If you haven’t seen this, read it – it is very funny. We need funny.

Posted by on

The writer of the following is Anthony Lane in the June 9th edition of the New Yorker “>http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-book-of-jeremy-corbyn”>

And it came to pass, in the land of Britain, that the High Priestess went unto the people and said, Behold, I bring ye tidings of great joy. For on the eighth day of the sixth month there shall be a general election.
And the people said, Not another one.
And they waxed wroth against the High Priestess and said, Didst thou not sware, even unto seven times, that thou wouldst not call a snap election?
And the High Priestess said, I know, I know. But Brexit is come upon us, and I must go into battle against the tribes of France, Germany, and sundry other holiday destinations. And I must put on the armor of a strong majority in the people’s house. Therefore go ye out and vote.
And there came from the temple pollsters, who said, Surely this woman will flourish. For her enemy is as grass; she cutteth him down. He is as straw in the wind, and he will blow away. And the trumpet of her triumph shall sound in all the land.
And the High Priestess said, Piece of cake.
And there came from the same country a prophet, whose name was Jeremy. His beard was as the pelt of beasts, and his raiments were not of the finest. And he cried aloud in the wilderness and said, Behold, I bring you hope.
And suddenly there was with him a host of young people. And he said unto them, Ye shall study and grow wise in all things, and I shall not ask ye for gold. And the sick shall be made well, and they also will heal freely. And he promised unto them all manner of goodly things.
And the young people said unto him, How shall these things be rendered, seeing that thou hast no money in thy purse?
And he spake unto them in a voice of sounding brass and said, Soak the rich. And again, Pull down the mighty from their seats.
And the young people went absolutely nuts.
And they hearkened unto the word of Jeremy, and believed. For they said unto themselves, Lo, he bringeth unto us the desire of our hearts. He cometh by bicycle, with a helmet upon his head. And he eateth neither flesh nor fowl, according to the Scriptures. For man cannot live by bread alone, but hummus is quite another matter.
And the High Priestess saw all these things and was sore. And she gathered unto her the chief scribes and the Pharisees and said unto them, What the hell is going on?
And they said unto her, It is a blip, as if it were a rough place upon the road.
But they said unto themselves, When the government was upon her shoulders, this woman was mighty. But now that she has gone abroad unto every corner of the land, she stumbleth. For surely it is written that ruling and campaigning are as oil and water, and there shall be no concord betwixt them.
And the chief scribes wrote upon tablets, saying, Jeremy is false of tongue. He hideth wickedness in his heart. And his sums do not add up.
And nobody paid any attention.
And the elders rose up and said to the young people, If ye choose Jeremy, he will bring distress in your toils and wailing upon your streets. Do ye not remember the nineteen-seventies?
And the young people said, The what?
And the elders spake again, and said to the young people, Beware, for he gave succor in days of yore to the I.R.A.
And the young people said, The what?
And the young people said, Jeremy shall bring peace unto all nations, for he hateth the engines of war that take wing across the heavens. And he showeth respect for all peoples, even unto the transgender community.
And the elders said, The what?
And it came to pass that the heathen of this land came among the people, with fire and sword, and slew many among the faithful. And great was the lamentation.
And the High Priestess waxed exceeding wroth and said to the people, Fear not. For I shall bind your wounds and give ye shelter from the heathen, and shall take up the sword against them.
And there came again pollsters from the temple, who said, Will the people not vote for her in this hour of need?
And nobody paid any attention.
And it came to the vote.
And the elders went up to vote, and the young people. And the young people were as a multitude. And in the hours of darkness there was much counting. And the young people watched by night, and the elders went to bed.
And there came in the morning news that the High Priestess had vanquished the prophet Jeremy. But the triumph of the High Priestess was as the width of a nail. And she was vexed.
And the elders and the chief scribes and the Pharisees spoke among themselves, yea, even in the corners of their houses.
And there was great rejoicing amidst the multitude of the young. And they took strong wine, and did feast among themselves. And there were twelve baskets left over.
And of the pollsters there was no sign.
And the people saw Jeremy and said, Surely this man has won? Doth he not skip in gladness like a young hart upon the hills?
And there was great murmuring among the elders. And they said unto themselves, Weep not. For the High Priestess doth but prepare the way. Cometh there not one who is greater than she?
And they said, Behold, for the hour of the redeemer is upon us. And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Prince of Peace. And they cried in one voice, Boris.
And the young people said, Oh, shit.
And the people gave tongue, and made supplication unto the Lord, saying, Lord, let our cry come unto thee.
And the Lord thought the whole thing was absolutely hilarious.
And then the people said, Lord, what shall we do regarding Brexit? For henceforth the High Priestess shall be as weak as a newborn lamb. How shall we hope for continued access to the single market?
And the Lord said, The what?

Is Atheism just another religion (part 2)

Posted by on

Yesterday I quoted a long article that suggested that religious people and atheists are more psychologically alike than they admit. The religionists argue that supernatural beliefs are hard-wired into our brains. Evolution, has left us with a tendency make belief in non-material beings come easily. As highly social and tribal animals, for example, we need to keep track of the thoughts and intentions of other people, even when they are not physically present. From there, it is a short step to conceiving of non-physical entities such as spirits, gods and dead ancestors who “know” what we are thinking and influence our lives. Some hardcore atheists also tend to entertain quasi-religious or spiritual ideas such as there being a higher power or that everything happens for a purpose.

Sloan Wilson posits another way atheists behave, as if they are part of a religion: “playing fast-and-loose with scientific facts”. “Atheists say that religion is bad for humanity and deny that it is not an evolutionary adaptation. This, he says, is not true. “This is how atheism becomes an ideology. It is organised to motivate behaviour. Using counterfactual beliefs in order to so leaves little difference between atheism and a religion”.

But the difference is that for atheists there are no rituals, no membership rules, no sacred texts and no proselytising. Psychologist Marjaana Lindeman at the University of Helsinki in Finland adds: “There is no evidence for the argument that all people have an implicit belief in the supernatural.” (Thank you! Ed.). Nor does atheism provide a sense of meaning and purpose, encourage people to do good, or endow you with great enthusiasms, except in the case of a very few individuals. (Based on an article in the New Scientist)

My comment: some people need a religion, others don’t. We are all discrete, unique individuals with scores of views, beliefs and points of view. Social scientists like to make generalisations from the particular, but it seems a pointless exercise. Education should allow us to form our own views, not go along uncritically with the majority. That’s a good thing. Religion can (not inevitably) lead to intolerance and cruelty (the Spanish Inquisition). Ask the Islamists, who use violence, and the American evangelicals, who support the Trump oligarchy in every particular to the detriment of the poor and sick. These are political groups and have nothing to do with the prophet Mohammed or Jesus Christ, whose names are being used by disagreeable tribes to impose their beliefs on others. What you can say is that “good” religion teaches morality and ethical behaviour from an early age, which is sorely needed. This is also one objective of humanistic beliefs like Epicureanism. We need more positive morality and ethical behaviour.

I believe you can be moral and ethical while being indifferent to both religion and atheism (all ‘isms in fact). I was once offered a very large contract provided I put a significant bribe directly into the bank account of the CEO of the customer concerned. The order would have accounted for one quarter of our total annual sales. I refused. It had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with ethics and the slippery slope.

Tomorrow: something funny!

Is Atheism just another religion? (Part 1)

Posted by on

Owen did a brilliant piece on Christianity yesterday. So today I follow it up with a piece on atheism, as published recently in the New Scientist:

Lois Lee directs the Nonreligion and Secularity Research Network at the University of Kent in Canterbury, UK. She is quoted as saying: “When people say’atheism is just another religion’, they normally mean it in a pejorative way. The subtext is clear: atheists are hypocrites. If atheism really is just another religion, its claim to be a superior way to run the world is thereby fatally weakened, and the criticism of religion – that it is irrational, dogmatic and intolerant – comes flying back, with interest. In this way progress towards a more rational and secular society is undermined.

Atheists have been treated with suspicion for centuries. Latterly the strident criticism of religion from Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) hasn’t helped. “The church of the non-believers” and a “crusade against god”, are descriptions used by critics of Dawkins, who is accused of portraying atheism as the only source of truth and righteousness and its enemies as “bad, bad, bad”; another religion, in other words.

Dawkins may be over the top, but his accusers may be protesting too much. The defining feature of religion is belief in god(s). Atheism defines itself as the absence of belief in god. How can it be a religion? That is like saying that “off” is a TV channel, or not-playing-tennis is a sport.

But some people think that atheists have not taken the charge seriously enough.

The truth is, they say, is that atheism is not simply an absence of belief in god, but also a set of alternative beliefs about the origin and nature of reality. Even though these belief systems diverge in their content and level of fact from religious beliefs, perhaps they originate from the same underlying psychological processes, and fulfil similar psychological needs. Religious ideas, for example, provide stability and reassurance in the face of uncertainty. They help to explain events and provide a moral framework. For these reasons, and others, they are intuitively appealing to human brains. Maybe brains that reject supernatural ideas simply soak up naturalistic ones, helping alleviate stress and anxiety, as religion does.

It is well known that religious people often turn to their beliefs to deal with emotional distress. Faced with reminders of mortality and issues of morality, both religious people and atheists reaffirm their beliefs. Religious people turn to god to help people regain at least a subjective sense of control and predictability. Atheists do it too.

In times of stress atheists tend to turn to scientific ideas, especially theories that emphasise orderliness and predictability over randomness and unpredictability, which suggests that religious believers and atheists are more psychologically similar than either would like to think. (a heavily edited article that first appeared in the New Scientist).

I think all this is wild generalisation, and unscientific generalisation at that. There are many people who really couldn’t care less about these ‘isms. I am one of them. Yes I have a set of beliefs based on Epicureanism. They are humanistic. I believe in treating everyone with respect and kindness, would like to see greater equality, believe in good education and a decent, secure living for all, good manners, and consideration. I totally deny turning to any ism in times of stress – just maybe agonising for two minutes, then working it out and getting on with life, which should be a joy, not a penance.

Epicurus and Christianity

Posted by on

Another one of my Modern Philosophy posts. I hope I speak with some authority on this one, having been brought up in an Evangelical Christian home, attended church regularly for eighteen years, and familiarised myself with the key tenets of Christian doctrine. Having already written about Islam, I hope to complete an analysis of the three monotheisms with a post of Judaism, so look out for that over the coming months. 

On a metaphysical level, Epicureanism and Christianity fundamentally contravene each other. The former is a materialist philosophy, claiming that nothing exists beyond the empirical realm that humans can know about. There may be gods, but their activities are inconsequential to life here on earth. On the other hand, Christianity is essentially about mankind’s redemption from sin through the resurrection of Jesus, so that we may enjoy a direct relationship with God. In the ancient world, Epicureans and Christians often clashed because they disagreed on so much.

Despite their contradictory claims, both Epicureans and Christians would profess to adhere to the same standards of behaviour: compassion, forgiveness, generosity, inclusion, hospitality, love, as well as an aversion to excess. Some Christians would claim that Christianity, or at the very least formalised religion, is a pre-requisite for living a truly moral life, though that isn’t a view held by all. Epicureanism certainly never made a claim to a monopoly on morality. As an Epicurean, I think people of all religions are capable of living highly fulfilling lives. A late Christian friend of mine spends her life looking after children, volunteering to help the elderly, and participating in the church choir and band. I may not agree with her metaphysics, epistemology or ethics, but I can certainly appreciate the difference she made to the lives of those around her. Equally, the Islamic Society at Exeter University raises a lot of money for charity. So I’m afraid ascribing truthfulness to a doctrine based on the good works of its adherents is a rudimentary fallacy because virtually every doctrine can claim to have had good effects.

Therefore, it’s important to establish what sets Christianity apart. I won’t get into any obscure verses in the Old Testament; the Christian community is divided as to how to interpret those verses and their relevance for the modern day- a debate that ought to be resolved amongst Christians. As I said before, Christianity is fundamentally about the death and resurrection of Jesus. This was to satisfy an all-powerful God who cannot abide sin. But thanks to sinful human nature caused by Adam and Eve (see the first few books of Genesis to find out how this happened), people are incapable of living perfect lives, requiring God to come down in human form to die as a blood sacrifice for human redemption.

This is a totally immoral and depraved doctrine. The notion of blood sacrifice is a barbaric idea, invented when man was in a far more primitive state. It’s little different from the polytheisms that preceded Christianity, killing animals as sacrifices to vengeful Gods. The fear of divine punishment has permeated human behaviour for thousands of years. It’s largely a result of our innate sense of guilt. In the case of Christianity, you have a god that demands perfection, knowing that humans are now incapable of obeying his every whim. He then states that all of the world’s people are damned to an eternity in hell unless they accept his blood sacrifice. It’s a frightening belief, one that perpetuates constant guilt and feelings of inadequacy. Christians are forever apologising for themselves, even as they know full well they are trying to live to an impossible standard.

The truth is, humans are not in need of redemption. We are certainly highly flawed, and Christians have done an excellent job of pointing out that despite our advances in science and technology, we are not necessarily becoming more moral. We can never expect to be perfect, so there’s no point in apologising every time we aren’t. Christianity claims to absolve its believers from sin, yet Christians behave as if they are just as guilty as before, because Christianity demands absolute obedience to God, even after having believed in the resurrection.

As a result, I’ve noticed that Christianity attracts people who express a high degree of regret at how they use to live. Maybe they had a problem with alcohol or drugs. Maybe they were ill-tempered, or even violent. Perhaps they lived lives deemed to be sexually promiscuous by society, and so feel inadequate due to a new sense of shame. Christianity entices such people with the promise of absolution. But even after confession, Christians strive to improve to what are unrealistic standards, that ought never to be said if people are to live truly fulfilling lives. Christianity fails to offer a point in which the believer can be satisfied with themselves, apart from a vague promise of eternal life- a derivative notion that satisfies the base human greed and selfish desire to live forever.

The belief in blood sacrifice for the redeeming of sin has grave consequences for the modern world. Christians largely regard the non-Christian world as ‘fallen’, and therefore inherently corrupting. I’ve met Christians who have shut themselves away from the world, because they regard it as morally poisonous. In some cases, this has led to segregation, with Christians choosing to live apart from others, instead of trying to improve the world in which they live. I appreciate most Christians aren’t that extreme. But the casual dismissal of the non-Christian world is insulting to the followers of other belief systems who are only trying their best.

The worst aspect of the blood sacrifice doctrine is its effects on children. As a child, I was taught that I could never be perfect (or even good enough since God’s standard is perfection.) My only hope was to believe in Jesus and follow whatever the Bible says, or else be guilty of disobeying God. The image of hell was frightening for a child, who like most, had a vivid imagination. Christianity kept me afraid and anxious for many years. There was even one point when I cried when I couldn’t find my family, because I believed they had been taken to heaven and I was left to go to hell. In my view, instilling that sort of fear into children ought to condemned by wider society, though sadly it goes barely noticed.

A Christian upbringing was also damaging in other ways. Particularly when I was young, I wasn’t allowed to learn about other religions properly. I was never taught the arguments in favour of other religions, or even atheism. I wasn’t even allowed to find out bad things about Christmas. Even at A level, my mum was sceptical of me taking a philosophy course because it may cause me to ‘turn away’ from God. My parents also had a very authoritarian parenting style, demanding my absolute obedience and not allowing me to question them. Other Christian parents I knew were far worse, banning their children from anything they claimed portrayed Christianity badly, be it Harry Potter for its ‘Satanic’ influences or The Simpsons due to Ned Flanders’ ineptitude as a prominently Christian character.  Making fun at Christianity was deemed ‘blasphemous’ and resulted in severe punishment. This was a despicable way to raise children, one which I couldn’t possibly regret more. It is healthy for anyone to make fun at themselves and their beliefs, be they religious or otherwise.

Christianity still has an anti-scientific streak. Young-earth creationism, which denies biological evolution, natural selection, and the true age of the universe and the earth, is still a very prominent belief. Science denial was rife amongst the Christians I knew, even on issues like climate change that have nothing to do with Christian doctrine. I’m not at all surprised that American Evangelical Christians are more likely to be climate change deniers than the general population- the latter is at least somewhat related to the former in my view. Other conspiracies, like 9/11 being a hoax, or the Federal Reserve being owned by the Rothschilds, are disproportionately common amongst the Christian community.

At least by British standards, the Christianity I’m familiar with is quite extreme. But by world standards, it is the norm. International Christianity is fostering a culture of authoritarianism, patriarchal gender norms, heavy-handed parenting, instilling fear into people, demanding the morally impossible, total and unquestioning submission to God, and in some cases, conspiracy theories, science denial and segregated lifestyles. Even in the United Kingdom, where the Church of England is relatively benign, Christianity still affirms the doctrine of blood sacrifice because it is essential to the Christian message. Epicureans should holistically repudiate Christianity, for its practical effects as well as its beliefs.

Best of the Week #2

Posted by on

Thanks to the positive feedback I received for the first Best of the Week, I’m pleased to announce it will feature every Sunday on the Epicurus Blog. Initially it was only going to be about newspaper op-eds, but anything of interest- political or otherwise- may be recommended here. And what a week it’s been, with both the UK General Election and the James Comey hearings taking place.  

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-theresa-may-lost-the-election-but-no-one-else-won-a3561051.html. An acerbic indictment of Theresa May and her election campaign, from none other than the former Chancellor and Evening Standard editor, George Osborne. May started the election with a commanding lead in the polls, a weak opposition, and the support of the right wing tabloids. All she had to do was run a risk-averse campaign, utilising the Conservatives’ popularity on the economy and national security to her advantage, and a landslide would be hers. Instead, her election bid promised unpopular reforms to the welfare and social care systems, insulted the electorate’s intelligence by repeating vacuous phrases like ‘strong and stable,’ and she seemed disengaged and unenthused due to her non-participation in mass rallies and televised debates. On the Andrew Marr Show, Osborne described May as a ‘dead woman walking,’ and quite rightly too; her days in Number 10 are numbered.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21723197-election-reveals-astonishing-changes-political-landscape-culture-wars-arrive. The Economist’s Bagehot offers a unique analysis here. He argues that British politics is being Americanised through the arrival of the so-called ‘Culture Wars’ on this side of the Atlantic. If he’s right, Britain will end up more divided than ever before. Faced with an ageing population, a lethargic and unproductive economy, and the monumental task of negotiating with the EU, a high degree of political unity will be required. The polarisation of the British policy along the social issues is the last thing the country needs.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/6/15739606/saudi-arabia-ties-qatar-trump. An excellent explainer of the dispute between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. It is a geopolitical issue with huge ramifications for the United States, particularly its relations with Iran. If left unchecked, this conflict could force the US to dramatically alter its Middle East policy, and has the potential to significantly increase world oil prices. Unfortunately I’m no expert on the Middle East. But this article is required reading for anyone who wishes to understand the region’s current fractures.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/opinion/james-comey-senate-testimony-donald-trump.html?_r=0. Roger Cohen excellently summarises my thoughts on the Comey hearing here. Even if Trump didn’t act illegally when firing Comey, it’s obvious that he acted improperly. The case for impeachment isn’t quite open and shut, but it has certainly been made stronger over the week.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/nicola-sturgeon-the-second-biggest-loser/. One of the most positive outcomes of the UK General Election was that it dealt a blow to the cause of Scottish Nationalism. Alex Massie brilliantly explains why. The SNP is far from dead, it still holds a plurality of Westminster seats in Scotland. But separatism is the preserve of a minority of Scots; the election confirmed this and a strong desire to move on from the constitutional question. Having said that, the union is still under threat. If Labour goes into decline, if the Conservative alliance with the DUP proves unpopular in Scotland (as it almost certainly will), and if Brexit (which a majority of Scots voted against) goes badly wrong, it is very easy to see a rejuvenated SNP, capitalising on a series of crises which are very likely to occur

History’s greatest, most long-running robbery

Posted by on

Most robberies are done and over quickly. Depending on the nature of the theft the timescale could be anything from a few moments for a spontaneous bag-snatch to the month or so it takes, with lawyers in tow, to rob a contractor who has, in good faith, refurbished one of your hotels and isn’t being paid.

Nobody has so far commented on this, but the election of Trump and his subsequent installation in the White House, complete with the damaging policies now being pursued, is the most sophisticated theft, maybe, in the history of the world.

Think of it: he is legally elected, and in this he has the support of law enforcement. Instead of a single robbery of, say, jewels, Trump and his oligarchs are there for four, maybe eight years, quite legally depriving poor Republican voters, and giving to the Mob (whoops! Excuse me) the rich, his close, like-minded cronies in particular. Support for this breath of fresh air is waning somewhat, but he retains the enthusiasm of a significant proportion of the population as he deprives people of healthcare and civil rights, and most things that make America liveable, and claims this is what he promised to do. Since he controls the right-wing media he can misrepresent his actions with impunity. And when (and if) his supporters wake up to the fact that they have been conned, he can blame the Democrats (who wouldn’t let him do this, that or the other) and the liberal media who have been “more unfair to him than any other U.S President in history”. And people believe him through it all! What an artist! His chances of ending up in jail are zero, too!

Five minutes research (more research than Trump has done in his life) shows that he and his fellow thieves, operating on an unprecedented scale, will have robbed the American people of one and a half trillion (you read it correctly) dollars by the end of eight years. No, this is not scientifically arrived at figure, but is presented in the spirit of Republican ethical thought. And in any case we now know that science is a scam, don’t we, and dreamt up to interfere with The Great Loser Robbery, 2016-2024.

Election

Posted by on

Today the British go to the polls. Brexit hasn’t really been an election issue; it has been mentioned only in reference to Teresa May’s penchant for doing u-turns. Will she do a u-turn on Brexit as well? The authors of Brexit have been largely silent, the amazing reason being that Remainers are a dwindling minority, it seems, and it’s best to keep very quiet. Terrorism and what you can leave to your children if you have been dependent on public funds in your old age – these are the main issues. The British are sleep-walking into Brexit, (probably?) led by a woman who hasn’t a clue how to get what the nation needs, and who waffles about everything on auto-pilot (she has had a terrible campaign- the first time the public has seen her in action as leader has exposed her as sounding brass and an empty vessel).

Asked what I would vote if I could I had to sheepishly say the rapidly vanishing Liberal Democrats, who ineffectually campaigned for staying in the EU – a wasted vote. I am hoping for a dramatic upset. The British still don’t seem to understand the odds they face outside the EU. Meanwhile, Trump’s basic support is being maintained, despite the horrors he is daily inflicting on the nation. That is two nations sleep-walking simultaneously, manipulated by sinister rich people who want more “managed” democracies.

Let us change our methods of election

Posted by on

From Campbell Wallace, Redon, France
“Dave Levitan and Alice Klein rightly deplore politicians such as Donald Trump and Malcolm Turnbull, who disregard scientific evidence in favour of policies chosen for short-term electoral advantage or to further special interests. But the problem is a consequence of the electoral system itself, which repeatedly brings to power people unfit to use it.

“Since the 18th century we have assumed that elections are both necessary and sufficient for democracy, and that without them tyranny results. Yet the Greeks of Aristotle’s day knew that elections could lead to oligarchy, not democracy, and that a democratic alternative existed.

“Athenian democracy selected decision-makers by lot to get a statistically representative sample of the whole community: this is called “sortition”. It is perfectly feasible to design a system with the means to ensure that those chosen are well informed on each issue that comes before them.

“Sortition would end the reign of big money, greatly reduce corruption and allow intelligent decisions, taking into account the interests of all. It’s high time we abandoned the myth that elections equal democracy”.(published in The Week)

At the moment we have politicians beholden to somebody, usually rich somebodies, for their election, owing to the huge expense in America of simply getting yourself known to the public, name recognition being essential. In Britain the principal funders of the political parties have to kow-tow to their big funders, whether individuals or unions. It is no way to to maintain a democracy, and sure enough, we get the governments we deserve. On top of this we have constituencies that are gerrymandered or arranged in such a way to ensure a right- wing outcome, and legislators whose education, general knowledge and intelligence is often questionable. Then there is the lopsided bias in the media (in the U.K). Last night we walked psst a late-night convenience store with all the national papers displayed in full view. Most had anti-Corbyn headlines, despite the apparent public sentiment that appears to be running in an anti-May direction. The system is rotten and sortition seems an intelligent answer. Pray for it, but don’t expect it anytime soon!

The Nazi theft of books

Posted by on

During the Second World War some 5 million art objects were stolen by the Nazis. Just as important, between 100 and 200 million books, rare or otherwise, were stolen or burned.

While rare books and manuscripts can have a sale value rivaling artworks, most of the books stolen by the Nazis were not financially valuable. The Nazi art theft bureau, the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter, had two main purposes: to ‘unarm’ their enemies by taking away the weapons of thought — books, libraries, archives. From the Nszi point of view Poles, for instanvce, were being reduced to slavery and needed neither education nor thought.

Secondly, by looting the libraries and archives of their enemies, the Nazis tried to take control of the memory and history of the victims. Fearful that even if the Nazis won the war, future generations would judge the Nazis for their crimes, the Jews had to be painted as an incarnation of evil for all future generations. The objective was to obliterate the libraries and re-write history according to Nazi ideology. “Real” history books lurking in libraries were like time bombs that could prompt people in the future to question the tailored version of reality.

While a minority of academics, editors, scientists, fact-checkers and students still use books in libraries, regarding them as being reasonably reliable, most people now go online for “facts” and read sites like Wikipedia, which anyone can alter (for better or worse). A contemporary version of the Nazi book theft would be if, say, some presidential candidate — in league with some superpower in opposition to the country where that candidate was running for office — were to somehow take over the entire internet and erase fact-based pages, in order to replace them later on with histories of their choosing. After a generation or so, the world might forget how history had been presented beforehand and learn only this newly imposed version of events. Logistically, a cyber-conspiracy of this sort would be easier to pull off than seizing every single book across an entire continent. (a precised version of a review of “The Book Thieves,” by Swedish journalist Anders Rydell, in the European Review.)

We now have an American Administration for whom the truth is suspect and alternative facts can reliably be promoted over 24 hour news channels thirsty for the next horror. If Trump can casually endanger the whole future of the human race by pulling out of the Paris climate change agreement, calling climate change a “hoax”, and propose to sell millions of acres of beautiful public lands and national parks created by successive Administrations since Theodore Roosevelt to his rich chums for their mineral deposits, what other horrors has he is store for us? A re- writing of history into the bargain?

We should be frightened, very frightened. There has to be a point when all this stops. We cannot wait until 2020.

The UK General Election: A brief but definitive guide

Posted by on

I must apologise for my last post on the UK General Election. It was an excessively long, rambling piece that covered everything I was thinking about regarding British politics at the time. I was angry, despondent and confused. I felt so let down by politicians on all sides, that I failed to come to a definitive conclusion having ranted about the deplorable state of affairs for so long.

Having put my emotions to one side, in a Stoic but not necessarily Epicurean fashion, I feel I can now give a succinct guide on how to vote in the British General Election, or at least how to feel should any one party gain power. I will then give my own personal view on who to vote for, though I must concur with last month’s exposition insomuch as I don’t believe there are any good options. I regard Brexit to be a catastrophic error of judgement on behalf of the British people, yet I don’t believe the decision to leave can be reversed. The increasing inflation, slowed GDP growth and increasing irrelevance on the world stage we are already seeing, are but a small preview of what is to come.

If your primary concern is climate change, then there’s a solid case to vote Green. Climate change threatens the whole of humanity, and can only be mitigated through decisive government action. This means strong curbs on carbon emissions, including a carbon tax, and a ban on new carbon-based energy sources, particularly arctic drilling and fracking. The Greens are also very socially liberal, and propose an economic policy based on social justice and a responsibility to help the poorest in society. My worry with the Greens is twofold: that due to the single-member plurality voting system, a vote for them will hand seats to the Conservatives, and that their policies are unaffordable, however good their intentions. But if you live in a safe Conservative seat, a vote for the Greens is a good way of expressing dissatisfaction with the establishment’s authoritarianism and disregard for the importance of environmental issues.

Quite frankly UKIP are a dead party. Since the UK voted to leave the EU, the party has lost its raison d’etre. That doesn’t mean that UKIP’s policies have become less popular. Rather, the Conservative Party has moved to the Right on Brexit and the social issues, in order to appeal to UKIP’s voters. In response to Theresa May’s support for a ‘hard’ Brexit, UKIP has resorted to blatant Islamophobia and open anti-immigrant sentiment. The polls show the party will be punished for this, and quite rightly so.

I have very mixed feelings about the Liberal Democrats. On the one hand, I admire their stance on Brexit. Aside from the Greens, they are the only unapologetically pro-European party electable across Britain. Their support for a second referendum on the final terms of the Brexit negotiations, with an option to remain in the EU, is certainly tempting. But on all other issues, the Liberal Democrats’ attempts at reform are piecemeal. The UK is clearly a country which desires radical change, as the Brexit vote demonstrated. In response, the Liberal Democrats have promised effectively cosmetic reforms to politics, which will effectively amount to nothing. As a result, the Liberal Democrats have become the pro-establishment party, rather than recognising fundamental reforms as necessary. I would only vote for them if there is a chance that should they lose, an extreme and prejudice candidate would become an MP. I would not vote for them as a first preference.

I understand that there are many Epicureans who may desire independence for Scotland or even Wales. I don’t believe that a longing for national self-determination is inherently a bad thing. But in practice, the SNP and Plaid Cymru have to be honest about what the consequences of independence would be. At least in the short to medium term, independence would mean very harsh austerity measures for both Scotland and Wales, because neither nation would be any longer eligible for English subsidies via the Barnet Formula. They would immediately face large budget deficits, comparatively weak economies and a low credit rating. If you believe that the cause of independence is worth making the working class worse off for the foreseeable future, than be honest and say that. But if you don’t, you ought not to vote SNP or Plaid Cymru.

The state of the governing Conservative Party is frankly frightening. Many in the Conservative ranks believe that leaving the EU will have no severe economic consequences, even if there are no provisions for continued trade agreements and service relations. This so-called ‘clean Brexit’, which would result in Britain facing substantial tariffs and barriers to services, would make everyone worse off, but Britain more so than the EU. No amount of free trade deals with the rest of the world could realistically offset such a loss. To suggest that Brexit cannot go badly for Britain is madness. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest to liberal swing voters that Brexit will result in a more open and globalised Britain, while at the same time appealing to former UKIP voters with promises of vastly reduced immigration and a return to the values of the 1950s. It is certain that if the Conservatives win the election, a substantial proportion of the electorate will feel immensely disappointed.  The Conservatives have also abandoned their economic principles. By accepting that intervention in the market is necessary, such as their promise to have workers on company boards, or their proposals to cap energy prices, they have essentially lost the argument about the virtues of free market capitalism. The Conservative manifesto explicitly rejects the individualism of  the libertarian right. But then if market interventionism is good, why not intervene in the market properly, and give public services the funding they need? Like the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives promise an unsatisfactory compromise of a policy programme that will end up pleasing no one.

The Labour Party is full of faults. It is hopelessly divided between its socialist and more moderate wings. It has unrealistic proposals on how to balance the budget, which is doesn’t seem to regard as a priority. It promises big spending increases as the answer to virtually every problem, when in a globalised world more comprehensive and imaginative solutions are required. I find its appetite for class warfare distasteful. As someone who is part of a family that earns more than £80 000 a year, I don’t want to be labelled as part of the problem. I also don’t agree with Jeremy Corbyn’s foreign policy views, particularly on the Northern Ireland conflict, the Falklands Wars, or his view of the War on Terror as a neo-imperial phenomenon, rather than a well-intentioned attempt to deal with radical Islamist terrorism.

Having said that, the Labour Party is by far the most authentic force in British politics at the moment. It is unapologetically committed to its brand of socialism. It is no longer embarrassed by its trade union roots, or its dedication to the wellbeing of the working class. Jeremy Corbyn has run a campaign relatively free of spin, lies, exaggeration or fear-mongering. True to his word, he has presented a genuine and decisive alternative to Tory rule, using the language of the ordinary working man- not the jargon and politically correct platitudes of many professional politicians. And regardless of the result on Thursday, he has at least somewhat succeeded. A month ago, Theresa May seemed unassailable. But now, many predict that the Conservatives will lose seats, perhaps even an overall majority. That is a formidable achievement, one that should not be downplayed, even taking into account May’s own unforced errors. It is with considerable reservation and nervousness, that I endorse Labour for this election. Britain should at least give an unadulterated form of socialism a chance. I am far from certain as to how successful it would be. But I am certain that the unambitious reforms of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, the soft bigotry of UKIP, and the unrealistic utopianism of the Greens- would all end in failure. The working class is dying for radical change. Now, we as voters, must choose to deliver it.

 

Best of the Week #1

Posted by on

As I promised last Monday, here is a new series I’ll be trialing called Best of the Week. It’s basically a list of the best opinion articles I’ve read over the week- a very brief summary of them, and a one-sentence reaction to them. I’ve often been asked where I get my news from, and particularly in the era of ‘fake news,’ its important to read truthful and accurate stories. Having said that, not all of the articles I’ll present will reflect my own views. But perhaps they’ll be useful in understanding how others think, or simply a very compelling argument for an alternative point of view. Let me know what you think of this series- whether you’d want it to continue, any suggestions for improvements.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/14/is-labour-manifesto-fantasy-land-quite-the-opposite. Probably the most compelling case for a Labour government I’ve read. Elliot argues that a desire for the status quo is madness- things simply have to change, however audacious they may seem. I share Labour’s current appetite for radical thinking, but running large deficits isn’t revolutionary, it’s irresponsible.

https://www.vox.com/2017/6/1/15726726/trump-paris-climate-agreement-republicans. An excellent explanation that not only does Republican climate change denial predate Trump, the party establishment shares his scepticism of the need for governments to take action to prevent climate change. It’s important to emphasise that Trump is the symptom, not the problem itself. The Republican establishment played a key role in his rise.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/well-done-jeremy-corbyn-for-being-the-least-shrill-person-in-politics/. A fantastic piece on the tendency for politicians to use hyperbole in recent years, which is why Corbyn neglecting to deploy apocalyptic scenarios about the prospect of a Tory win is so admirable.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/speakerscorner/2017/06/brexit-and-election an analysis on how trade has never been more important to the British economy, and an exposing of the myth that trade will be bolstered from Britain leaving the Customs Union.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/opinion/europe-nato-defense.html?ref=opinion&_r=0. Guy Verhofstadt outlines the failures and inefficiencies of current European defence policy, and how a European Defence Union may address those issues. I agree with Verhofstadt’s desire for closer co-operation on defence matters, but I would be wary about having too many foreign policy decisions taken at the European level. While I’m a firm believer in the European project generally, there is obviously an upper limit to integration, and defence is one area where integration may go too far.

More on climate change

Posted by on

Older and Republican-leaning Americans think the April “March for Science” in Washington was a waste of time, according to a poll of 1012 adults by the Pew Research Center in Washington DC. Sixty per cent of Republicans and 54 per cent of those aged 65 and up dismissed the march as pointless, whereas a majority of both Democrats and younger adults thought it would increase public support for science.

I haven’t seen statistics on the subsequent Climate March, in which my wife and I participated, but it’s a safe bet that the same older and Republican-leaning Americans thought that was a waste of time as well. So thorough hss been the climate skeptical propaganda, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, that Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord will be shrugged off by all too many ill-informed people who voted for the man, denying that they were contributing to planetary disaster for their grandchildren. Any more words fail me.

Learning about climate change, (1 of 2 posts on climate change)

Posted by on

A comprehensive survey of science teachers at middle and high schools across the US, conducted by the journal “Science”, finds that teachers generally devote a paltry 1 to 2 hours to the topic of climate change, and despite the fact 97 per cent of experts agree climate change is mainly human-caused, many teachers still “teach the controversy”, suggesting a sizeable “consensus gap” exists. The survey showed seven in 10 teachers mistakenly believe that at least a fifth of experts dispute human-caused climate change.

Vested interests in fossil fuels, led by the Koch brothers and Exxon, have spent tens of millions of dollars to create the impression of a consensus gap, orchestrating a public relations campaign aimed at attacking the science and the scientists, and confusing the public about the reality and threat of climate change. They also created a partisan political divide on the issue, most evident in the US.

Our children will bear the brunt of the climate crisis, battling coastal inundation, extreme weather, withering droughts and devastating floods. We owe it to them not only to give them the facts, but to help them clean up the mess that we created.
(Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University).

This nonsense about the science of climate change is not confined to schools. You encounter it frequently, although rarely among well-informed and educated people. Members of Congress, supplicants at the tables of the oil and gas companies, are particularly guilty. I think there should be a memorial set up on the Mall in Washington DC. The monument should read

“To the irresponsible, greedy and short-sighted people who fought the idea of man-made climate change, and thus bequeathed to future generations flood, tempest, starvation, drought, unpredictable weather, and mass migration. Their companies and CEO’s are listed below. May They be forgiven.”

The Islamist threat

Posted by on

A propos the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations:

“These are not an organizations that can destroy the United States. But they can hurt us and they can hurt our people and our families. And so I can understand why people are worried. The most damage they can do, though, is if they start changing how we live and what our values are.” (President Obama, NPR on Dec. 21, 2015).

What worries me is that in combating the Islamists and throwing out large numbers of Latinos, the new American Administration will undermine the social trust of the country and the very freedoms and liberties enshrined in the Constitution. Already, the entry ban on moslems from certain countries sends a bad message around the world, as does the “wall” and the big increase in deportations. Will the US remain a moderate and tolerant country, or go into a selfish funk? Obama was calm and rational in tumultuous and troubling times; now we have something very different that appeals to our more unpleasant, selfish and suspicious instincts, and calls into question whether we still retain the old values nationally.

I cannot help returning in my mind to the days of the 1960s, when America was generous, trusting, and Americans themselves actually wanted to get to know you, hear your views and listen to opposing points of view. Of course, it’s not hard to look back with rose-coloured spectacles on your nose and ignore the vitriol spewed forth on the rightwing press. Conspiracy theories were just as common then (one couple told me in all seriousness that the UN was contrlling the water supply and starting to poison it. The UN attracted particular venom). It is also true that racism was shocking at that time. But most people still ardently believed in freedom, the Constitution and plain, honest dealing. Society was more equal than today, and middle class people were earning good money. All this has changed; intolerance and hostility towards the opposing political party can be felt at all levels. How do you set the clock back?

What can be said about America can be said about Britain, the object of the ideological murders of harmless teenagers in Manchester. Unexpectedly, there is the same shock and horror, but more resignation and less hysteria than expected. No spontaneous assaults in the street, no revenge murders etc. There are moslem women on the street in our neighbourhood, their heads covered, but as afar as I know, no vitriol directed at them. That, at least, is a blessing.