Climate change is in the news in one way or another every week, so it seems. It's more usually called "weather". But even the climate change sceptics (more on them later) cannot deny that all the signs have been there for more than a decade: the gradual melting of the ice cap around the North Pole; increasingly unstable weather conditions (more common and extreme droughts, floods, ice and blizzards); unseasonable weather.
In last five years or so, there has also been a corresponding increase in the cost of food. Fruit and vegetables have seen the greatest increases (many by more than 50% in a year), as well as staples like wheat and corn, fish and red meat. In other words, the cost of even basic food has soared comparative to salaries, while wages have remained static in the developed and developing world. This is a recipe for economic disaster for those at the bottom; it is no surprise that there have been forecasts of food riots in the Third World for some time now. The only ones unaffected are those at the top.
The effect of climate change on the world therefore has had a direct effect on the cost of all forms of food, with the result that food is now more expensive than it has been in living memory. This is the "new normal". At the same time, the same instability from climate change has had an indirect effect on the price of oil: the instability from climate change (droughts in the Middle East or any other extreme weather in an oil-producing region, for example) directly affects other factors that influence the price of oil.
Let's look back again at those climate change sceptics. Who are they? Mostly those who have interests in the energy sector (oil), and their political gimps in parliaments around the world (but mostly in the USA). It is naturally in the interests of "Big Oil" to discredit any scientific theory that might cause damage to their profit margins. Strange, then, how there has been such a huge expansion in oil exploration around the world (from the "tar sands" of Canada to the seas off the Falkland Islands), while the evidence for climate change has been piling up, year after year. And despite this, the price of oil remains stubbornly high; despite the opening-up of the oil sectors into new territories. But again, it is because the oil price is so high, that explains the rationale for the opening-up into areas that were previously seen as unworkable due to the high overheads. And the oil price is so high because of the "new normal" - instability is the "new normal".
This self-perpetuating logic is what feeds on this instability around the world. It also explains why climate change, that keeps the rationale for the instability going, is what keeps those at the top the ones who benefit the most, while they counter-intuitively argue against climate change's very existence. This is the "Double-Speak", like what I alluded to in one of my previous articles here, when I talked about the corporate oligarchy convincing the masses that their virtual slavery was in fact freedom. The climate change that they publicly disavow, is what is making their profits reach new, unsurpassed, heights. Of course, they are well aware of this, and are undoubtedly privately chuckling at this irony.
So, climate change is good for "big business", because it this instability around the world is what keeps them going. Like some kind of "James Bond"-type storyline, the multi-nationals around the world privately rub their hands with glee when there's a hurricane or drought that wipes out a nation's harvest: it means the price will sky-rocket, and the world population has no choice but to pay regardless. If they protest, and create civil instability, this creates a spike in prices elsewhere; thus the multi-nationals will profit in another way. In either case, it's a win-win situation for them, and a lose-lose for everyone else.
This is the "new normal", as our leaders are keen to tell us. That climate change will create permanent "severe weather" around the world; creating further human instability and a permanent increase in food and energy prices. Like a cartel of Bond-like villains, the CEOs of the multinationals are indifferent to the fate of humanity, as they have already "war-gamed" the various potential scenarios, ensuring that they profit from whatever chaos may ensue. This is the environmental chaos that they have publicly denied the existence of for more than twenty years, while privately ensuring that governments around the world do as little as possible to stop it.
The environmental chaos is another effect of the quasi-psychopathic attitude that "big business" has towards humanity and the environment in general. As the corporate oligarchy has created economic chaos through the financial crisis, and yet makes those at the bottom pay the biggest price (in greater job insecurity, the degradation of employment rights, and so on), it is again those at the bottom who pay the biggest price for the corporate oligarchy's public ignorance (but private glee) of the effects of climate change. Ever-increasing environmental and economic chaos is what "big business" dreams of, because it ensures near-permanent high prices, social instability, and an increasing gulf between the haves and the have-nots. The chaos created from this disastrous cocktail paralyses those at the bottom with fear, so focussed on fighting simply to survive and compete against each other that they would not have time to think who had allowed the chaos to happen (and prosper most from it) to begin with.
The "new normal" will continue to be chaos, greater human misery and poverty as long as the multi-nationals, "Big Oil", and all the others, are in control.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Inside the mind of a psychopath: the psychology of Ian Brady
The appalling murder of five teenage children in Manchester by the serial killer Ian Brady and his female accomplice, Myra Hindley, are the most infamous killings in Britain in the 20th century.
A recent Channel 4 documentary, "The Endgames of a Psychopath", went some way into explaining some of the psychology of Ian Brady, and how he has remained one step ahead of his psychiatrists and advocates during his four decades of imprisonment.
Before I go more into that, and the mind games played by Ian Brady even up till his old age, one thing that marks Brady out as being distinct from other incarcerated serial killers/ psychopaths is that more than ten years ago he published a self-written book analysing the mentality of serial killers, called "The Gates Of Janus". There is an academic review of this book here. As far as I am aware, this is the only case of a convicted psychopath and serial killer publishing an "academic" book about serial killers and their psychology.
The book itself, from what the review mentioned above says, reads like a quasi-academic piece of work, albeit one that is used as a way seeing murder as a morally ambiguous action, using the thinking of Nietzche and others to justify his perspective. In reality, what this means is nonsense, and is often logically contradictory, but that's besides the point. One one side, the book is an exposition of Brady's views on morality in society (and justifications for crime and murder), while also a study of a number of other serial killers, analysed through the mind of another serial killer. What is most striking is what this tells us about Brady's self-perception: like fictional serial killer-psychiatrist Hannibal Lecter, he sees himself as someone above morality, seeing the morality in society as hypocritical, with his as the supreme intellect, able to use it to justify his own actions; and at the same time, (also like Hannibal Lecter) he claims to be altruistically using his "perspective" to help the police and authorities to understand (and therefore more easily identify) other serial killers.
The fact that he was able to convince an agency to publish such a book in the first place is worth pausing over (while the anger caused to the victims' families doesn't bear thinking about, but that is no doubt Brady's point). In his mind, Brady probably saw the fact that his book was allowed to be published as a) proof that society retains a macabre interest in serial killers, and b) that publishers have have as little conscience as he does; meanwhile, it was a way of promoting his own perspective on morality and society, and giving him even further sick gratification from the publicity. So, the publication of the book was a "victory" for Brady on many different levels.
Brady's publication of "The Gates Of Janus" was an ignominious moment in cultural history. Here was where life imitates art: like Lecter, Brady was offering his "experience" and "intellect" to the police and society to offer his "unique perspective". Of course, this is absolute nonsense in reality: like with Lecter in "Silence Of The Lambs", Brady was using it as an opportunity to seize moral and intellectual control over his moral guardians, while playing duplicitous games with authority: this true psychopath seizing any opportunity to advance his cause.
Even Brady's "justification" for the child murders has been contradictory, but again that's part of his cunning and duplicitous nature. In his book, Brady claimed that the killings were not for pleasure: the "pleasure" he gained was from the torture of the children, while the murders were to make sure him and Myra Hindley were not caught - however, Brady also has said that the murders were an "existential experience", while also criticising the moral hypocrisy of society over encouraging state sanctioned violence in the military but discouraging in other areas. Again, we simply see a psychopath playing games with his psychiatrists and watchers: this contradicting is consistent with the continual performance to keep others guessing as to Brady's real psychology and him in control; his justifications differ depending on his whim.
Brady is the nearest thing to an "extreme" living psychopath behind bars in Britain today. His biography as a child and teenager fits in with all the classic behaviour and environmental factors that are seen in developing a psychopathic character. He showed all the early signs of sadism, manipulation and cunning, being involved in petty crime till he got a "legitimate" job as a book-keeper after years in borstal and prison (though he had been intent on using this as a cover for further crimes). It was there he met Myra Hindley, an initially naive and impressionable young woman who he was able to charm and manipulate to completely change her personality and appearance, and into being an accomplice to his horrific crimes. Ever since has he shown no remorse for them.
Ever since incarceration, Brady has been playing games of control with the authorities: like the character Hannibal Lecter, he has been able to, when applicable, charm or terrify his psychiatrists and advocates. He has been able to manipulate the authorities into transferring him into more comfortable surroundings.He has been playing grotesque games of psychological control with his victims' families; by sending letters to them in a disingenuous attempt to re-gain their trust. He even convinced the authorities to allow him back to the scene of the crime in a (no doubt faked) bid to help locate the body of the final, undiscovered victim (while being able to perversely savour the moment and his secret knowledge) . He has been on hunger strike for a number of years in protest to his conditions, hoping to get transferred to Scotland (where he was born and "raised"). And now, in a final twist to the story, has evidently been able to charm and manipulate his advocate into claiming the existence of a letter written by Brady, containing the possible whereabouts of the last undiscovered victim. If this letter exists in reality, no one knows except Brady and the advocate. But now the victim's mother has died without knowing the burial site of her murdered son; no doubt as Brady intended.
Brady's final "victory" is that he has written an auto-biography, which he has given instruction to his solicitors to publish upon his death: thus Brady gets to promote his own perspective on events, espouse his "morality" and justifications further, and provide a further insult to the victims' families from beyond the grave. You really can't make this kind of stuff up.
This whole saga has the feel of some kind of twisted psychological crime thriller - something like Thomas Harris' "Red Dragon" and "Silence Of The Lambs".
But this is reality. And it's true that reality often feels more unreal than fiction.
A more general description of the psychology of psychopaths can be found here.
Other examples of serial killers who may also be called "psychopathic narcissists" can be found here.
A recent Channel 4 documentary, "The Endgames of a Psychopath", went some way into explaining some of the psychology of Ian Brady, and how he has remained one step ahead of his psychiatrists and advocates during his four decades of imprisonment.
Before I go more into that, and the mind games played by Ian Brady even up till his old age, one thing that marks Brady out as being distinct from other incarcerated serial killers/ psychopaths is that more than ten years ago he published a self-written book analysing the mentality of serial killers, called "The Gates Of Janus". There is an academic review of this book here. As far as I am aware, this is the only case of a convicted psychopath and serial killer publishing an "academic" book about serial killers and their psychology.
The book itself, from what the review mentioned above says, reads like a quasi-academic piece of work, albeit one that is used as a way seeing murder as a morally ambiguous action, using the thinking of Nietzche and others to justify his perspective. In reality, what this means is nonsense, and is often logically contradictory, but that's besides the point. One one side, the book is an exposition of Brady's views on morality in society (and justifications for crime and murder), while also a study of a number of other serial killers, analysed through the mind of another serial killer. What is most striking is what this tells us about Brady's self-perception: like fictional serial killer-psychiatrist Hannibal Lecter, he sees himself as someone above morality, seeing the morality in society as hypocritical, with his as the supreme intellect, able to use it to justify his own actions; and at the same time, (also like Hannibal Lecter) he claims to be altruistically using his "perspective" to help the police and authorities to understand (and therefore more easily identify) other serial killers.
The fact that he was able to convince an agency to publish such a book in the first place is worth pausing over (while the anger caused to the victims' families doesn't bear thinking about, but that is no doubt Brady's point). In his mind, Brady probably saw the fact that his book was allowed to be published as a) proof that society retains a macabre interest in serial killers, and b) that publishers have have as little conscience as he does; meanwhile, it was a way of promoting his own perspective on morality and society, and giving him even further sick gratification from the publicity. So, the publication of the book was a "victory" for Brady on many different levels.
Brady's publication of "The Gates Of Janus" was an ignominious moment in cultural history. Here was where life imitates art: like Lecter, Brady was offering his "experience" and "intellect" to the police and society to offer his "unique perspective". Of course, this is absolute nonsense in reality: like with Lecter in "Silence Of The Lambs", Brady was using it as an opportunity to seize moral and intellectual control over his moral guardians, while playing duplicitous games with authority: this true psychopath seizing any opportunity to advance his cause.
Even Brady's "justification" for the child murders has been contradictory, but again that's part of his cunning and duplicitous nature. In his book, Brady claimed that the killings were not for pleasure: the "pleasure" he gained was from the torture of the children, while the murders were to make sure him and Myra Hindley were not caught - however, Brady also has said that the murders were an "existential experience", while also criticising the moral hypocrisy of society over encouraging state sanctioned violence in the military but discouraging in other areas. Again, we simply see a psychopath playing games with his psychiatrists and watchers: this contradicting is consistent with the continual performance to keep others guessing as to Brady's real psychology and him in control; his justifications differ depending on his whim.
Brady is the nearest thing to an "extreme" living psychopath behind bars in Britain today. His biography as a child and teenager fits in with all the classic behaviour and environmental factors that are seen in developing a psychopathic character. He showed all the early signs of sadism, manipulation and cunning, being involved in petty crime till he got a "legitimate" job as a book-keeper after years in borstal and prison (though he had been intent on using this as a cover for further crimes). It was there he met Myra Hindley, an initially naive and impressionable young woman who he was able to charm and manipulate to completely change her personality and appearance, and into being an accomplice to his horrific crimes. Ever since has he shown no remorse for them.
Ever since incarceration, Brady has been playing games of control with the authorities: like the character Hannibal Lecter, he has been able to, when applicable, charm or terrify his psychiatrists and advocates. He has been able to manipulate the authorities into transferring him into more comfortable surroundings.He has been playing grotesque games of psychological control with his victims' families; by sending letters to them in a disingenuous attempt to re-gain their trust. He even convinced the authorities to allow him back to the scene of the crime in a (no doubt faked) bid to help locate the body of the final, undiscovered victim (while being able to perversely savour the moment and his secret knowledge) . He has been on hunger strike for a number of years in protest to his conditions, hoping to get transferred to Scotland (where he was born and "raised"). And now, in a final twist to the story, has evidently been able to charm and manipulate his advocate into claiming the existence of a letter written by Brady, containing the possible whereabouts of the last undiscovered victim. If this letter exists in reality, no one knows except Brady and the advocate. But now the victim's mother has died without knowing the burial site of her murdered son; no doubt as Brady intended.
Brady's final "victory" is that he has written an auto-biography, which he has given instruction to his solicitors to publish upon his death: thus Brady gets to promote his own perspective on events, espouse his "morality" and justifications further, and provide a further insult to the victims' families from beyond the grave. You really can't make this kind of stuff up.
This whole saga has the feel of some kind of twisted psychological crime thriller - something like Thomas Harris' "Red Dragon" and "Silence Of The Lambs".
But this is reality. And it's true that reality often feels more unreal than fiction.
A more general description of the psychology of psychopaths can be found here.
Other examples of serial killers who may also be called "psychopathic narcissists" can be found here.
Monday, August 20, 2012
A philosophy for life
- Live life according to nature.
- Live life according to reason.
- Understand what is good, bad and what does not matter.
- See isolation as the opportunity for self-improvement; every moment as a moment to expand your mind and evolve, as is your nature.
- Apply reason to every possible circumstance – a transaction of goods and services, a moral decision – and take a meaningful outcome.
- The less you control, the freer you become. The liberated man is the man freed of all encumbancies, material and emotional.
- Understand your place in nature. You are but one part of an unfathomably huge organism that is the universe; and you yourself are an organism made of an unfathomably huge number of other organisms. You cannot control the things in the universe, in nature; but you can control how you act upon them. And how you act, if you act with reason, can make you a better person.
- Consider the men that have died with great wealth, but are lacking in true happiness. They might think they have wealth before them, but in their heart, they are far poorer than a joyful bum.
- If you cannot control it, then it does not matter – be indifferent to the indifferent things in life. You gain things, you lose things, circumstances change. Life is fickle, but with reason you can learn to ride circumstance to your better nature. Make the most of circumstance.
- Your senses act on impulse; your mind acts on reason. Use your mind at every point.
- Even when you are gone, you will still be a continual part of nature.
- To be happy, all you need is a well-reasoned mind.
- Remember: possessions have no memory. When you lose them they do not pity their lost owner, or any of their owners. They do not try to find you when you misplace them. Anything above self-sustainance is mere luxury, and wasteful. To be self-sufficient is to act in accordance with nature. Have doubt on the artificial world – of materials, of presumed ethics, of pleasures. Seek your life through nature, and real value, and joy, will come automatically.
- Reason all possibilities: drink if you are thirsty, eat if you are hungry, buy things if you need them. But understand, a human only needs these few things to survive. Your mind may always be hungry for more – knowledge is a good thing. But only commit action to something if it benefits your body and mind. Excess, although pleasurable, is not beneficial: in the long – term, it can shorten your life. Money is only good if it is necessary to the functioning of your body and mind. But money is also the path to excess and wastefulness. Waste should be your enemy – avoid it at every turn. Be content to live by your needs, not your desires. You live for reason, and reason should be your guide.
- Have you ever seen the look on someone’s face when they are eating or drinking? All expression is lost; what they are doing becomes an act of instinct, without thought or emotion. People think that pleasure is meant to be gained from sustainance, but it is merely an act of nature – pleasure is incidental. And when people gorge themselves on food and drink, the supposed pleasureable act is lost to their face – so why do it at all?
- Being indifferent does not mean not caring; it means not worrying or letting things out of your hands overly concern or distract you. Wealth is preferable to poverty, and good health is better than illness – but these things are constantly changing in nature. If you are fortunate to have wealth then do not squander it on useless things, but put it to good reason. But, conversely, do not complain when wealth deserts you – your wealth is only temporary. You will die one day, but your wealth and possesions can be used by anyone and outlive you. Do not let the indifferent rule your life – for your life will also become indifferent; a non-entity to history, quickly forgotten, and wasted. Put your life not to indifferent matters, but to reason. Put your life to good use, for your life is less than the blink of an eye to the constant stream of time. Perform good actions, not for the sake of your reputation or vanity, but because good actions would be returned onto you – bad actions would have precisely the same effect. If you dislike people, people will dislike you back. A person that commits bad acts, even when they have good fortune, always lives in fear – a good person always lives with a clear conscience.
- People sweat, worry and crave for artificial and unnecessary desires of their own making. In an office job, it is impossible to avoid the nature of “office politics”: the constant power play between workers as they each try to get one better than the other. It’s corrosive and damaging – and for what? A little more money, to buy a better car or a bigger house, or an expensive sofa. Why can’t these people just be happy with their natural faculties and needs? The things they become so corrosive over, begin to corrode their own natural freedoms, so that they feel unable to live without these pointless and irrelevant things. Then they die, with all these things around them, trophies of their “success”, thinking they were “winners”, when deep down they know they are unhappy. Why? Because natural needs are limited to nature, but artificial needs are infinite.
- Always test yourself and question the way of the world. Only by testing will you find the path to true knowledge and the ultimate truth. Complacency of knowledge and the truth leads to ignorance. Ignorance should be your enemy if you are to find the path to true reason. Never accept a view unless it is vindicated by true reason and meaning.
- Look around and consider the people you see. As long as their is greed in the world, suffering exists elsewhere: this state is against nature, for greed is not a natural act, and it goes against the principle of reason. This state becomes even more unnecessary and evil when you consider the levels of hardship that must exist in order to support the levels of greed. You can therefore imply that nature could easily provide for the human condition, were people able to exist on reason. For all the greed would be gone, and all needs would be satisfied.
- Understand that gold is worthless, success is vanity – distrust your senses and instincts.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
The "revolution" that never happened: the London Riots of 2011, and the Russian Revolution of 1905
Last month I wrote here about the root causes of the riots that swept through London and England in general over five days in August, 2011.
I also recently read an excellent article in "Newsweek" here, assessing the effect (or lack of) that the riots have had on British psyche.
What were "the riots"? We can't assess their effect if we still haven't figured out why they happened. Prime Minister David Cameron said it was an outbreak of "criminality, pure and simple". In other words, there's no explanation necessary, because it was just criminal opportunism.
To an extent, he is is right that there was an element of opportunism: it was the protests and riots in Tottenham that gave the "opportunity" for anarchy to spontaneously break out across London and England in general. Some people seemed to have suddenly realised that if too many break the law at the same time (through looting and violence), then the justice system is incapable of stopping them.
To the extent that the riots represented an "insurrection", as Darcus Howe called it, this was a "revolution" of anarchy. There was no plan, no agenda - looting was the main activity, along with violence against the police. Everyone involved in the riots was getting involved either for their own personal gain, or to "settle scores" with the police. Order was restored only after a mass mobilisation of the police; justice was only restored after draconian and excessive punishments for meted out on those caught. So "the riots" were a classic case of spontaneous anarchy, taking advantage of a specific situation.
One historical comparison that bears considering is the 1905 Russian revolution; not in the sense that there were very many similarities (there are few), but it's worth considering for the underlying causes; the form of the "revolution"; and the aftermath, or legacy it left.
The 1905 Russian revolution is considered a side-show compared to that in 1917, but in 1905, the Tsarist government faced virtual anarchy in many parts of the empire for a prolonged period of time. The prime spark was the defeat to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War, that caused a massive shell-shock to the establishment and the reputation of the conservative and authoritarian government. With respect for the government dissolved, various "revolutionary-terrorist" groups took advantage of the vacuum of perceived authority to wreak havoc and chaos across the empire: mass strikes were the most common method, though there were many political assassinations, some soldiers also mutinied, and this encouraged other disgruntled parts of society (such as peasants) to try and seize land, or just settle old scores. This was also where the Bolsheviks had their first stab at power, with Stalin playing his own role as mischief-maker in the Caucasus, and Russia's source of oil, Baku.
The government eventually responded, as an authoritarian regime does, with a massive show of power to crush the "revolution" - though much of the "revolution" was anarchy and criminal opportunism disguised behind ideology. The Tsar made some democratic concessions by granting a parliament, but the longer legacy, as we know, was the 1917 Bolshevik revolution - because the Tsar learned too little from the experience of 1905.
Zooming forward to 2011, we see a similar pattern of anarchy stemming from opportunism, but there are still underlying issues like there were in Russia in 1905. As in Russia, the UK has a corrupt establishment (of bankers and a corporate oligarchy) that disguises its self-preservation behind a smokescreen of decency and traditional values, but using the full force of the law to protect its interests if it feels threatened. It preaches these same traditional values (that it itself ignores) to the wider population, while privately being indifferent to their fate, and creating a situation that allows them to prosper but slowly bleeds the "lower orders" white.
Yes, Britain is a "multi-party democracy", but we also are the only Western power that still has a fully-unelected upper house, an electoral system that perpetuates a static political establishment of the same two parties (as has existed for the last hundred years); a value system that discourages a challenging of the status quo; and an economic system that has created the most unequal society in the West, except for the USA (which also has a very similar system).
So, put into that context, what's not for a self-respecting, ordinary British person to dislike? Yes, on the surface, the UK is a "civilised" country; our reputation abroad has come from the British culture that we have fed to the world. But this is a rose-tinted illusion that masks the underlying reality, as I described above.
From the 2011 riots, the British government learned nothing; because it was not listening, and didn't want to listen - just like the Russian Tsar in 1905. All the British government (and the media) wanted to say, just like in Russia in 1905, was that this "anarchy" was about people losing respect for authority and other people. The only way to deal with this was through the iron fist of justice. A year on from the 2011 riots, the London Olympics has dissolved the pessimism that had existed in society, at least temporarily. This has had the effect of distracting people from the underlying issues, but changes nothing.
The fact that the "anarchy" by some of the opportunistic "lower orders" was simply a mirror for the much larger "corrupt anarchy" that existed in the establishment was either forgotten or intentionally ignored: the disproportionate response of the establishment and judiciary to the riots was a response out of existential fear, to make sure that the "lower orders" would not dare to challenge the "moral code" that perpetuates their existence. But as I suggested in my article about the riots last month, if there is no morality at the top, then why should anyone lower down have any?
The riots of 2011 were a damning indictment of the moral collapse and corruption of British society; but more precisely, like the "Arab Spring" of last year, this was opportunism. Neither the "Arab Spring", nor the 2011 riots were predicted by the experts; and yet, the signs were all there under the surface - they just needed a spark. While the "Arab Spring" was about introducing Western-style democracy, the 2011 riots were about a more primeval and selfish instinct that had been unwittingly encouraged in the British psyche - if those at the top are living it large and ignoring the rules, then why not me? What makes those at the top "better" than the rest of us? If the London riots displayed an uglier side of British society, it was because British society had allowed itself to become ugly; because the establishment is ugly.
It took the Russians twelve years to make the Tsarist government pay the price for their ignorance and arrogance in 1905. How long will it take the British people to do the same thing after the "revolution" of 2011?
I also recently read an excellent article in "Newsweek" here, assessing the effect (or lack of) that the riots have had on British psyche.
What were "the riots"? We can't assess their effect if we still haven't figured out why they happened. Prime Minister David Cameron said it was an outbreak of "criminality, pure and simple". In other words, there's no explanation necessary, because it was just criminal opportunism.
To an extent, he is is right that there was an element of opportunism: it was the protests and riots in Tottenham that gave the "opportunity" for anarchy to spontaneously break out across London and England in general. Some people seemed to have suddenly realised that if too many break the law at the same time (through looting and violence), then the justice system is incapable of stopping them.
To the extent that the riots represented an "insurrection", as Darcus Howe called it, this was a "revolution" of anarchy. There was no plan, no agenda - looting was the main activity, along with violence against the police. Everyone involved in the riots was getting involved either for their own personal gain, or to "settle scores" with the police. Order was restored only after a mass mobilisation of the police; justice was only restored after draconian and excessive punishments for meted out on those caught. So "the riots" were a classic case of spontaneous anarchy, taking advantage of a specific situation.
One historical comparison that bears considering is the 1905 Russian revolution; not in the sense that there were very many similarities (there are few), but it's worth considering for the underlying causes; the form of the "revolution"; and the aftermath, or legacy it left.
The 1905 Russian revolution is considered a side-show compared to that in 1917, but in 1905, the Tsarist government faced virtual anarchy in many parts of the empire for a prolonged period of time. The prime spark was the defeat to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War, that caused a massive shell-shock to the establishment and the reputation of the conservative and authoritarian government. With respect for the government dissolved, various "revolutionary-terrorist" groups took advantage of the vacuum of perceived authority to wreak havoc and chaos across the empire: mass strikes were the most common method, though there were many political assassinations, some soldiers also mutinied, and this encouraged other disgruntled parts of society (such as peasants) to try and seize land, or just settle old scores. This was also where the Bolsheviks had their first stab at power, with Stalin playing his own role as mischief-maker in the Caucasus, and Russia's source of oil, Baku.
The government eventually responded, as an authoritarian regime does, with a massive show of power to crush the "revolution" - though much of the "revolution" was anarchy and criminal opportunism disguised behind ideology. The Tsar made some democratic concessions by granting a parliament, but the longer legacy, as we know, was the 1917 Bolshevik revolution - because the Tsar learned too little from the experience of 1905.
Zooming forward to 2011, we see a similar pattern of anarchy stemming from opportunism, but there are still underlying issues like there were in Russia in 1905. As in Russia, the UK has a corrupt establishment (of bankers and a corporate oligarchy) that disguises its self-preservation behind a smokescreen of decency and traditional values, but using the full force of the law to protect its interests if it feels threatened. It preaches these same traditional values (that it itself ignores) to the wider population, while privately being indifferent to their fate, and creating a situation that allows them to prosper but slowly bleeds the "lower orders" white.
Yes, Britain is a "multi-party democracy", but we also are the only Western power that still has a fully-unelected upper house, an electoral system that perpetuates a static political establishment of the same two parties (as has existed for the last hundred years); a value system that discourages a challenging of the status quo; and an economic system that has created the most unequal society in the West, except for the USA (which also has a very similar system).
So, put into that context, what's not for a self-respecting, ordinary British person to dislike? Yes, on the surface, the UK is a "civilised" country; our reputation abroad has come from the British culture that we have fed to the world. But this is a rose-tinted illusion that masks the underlying reality, as I described above.
From the 2011 riots, the British government learned nothing; because it was not listening, and didn't want to listen - just like the Russian Tsar in 1905. All the British government (and the media) wanted to say, just like in Russia in 1905, was that this "anarchy" was about people losing respect for authority and other people. The only way to deal with this was through the iron fist of justice. A year on from the 2011 riots, the London Olympics has dissolved the pessimism that had existed in society, at least temporarily. This has had the effect of distracting people from the underlying issues, but changes nothing.
The fact that the "anarchy" by some of the opportunistic "lower orders" was simply a mirror for the much larger "corrupt anarchy" that existed in the establishment was either forgotten or intentionally ignored: the disproportionate response of the establishment and judiciary to the riots was a response out of existential fear, to make sure that the "lower orders" would not dare to challenge the "moral code" that perpetuates their existence. But as I suggested in my article about the riots last month, if there is no morality at the top, then why should anyone lower down have any?
The riots of 2011 were a damning indictment of the moral collapse and corruption of British society; but more precisely, like the "Arab Spring" of last year, this was opportunism. Neither the "Arab Spring", nor the 2011 riots were predicted by the experts; and yet, the signs were all there under the surface - they just needed a spark. While the "Arab Spring" was about introducing Western-style democracy, the 2011 riots were about a more primeval and selfish instinct that had been unwittingly encouraged in the British psyche - if those at the top are living it large and ignoring the rules, then why not me? What makes those at the top "better" than the rest of us? If the London riots displayed an uglier side of British society, it was because British society had allowed itself to become ugly; because the establishment is ugly.
It took the Russians twelve years to make the Tsarist government pay the price for their ignorance and arrogance in 1905. How long will it take the British people to do the same thing after the "revolution" of 2011?
The Soviet Union was wasted on the Russians; the British would've done it better!
I remember reading Bill Bryson's "Notes From A Small Island" when I was younger. One of the excellent and pointed observations that Bryson made about the UK and the British is he thought that the British have a national psyche that fits in well (better than in other nations) to the psychology necessary for Communism to function.
In other words, he thought the British would've made a "better job" of Communism working properly, as intended. It was a pity, so Bryson thought, that Communism got its revolution in Russia - the British would've made sure it was done properly. Furthermore, behaviour that the British think of their national virtues are exactly the same mentality needed for Communism to flourish.
He mentions a few points to support his theory: that the British are fastidious in following the rules; looking to follow advice from "authority figures" (people in uniform, a tannoy announcement, etc.), is natural to them; the British sense of "making do" is second nature; "mustn't grumble"; the British are easily pleased by things other nations think of as ordinary (like a simple cup of tea sending them into raptures of joy); the modest culinary tradition of Britain lends itself to modest expectations of life in general; the British love of queueing; and so on.
These are Bryson's thoughts; I'd like to indulge a thought experiment and continue this line of thinking. Because I think Bryson was bang on the money in describing the British psyche: in many ways, the British are inadvertent Communist "thought-criminals". Even though Communism has never worked in any country it was implemented in, there is a sense that had the revolution ever come to Britain, we would have made a good job of it; because we're British.
Britain after WW2 was a quasi-Socialist state, until the '70s. The British love of the NHS is undiminished, even well into the 21st century; there is nostalgia for the "good old days" when things in life were more certain.
The British as a nation have many positive and negative characteristics. What is interesting is that those characteristics (either positive or negative) are also commonly found in people and conditions that are in Communism. You can check out British people's fifty most common characteristics here.
Bill Bryson said, jokingly, that the British dress like East Germans. What he means is that the average Briton has little or no dress sense. The British, on the whole, wear clothes for comfort rather than style. Although this has changed over the last twenty years, it's still more than true on a general level: rather than going to Camden Town, or the fashionable parts of cities, but go to a small provincial town, and you'll see people who are not in the slightest bothered about how they look; in some towns, "shell suits" are still being worn; plenty of people still wear shapeless things that belong in the bin. I rest my case.
Then there's the food, and British people's attitude towards it. British food can be very enjoyable and tasty, but ordinary British food is very bland for foreign palates. British people see food in a functional way; enjoyment is secondary. Conversely (but also consequently), because Britons have such a limited range of flavours in their food culture, anything slightly tasty can send them into raptures. This sense of small things making people disproportionately happy is what a Communist regime would kill for.
Then there's the British virtue of "making do". Any Communist government would love to have a population whose natural state is "making do": it makes their job easier if the population naturally makes a virtue of getting by through limited means.
Whenever I've been to "Argos", I've often thought "this is what Britain would be like under Communism". The catalogue shop, a mecca for those of limited financial means, is organised like a shop from government central planning: go to the catalogue and check if its in stock; go and take your ticket to queue for the cashier to pay; take your receipt to wait for your order; pick up your order from the counter. The whole operation is like something from Minsk in 1979; and yet, the people all accept this process with often stoic calm. It's a Communist government's dream.
Also, there are the "pound shops"and "charity shops" that proliferate in working-class suburbs and small towns, and exist in such numbers in no other country in the world (as well as car boot sales). This is another part of the British psyche - another symptom of the concept of "making do", the second-hand culture that would normally exist only in wartime or austerity, but exists as second nature in Britain. It's as though British people are "closet Communists" in denial. The British seem to have an odd fetish for making the most of the least; a national psyche built on frugality and self-denial.
This laudable behaviour, the sense of selflessness and consideration of others, is what makes the British so unique, as well as eccentric (compared to other nations). This puts more meat on the bones of Bryson's thesis. There are also the less laudable parts of British behaviour which people will recognise when I mention them, that fit in with people living under Communism.
The British love to moan, but hate complaining. What I mean is, they love a "good nag" to their relative, friend or neighbour, but hate public confrontations. They would rather eat tasteless, watery soup, and say "The soup's lovely!" when asked by the staff, rather than complain for poor service.
Apart from this habit (which you would normally find in people living under totalitarian regimes), the British also have a liking for nosiness. Called "twitching curtains" in the "50 most common characteristics" this is one of the more unpleasant parts of British behaviour. No wonder then, that Britain has the highest rate of surveillance in the world, if nosiness is considered the norm!
Then there's enjoying other people's misfortune (number 14 on the list). Does this mean that if Britain were a Communist state, it would encourage people to "do one over" on people they didn't like? Let's not get tempted!
There's also "stiff upper lip" - a euphemism for being unable to express our feelings; linked to that is when we do the opposite - not saying what we mean. Civil-service-speak is also our second nature, as well as being overly polite.
So you get the idea. Combining the positive and negative characteristics of the British, you get the feeling that Communism is therefore our natural psychological state, seeing as so much of it matches to what you would usually find in people living under a Communist regime.
Except that we're not living in a Communist regime. And why is that? Maybe "Communism" never grew to greater popular support because the British already have "Communism" living inside their heads much of the time - so why bother putting into practise what is second nature anyway?
If you want to experience what Britain would be like under Communism, you don't need to go very far to experience it. Go to the local charity shop; to "Argos"; watch DIY programmes on TV; above all, go to a traditional British seaside resort (preferably one that hasn't changed in the last twenty years; there are many of them, to experience restaurants where "customer service" and "tasty food" are unknown concepts); or, even better, the "Adelphi" Hotel in Liverpool - said to be the worst hotel in the UK, though it still has an official "four star" rating.
Communism exists in Britain everywhere; you just have to know what you're looking for.
In other words, he thought the British would've made a "better job" of Communism working properly, as intended. It was a pity, so Bryson thought, that Communism got its revolution in Russia - the British would've made sure it was done properly. Furthermore, behaviour that the British think of their national virtues are exactly the same mentality needed for Communism to flourish.
He mentions a few points to support his theory: that the British are fastidious in following the rules; looking to follow advice from "authority figures" (people in uniform, a tannoy announcement, etc.), is natural to them; the British sense of "making do" is second nature; "mustn't grumble"; the British are easily pleased by things other nations think of as ordinary (like a simple cup of tea sending them into raptures of joy); the modest culinary tradition of Britain lends itself to modest expectations of life in general; the British love of queueing; and so on.
These are Bryson's thoughts; I'd like to indulge a thought experiment and continue this line of thinking. Because I think Bryson was bang on the money in describing the British psyche: in many ways, the British are inadvertent Communist "thought-criminals". Even though Communism has never worked in any country it was implemented in, there is a sense that had the revolution ever come to Britain, we would have made a good job of it; because we're British.
Britain after WW2 was a quasi-Socialist state, until the '70s. The British love of the NHS is undiminished, even well into the 21st century; there is nostalgia for the "good old days" when things in life were more certain.
The British as a nation have many positive and negative characteristics. What is interesting is that those characteristics (either positive or negative) are also commonly found in people and conditions that are in Communism. You can check out British people's fifty most common characteristics here.
Bill Bryson said, jokingly, that the British dress like East Germans. What he means is that the average Briton has little or no dress sense. The British, on the whole, wear clothes for comfort rather than style. Although this has changed over the last twenty years, it's still more than true on a general level: rather than going to Camden Town, or the fashionable parts of cities, but go to a small provincial town, and you'll see people who are not in the slightest bothered about how they look; in some towns, "shell suits" are still being worn; plenty of people still wear shapeless things that belong in the bin. I rest my case.
Then there's the food, and British people's attitude towards it. British food can be very enjoyable and tasty, but ordinary British food is very bland for foreign palates. British people see food in a functional way; enjoyment is secondary. Conversely (but also consequently), because Britons have such a limited range of flavours in their food culture, anything slightly tasty can send them into raptures. This sense of small things making people disproportionately happy is what a Communist regime would kill for.
Then there's the British virtue of "making do". Any Communist government would love to have a population whose natural state is "making do": it makes their job easier if the population naturally makes a virtue of getting by through limited means.
Whenever I've been to "Argos", I've often thought "this is what Britain would be like under Communism". The catalogue shop, a mecca for those of limited financial means, is organised like a shop from government central planning: go to the catalogue and check if its in stock; go and take your ticket to queue for the cashier to pay; take your receipt to wait for your order; pick up your order from the counter. The whole operation is like something from Minsk in 1979; and yet, the people all accept this process with often stoic calm. It's a Communist government's dream.
Also, there are the "pound shops"and "charity shops" that proliferate in working-class suburbs and small towns, and exist in such numbers in no other country in the world (as well as car boot sales). This is another part of the British psyche - another symptom of the concept of "making do", the second-hand culture that would normally exist only in wartime or austerity, but exists as second nature in Britain. It's as though British people are "closet Communists" in denial. The British seem to have an odd fetish for making the most of the least; a national psyche built on frugality and self-denial.
This laudable behaviour, the sense of selflessness and consideration of others, is what makes the British so unique, as well as eccentric (compared to other nations). This puts more meat on the bones of Bryson's thesis. There are also the less laudable parts of British behaviour which people will recognise when I mention them, that fit in with people living under Communism.
The British love to moan, but hate complaining. What I mean is, they love a "good nag" to their relative, friend or neighbour, but hate public confrontations. They would rather eat tasteless, watery soup, and say "The soup's lovely!" when asked by the staff, rather than complain for poor service.
Apart from this habit (which you would normally find in people living under totalitarian regimes), the British also have a liking for nosiness. Called "twitching curtains" in the "50 most common characteristics" this is one of the more unpleasant parts of British behaviour. No wonder then, that Britain has the highest rate of surveillance in the world, if nosiness is considered the norm!
Then there's enjoying other people's misfortune (number 14 on the list). Does this mean that if Britain were a Communist state, it would encourage people to "do one over" on people they didn't like? Let's not get tempted!
There's also "stiff upper lip" - a euphemism for being unable to express our feelings; linked to that is when we do the opposite - not saying what we mean. Civil-service-speak is also our second nature, as well as being overly polite.
So you get the idea. Combining the positive and negative characteristics of the British, you get the feeling that Communism is therefore our natural psychological state, seeing as so much of it matches to what you would usually find in people living under a Communist regime.
Except that we're not living in a Communist regime. And why is that? Maybe "Communism" never grew to greater popular support because the British already have "Communism" living inside their heads much of the time - so why bother putting into practise what is second nature anyway?
If you want to experience what Britain would be like under Communism, you don't need to go very far to experience it. Go to the local charity shop; to "Argos"; watch DIY programmes on TV; above all, go to a traditional British seaside resort (preferably one that hasn't changed in the last twenty years; there are many of them, to experience restaurants where "customer service" and "tasty food" are unknown concepts); or, even better, the "Adelphi" Hotel in Liverpool - said to be the worst hotel in the UK, though it still has an official "four star" rating.
Communism exists in Britain everywhere; you just have to know what you're looking for.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Boris for PM? The bandwagon rolls on and on...
Since I wrote my last article here about Boris Johnson's ultimate ambition, there is even more evidence in the last week that adds weight to the bandwagon, rolling on to an almost self-fulfilling prophecy.
First of all, there are the quotes from the horses mouth. Boris's definitive denials of upstaging Cameron are told to the media with a an evident knowing twinkle in the eye. Then, there's the planned meeting to the Conservative 1922 Committee next month, where Boris will espouse his reasoning for his success in London, and what the rest of the Conservative Parliamentary Party can learn - while no doubt allowing Boris an opportunity to network and gain more influence and popular support. Thirdly, Boris is planning a "world tour" as London Mayor after the Olympics; ostensibly to promote foreign investment in London, but also to give his persona a bigger stage and wider global recognition, like other "pop star" politicians such as Barack Obama. And lastly, and most extraordinarily, even David Cameron himself admitted to Boris's special talents, admitting that it was justifiable for someone like him to want to have the highest ambitions.
This last point, although not commented on heavily in the media, to me appears very telling. It is hard to think of any other sitting head of government being so openly charitable to the main rival and heir apparent to his position, especially from his own party.
It tells me that either a) Cameron privately knows that he's doomed to a successful leadership challenge at some point, and is being a "good sport" by doing what he can to make it an orderly transition, or b) he's been given a quiet word by senior figures in his party to tell him he's doomed, and thus quietly facilitate an orderly transition, or c) he's honestly speaking his mind simply because he's a political amateur and doesn't think about the implications of what he's saying. Any of these three possibilities are telling - the reality may a combination of the three: that Cameron has been hopelessly out-played by events and the duplicitous cunning of Boris.
I wrote about the reasons for Boris' popularity on the streets before. This is also well-explained in another article here, and the reasons why Labour have just cause to be worried (which I also mentioned previously) are explained in this other article here. There is also the darker side to Boris's personality, which is well-hidden under the public, bumbling, eccentric maverick persona. One of his former colleagues called him "shallow, duplicitous, selfish, sociopathic, scheming"; and again, Boris in his own words said "as I have discovered myself, there are no disasters, only opportunities. And, indeed, opportunities for fresh disasters".
There is also the impression given that Boris doesn't have a "plan", has no agenda or political platform, other than his own self-promotion. Like the anarchic character from Batman, "The Joker", Boris just does things, says whatever comes to his mind at that moment, and sees what will happen next. Boris has no clear convictions; he has few real "friends", so insiders say, as he drops interest in them when they are no longer useful to him. He is able to get away with this abject lack of loyalty through his charming personality; his affable, bumbling persona that makes people laugh. He disarms his critics and opponents through a well-worked mask of harmless fun. This is also has the additional benefit of making his rivals (such as the Labour Party when competing in the mayoral elections, or Cameron when assessing his threat to his position) under-estimate his capabilities.
Boris is not stupid; he simply cultivates a persona that lulls his rivals into a false sense of security. With a record as a serial adulterer, as well as the wealth of anecdotal evidence that he can be ruthless with his critics, as well as promoting loyalists at the expense of expertise in the mayoralty, there is therefore an increasing stockpile of evidence that suggests Boris would score highly on the "psychopath check-list".
Clearly, Boris is a smart man and a cunning and ruthless politician, which he hides under a mask of clownish buffoonery. Where does the acting stop, and the "real" Boris begin? Who is the "real" Boris? When he was an MP he was well-known for doing very little in parliament. This tells us he was either lazy, or that he felt the job was beneath him. Either of those being true, this is not a good sign. If it is the first, it tells us he is irresponsible; if it is the second, it tells us he is arrogant. And there have been stories in the news while he's been Mayor of London that suggest the same kind of behaviour continues unabated, on an even larger stage.
While saying publicly that he intends to serve his full term as mayor come what may, everyone knows the disingenuous reality: he is aiming for the top job. Seeing Cameron flailing as PM, the Conservatives, looking around for other inspiration before the next general election, Boris sees his opportunity. His sense of timing is perfect; no doubt as he intended. He knew that being London Mayor during the Olympics would be a great opportunity to show off his unique brand of charisma to a wider audience, while not actually having to be really accountable for anything too important , except for "Boris Bikes", and making the occasional remark about transport, social issues and policing. Boris allowing himself to become London Mayor in 2008 was a great strategic decision, politically, assuming he could be re-elected again so to be mayor in time for the Olympics. All he had to do was bide his time and wait for the right moment.
And so the Boris bandwagon continues. Yes, to those of sane political minds, the prospect of Boris as PM may seem implausible, even ridiculous. But that's precisely what Boris would want you to think! It may be implausible, but looking more and more possible. It may seem ridiculous, but it may soon become inevitable, if events turn right.
The "blonde bombshell" does have an increasing momentum. Don't forget that in times of economic crisis, when the political establishment appears muddled by events, and stifled in a straight-jacket of conventional wisdom, it is the unconventional charismatic mavericks that can find their moment to upstage their rivals. It takes a set of specific circumstances for demagogues to come to power; but those circumstances already exist in the UK today. All it takes is the right man.
And there is only one "Boris".
First of all, there are the quotes from the horses mouth. Boris's definitive denials of upstaging Cameron are told to the media with a an evident knowing twinkle in the eye. Then, there's the planned meeting to the Conservative 1922 Committee next month, where Boris will espouse his reasoning for his success in London, and what the rest of the Conservative Parliamentary Party can learn - while no doubt allowing Boris an opportunity to network and gain more influence and popular support. Thirdly, Boris is planning a "world tour" as London Mayor after the Olympics; ostensibly to promote foreign investment in London, but also to give his persona a bigger stage and wider global recognition, like other "pop star" politicians such as Barack Obama. And lastly, and most extraordinarily, even David Cameron himself admitted to Boris's special talents, admitting that it was justifiable for someone like him to want to have the highest ambitions.
This last point, although not commented on heavily in the media, to me appears very telling. It is hard to think of any other sitting head of government being so openly charitable to the main rival and heir apparent to his position, especially from his own party.
It tells me that either a) Cameron privately knows that he's doomed to a successful leadership challenge at some point, and is being a "good sport" by doing what he can to make it an orderly transition, or b) he's been given a quiet word by senior figures in his party to tell him he's doomed, and thus quietly facilitate an orderly transition, or c) he's honestly speaking his mind simply because he's a political amateur and doesn't think about the implications of what he's saying. Any of these three possibilities are telling - the reality may a combination of the three: that Cameron has been hopelessly out-played by events and the duplicitous cunning of Boris.
I wrote about the reasons for Boris' popularity on the streets before. This is also well-explained in another article here, and the reasons why Labour have just cause to be worried (which I also mentioned previously) are explained in this other article here. There is also the darker side to Boris's personality, which is well-hidden under the public, bumbling, eccentric maverick persona. One of his former colleagues called him "shallow, duplicitous, selfish, sociopathic, scheming"; and again, Boris in his own words said "as I have discovered myself, there are no disasters, only opportunities. And, indeed, opportunities for fresh disasters".
There is also the impression given that Boris doesn't have a "plan", has no agenda or political platform, other than his own self-promotion. Like the anarchic character from Batman, "The Joker", Boris just does things, says whatever comes to his mind at that moment, and sees what will happen next. Boris has no clear convictions; he has few real "friends", so insiders say, as he drops interest in them when they are no longer useful to him. He is able to get away with this abject lack of loyalty through his charming personality; his affable, bumbling persona that makes people laugh. He disarms his critics and opponents through a well-worked mask of harmless fun. This is also has the additional benefit of making his rivals (such as the Labour Party when competing in the mayoral elections, or Cameron when assessing his threat to his position) under-estimate his capabilities.
Boris is not stupid; he simply cultivates a persona that lulls his rivals into a false sense of security. With a record as a serial adulterer, as well as the wealth of anecdotal evidence that he can be ruthless with his critics, as well as promoting loyalists at the expense of expertise in the mayoralty, there is therefore an increasing stockpile of evidence that suggests Boris would score highly on the "psychopath check-list".
Clearly, Boris is a smart man and a cunning and ruthless politician, which he hides under a mask of clownish buffoonery. Where does the acting stop, and the "real" Boris begin? Who is the "real" Boris? When he was an MP he was well-known for doing very little in parliament. This tells us he was either lazy, or that he felt the job was beneath him. Either of those being true, this is not a good sign. If it is the first, it tells us he is irresponsible; if it is the second, it tells us he is arrogant. And there have been stories in the news while he's been Mayor of London that suggest the same kind of behaviour continues unabated, on an even larger stage.
While saying publicly that he intends to serve his full term as mayor come what may, everyone knows the disingenuous reality: he is aiming for the top job. Seeing Cameron flailing as PM, the Conservatives, looking around for other inspiration before the next general election, Boris sees his opportunity. His sense of timing is perfect; no doubt as he intended. He knew that being London Mayor during the Olympics would be a great opportunity to show off his unique brand of charisma to a wider audience, while not actually having to be really accountable for anything too important , except for "Boris Bikes", and making the occasional remark about transport, social issues and policing. Boris allowing himself to become London Mayor in 2008 was a great strategic decision, politically, assuming he could be re-elected again so to be mayor in time for the Olympics. All he had to do was bide his time and wait for the right moment.
And so the Boris bandwagon continues. Yes, to those of sane political minds, the prospect of Boris as PM may seem implausible, even ridiculous. But that's precisely what Boris would want you to think! It may be implausible, but looking more and more possible. It may seem ridiculous, but it may soon become inevitable, if events turn right.
The "blonde bombshell" does have an increasing momentum. Don't forget that in times of economic crisis, when the political establishment appears muddled by events, and stifled in a straight-jacket of conventional wisdom, it is the unconventional charismatic mavericks that can find their moment to upstage their rivals. It takes a set of specific circumstances for demagogues to come to power; but those circumstances already exist in the UK today. All it takes is the right man.
And there is only one "Boris".
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
The Conservatives' "Five Year Plan"
It's not often that you get to compare Conservatives to Communists, but the thing that David Cameron's Conservative government shares with Bolshevism is its love of the "Five Year Plan".
But theirs is no ordinary plan.
This theme of a "Five Year Plan" first became clear when the former key strategist, Steve Hilton, said that "Everything must have changed by 2015".
This coincides with my thoughts on my previous article "Boris Johnson for PM? I sense a cunning plan..." here, when I said that the key point about the "neo-liberal revolution" taking place at Number 10 was that by the time of the next election, the changes made by the government were meant to be practically irreversible, so it wouldn't matter who won the next election.
This is worth thinking about for a moment, because it explains some of the reckless thinking that the government has towards its own popularity. The key point is this: the Conservative government is privately indifferent to what happens after 2015 regarding who is in power, because if they succeed in their plan, by that point it won't matter who is in power. All that matters to them is that their agenda is completed by 2015, as explained here. The government is therefore behaving psychologically like a group of ideological "suicide terrorists" - making sure that they carry out their plan by 2015, come what may. Whatever happens after that is not important.
This fatalistic thinking strangely reminds me of another of my previous articles "From Gotham City to Gorky Park..." here, where I talked about the psychology of the Batman character "Bane" being similar to Lenin - both ideological warriors determined to carry out their plan, regardless of the consequences. "Bane" was determined to destroy Gotham City, even at the cost of his own life. The Conservatives in government in the UK seem to have developed a similar do-or-die mentality, a radicalism that is indifferent to democracy and the popular will.
The Conservatives' contempt for democracy is therefore plain to see - chillingly calculated, they are determined to revolutionise the UK as we know it, regardless of what the electorate might think of them. Indeed, they are so focussed on their goal that all that matters to them is completion of their goal, to ensure that nothing can unmake the "revolution" once it has been completed.
This anti-democratic radicalism, and their indifference to their own popularity, should be worrying at the very least. It is chilling to think that the Conservatives were voted into power only by a minority of the electorate, but were so determined to implement their revolution, their "Five Year Plan", that nothing else mattered - not respect for democracy, not respect for the the UK's future, not even their own popularity; nothing.
It is difficult to think of a contemporary political comparison to a government being run in this way. When put into this perspective of the "Five Year Plan", George Osborne's lack of concern at his own appallingly-construed Budget makes more sense. The same can said of Cameron's determination to ignore Osborne's incompetence, and vow to keep him in position till 2015. The same logic explains Cameron's lack of concern about the tit-for-tat with the LibDems over breaking of clauses in the Coalition Agreement, and the determination for the Coalition to endure until (or close to) 2015. When they know that they really have only five years to complete their goals, it makes them blind to criticism, and gives their radicalism an even greater sense of ruthless urgency.
This is because the wider plan is economic, social, and philosophical: other matters are trivial by comparison. The Coalition exists principally for their agreement over how to run the economy and redesign the social fabric of the UK, on which the LibDems are largely in agreement with the Conservatives over. As long as the core tenets of their Five-Year-Plan are adhered to and implemented, it doesn't matter what happens to them after 2015, because their "neo-liberal revolution" would have been achieved, regardless of whoever is power afterwards.
When they are not really that bothered about their own electoral prospects, what does that tell us about their attitude to government as an institution? Apart from the radicalism I mentioned that permeates their logic, the Conservatives by definition are not a "party of government" but a party against government. Echoing Ronald Reagan's mantra that "government isn't the solution to the problem; government is the problem", the Conservative plan is to replace public sector services by large-scale private sector companies wherever practically possible. These private sector behemoths (like G4S, Serco, and so on) then act as parasites on the public purse: feeding off government, government protecting the behemoths' financial solvency at all costs, while the behemoths get to keep any profits - allowing them to have their cake and eat it. This is the economics of fascism, as I've explained elsewhere.
The Conservatives are not that bothered about who governs after 2015 because they are not that interested in "government", only what they can help the private sector (and by extension, themselves) to get out of it. As the party of big business, their plan is to ensure that big business has the handle over the government of the UK, so that after 2015, the "government" has as little real power as possible. So, therefore, why would the Conservatives be bothered about being in charge of an effectively powerless institution, when the private sector oligarchy will be ones really in charge?
Besides, it would give the Conservatives the first call on all those plum jobs in the private sector "providers" that they had helped create...
This is the Conservative plan for 2015: the complete reshaping of the UK as we know it, so that by this point it is a paragon of "neo-liberal" virtue, a paradise for the financial sector and the corporate oligarchy, linked through patronage by the Conservatives themselves. Who cares who's in power after 2015, when the quiet revolution that sustains those at the private sector hierarchy will have already been completed?
With the "neo-liberal revolution" achieved after completion of the Conservatives' "Five-Year Plan", democracy is irrelevant.
But theirs is no ordinary plan.
This theme of a "Five Year Plan" first became clear when the former key strategist, Steve Hilton, said that "Everything must have changed by 2015".
This coincides with my thoughts on my previous article "Boris Johnson for PM? I sense a cunning plan..." here, when I said that the key point about the "neo-liberal revolution" taking place at Number 10 was that by the time of the next election, the changes made by the government were meant to be practically irreversible, so it wouldn't matter who won the next election.
This is worth thinking about for a moment, because it explains some of the reckless thinking that the government has towards its own popularity. The key point is this: the Conservative government is privately indifferent to what happens after 2015 regarding who is in power, because if they succeed in their plan, by that point it won't matter who is in power. All that matters to them is that their agenda is completed by 2015, as explained here. The government is therefore behaving psychologically like a group of ideological "suicide terrorists" - making sure that they carry out their plan by 2015, come what may. Whatever happens after that is not important.
This fatalistic thinking strangely reminds me of another of my previous articles "From Gotham City to Gorky Park..." here, where I talked about the psychology of the Batman character "Bane" being similar to Lenin - both ideological warriors determined to carry out their plan, regardless of the consequences. "Bane" was determined to destroy Gotham City, even at the cost of his own life. The Conservatives in government in the UK seem to have developed a similar do-or-die mentality, a radicalism that is indifferent to democracy and the popular will.
The Conservatives' contempt for democracy is therefore plain to see - chillingly calculated, they are determined to revolutionise the UK as we know it, regardless of what the electorate might think of them. Indeed, they are so focussed on their goal that all that matters to them is completion of their goal, to ensure that nothing can unmake the "revolution" once it has been completed.
This anti-democratic radicalism, and their indifference to their own popularity, should be worrying at the very least. It is chilling to think that the Conservatives were voted into power only by a minority of the electorate, but were so determined to implement their revolution, their "Five Year Plan", that nothing else mattered - not respect for democracy, not respect for the the UK's future, not even their own popularity; nothing.
It is difficult to think of a contemporary political comparison to a government being run in this way. When put into this perspective of the "Five Year Plan", George Osborne's lack of concern at his own appallingly-construed Budget makes more sense. The same can said of Cameron's determination to ignore Osborne's incompetence, and vow to keep him in position till 2015. The same logic explains Cameron's lack of concern about the tit-for-tat with the LibDems over breaking of clauses in the Coalition Agreement, and the determination for the Coalition to endure until (or close to) 2015. When they know that they really have only five years to complete their goals, it makes them blind to criticism, and gives their radicalism an even greater sense of ruthless urgency.
This is because the wider plan is economic, social, and philosophical: other matters are trivial by comparison. The Coalition exists principally for their agreement over how to run the economy and redesign the social fabric of the UK, on which the LibDems are largely in agreement with the Conservatives over. As long as the core tenets of their Five-Year-Plan are adhered to and implemented, it doesn't matter what happens to them after 2015, because their "neo-liberal revolution" would have been achieved, regardless of whoever is power afterwards.
When they are not really that bothered about their own electoral prospects, what does that tell us about their attitude to government as an institution? Apart from the radicalism I mentioned that permeates their logic, the Conservatives by definition are not a "party of government" but a party against government. Echoing Ronald Reagan's mantra that "government isn't the solution to the problem; government is the problem", the Conservative plan is to replace public sector services by large-scale private sector companies wherever practically possible. These private sector behemoths (like G4S, Serco, and so on) then act as parasites on the public purse: feeding off government, government protecting the behemoths' financial solvency at all costs, while the behemoths get to keep any profits - allowing them to have their cake and eat it. This is the economics of fascism, as I've explained elsewhere.
The Conservatives are not that bothered about who governs after 2015 because they are not that interested in "government", only what they can help the private sector (and by extension, themselves) to get out of it. As the party of big business, their plan is to ensure that big business has the handle over the government of the UK, so that after 2015, the "government" has as little real power as possible. So, therefore, why would the Conservatives be bothered about being in charge of an effectively powerless institution, when the private sector oligarchy will be ones really in charge?
Besides, it would give the Conservatives the first call on all those plum jobs in the private sector "providers" that they had helped create...
This is the Conservative plan for 2015: the complete reshaping of the UK as we know it, so that by this point it is a paragon of "neo-liberal" virtue, a paradise for the financial sector and the corporate oligarchy, linked through patronage by the Conservatives themselves. Who cares who's in power after 2015, when the quiet revolution that sustains those at the private sector hierarchy will have already been completed?
With the "neo-liberal revolution" achieved after completion of the Conservatives' "Five-Year Plan", democracy is irrelevant.
Monday, August 6, 2012
A short history of Globalisation; neo-liberalism and Orwellian Doublespeak
I wrote last month about how London and New York represent the "twin cities" of globalisation - the two Anglophone metropolises of the world.
Globalisation is an Anglophone invention, brought about by the efforts of the former British Empire and its counterpart, the USA. It really began in the 19th century, with the British Empire's control over the Indian subcontinent, and expansion into large parts of Africa. By the start of the First World War, the British Empire and the USA were Anglophone rivals for the world's mercantile resources, so the USA was its natural successor after the rapid decline of the British Empire after the end of the Second World War, thirty years later. The USA filled the gap vacated by the British Empire's decline, dominating the world's commercial interests as no other power before.
Both the British Empire and the USA, as world powers, saw the world with a mercantile mentality: unconstrained by borders, nationality or culture. This was what gave the British an advantage over their imperial rivals back in the 19th century, and was the same thinking that led to globalisation today.
Britain's control of India was perhaps the first large-scale example of what we would called "globalisation"/"neo-liberalism" - the control of a nation's resources for commercial, private sector, interests - the "East India Company", that ran much of the subcontinent as a British imperial fief, but also ran as a private company. The "Hudson Bay Company" in British Canada worked along similar principles.
This precedent set by the "East India Company" was continued across the Atlantic when, late in the 19th century, the kingdom of Hawaii was seized by American businessmen in a coup, when they became unhappy with the commercial policies of Hawaii's queen - it shortly afterwards became a part of the USA.
Barely ten years later, into the early 20th century, the USA continued this spirit of private enterprise when American commercial interests went so far as to encourage the creation of a new state in Central America to build a canal: Panama's independence from Columbia was bankrolled by the American government with the understanding that newly-independent Panama would grant them a slice of land to build the Panama Canal on. This land then remained US territory until the end of the 20th century.
Through the rest of the 20th century, the march of what we now call "globalisation" continued in these Anglophone parts of the world, with the USA leading the way, when Britain's light was fading. Staying in Central America, Guatemala remained a virtual fief of the "United Fruit Company" - a left-wing government was ruthlessly put down by the CIA in the early '50s. The same story was true in Iran in 1953 when a left-wing government was kicked out and the Shah replaced by the CIA due to strong British and US private oil interests. The Suez Crisis later in that decade was also a story of commercial power, but in this case the USA lost patience with the British attempts to maintain power above their station, and so lost much of its commercial links to the Middle East, to be replaced by the USA.
What we see here is a common strategy that would be familiar with any multinational CEO today: ruthless expansion into new markets, stout defence of its commercial interests, and the elimination of risk from other rivals. To an extent, every past world power has followed this strategy, but (with the notable and important exception of the Republic of Venice) no other has been as been able to grant so much power to the commercial (private) sector, and thus benefit from the ruthless and unprejudiced mind of business for the sake of greater imperial power.
It was the Venetian Republic that successfully used this model to dominate trade in the Mediterranean during the Middle Ages, the British Empire that first saw the true benefits to this system and applied it on a world scale, and the USA that improved upon and refined it again.
In the 21st century, we now see that this system has been refined even further: where the private sector makes the public sector subservient to it, and the whole world is a open marketplace. This is also called "globalisation".
I said in an earlier post here that globalisation is equivalent to the economics of fascism applied on a world scale. Also called "neo-liberalism", this system that was first indulged by the British Empire and refined by the USA, allowed the private sector to grow beyond national boundaries; encroaching into markets in the Developing World, and thus increase its consumer base (from new markets) as well as lower its overheads (using cheap foreign labour): a win-win situation for the private sector.
Globalisation is therefore the economic end-goal of fascism: as both systems call for the indulgence of private sector big business by the public sector, allowing these corporate oligarchs to maximise their profits and minimise their losses, while advocating a system that breeds Social Darwinism. The most efficient way to do this is by allowing a free market that is global; reducing employee rights and wages to the minimum possible; the obliteration of "union" representation; giving multinational corporations advantageous tax benefits representative to their scale; ensuring that the oligarchs have an in-built advantage over smaller rivals; indulgence of politicians; ensuring the state covers for any private losses; and so on.
This system of globalisation is also supported at its most cunningly disingenuous manner through a masterly piece of Orwellian Doublespeak.
For the private sector, whose natural aim is the amoral maximisation of profit and the minimalisation of costs, feeds the world a mantra that capitalism in this current form is that most expedient to a free, democratic society. But the reality tells us the opposite.
It depends what you mean by "free". The corporate oligarchy's perception of our "freedom" is freedom from government "interference": there is no safety net, no "rights", nothing should be taken for granted - everything is up to you. No-one is going to help you, least of all the private sector. In this vision, we are all slaves to the corporate oligarchy. To them, we are all commodities, sources of income - nothing more. This is "fascism" to you and me, albeit a smarter version of what existed in Europe during the Second World War.
And their idea of "democracy" bears little relation to the common-held view on the street. They are happy for you to vote whichever party you want, as long as those parties all agree to maintain the status quo: hence the system of political patronage. You are more-or-less free to say whatever you like, as long as you don't dare change anything. And if you do, then the law and the police are already on their side. This is more commonly called "authoritarianism", albeit with the indulgence of pointless chit-chat.
In that sense, globalisation is the next (final?) step on the evolutionary scale of economic fascism, where the corporate oligarchy no longer needs to use state violence to achieve its ends: much smarter and more subtle now, it simply achieves them feeding the clever language of freedom and democracy to the people, while delivering economic slavery and autocracy.
In his novel "Nineteen Eighty-four", George Orwell's dystopia was ruled by a regime that used three mantras of "Doublespeak" to keep the population fooled from their nightmarish reality. One of them was "Freedom is Slavery".
What the corporate oligarchs want us all to believe is that slavery is freedom.
Globalisation is an Anglophone invention, brought about by the efforts of the former British Empire and its counterpart, the USA. It really began in the 19th century, with the British Empire's control over the Indian subcontinent, and expansion into large parts of Africa. By the start of the First World War, the British Empire and the USA were Anglophone rivals for the world's mercantile resources, so the USA was its natural successor after the rapid decline of the British Empire after the end of the Second World War, thirty years later. The USA filled the gap vacated by the British Empire's decline, dominating the world's commercial interests as no other power before.
Both the British Empire and the USA, as world powers, saw the world with a mercantile mentality: unconstrained by borders, nationality or culture. This was what gave the British an advantage over their imperial rivals back in the 19th century, and was the same thinking that led to globalisation today.
Britain's control of India was perhaps the first large-scale example of what we would called "globalisation"/"neo-liberalism" - the control of a nation's resources for commercial, private sector, interests - the "East India Company", that ran much of the subcontinent as a British imperial fief, but also ran as a private company. The "Hudson Bay Company" in British Canada worked along similar principles.
This precedent set by the "East India Company" was continued across the Atlantic when, late in the 19th century, the kingdom of Hawaii was seized by American businessmen in a coup, when they became unhappy with the commercial policies of Hawaii's queen - it shortly afterwards became a part of the USA.
Barely ten years later, into the early 20th century, the USA continued this spirit of private enterprise when American commercial interests went so far as to encourage the creation of a new state in Central America to build a canal: Panama's independence from Columbia was bankrolled by the American government with the understanding that newly-independent Panama would grant them a slice of land to build the Panama Canal on. This land then remained US territory until the end of the 20th century.
Through the rest of the 20th century, the march of what we now call "globalisation" continued in these Anglophone parts of the world, with the USA leading the way, when Britain's light was fading. Staying in Central America, Guatemala remained a virtual fief of the "United Fruit Company" - a left-wing government was ruthlessly put down by the CIA in the early '50s. The same story was true in Iran in 1953 when a left-wing government was kicked out and the Shah replaced by the CIA due to strong British and US private oil interests. The Suez Crisis later in that decade was also a story of commercial power, but in this case the USA lost patience with the British attempts to maintain power above their station, and so lost much of its commercial links to the Middle East, to be replaced by the USA.
What we see here is a common strategy that would be familiar with any multinational CEO today: ruthless expansion into new markets, stout defence of its commercial interests, and the elimination of risk from other rivals. To an extent, every past world power has followed this strategy, but (with the notable and important exception of the Republic of Venice) no other has been as been able to grant so much power to the commercial (private) sector, and thus benefit from the ruthless and unprejudiced mind of business for the sake of greater imperial power.
It was the Venetian Republic that successfully used this model to dominate trade in the Mediterranean during the Middle Ages, the British Empire that first saw the true benefits to this system and applied it on a world scale, and the USA that improved upon and refined it again.
In the 21st century, we now see that this system has been refined even further: where the private sector makes the public sector subservient to it, and the whole world is a open marketplace. This is also called "globalisation".
I said in an earlier post here that globalisation is equivalent to the economics of fascism applied on a world scale. Also called "neo-liberalism", this system that was first indulged by the British Empire and refined by the USA, allowed the private sector to grow beyond national boundaries; encroaching into markets in the Developing World, and thus increase its consumer base (from new markets) as well as lower its overheads (using cheap foreign labour): a win-win situation for the private sector.
Globalisation is therefore the economic end-goal of fascism: as both systems call for the indulgence of private sector big business by the public sector, allowing these corporate oligarchs to maximise their profits and minimise their losses, while advocating a system that breeds Social Darwinism. The most efficient way to do this is by allowing a free market that is global; reducing employee rights and wages to the minimum possible; the obliteration of "union" representation; giving multinational corporations advantageous tax benefits representative to their scale; ensuring that the oligarchs have an in-built advantage over smaller rivals; indulgence of politicians; ensuring the state covers for any private losses; and so on.
This system of globalisation is also supported at its most cunningly disingenuous manner through a masterly piece of Orwellian Doublespeak.
For the private sector, whose natural aim is the amoral maximisation of profit and the minimalisation of costs, feeds the world a mantra that capitalism in this current form is that most expedient to a free, democratic society. But the reality tells us the opposite.
It depends what you mean by "free". The corporate oligarchy's perception of our "freedom" is freedom from government "interference": there is no safety net, no "rights", nothing should be taken for granted - everything is up to you. No-one is going to help you, least of all the private sector. In this vision, we are all slaves to the corporate oligarchy. To them, we are all commodities, sources of income - nothing more. This is "fascism" to you and me, albeit a smarter version of what existed in Europe during the Second World War.
And their idea of "democracy" bears little relation to the common-held view on the street. They are happy for you to vote whichever party you want, as long as those parties all agree to maintain the status quo: hence the system of political patronage. You are more-or-less free to say whatever you like, as long as you don't dare change anything. And if you do, then the law and the police are already on their side. This is more commonly called "authoritarianism", albeit with the indulgence of pointless chit-chat.
In that sense, globalisation is the next (final?) step on the evolutionary scale of economic fascism, where the corporate oligarchy no longer needs to use state violence to achieve its ends: much smarter and more subtle now, it simply achieves them feeding the clever language of freedom and democracy to the people, while delivering economic slavery and autocracy.
In his novel "Nineteen Eighty-four", George Orwell's dystopia was ruled by a regime that used three mantras of "Doublespeak" to keep the population fooled from their nightmarish reality. One of them was "Freedom is Slavery".
What the corporate oligarchs want us all to believe is that slavery is freedom.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Boris Johnson for PM? I sense a cunning plan...
I wrote the other day about the disbelief of Boris Johnson being a seriously-considered future candidate for PM.
My disbelief came from the attraction that people saw in him - or more accurately, the "suspension of disbelief" that seemed to explain his popularity with the general public. However, just because it seems unbelievable doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
I read a Telegraph article that spun a different perspective onto Boris and his path to power here, and it clearly dispels the myth that Boris is a nincompoop. In my hastiness, I forgot one (perhaps the most important) thing: that Boris is an accomplished actor. His gradual rise to power has been through his consistent stance of going against the grain, acting as though the rules don't apply.
In that sense, he may remind some Tories of a latter-day Churchill - a maverick who cannot be pinned down, whose charms are as infectious as they are inexplicable and contradictory.
And his appearance as a buffoon is part of his public persona, that hides an intellect well-versed in the art of rhetoric, wordplay, and the power of clever oratory. He may not appear to be smart, but smartness can come in many guises - even as a blonde-haired buffoon, playing on his oafish charms.
No, Boris is no fool - he merely plays the fool very well. I compared him to "Dubya" the other day, but now I realise I was being unfair. I said that Boris made Cameron looked smart, which is true, strictly speaking - he makes Cameron seem smarter than him, while in reality, it is Boris who holds the best cards in the deck, and lets Cameron be the sponge for all the government's bad news stories. It is Cameron who has been out-smarted by the "blonde bombshell", cornered, and made to look ineffective.
There is a sense that all the pieces are being carefully put in place, events set in motion. Cameron has been the willing dupe for what has gone wrong with the economy and the government's failings in general. Banks and big business realise that Cameron has failed in repairing the economy because he was shackled to the LibDems, and too slow to restore faith in business. Osborne is discredited, and yet Cameron refuses to replace him for the entire term of parliament. Business has lost respect for Cameron, and the banking sector thinks that Cameron has no real idea what he's doing.
Meanwhile, Cameron's party is slowly losing its respect for him, too, as the Tories (never the most loyal of people) look for alternatives. Cameron has been weak with his own rebellious backbenchers, seeming even weaker than when John Major was in power, consistently conceding ground, and emboldening further the rebellious "bright young things" of the 2010 intake. Now, with House of Lords' reform dead in the water, the Lib Dems are looking more irate than ever, and Cameron is stuck between a rock and a hard place.The Coalition seems less and less likely to survive till 2015.
And where would that then leave Cameron? If the Lib Dems pull out and agree to allow the Tories to continue as a minority government at some point in the next couple of years, then the Conservative backbenchers would be even more emboldened to force a leadership contest before the 2015 election. If Boris can therefore manage to concoct a passage into parliament before then, the backbenchers may well think he has the charisma and "name recognition" that would give them the edge to, at least, limit the damage that Cameron has done thus far. And the polls appear to support that logic.
Boris is going from strength to strength, so this path is not as unlikely as it sounds. Going back to Churchill, his path to power was also a fluke at the time: in May 1940 he was in the right place at the right time, and as a maverick his appeal was difficult for "career politicians" to understand, or counter for that matter. In that way, Boris shares some of these characteristics.
Boris is also a strong defender of the financial sector, and from what he has said would therefore have the support of the men in The City. Having the "common touch", his charisma crosses class boundaries like no-one else in his party. It is no surprise also that the "Murdoch press" are supporting him where they can: with Cameron damaged goods through links revealed to the Leveson Inquiry, they would look for a new "poster boy" to defend their interests. Boris therefore suits their needs well.
The "cunning plan" is then to have Boris as PM, as he would support the aims of the financial sector, be an affable defender of the "free press", as well as making the right populist noises about promoting growth for small businesses (if not really doing anything about it). The cuts would continue, as would the various public sector "reforms", albeit explained by a man whose maverick charms would render the left-wing speechless and tongue-tied. Ken Livingstone tried to dismiss Boris as a lightweight and not a serious politician: yet these blows deflected off Boris' affable persona. There's no reason to think that, as PM, Boris would not be able to repeat the same conjuring trick.
For those who support the "neo-liberal experiment", the "blonde bombshell" would then be the one who stood the best chance against the "forces of darkness" of the left-wing, discrediting them with his unique turn-of-phrase and maverick methodology, ensuring that their economic fascism would continue for the foreseeable future, until a point when their transformation of the UK would be beyond reversal.
A strange irony indeed, if economic fascism reached its logical conclusion in the UK under the tenure of the "blonde bombshell".
My disbelief came from the attraction that people saw in him - or more accurately, the "suspension of disbelief" that seemed to explain his popularity with the general public. However, just because it seems unbelievable doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
I read a Telegraph article that spun a different perspective onto Boris and his path to power here, and it clearly dispels the myth that Boris is a nincompoop. In my hastiness, I forgot one (perhaps the most important) thing: that Boris is an accomplished actor. His gradual rise to power has been through his consistent stance of going against the grain, acting as though the rules don't apply.
In that sense, he may remind some Tories of a latter-day Churchill - a maverick who cannot be pinned down, whose charms are as infectious as they are inexplicable and contradictory.
And his appearance as a buffoon is part of his public persona, that hides an intellect well-versed in the art of rhetoric, wordplay, and the power of clever oratory. He may not appear to be smart, but smartness can come in many guises - even as a blonde-haired buffoon, playing on his oafish charms.
No, Boris is no fool - he merely plays the fool very well. I compared him to "Dubya" the other day, but now I realise I was being unfair. I said that Boris made Cameron looked smart, which is true, strictly speaking - he makes Cameron seem smarter than him, while in reality, it is Boris who holds the best cards in the deck, and lets Cameron be the sponge for all the government's bad news stories. It is Cameron who has been out-smarted by the "blonde bombshell", cornered, and made to look ineffective.
There is a sense that all the pieces are being carefully put in place, events set in motion. Cameron has been the willing dupe for what has gone wrong with the economy and the government's failings in general. Banks and big business realise that Cameron has failed in repairing the economy because he was shackled to the LibDems, and too slow to restore faith in business. Osborne is discredited, and yet Cameron refuses to replace him for the entire term of parliament. Business has lost respect for Cameron, and the banking sector thinks that Cameron has no real idea what he's doing.
Meanwhile, Cameron's party is slowly losing its respect for him, too, as the Tories (never the most loyal of people) look for alternatives. Cameron has been weak with his own rebellious backbenchers, seeming even weaker than when John Major was in power, consistently conceding ground, and emboldening further the rebellious "bright young things" of the 2010 intake. Now, with House of Lords' reform dead in the water, the Lib Dems are looking more irate than ever, and Cameron is stuck between a rock and a hard place.The Coalition seems less and less likely to survive till 2015.
And where would that then leave Cameron? If the Lib Dems pull out and agree to allow the Tories to continue as a minority government at some point in the next couple of years, then the Conservative backbenchers would be even more emboldened to force a leadership contest before the 2015 election. If Boris can therefore manage to concoct a passage into parliament before then, the backbenchers may well think he has the charisma and "name recognition" that would give them the edge to, at least, limit the damage that Cameron has done thus far. And the polls appear to support that logic.
Boris is going from strength to strength, so this path is not as unlikely as it sounds. Going back to Churchill, his path to power was also a fluke at the time: in May 1940 he was in the right place at the right time, and as a maverick his appeal was difficult for "career politicians" to understand, or counter for that matter. In that way, Boris shares some of these characteristics.
Boris is also a strong defender of the financial sector, and from what he has said would therefore have the support of the men in The City. Having the "common touch", his charisma crosses class boundaries like no-one else in his party. It is no surprise also that the "Murdoch press" are supporting him where they can: with Cameron damaged goods through links revealed to the Leveson Inquiry, they would look for a new "poster boy" to defend their interests. Boris therefore suits their needs well.
The "cunning plan" is then to have Boris as PM, as he would support the aims of the financial sector, be an affable defender of the "free press", as well as making the right populist noises about promoting growth for small businesses (if not really doing anything about it). The cuts would continue, as would the various public sector "reforms", albeit explained by a man whose maverick charms would render the left-wing speechless and tongue-tied. Ken Livingstone tried to dismiss Boris as a lightweight and not a serious politician: yet these blows deflected off Boris' affable persona. There's no reason to think that, as PM, Boris would not be able to repeat the same conjuring trick.
For those who support the "neo-liberal experiment", the "blonde bombshell" would then be the one who stood the best chance against the "forces of darkness" of the left-wing, discrediting them with his unique turn-of-phrase and maverick methodology, ensuring that their economic fascism would continue for the foreseeable future, until a point when their transformation of the UK would be beyond reversal.
A strange irony indeed, if economic fascism reached its logical conclusion in the UK under the tenure of the "blonde bombshell".
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Boris Johnson for PM? You can't be serious...
A recent survey of Conservative Party members found that, although 49% still supported Cameron as their leader, the second favourite was Boris Johnson, London mayor. More tellingly, when the British electorate in general were asked which of the two they would vote for as leaders of their party at the next election, Boris received more support.
In other words, Boris would be a bigger asset as leader of the Conservative Party at the next election than Cameron, making the difference between clearly losing to Labour (as currently predicted under Cameron), or (if Boris were leader) possibly another hung parliament.
What interests me primarily is what this tells us about the British electorate.
Why do people like Boris so much? His positives are clear and can be quickly listed: his self-confidence; his unashamed personality; his mildly-eccentric "turn of phrase"; his lack of clearly-identifiable politics (being a moderate on some things, but strong on others). In short, he has many of the qualities that would suit a stand-up comedian.
So why would people be ready to support an upper-class stand-up comedian as their Prime Minister?
The same "likeability" factor that Londoners and Brits at large see in Boris reminds me of the same charms that the American electorate saw in George W. Bush. In many ways, Boris Johnson to me is like an English version of George W. Bush - if he had wild blonde hair and had gone to Eton and Oxford rather than Harvard or Yale. The other thing that British people seem to respect about Boris is his straightforward talking; the fact that he says whatever is on his mind without worrying what people will think. Boris seems to be a straightforward person - unlikely to be selective with the truth.
Well, those are the positives. The very fact that the British electorate would be so willing to vote to power such a man tells you as much about British people's disdain for "modern" politics. The fact that Boris Johnson is no less of a "toff" than Cameron and Osborne is quietly ignored - Boris' accent is even more "toff" than Cameron's. But what the British people want to see is Boris' honesty and unconventional manner and way of thinking - these are the things that mark him as different from the rest of "modern" politics. British people seem to be able to see through the "upper-class" veneer and concentrate on the mentality and motives of the man.
Am I convinced? No.
Like Americans', British people are suckers for "lovable losers". The guy might be a nincompoop, but he's adorable all the same. Like "Dubya", like Boris.
I find it an extraordinary state of affairs. Cameron was voted into office following a similar thinking by the British electorate - forget his aristocratic lineage and his snobbish chums and focus on the man's integrity, they thought. Two years on, they realise they were duped - and are ready to choose someone who seems even less intellectually gifted compared with Cameron's modest assets. Cameron himself can probably barely believe it, as can most of the Conservative MPs.
Boris is a demagogue: an upper-class man who manages to rise over his own rank-and-file to appeal to the masses with a mixture of populism and eccentricity. The fact that Boris conveys the "common touch" through a ready wit, humour, and a complete lack of shame is enviable in one respect, but also a damning indictment of the gullibility of the British electorate in another. He's the Conservative Party's George Galloway, but without the sharp intellect and razor-like tongue - a cuddlier, more approachable version, perhaps. But only in the UK could people want to democratically vote into office a man who personifies patronage to the ruling class.
Why bother having a multi-party democracy anyway if it's so easy to convince the electorate to have as their PM someone from the upper class, and a charismatic oaf at that? Let's just return to the 18th century and be done with it.
What would happen if Boris were to actually become Prime Minister?
The eccentricity of Boris puts me in mind of some of the other "lovable eccentrics" that are (or have been) in power around the world. I mentioned "Dubya", but what about others? At the extreme end you have dictators like Gaddafi of Libya, or "Turkmenbashi" of Turkmenistan. At the more realistic end, you have the demagogues who came to power democratically, like Silvio Berlusconi, whose antics were tolerated, or enjoyed, by the Italian populace for years.
So it's not that hard to imagine what life in the UK would be like under Boris Johnson: a continual laughing stock, as that's what the UK would be considered by the world.
Can you imagine Boris Johnson holding summits, or negotiating on our behalf? Cameron is bad enough at it as he is, but at least he makes the pretence of taking it seriously, even if he doesn't deep down. Boris Johnson? No, better to have even Nigel Farage as PM than Boris - Farage at least talks like he has a brain, even if his ideas are out-of-the-box.
I talked about "neo-liberalism" as the new fascism. Life under Boris as PM would certainly see a fast-forward into that fate, as he is even more gung-ho about promoting banking and big business than Cameron, even if Boris does give the odd populist line about promoting growth.
Boris Johnson for PM? God help us.
In other words, Boris would be a bigger asset as leader of the Conservative Party at the next election than Cameron, making the difference between clearly losing to Labour (as currently predicted under Cameron), or (if Boris were leader) possibly another hung parliament.
What interests me primarily is what this tells us about the British electorate.
Why do people like Boris so much? His positives are clear and can be quickly listed: his self-confidence; his unashamed personality; his mildly-eccentric "turn of phrase"; his lack of clearly-identifiable politics (being a moderate on some things, but strong on others). In short, he has many of the qualities that would suit a stand-up comedian.
So why would people be ready to support an upper-class stand-up comedian as their Prime Minister?
The same "likeability" factor that Londoners and Brits at large see in Boris reminds me of the same charms that the American electorate saw in George W. Bush. In many ways, Boris Johnson to me is like an English version of George W. Bush - if he had wild blonde hair and had gone to Eton and Oxford rather than Harvard or Yale. The other thing that British people seem to respect about Boris is his straightforward talking; the fact that he says whatever is on his mind without worrying what people will think. Boris seems to be a straightforward person - unlikely to be selective with the truth.
Well, those are the positives. The very fact that the British electorate would be so willing to vote to power such a man tells you as much about British people's disdain for "modern" politics. The fact that Boris Johnson is no less of a "toff" than Cameron and Osborne is quietly ignored - Boris' accent is even more "toff" than Cameron's. But what the British people want to see is Boris' honesty and unconventional manner and way of thinking - these are the things that mark him as different from the rest of "modern" politics. British people seem to be able to see through the "upper-class" veneer and concentrate on the mentality and motives of the man.
Am I convinced? No.
Like Americans', British people are suckers for "lovable losers". The guy might be a nincompoop, but he's adorable all the same. Like "Dubya", like Boris.
I find it an extraordinary state of affairs. Cameron was voted into office following a similar thinking by the British electorate - forget his aristocratic lineage and his snobbish chums and focus on the man's integrity, they thought. Two years on, they realise they were duped - and are ready to choose someone who seems even less intellectually gifted compared with Cameron's modest assets. Cameron himself can probably barely believe it, as can most of the Conservative MPs.
Boris is a demagogue: an upper-class man who manages to rise over his own rank-and-file to appeal to the masses with a mixture of populism and eccentricity. The fact that Boris conveys the "common touch" through a ready wit, humour, and a complete lack of shame is enviable in one respect, but also a damning indictment of the gullibility of the British electorate in another. He's the Conservative Party's George Galloway, but without the sharp intellect and razor-like tongue - a cuddlier, more approachable version, perhaps. But only in the UK could people want to democratically vote into office a man who personifies patronage to the ruling class.
Why bother having a multi-party democracy anyway if it's so easy to convince the electorate to have as their PM someone from the upper class, and a charismatic oaf at that? Let's just return to the 18th century and be done with it.
What would happen if Boris were to actually become Prime Minister?
The eccentricity of Boris puts me in mind of some of the other "lovable eccentrics" that are (or have been) in power around the world. I mentioned "Dubya", but what about others? At the extreme end you have dictators like Gaddafi of Libya, or "Turkmenbashi" of Turkmenistan. At the more realistic end, you have the demagogues who came to power democratically, like Silvio Berlusconi, whose antics were tolerated, or enjoyed, by the Italian populace for years.
So it's not that hard to imagine what life in the UK would be like under Boris Johnson: a continual laughing stock, as that's what the UK would be considered by the world.
Can you imagine Boris Johnson holding summits, or negotiating on our behalf? Cameron is bad enough at it as he is, but at least he makes the pretence of taking it seriously, even if he doesn't deep down. Boris Johnson? No, better to have even Nigel Farage as PM than Boris - Farage at least talks like he has a brain, even if his ideas are out-of-the-box.
I talked about "neo-liberalism" as the new fascism. Life under Boris as PM would certainly see a fast-forward into that fate, as he is even more gung-ho about promoting banking and big business than Cameron, even if Boris does give the odd populist line about promoting growth.
Boris Johnson for PM? God help us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)