Does our anger offend you?

There is a debate raging amongst the people of "Middle" England today. Played out at tables and other clichés around the country. The debate amongst the Middle people is identical to the debate amongst the chattering classes - down to the very last word.

'Kettle', 'Anarchist', 'Phalanx', 'Surge' - journalese now a common term of reference to the average Middle viewer of corporate news; no matter how debased the terms have become. The question that has come to dominate the debate for the chattering classes and thus the Middle is simply this: ‘do you condemn violent protest? Or don’t you?’.

The problem with this formulation is that the chattering classes have missed the point entirely. News editors typically don’t like to ask ‘why?’ questions you see, it involve too much pesky, time-consuming history. Twenty first century news is perpetually fixed on the zeitgeist of the now. The problem with the debate over the rightness or wrongness of violent protest is therfore inevitable and simple.

Violent protest is happening. It is a fact of life no more and no less than any other. The salient question then is not one of morality, but history. Anyone who saw the footage or was at the protest yesterday will know that of those involved in the violence, almost all were young, working-class men. So the obvious question should be - 'Why?'

Thatcher's children

During the eighties Britain was in the clutches of another Conservative administration. Thatcher oversaw and enacted massive and unprecedented free-market reforms that, as she well knew, would destroy the chance of a decent job for large swathes of the working class. An outsourcing of manufacturing, the destruction of native heavy industry, finacial de-regualtion, curtailments on the welfare state and a move to a so called ‘knowledge’ economy left millions facing crippling poverty of every kind.

If you are prepared to take away a person’s dreams - replacing them only with vivid nightmares - you best be prepared when they wake up. Thatcher knew this, Cameron knows it too. One only need peruse publicly available police and government literature to see that the militarization of the Metropolitan Police is progressing swiftly. The use of private security contractors at the Topshop protest last weekend tells us something too.

Austerity means poverty. People are waking up to this truth all over Europe, some later than others. According to France 24 the standard of living in Portugal after the recent sovereign debt crisis has collapsed in a way: ‘not seen since the 1930’s’. Similar stories are to be heard, in Greece, Ireland, Spain, Iceland and within the next few years Britain too. It seems obvious but it is rarely said, the outpouring of anger seen on the streets of London and around the country yesterday was not just anger over student fees or any one particular issue, it was symptomatic of growing civil unrest at the cuts agenda.

When the children and the grandchildren of those who suffered under Thatcher see corporate banks getting bailed out whilst their communities are targeted for a third round of neo-liberalism’s terrifying ‘progress’ - they get angry and violent. Why is this such a shock? First they came and took away working class jobs, decimating industry and pushing milliuons below the poverty line. Now they come back for the benefits and support mechanisms that kept those very same families fed and housed.

Whilst violence as a means of protest is not necessarily constructive, it certainly has been many times in the past. Of course, anger without direction can be dangerous and I always question the notion of attacking the tools of the State and not the State itself; even if the police do have their own violent agenda. Violence begets violence and it is inevitable that when you threaten the interests of the poorest in our society with the violent and destructive act of dismantling the welfare state, attacks on public sector workers, students and minority groups - there are inevitably going to be ramifications.

The gulf between rich and poor in England today wider than it was thirty years ago, or even a hundred. If our journalists did their jobs properly, we might be compelled to reflect on this fact more often than we do. As it stands however, most hacks seem content to chatter amongst themselves and with the confused Middle about trivialities.

What we should always remember is that these superficial moralistic debates about the rightness or wrongness of violent protest are academic and not useful for addressing the fundamental 'Why?' of the matter - why it is that people feel the need to resort to these tactics in the first place.

Hacks and politicians are always going to claim that violence is by default - mindless, nihlistic and self defeating. But for those who truely side with the disenfranchised, ignored and downtrodden in our society there is an acceptance that this is simply a tool in a limited arsenal. To quote several thousand anoynoumous demonstraters - You say cut back? We say fight back. CJL

Arguments from Design as a pointer to the existence of God

In “An introduction to the philosophy of Religion”, (Cambridge University Press; 1 edition 2008) Murray & Rea (MR) set out a variety of arguments that aim to show that something exists, which has many, if not all, the characteristics of ‘God’. Since antiquity, people have sought to offer explanations for how we came into being, many of these rested on the presupposition that the very reality of the world and universe was solid confirmation for the reality of God. These are often called ‘arguments from design’ or ‘teleological’ arguments. The existence of the universe according to this set of arguments demands an explanation and the only satisfactory explanation of its existence is God. A modern variant of the teleological argument is rested upon the concept of a ‘fine-tuned’ Universe, it is this specific argument that I will explore here.

A more technical name for the fine-tuned argument is the “Cosmological Anthropic Principle” (CAP). I will lay out the salient features of the CAP and explain its most common detracting theories. I will also make reference to “Science and Religion: An introduction” (Wiley-Blackwell, 2005) in which Alistair McGrath (MG) also sets out the CAP, its key problems and his replies. Neither MG nor MR come to any firm conclusions regarding the principle; both say that they feel the objections to the CAP fail but concede that the decision is ultimately down to the interpretation of the reader.

There are many variants of the “anthropic principle” which actually refers to a collective name for several ways of asserting, roughly, that the observations of our physical universe must be compatible with the life observed within it. MG says that the most common interpretation of the anthropic principle is the cosmological interpretation. This was notably defined in the 1986 study by Barrow & Tipler (BT) entitled “The Anthropic Cosmological Principle” (Oxford University Press, 1986). BT posit that for our Universe to be capable of sustaining life, a number of cosmological criteria have to be met. These are the so called dials of the “fine-tuner”, which are tuned so that if they were altered even a fraction, our universe would not be capable of forming or sustaining life. One example given by MR is the ‘strong force’ that is required to hold together the protons in an atom. The strength of this force and its direct proportion in relation to the electromagnetic force is absolutely necessary for all heat, light, and therefore, life in the universe.

MG is initially at pains to assert that although the anthropic principle may be compatible with a theistic worldview, it by no means offers irrefutable proof of the existence of God, but is merely consistent with the theistic position.
However, according to MR this apparent cosmic fine-tuning, leads some to favour the following argument:

1. The universe exhibits fine-tuning of a sort that makes it suitable for life.
2. The existence of fine tuning is probable under theism.
3. The existence of fine-tuning is highly improbable under atheism.
4. Therefore; Fine tuning provides strong evidence in favour of theism.


MG and MR point out early one possible criticism of this interpretation of fine-tuning theory. Namely, that it is a form of “carbon chauvinism” or in other words, it fails to consider that life might be possible in many different forms, not necessarily only our specific carbon based species.

Another possible problem with the CAP theory elucidated by BT, is that despite the arguments for the CAP, there may be no need to seek a further explanation of the universe at all. If the constraints of the Universe were not just as they are now they argue, we wouldn’t be able to observe the universe in the first place. In the BT analogy, the fact that anyone is observing anything, reflects the fact that the universe possesses certain features which permits the evolution of life, capable of observing some of those features. MG dismisses this argument as ‘not especially persuasive’ because it fails to address the underlying issue - ‘Why?’ He points us instead to another analogy first proposed by Richard Swinburne.

Swinburne wants us to suppose that a madman has kidnapped somebody and shut them in a room with a card shuffling machine. This machine shuffles ten packs of cards simultaneously and then draws a card from each pack and shows them to the victim. If the machine shows anything other than an ace of hearts then the hostage is killed in an explosion. The machine draws the cards and by some amazing luck all the packs of cards show ace of hearts. The kidnapper reappears and says that it is “hardly surprising” because if the machine hadn’t drawn the aces, you wouldn’t have been able to observe anything else at all. The point that Swinburne and MG are trying to illustrate is that the existence of the observer has no bearing on the probability of the events being observed. As Swinburne notes:

“If a series of highly improbable events give rise to an observer who can note this improbability, they are nonetheless improbable.”

However, there is another salient objection that might help explain why it is that we are the lucky ones who get to exist in a universe fit for life. It is called the “multi-verse objection” (MVO). MR state that according to the MVO the existence of one finely tuned universe is impossible. Instead there are multiple, possibly infinite other universes, each with its own distinct laws and forces, making it inevitable that at least one of these universes would be life permitting. In fact, many of these universes could be life permitting in ways we cannot possibly imagine.

MR dismiss the MVO because they anticipate three objections. Primarily, they dismiss it because they claim there is no verifiable evidence of any sort to date; perhaps ironically, claiming the principle of parsimony should be applied here. (If there can be no natural extrapolation from what we already know to the conclusion of multiple universes, then it should be rejected.) Secondly, MR state that even if we accept that there are multiple universes, why do we arbitrarily assume that they have distinct laws of physics. Could they not show continuity with each other? Lastly (and most interestingly for the non-theist), some physicists have reasoned that for there to be multiple universes it would require a “universe generator” of some sort. According the CAP, this universe generator would presumably also be fine-tuned for this purpose.

As MR point out, this raises a very basic question; if the universe generator exhibits complexity that requires some kind of explanation, wouldn’t we assume that the designer is also in need of explanation? MR directs us to the classical theological ideas of a “necessary” and “self explaining” God. A God that is ‘de re’ necessary. However, if we apply MR’s same rigorous logic to this idea, I think we find them somewhat lacking in testable hypothesis or credibility. Scientific and metaphysical explanations are not interchangeable and do not share the same level of importance when giving an account of cosmology.

Arguments from design such as this should convince us no more than the argument from the intricate ‘designs’ of species should have convinced pre-Darwinians. The fine-tuning argument for God’s existence is in effect a piece of natural theology. Natural theology takes agreed facts about the world, from the intricacy of a bird’s wing, to the supposed occurrence of a certain event in scripture, and argues that theism is the best or only explanation. As MG and MR would probably concede, the CAP is just one possible explanation for our origins. None of the reasons advanced for thinking it a better explanation than the alternatives seems particularly persuasive. The claim that God created a life-permitting universe is not backed up by any scientific epistemology, so we should be cautious when offered explanations of the vast cosmos that fundamentally rest upon recently discovered scientific truths corralled into an the awkward synthesis of theology and science. CJL

What I saw at Millbank

For hour after hour the 24 hour media machine ‘reported’ from the foyer of the Milbank building in central London. Although just yards from the headquarters of the British secret service MI5, the assembled crowd or protestors and the accompanying hordes of journalists were largely oblivious to their mysterious neighbours. The angry buzzing of the Police and BBC helicopters that hovered over head occasionally drowned out both Protester and Hack alike, whilst outside and inside a building that houses the headquarters of the British Conservative party, several thousand predominantly young human-beings attempted with their own diverse methodologies, to project their voices into the Great Media Narrative.

Despite the success, at least in terms of numbers, of the largest demonstration against deep education cuts and a threefold increase in tuition fees seen so far. The pre-ordained narrative laid down by the chattering classes so tried and tested, was to be too strong yet again. Just as with the protests of Seattle in 1999 and Copenhagen ten years later, this narrative was not one concerned with the future chances of a generation, or even the masses of human beings that had come from far and wide to voice their outrage; but rather instead, of the ‘violent minority’ of ‘masked’ and ‘hooded Anarchists’, a ‘tense atmosphere’, ‘angry scenes’ ‘disgusting chaos’, ‘arson’ and the failure of the rule of Law. But why exactly are we accepting this narrative? Laid down to us as it is, by the very same people that have the strongest interest in maintaining the status quo.

The instant that the first window was smashed, it was all over for anybody hoping for the long dormant journalistic talent of Fleet Street to maintain some proportion in the coverage of a subject of such national importance. With one or two exceptions, this media narrative was monolithic. The coffin was nailed firmly shut when the cowardly head of the NUS Aaron Porter appeared on the BBC within hours claiming to be: ‘absolutely disgusted’ at those who as he claimed were: ‘in jeopardy of undermining the entire protest’. In that one pithy sentence, the head of the NUS, the man responsible for advocating student rights and mobilizing support against the Tory cuts in the first place, had surrendered an important sound bite to this famished media narrative, a morsel to be regurgitated throughout the syndicated mediascape.

Later in the day, as if to add further insult to injury - men, women and children with real fears for the future educational welfare not of themselves, but of complete strangers, were reduced to no more than ‘loutish thugs’ by Met commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson. Thousands of demonstrators who were not themselves students, but nonetheless spoke both for the future and the past garnered no media attention at all. They too had been ‘undermined’ my the ‘violent minority’. A little detail by the way, which seemed to quickly drop out of the mainstream media coverage, was that whilst the windows of Tory HQ were being torn down, those doing so were cheered on by a crowd of thousands.. This was not a ‘violent minority’, but the tip of the majorities spear plunging deep into the soft underbelly of the Conservative beast. Almost every person in that crowd I would think, would have happily led the charge. To the media and politicians however, this sort of thinking is outside the boundaries of permissible discourse.

Of course the explicit message was always going to be one of condemnation for any and all ‘violence as a legitimate means of protest’. But this only highlights yet again the paradox involved in the corporate media’s reporting of demonstrations in general. Violence is sexy. It sells. It captivates. Once caught by the voyeuristic media lens, scenes of violence are repeated endlessly throughout the news cycle. How many times will we be made to watch and re-watch the scuffles between riot police and ‘criminals’ over the coming days? Jonathon Jones at the Guardian Newspaper offers a mixed analysis of why the media (not all but most) has taken the view that is has, on the one hand asking: “Are the media exercising their nasty arts to make students look like a mob? and answering ‘no’, but then going on to say: “This image has made the front pages because it is exciting. Its violence is liberating to contemplate, in a dangerous, Dionysian way.” For Jones, the violence is not newsworthy in and of itself, but rather precisely because it appeals to our most primitive emotions. Well fine, but is he telling us this is all we have to expect of our journalists today? No more than an extended freak show - a lesson in emotional manipulation. I ask myself.

I also wonder, how exactly one goes about ‘undermining’ a protest anyway? What is a legitimate protest and what is not? To my simple mind, a protest is where an individual, or more likely a group of individuals decides to perform a largely symbolic action in the name of a particular cause, in the hope that this totemic act of resistance could in some way effect actual change. Throughout history there have been many struggles for human dignity, equality and solidarity. Many of these struggles feautured a violent component to their methodolgies. Can we honestly say that when we look back now, we should unequivocally condemn those members of the suffragettes willing to break the law for the dignity of women? Must we condemn in the strongest terms the members of the Nelson Mandela’s ANC for their often violent struggle for equality in South Africa? Must we label as ‘disgusting’ and ‘undermining’ all those that use violence in solidarity with the Palestinians?

I’m not trying to equate the protests over British higher education cuts and fees to any of the historic (and ongoing) struggles I mention above. But don’t be fooled by how the media has framed the issue. My heart beat rose and my adrenaline pumped when I saw the plated glass begin to buckle, not out of any prehistoric blood lust, but because for the first time in my life I was conscious of the roaring voices alongside me, all as alienated from Westminster as I was, who demanded in their own way to be listened to by a giant with no ears. Perhaps I got ahead of myself when I claimed they had cut into the underbelly of the beast. But we certainly stamped on his toes, and ears or not, the giant's gaze is sternly fixed on us, just as it should be. CJL

Theories of Human nature: Biological, Social and Christian perspectives

After a conclusively inconclusive election, I thought it best to avoid politics for a little while. Instead and in keeping with my original remit for this blog, I intend to upload one or two of my own philosophical essays - written during my time in Sweden. This short essay below is an analysis of "The rise and fall of Socio-biology" by Augustine Lawler.

- By Christopher Landau


The subject of this essay is the ongoing debate over the fundamental form of Human Nature and how this manifests itself. There are many differing theories, but for the purpose of this essay I will focus on three of the most prominent concepts. Firstly, the synthesis of scientific disciplines collectively termed “Socio-Biology” which I will compare and contrast with the exponents of the “Social Constructionist” world view. These two schools of thought are both connected to and distinct from a third view. Or rather an overarching project, “Biotechnology”. Not as a belief system, but as a mechanism, one which involves using our knowledge of human biology and our improving technology, to try and improve the quality and length of human life. In “The rise and fall of Socio-Biology” Augustine Lawler starts by examining these three contrasting views of the relationship human beings have with their nature. He begins his essay by briefly laying out the foundational premises of these models.

In summary, Lawler states that socio-biology is the concept that humans have their own intrinsic value, their own nature, and a natural purpose to fulfil. In this world view Lawler says that our nature and purpose makes sense within the context of Darwinian evolution and could lead one to conclude that we are in fact not so different from the other animals. The conflicting Social Constructionist model takes the view that the idea of human nature itself is irrelevant. It is our Society, Culture and Institutions, that are responsible for defining how we perceive ourselves and thus define our nature. Human nature under this view is not already set by biological factors, as all our ideas of Human Nature are open to change at the whim of our society, culture, taught values, upbringing etc.

Lawler says that these contrasting belief systems should be seen as offering us a significant, yet necessarily reductionist account of Human Nature. As Lawler writes: “Each presents part of the truth about being human by disfiguring the whole.” The third part of the picture involves one point of human distinction from the other animals; namely our ability to use scientific knowledge to marshal the forces of nature under human control. Human technology is not a more sophisticated version of primate tool-making, but rather our technology is distinctly human. As Lawler puts it, “it is a response to the dilemmas and possibilities of being the only moral, rational, and death-haunted animal.” The reason that Lawler offers this mechanism as an alternative to the socio-biology and social constructionist concepts is that many see Bio-technology as having the potential to completely re-define what it means to be human. Not as a definition of human nature then, but as a means of changing it.

Any debate about Human Nature is necessarily complex and the scope and range of thought that fall under the headings Socio-biology or Social Constructionism is such that the models outlined above should be seen as a fairly narrow interpretation. This contentious subject is still fiercely debated amongst academics and politicians as it touches many potentially controversial historical and contemporary issues. Lawler writes “Each of these views is more an ideology than a science, more a program for human reform than a truthful account of the way things are”. Without wanting to create a Straw Man, Lawler states that neither of the views outlined above, can give a whole account of human nature. The question does not become cliché; “nature or nurture?”, but to what extent do we have a nature at all? And if we accept that we have some sort of nature, how much of it is formed in our genes and how much in our society?

In his essay Lawler focuses on the rise and fall of socio-biology in terms of a scientific dogma, explaining its usefulness and its weaknesses. Arguing that he application of socio-biology to humans was immediately controversial. The late Stephen Jay Gould for example, said that socio-biology was intrinsically biologically determinist and open to manipulation. Just as similar ideas had been used in the past to justify the status quo, Gould feared a certain understanding of human nature could only further entrench the ruling elites in place in certain societies, thus legitimizing authoritarian political and social programmes. It could be argued that this fear has indeed been realised, manifesting itself in the form of various atrocities, such as the genocide of Jews under the Nazis. The socio-biological account has also been viewed as taking away the ‘meaning’ from life, nature offering us only a short, contingent existence as individuals. Lawler thinks this view “is unlikely to halt or limit our desperate turn to biotechnology in pursuit of the happiness that nature by itself does not seem to give us.” The exact nature of our denied happiness is not elaborated upon by Lawler, however I don’t see why we must assume that a “meaningless” existence is any less important or potentially enjoyable than a “meaningful” one. Can I not be a good person, living a happy and fulfilled life without a purpose? I think so, and I belief so does Lawler, who finds it not at all contradictory when he concedes that it is possible for socio-biology to be consistent with the view that human nature can be created out of nothing (social constructionism) or remoulded to a particular end (biotechnology). If this is true, then it seems there would be little problem taking the socio-biological view to the extent that we accept Darwinian evolution and we accept that we have no pre-determined path, but at the same time we can not only construct our own meaning and purpose in life adaptively if we want to, but can exist just as existentially satisfied without one at all.

Whilst it is Lawler’s opinion that neither the socio-biologists nor the social constructionists give us a complete, or even nearly complete, account of our nature, he accepts that “We have animal natures, which are not fundamentally different from the other animals in being determined to some degree by our evolutionary genetic inheritance”, he calls this the partial truth of socio-biology. What is particularly interesting about this point is made clear later when he also says that: “the truth of socio-biology is an unstable middle position between unscientific ignorance and biotechnological wilfulness. Socio-biology is true until we know it is true.” What he means here is that once we have understood how human nature works on an evolutionary and biological level, we are empowered by this knowledge with a capacity for improvement and change in this very nature itself. This seems to be the paradox of Socio-biology and if true, Lawler is right to look for a more encompassing explanation of our nature than merely, our genetic inheritance.

In “Human Nature after Darwin” Janet Richards contributes to this ongoing debate by focusing on the implications of the Darwinian revolution for understanding our own nature. She explains that although the term Socio-biology represents a coherent set of beliefs it has become a somewhat tainted term in academic discussion. Perhaps due to the earlier alluded to political and social implications of some of its ideas. Many critics make a connection between socio-biology and the biological determinism of the early 20th century. This is still relevant because many believe the Darwinian “revolution” is not yet played out in terms of its potential, especially in combination with the development of bio-technology. The potential of bio-technologies not only raises the value-driven science debate in terms of the driving ideology behind future technology, but if actualised, could raise moral questions previously consigned only to the realm of Science-fiction. Richards asks in this extract, whether there really are serious implications, to the theory of Darwinian evolution, and if so, are they of a biological or perhaps even metaphysical nature. One such implication that scientists, such as Richard Dawkins see; is that Darwinian materialism leaves no room for God. Even as an atheist I tend to believe that this is not the case. At least I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why an understanding and acceptance of evolution is anything other than merely consistent with an atheistic view. If I was to accept consistency as enough evidence for the non existence of God, then conversely I would have to accept that the Fine-tuned universe oft cited as consistent with theism, was evidence for the existence of God, which is clearly nonsense.

Metaphysical questions aside, criticisms of the scientificity and moral/political purpose of socio-biology can and certainly have been made towards various social constructionist projects as well. Lawler takes the examples of the Marxist and Feminist movements, explaining that the Utopian visions of the social constructionists are typically conceived on the premise that we lack a real reason to maintain many of our beliefs. Including that we as humans share certain responsibilities, independent of our society and culture, and that those human responsibilities connect us implicitly with birth, love, and death. These social constructions which we take for granted as part of being empathetic emotional beings have, according to the constructionists, been fitted into the routine of human life without biological mandate and therefore can be removed.

Lawler disagrees with these sentiments when he states: “while social constructionism is right to see that human beings are distinct from the other animals, it errs in believing that our distinct quality is total freedom from nature.” What I believe is starting to become evident as I read more of Lawler, is that he believes in a synthesis of the three views discussed above; building first on the foundation of mechanistic Darwinian evolutionary principles, whilst accepting the need for certain cherry picked, social constructionist concepts that we might use to address the imbalances within our society. A good example of this synthesis can be seen if we look at the Feminist movement I briefly mentioned earlier. Lawler states that they absolutely failed in their radical attempt to remove traditional gender roles from society, but that they succeeded in many parts of the world, to quite an extraordinary degree, in creating a fairer, more egalitarian environment for women. This seems to support the view that the two contrasting ideas of socio-biology and social constructionism can be combined and integrated without contradiction or need to accept one or the other.

So where does this leave us in terms of defining our own nature? Lawler concludes that in the end, although Bio-technology is important, it is not the game-changer that many believe it to be. It is not ever going to satisfy us entirely, because the tantalizing possibilities of progress will always remain in one form or another in our future. We also cannot accept the Ultra Darwinian view of our nature that excludes the importance and need for individual and culturally determined human constructions and excepts merely a crude materialism. Instead Lawler argues, we need a: “richer, more truthful account of human nature, one that comprehends the excellences and passions, the joys and miseries, of being the only animal who knows, loves, and thinks about death”. I think that Lawler’s broader point here is correct. Both the socio-biologists and the social constructionists have described human nature in reductionist terms which should be avoided if possible. We should instead embrace a far more comprehensive view of our nature. Incorporating the great benefits we have gained from a better understanding of evolutionary biology whilst at the same time accepting there limitations and the need for further understanding of our distinctly human characteristics which are often so hard to quantify.

Whilst some will not be convinced by anything other than an all encompassing, materialist understanding of evolution. Those of us that accept our Darwinian ancestry as part of our nature can be even more greatly rewarded, when we realise that there is no destiny that we are being driven towards. We are formed by our genes, but we are not merely a blank slate to write on and we have the capacity to define ourselves by our own actions and beliefs (even if we are only too aware that Darwin was right on the stamp of our lowly origins). Its best I think to accept that we are part of the natural order, that we are not a specially created species with unique privileges. Because bleak as it may seem to some, it doesn’t mean we have to live without irony, humour, solidarity or any other of the things that make human life bearable and indeed possible. C

Attack of the Labour apologists

“Sectors of the doctrinal system serve to divert the unwashed masses and reinforce the basic social values: passivity, submissiveness to authority, the overriding virtue of greed and personal gain, lack of concern for others, fear of real or imagined enemies, etc. The goal is to keep the bewildered herd bewildered. It is unnecessary for them to trouble themselves with what's happening in the world. In fact, it's undesirable -- if they see too much of reality they may set themselves to change it.” – Noam Chomsky


-by Christopher Landau

Can you feel it?

The hot sweats and trembling hands. The furrowed brows and clenched fists. Election fever has most definitely struck the Labour party faithful and they clearly feel it’s not too late to offer us their pathetic revisionism. Like a microcosm of the Westminster stage, Facebook and other social networking sites have rapidly become the political pulpit of choice for the many partisan observers preaching their version of the truth.

Like a mirror held up to the party leadership, die-hard Labour supporters desperately scramble for credibility, increasingly dismayed by the "Clegg effect" that transformed this election after the Liberal Democrat leader won last week’s first televised debate. And in so doing so - moved us one-step closer to ending the undemocratic duopoly maintained by the two biggest parties for decades.

This has inevitably led to the awakening of a prickly, nervous and vocal sect of Labourphiles emerging into the bright light of the Media glare. Seemingly hell bent on defending there party, leaders and the status quo with a cacophony of half-truths, exaggeration, lies and spin. Even in Sweden, even over the Rumble of the Volcano - I can hear the faint sounds of hand wringing and teeth grinding. Which got me to thinking - Why should I actually care if Labour loses this election?

Yes, I do worry about what the Tories will do if they get in. But I also worry about what Labour might do if they win another term. And why anyone who genuinely hails from the political left should ever seek the re-election of arguably the most right wing British government since the Second World War - is beyond my comprehension.

Of course the New Labour apologists will try to convince us of there “core Socialist values”, by pointing to some of the redistributive policies introduced over the past 13 years. Examples such as Sure Start, the national minimum wage, a reduction in child poverty, raising the school leaving age, flexible hours for parents and carers, better conditions for part-time workers, the ‘decent homes’ programme, free museums and increased spending on foreign aid.All of these things are real achievements and deserve to be recognized as such. However the catalogue of failures, duplicity, apostatizing and outright destruction is a far longer and more consequential list.


Under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown Labour discovered a new role to play on the world stage, one that restored power and credibility in the eyes of the electorate. Instead of delivering our dreams - politicians promised to protect us from nightmares. As Britain and America go around the world 'liberating' oppressed people, and as they try to 'liberate' us from the old bureaucracies of the past, they replace what was there before with a strange kind of freedom; a freedom that bears little resemblance to any notion of freedom we knew before. This is the New Labour project and it is mirrors the Neo-Conservative movement in the U.S.

In the past politicians promised to make a better world. They had different ways of achieving this but their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered their people. Those dreams failed and people lost faith in ideologies - with politicians increasingly seen as mere managers of public life.

Welcome to the Politics of Fear

“Terrorism doesn't just blow up buildings; it blasts every other issue off the political map. The spectre of terrorism - real and exaggerated - has become a shield of impunity, protecting governments around the world from scrutiny for their human rights abuses.” – Naomi Klein

One thing alone destroys the credibility of a vote for Labour. We have a cabinet full of war criminals. That is of course only if you accept the premise that there is such a thing as International Law and that it should be recognised. It is commonly understood but again, seldom reported, that the British government - like most other major world powers, cares nothing for international law until it serves our own interests. Noam Chomsky famously once quipped: “If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.”

The same holds true for our beloved leaders. The Nuremberg tribunal by the way defined a war of aggression like that inflicted on Iraq as “the supreme international crime”. But in that particular case, the immorality comes not only from the Labour government’s unprovoked massacre of civilians but because it was Labour itself that sabotaged chances of achieving a peaceful resolution. It had already been decided that Iraq was to be invaded in 2001.(3) After the attacks of 9/11 gave Britain and the US a mandate to realise the full ideological potential of the ‘War on Terror'.

The red white and blue elephant in the room

"Somewhere in the modern British psyche there perhaps still lurks the dreamy figure of a prime minister who might, at least occasionally, tell Washington where to get off" - John Harris

As well as being the most right wing government since the war, this Labour government has also been the most subservient partner of the so called ‘special relationship’, since Churchill first coined the phrase in 1946. The dynamic between the U.S and U.K reached entirely new lows as Labour agreed to meet just about every demand from the Bush administration.

This unequal relationship can be demonstrated simply enough. Take for example the one-sided extradition treaty Tony Blair signed in 2003 allowing the US to extradite British citizens without producing prima facie evidence of an offence. In the same year the defence secretary Geoff Hoon announced that he would “restructure the British armed forces to make them inter-operable with those of the United States”(4) ensuring for the first time in our history that our military became functionally subordinate to that of another sovereign power.

The roll of the U.S in shaping British foreign policy is rarely acknowledged in any Corporate Media that I know of. Yet it is the defining factor that has led us into the blood and horror of Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. (If anybody wants to pipe up at this point and saying something about Kosovo being a ‘good’ intervention”, I recommend Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk and John Pilger’s excellent reporting on this issue. I could write a whole essay on the Labour propaganda coup that is Kosovo - but it will have to wait).

In 2006 the Labour govenment also helped to block a proposed international moratorium on the use of Cluster bombs. Still resisting an outright ban today, despite the fact that after the 1st of August 2010 Britain will be left as one of the only countries in Europe not to ratify the treaty.(5)

I assert that Labour's foreign policy is as much, or more unethical, than that of Margaret Thatcher's. If we grant that it is possible to say such things at all.
It is the same administration which collaborated with the US programme of torture, extra-judicial kidnapping and targeted assassination. This is the same administration that abandoned our fellow countrymen in Guantánamo Bay and had them tortured in Pakistani prisons and the 'secret' CIA prisons dotted about Eastern Europe and the Middle East - where there may still be many more Britons held in anonymous solitude.

This is the same regime that continues in its resolute support for the Zionist occupation of Palestine. A Labour government which is so infiltrated by Zionist lobbyists they even refused to call for the halt of Israel’s massacre in Gaza at the end of 2008; in which over 1400 Palestinians were slaughtered, over half the dead children, with thousands more were critically wounded and over 6000 homes destroyed. This carnage often inflicted by technology exported from Britain and the U.S. Utilised on the ground by adolescent conscripts who are themselves largely funded by the American and British Military industrial complex.

Confronting Labour mythology head on

“A little rebellion now and then is a good thing”. – Thomas Jefferson

Frustratingly, by its own internal logic New Labour and it supporters actually see themselves as a success. It implemented the project that it set out to implement. Recall that Blair's destruction of Clause 4 was hailed as a masterstroke. And so it was - effectively signalling the end of the party. It was a right-ist coup d'état so successful that by some strange inversion of reason we have Labour sycophants today trying to define the Liberal Democrats as the ‘Right wing’ party and Labour as the party of the people. Neither of them are the party of people, but at least the Lib Dems don’t have to scrub of 13 years of evil taint.

During the past 13 years of Blair and Brown's stewardship, the economic framework laid down by Thatcher has been strengthened. The citizen has been re-regulated and business has been deregulated; as New Labour shifted taxation from the rich to the poor, cutting capital gains tax from 40% to 18%, and corporation tax from 33% to 28%, tried to raise the income tax paid by the poorest earners from 10% to 20% and lifted the inheritance tax threshold from £300,000 to £700,000. Whilst maintaining the cap on the highest rates of council tax, Labour has perversely focused the vast majority of enforcement on prosecuting low level benefits cheats, but has allowed tax avoidance mostly by the very rich, to reach an estimated £41bn.(7) If we look at the ‘Gini coefficient’ which measures inequality, it has increased slightly under Labour –rising from 0.33 to 0.35.

Despite what the Labour hacks would have you think, Gordon Brown was not a competent Chancellor; not if we look at the long-term results from his time at the treasury. It was Brown who notoriously claimed the “End of boom and bust” yet this is the very same man whose short sighted, politically expedient manoeuvres as chancellor have added hugely to our national debt. To take just one example, Gordon Brown was responsible for selling off the national gold reserve at a time when Gold prices reached record lows - cost to the taxpayer £7 Billion. His most damaging action as both chancellor and prime minister however was the forced implementation of the private finance initiative, into almost all of our public services.

PFI’s might not mean much to most people, but this reflects more on the scandalous under-reporting that they have received than their importance. The only real journalist willing to take on such a dry but crucial story it seems - is George Monibot of The Guardian newspaper.

Brown’s privatisation schemes crept into places where previous Conservative governments never dared tread, although they are unlikely to have such qualms today. One example that springs immediately to mind is the recent venue for the Labour Manifesto launch last week. The new hospital used as the venue cost £600 million to build, the final bill to the taxpayer under the PFI scheme will run to £2.5 billion.(8)

A somewhat nihilistic conclusion

What started out as an experiment by a group of young, powerful ideologues in the Labour party - seeking to redefine some sort of shared ‘goal’ for the British people to identify with. Instead became nothing more than the simplistic but powerful notion of the ‘constant war’ that Orwell had foreseen. The Labour government destroyed our hopes. As Monibot writes; “It put into practice Thatcher's dictum that "there is no alternative" to a market fundamentalism that subordinates human welfare to the demands of business. Labour has created a political monoculture that kills voters' enthusiasm, and has delayed electoral reforms that would have given smaller parties an opportunity to be heard. All we are left with is fear: the fear that this awful government might be replaced by something slightly worse. Fear has destroyed the Labour party, but people keep supporting it in trepidation of letting the other side win."(9)

Save this government? I would sooner give my money to a charity that rapes badgers. Of all the causes that leftist thinkers might consider supporting New Labour must be one of the least deserving. I have no problem with a tactical vote for Labour to keep out the Tories by the way, fair enough. But to claim Labour occupies some sort of ideological high ground is gratuitous. If you don’t want to believe me that is of course up to you. As the English theologian Joseph Barber Lightfoot put it: “When I speak to you, I speak to myself. If I seem to warn or to rebuke you, it is not so much you, as myself, to whom the warning or the rebuke is addressed.”

I say that because like many of the Labour apologists peddling their ideological claptrap today, I too came from a family of die-hard leftist Labour supporters. But tribal loyalty to the Labour party in 2010 represents the antithesis of truly left wing values. Of course I imagine most Labour partisans will claim my writing is unfair and dismiss it out of hand. So all that I can do is leave you with the opening paragraph of Thomas Paine’s short but enlightened book 'Common Sense'.

“Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.” C

References

(1) http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/04/16/a-war-against-the-peacemaker
(2)http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/11/11/dreamers-and-idiots/
(3)http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/apr/04/iraq.iraq
(4)Geoff Hoon, 26th June 2003. Britain’s Armed Forces for Tomorrow’s Defence. Speech to the Royal United Services Institute
(5) http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/11/07/asserting-our-right-to-kill-and-maim-civilians/
(6)http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/05/20/nothing-left-to-fight-for/
(7). http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80327-0002.htm
(8)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7583433/Manifesto-reveals-the-scale-of-Labours-failure.html
(9) http://www.monbiot.com/

The Independant Newspaper - sold for a quid

- By Christopher Landau

"[The "liberal media"] love to be denounced from the right, and the right loves to denounce them, because that makes them look like courageous defenders of freedom and independence while, in fact, they are imposing all of the presuppositions of the propaganda system." - Noam Chomsky

On the 25th of March 2010, former Russian KGB agent and Billionaire Oligarch Alexander Lebedev bought The Independent and Independent on Sunday newspapers for the princely sum of £1 sterling. The deal was all but inevitable after the Office of Fair Trading declared no further interest in pursuing an investigation into the possible ‘competition issues’ arising from Mr Lebedev’s simultaneous ownership of another British newspaper, The Evening Standard.

What Lebedev’s ownership means for The Independent remains to be seen, but it got me thinking. What should we expect of this kind of corporate media takeover in 2010? As I was unable to find any actual journalists writing about this issue during all the election coverage, I decided to do a little research and try to find some recent historical precedents that might give us a better idea of what to expect from the takeover of the Indy. Ideally I wanted to find another independently funded, widely distributed paper which hitherto to a private takeover had produced high quality fact-based reporting and was considered seriously as an important educator and voice for the people.

What I found was a paper that matched all of my criteria: The Mirror circa 1984. I came across a number of articles and an excellent documentary on the The Mirror's takeover by the notorious business tycoon Robert Maxwell. Maxwell, who incidentally worked with my father very briefly during the eighties and died in mysterious circumstances on his boat, some years after running The Mirror deep into a hole. What the documentary depicts is really the sorry state of the British press today and the anti democratic relationship between our politicians and our journalists. Somthing that is all too relevant looking at the 24hr election coverage which we are forced to endure for the next few weeks.

In June 1988, former editor of The Mirror Sir Hugh Cudlipp, spoke at a memorial service for his late friend and Mirror colleague Sydney Jacobson. The venue at St Bride’s church was packed to the rafters with the journalistic elite of Fleet Street, a testament to Jacobson who had been a highly respected reporter. It must have come as quite a shock to many of those gathered there that day, when Cudlipp used the occasion to describe in visceral and emotive terms the threat to the free press as he saw it in 1988.

An extract from Cudlipp’s speech is featured at the end of the documentary I found: "Breaking the Mirror: The Murdoch effect". Written and presented by journalistic ubermensch John Pilger - one of my personal heroes. I couldn’t find any written transcripts of the memorial speech so I transcribed it from the film:

“In one particular sense, Sydney Jacobson was fortunate to retire from the Fleet Street scene in 1974. It was the dawn of the Dark Age of Tabloid journalism. The decades still with us, when the proprietors and editors, not all but most; decided that playing a continued role in public enlightenment was no longer any business of the popular press. Information about foreign affairs was relegated to three-inch yapping editorials insulting foreigners. It was the age when investigative journalism in the public interest shed its integrity, and became intrusive journalism for the prurient. When nothing, however personal was any longer secret or sacred and the basic human right to privacy was banished in the interests of publishing profit. When significant national and international events were nudged aside by a panting, seven-day and seven-night news service for voyeurs, on the one-night stand’s of pop stars and teenage delinquents. Some of these foolish things are worthy of mention in the popular press, but now its overkill.”

The rest of the documentary (which is posted at the bottom of the page) is very much still relevant today. It shows some of the most anti-democratic changes enacted under both the Tory and Labour governments in bed with the Media and especially Murdoch over the last few decades. Illustrating how after thirty years of ever-increasing hegemony in our media landscape, the mainstream news continues to depoliticise and subdue us into the desired state of non-critical apathy. A state which corrodes the very qualities in all of us most needed to address issues of social change.

An example of the 'apathy machine' in action which the film explores, is the sexualisation of news - now so ubiquitous as to almost seem cliché. We all expect soft-core porn with our ‘news’ in England right? ‘That how it’s always been!’ Wrong. Pilger’s documentary sheds light on just how recent and rapid the period of decline in the British press has been. Focusing on The Mirror primarily; but also on The Sun and the effects stil felt to this day, after Murdoch's alliance with Thatcher in the seventies; an alliance that helped break the Unions and arguably British journalistic standards. The film also shows the extraordinary relationship Murdoch maintained with the British government under Thatcher, which was then reconfirmed and strengthened by Tony Blair and New Labour.

However it is my personal opinion that the flaws we might be able to percieve in the British news media today, are but a prelude to something much worse if the Conservative party is allowed to regain the majority this May. Thats not to say that the cozy relationship Labour has fostered with the captains of Media industry is not similiarly dangerous and anti democratic. But arguably the Conservatives have always seemed more natural bedfellows for Murdoch than New Labour ever were. It seems fair to say that The Sun and the Torys always had more values shared in common. E.g Targeting the working class and trying to pull them to the right.

But perhaps it is time we ruled out both parties completely if we want to see a new relationship forged with the media. It seems a pretty good bet that as none of the newspapers have a meaningful relationship with Nick Clegg going into this election, the Lib Dems might have an opportunity the other parties do not to enact media reform. It is frustrating to see that now Murdoch has switched his allegiance and his treasure to support David Cameron, an actual opportunity for Labour progressives to seriously tackle reform and anti-trust legislation is both revealed and negated. No longer fearing the awesome 'thwak' of the Murdoch or Labour party whip would have gone a long way to help the emergence of a less one sided relationship between our government and the press.

On the other hand, if Cameron does get in; I predict a new crack down on the increasingly panicked and vunerable BBC. Which might of course merely signal the the beginning, of a new wave of massive Thatcherite style deregulation - just at the time when we need the opposite. Thus pushing us incrementally ever closer towards that fetid screeching ideological clusterfuck known as U.S corporate news.

The fact is though, because almost all the papers decided months ago that Cameron was inevitably going to win this election, they are now invested in his victory in the most undemocratic fashion. They have gone after Gordon Brown in such a deeply personal way that until last week they were certain he was as good as shot.

Just imagining all those prospective Tory M.P’s - all gelled hair, thirty somethings with a degree in political science, fresh faced and donning an ill-fitting suit or two and so eager to enact their long held dreams of unleashing Thatcherism 2.0 on us all. ‘The age of Austerity’ was what Cameron called his vision of Britain for the future. Anybody that understands the history of the Conservative party understands which sections of society that austerity would be forced upon. So what about the third alternative?

David Yelland of the Guardian writes in an article today: "Make no mistake, if the Liberal Democrats actually won the election – or held the balance of power – it would be the first time in decades that Murdoch was locked out of British politics. In so many ways, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote against Murdoch and the media elite." Well I like the sound of that, and to think it only took one leaders debate (and the entire country going to shit) to crack open the two party political system. Whether or not the Lib Dems can actually hope to win the majority of seats in this election of course, very much remains to be seen.

I will leave you with this notorious description of the 'ideal' media system, as described by Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. We would still do well to heed his words, as long as we recognise them as the antithesis to all our striving. “What you need [in a media system] is ostensible diversity, that masks actual uniformity”. You have been warned. C

John Pilger - Breaking the Mirror (The Murdoch Effect)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5005752483917353600#

American Fascists: The rise of Christian Reconstructionism

Below is posted both parts of a fascinating Democracy Now! interview with Pulitzer Prize winning author Chris Hodges; on the rise of what he and many others are calling - Dominionism or Christian Reconstructionism. As Chris explains knowledgably and succinctly; people often use labels such as ‘fundamentalist’ or ‘evangelical’ to denote that certain type of right wing Christian political block, powerfully influential in U.S politics. Chris argues this label is wrong; in part due to the total lack of anything resembling actual Christian values in the actions of followers and leaders of these so called ‘Mega’ churches. Raking in billions of dollars annually often from the poorest and most vulnerable citizens, Chris goes on to explain the dark side of this cult of personality and the growing power of what is essentially a coalition of despotic, fascist fiefdoms; ran by quasi-dictators such as Pat Roberson, Ted Haggard et al. C