working life. In teaching one of the bigger hypocrisies is that they say they give a balanced outlook and let the students decide. Then they want to protect the students. I taught in Hove (actually) for nearly 6 years, and the censorship I came across was horrendous – and along with being the union rep cost me promotion. My head was a feeble bully who was incompetent. He used tactics to stifle opposition to him, and most teachers deeply resented him but were scared for their jobs so did little – his bullying easily allowed him to affect promotion; the lay governors had made an ignorant appointment and the teachers paid the consequences. However because he was so feeble he ignored his staff, and if parents or governors said anything he jumped and kept his job. I was a semi-public figure in the local trade union movement, Brighton and Hove, and Hove is very right wing so parents were always willing to complain about me. Because of this I was forced to censor myself, although I saw my job as maths teacher and not purveyor of left-wing wisdom so had no desire to spend lessons teaching Marxism or whatever. Other teachers who were not so threatened did put across their viewpoints because they were safe and acceptable; I knew the lie of the land and accepted this censorship even though it was not educational. I remember feeling angry because a good-hearted teacher was able to promote environmental awareness, and gained favour because of this. He did things for the environment but refused to comment on whether accumulation, capitalism or the 1% were the causes of problems. I doubt if he wanted to make such comments, he was just happy collecting bottles etc. The head liked this – perfectly safe, good practice for the kids and yet they never learned the truth so it was not very educational. Students had the personal strength to make judgements for themselves. Show them facts and let them assess for themselves – sadly that is not now an option with the manufacturing of fake news that confuses knowledgeable adults let alone children trying to learn.
Any form of censorship is a measure of failure for a society. PC first came in because society had failed. The problems of racism and sexism were deep-seated, and controlling the way people spoke about black people and women was a positive step; I understood at the time that it was always to be integrated with good education. At that time this positive step towards inoffensive language was however only community pressure, a pressure that I thought was acceptable in that disapproval was the only legal punishment.
Legislation on what can be said where and when can never work, what is said is a moral action and morality cannot be dictated to by law. This clip from the Trevor Phillips documentary horrified me.
I have no problem with these people discussing these issues but what they were then doing is enacting them as policy within their universities. Such repression is counter-productive. People have to reach such conclusions for themselves, morality is a personal activity. Repression through censorship or otherwise just produces a backlash. In the UK typical expressions of that backlash are UKIP, Manosphere and Brexit, none of which make any sense other than understanding they are backlashes against repression.
When Trevor says Trump is a consequence of PC repression, he is right, but these liberals are so self-righteous they appear not to be altering their approach. These are not people working for the 99% but intellectual liberals working for their own self-importance – ego. When I see this I understand why the right wing is so critical of leftists, and how they have been able to mobilise around a racist sexist bigot like Trump. Extreme actions produce extreme reactions.
It is far easier in the short term to repress, misuse power and prevent differing views from being aired. But repression is never a solution, it is only violence. Communication produces solutions when people try to listen. These students were not listening in the same way UKIP voters are not listening, in the same way that the Trump deplorables are not listening. Without communication there is no unity, such censorship is completely illiberal – and dangerous.
Later I will discuss the problems I have with Trevor Phillips (LINK to be added) but there is no doubt that he is right on the money when he describes this political correctness as mad. Unfortunately these liberals are so self-righteous they cannot see the damage they are doing. So many people have been alienated by their tactics that establishment parties more favourable to the left (and liberalism) such as Labour or Democrats are now losing out. If there is no education to go along with PC legislation, then it is just censorship and in my view society is better without it.
The left is ignorant of the right. Because the right at best gives low priority to racism and sexism – at some level dismisses identity politics, many dismiss where the right is coming from. Out of compassion I have sympathy with this argument but it is necessary to recognise that the “left and the populist right are the 99%”. So it is time for the left to learn aout the righht, and not simply stereotype tham as racists and sexists. Whilst the left has been on their moral compassionate high horse, the 1% through populist intellectualism has managed to create a huge chasm within the 99%.
Somehow the left needs to counter the lies that are being peddled by the right-wing intellectuals, but there is no point in saying that it is all lies as that is divisive. At the same time all of what the right is saying is NOT LIES. When I examine some of the sophisticated financial arguments concerning the 1%, I find the analysis far more cogent than many on the left. This does not surprise me as I found many people who were socialists who never read Marx. OK Marx is long and hard (and I would not describe myself as well read in Marx, but the left did not educate themselves. They became aligned to a particular camp, and that was it. With such an ignorant approach it is not surprising that the 99% have become so divided.
On occasions I have argued politics with right-wingers, and felt that I was scoring points for the left with my economic analysis of the 1%. But then when I look at right-wing intellectuals their economic analysis can be far more sophisticated than mine. With Bix Weir he analyses gold and silver, and his political axe to grind concernsk” market control. When do you really hear the left discussing market control? Protectionist policies and cartels are essential aspects of the 1% capitalist manipulation, but socialists rarely discuss it.
But their arguments break down as soon as there is discussion of the left or immigration. Then their arguments are alomost completely emotive, and has no basis in reality. Right wing discussion of immigration and race has never been based in fact, but knowing this the 1%-manipulators have managed to completely undermine the factual basis of immigration statistics by dismissing them as left-wing or PC. Without facts to dismiss outlandish racist claims the non-deplorable populist right will partially believe the rhetoric and so get attracted to authoritarian demagogues such as Trump. Of course fact hasn’t always been a left strong point either as their vehemence can create “fuzzy areas”.
But what is a common thread throughout the right wing intellectuals is the manner in which they criticise the left. And this comes down to the left-wing failure to dissociate itself from neoliberalism. For me Hillary is a necessary evil, a better choice than Trump – marginally better than the other Republican candidates and leaps ahed of Trump because of his moral bankruptcy. But the left is seen as Hillary when the left sees Hillary as a right-wing compromise. The left compromise supports people like Hillary and Blair and Obama who start wars, and the right intellectuals use this to attack the left. For years the left has accepted this neoliberal compromise, and now they are paying for it with the division of the 99%, left analysis was stagnant. With Bix Weir you even have a call for a Trump-Bernie ticket, thus shpowing how completely unrealistic the understanding of the left is.
And then we come to Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist. Breitbart News aagggh! And then I saw amongst their best sellers 1984, George Orwell would turn in his grave to be associated with white supremacy. And then there is Milo Manosphere. But what about his analysis? Checkout Steve Bannon’s movie, Generation Zero (2010) (picture is link). I did not find it easy to watch because I wanted to scream at his treatment of so much I hold dear – Woodstock indeed.
How much of the rubbish in this man’s blame game does the right wing believe? Yet this man’s perspective on the 1% is clearer than many on the left. When you know the problem is the 1% and you don’t hear the left taking about the 1%, it is easy to associate left with government and Wall Street. The left has to understand that their neoliberalism makes them easy to blame, the left has to become more sophisticated.
Now there is a big problem. The left is loud and committed but the populist right who need to be addressed are quiet, withdrawn and disguised in their politics. They do not seek confrontation especially within families, but their disguised positions need to be unravelled. The analysis of the 1% has to be separated from the emotions of immigration and left-bashing, and this will not happen when the left, especially left-wing media such as the Daily Show, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, and so on depict Trump voters as deplorable. The populist right are our “comrades” within the 99%, and we need to find ways of communicating.
And I don’t know how, I can’t even face doing it with people I know but it has to be done. Myths stereotypes and charicatures have to be debunked, and communication is the only way to do this. Whilst I am saying this I still look at my emotions and all I can feel is anger towards these people. How can I communicate with them?
BUT communication must happen for the 99%.