05.05.15 British Labour Candidates at Muslim segregated event; is there an issue here?
Well for all the talk of “diversity” that took place during the period under “New Labour” the ability to mix it up as a celebration of diversity seems to have failed to reach certain elements within the Muslim community and certain rather silly Labour candidates. Here at Blue Revolution are full on advocates of diversity but also extend a critical eye when certain practices remain fixed or fetishized in the 21st century. So, what do we make of this segregated event? Well firstly if this faith group choose to exclude gender mixing that is up to them. A gentle way of showing that there is respect for both sexes and more importantly trust between them has been missed. What is particularly odd however is the attendance at this event of male Labour party candidates who by attending “uncritically” have reinforced and endorsed the idea that the sexes should be kept apart.
As we have said in the past all culture is about survival and faith forms the most -important part of culture; so, at some point in the past it was both rational and “normal” to separate the sexes. This would have had its origins in the obvious differential roles played by men and women in societies that struggled to create the value necessary to guarantee the future of the tribe or kingdom. The women’s social role would have precluded them from any economic or military role and so separation would have been an obvious reflection of this rational situation. However today we create value; social and economic by our ability to collaborate not differentiate. By attending this event the Labour candidates were endorsing a view of the world that is as far from “diversity” as it is possible to get; Clearly, they are not very bright.
The Blue Revolution, view is that there is no place for this kind of separation not just in the Uk….as Nigel Farage suggested but anywhere in the word. The world will not start to generate the real levels of social and economic value necessary for us to survive in the 21st century and beyond if we adopt the cultural practices of the past. Value both social and economic in the modern world needs equality and there is no place for reinforcing the notion of irrational difference. Our view is that the Labour MP’s should have explained this position and if their views were considered too “modern” they should have politely refused to attend. Clearly the group of men were not only economically and socially illiterate; they are no great fans of women either.
10.05.15 Sin Number two: Objectification
We hear the word objectification used by some commentators specifically in respect of women; the ease with which men resort to treating women as objects to be ogled at treated not as people but as things. Pornography being the most obvious manifestation of this process. This is the standard version of objectification and as you would expect here at Blue Revolution we can understand the motivation for this and the upsetting consequences for the person on the receiving end. However, this Male objectifying of women is essentially a western problem as women are freer to be objectified as our concept of modesty has been largely abandoned by those who wish to abandon it.
Mankind has always sought out the most beautiful and strongest mates as they have the highest value. Wolf whistling and mild pornography are rather silly modern by-products of this process, essentially tolerable if one wants to promote and protect freedom; particularly women’s freedom. Whilst it is unacceptable even at its lowest level, it is largely harmless. Women of course also engage in objectifying men as any middle-aged bald man in a bar will attest when he has the temerity to speak to any young female. The “Mr Darcy” effect applies to attractive men too. Objectification at this level is pretty gender neutral.
Of course, seeking out the best mate being a “timeless practice” intended to promote the survival of the fittest it will have manifestations and controls in many cultures that exist today. The most obvious examples are head and face veiling in which the woman is rendered unseen as anything other than an object defined only by gender. This happens to varying degrees. Objectified by the requirements of her culture; the aim to avoid the lustful glances of men with whom she is not allowed to have any contact, to protect her virtue and in some cultures her life. This objectification can cause some very mixed opinions in western culture, but few people see it as “objectification”; more an expression of cultural or faith-based difference, and therefore there are several opinions about how one should react to it. However, when woman is objectified in this way it denies the culture the freedom to be creative and to generate value via inter gender trust and co-operation and it reflects suspicion between the sexes that requires control by male hegemony.
The most prevalent of objectification is everywhere and is silent and unseen; it never announces itself; far from it is never acknowledged. It is the objectification we do to ourselves; be we pumped-up muscle-bound jocks or the naked girls pleading for trade in the windows of a brothel in Amsterdam or on “Babe Station”. It is the preening look at me way certain people make themselves look to attract others; making objects of themselves. They are playing on the fact that we have the timeless practice of seeking out beauty and strength and they want to be the one that picks up the accolade of being objectified as often and as frequently as possible but only with someone who is worthy enough to reflect the objectified value they see in themselves. For some people being objectified generates positive feelings and hence the craving to be it and receive it may continue beyond the point where a mate is chosen, and children born, and it probably contributes the most to jealousy and relationship problems. That is why it is my second most serious deadly sin. Pornography, sexual crime, child abuse war and discrimination also have their origins in Objectification as does the rush to punish harshly or publicly humiliate.
However, it is the casual thoughtless objectifications that adversely affect western society the most at the social level. So much harm is done when people express their needs either by objectifying others, or objectifying themselves, and in numbers too large to avoid moral catastrophe. To survive a society needs stability and higher moral purpose. We at Blue Revolution often think that objectification is what in many relationships passes as love.
To avoid Objectifying people we need to learn to treat all people as subjects and accord them the status of people with moods, thoughts, intellect, and feelings rather than objects to be looked at and despised or admired. Objectification be it via cloaking in a shrouding garment or viewing as objects for titillation is unhelpful to spiritual growth and proper economic value growth and we should not do it to ourselves or others.
19.05 15 Refugees are a problem of value versus wealth
Refugees and desperate migrants are a sad spectacle crammed in boats and dragged from port to port in Indonesia or often drowning in the Mediterranean if they are not successful in making shore in Italy. The current solution is to hand wring and accept them into the countries they are trying to get to. This is the only solution to date but at Blue Revolution we believe we need to look at the causes as these may guide the solution. In Indonesia the cause is discrimination which is a social value limiting modern day travesty of natural justice. Value as we at Blue Revolution assert all the time, is that product which a person or state creates, and which is necessary to support and sustain its population. The more value created the wealthier the country. Value is manifest in two ways; social value which is how well people function together and how little economic value is consumed in achieving this. Social Value in democracies should be social stability based on Contract, Choice, Consent, Freedom Democracy for example. However, these often abused for selfish personal gain, so a lot of economic value is consumed “correcting” the undesirable outcomes, divorce, crime, delinquency for example. In some other cultures social value is based on rules, obedience, submission and harsh punishments from government down to the family unit. But to create what little value these countries can; stability has to be imposed as opposed to consented to.
With social value comes the context to create economic value and from this process we generate wealth. This can be created in the form of manufactured goods; produced as harvested food, or simply pumped out of the ground in the form of oil and gas.
Refugees are a product of the host country, be it Libya or Minamar failing to create the stable social context with enough social value to enable individuals to create the economic value necessary to support the country and its population. This comes about due to war corruption and incompetence. The solution therefore is to help the countries in difficulty provide the basic stability necessary to enable people to begin the process of creating economic value and thereby create the incentive to stay where they are. Even if this arrangement is less than democratic, as long as it is contract and consent based the democracy can come later. The EU could do this as the EU is well placed by proximity to North Africa to offer a social and economic model which is a little short of democratic but which could offer countries like Libya some “scrutiny” and economic support and therefore the stability to begin unleashing the economic potential of its people.
The paradox of the refugee situation is of course the All-Faiths-and-None old chestnut of the relative lack of overall social value in the west (governments now operate where social value once held sway and what a mess it is under the glitz and gloss) and the tendency for refugees to travel to a so called wealthy country which has a social morality which shocks and alarms them and leads to alienation, suspicion and mistrust. In the west, in all honesty, economic value is much lower than the wealth created with it, this apparent wealth too, acts as a draw for migrants. If we want to help solve the migrant issue therefore, we must improve the levels of social value in the west whilst increasing the levels of economic value in the countries that lack it. Over to someone!
23.05.15 Sin number three: prejudice
Prejudice is a very simple concept to understand but achieves the status of a modern sin by virtue of its role promoting the previous two Sins; cruelty and objectification. Many of us have been guilty of casually cussing at groups; single mothers, foreign people living in our communities, people of different faiths to our faith, or people with no faith at all. Prejudice is looking through the person and not seeing the individual. It is a limited and narrow-minded way of understanding a group or having a conversation about different groups of people without acknowledging they have differences and individual elements of uniqueness including rights which they can exercise. However, when prejudice runs out of control in the hearts of people of faith and no faith it becomes a frightening phenomenon indeed. The whole phenomenon of Nazi Germany would have started with casual prejudice against Jewish people or Gay people and was corralled by the Nazi propaganda machine into a cruel and objectifying ideology that whipped up into mass support. The Nazi’s could not have made progress without population familiar with casual prejudice. In Great Britain there is a tendency to be prejudiced against individuals particularly Eastern Europeans and this is encouraged by some political parties. The issue of migration does not go away, but it is important that the debate is not driven by prejudice.
Today we see casual prejudice everywhere; different religions harbour prejudice against their faith “rivals”; ISIS have a whole creed built on prejudice; they however have, like the Nazis weaponized their prejudice and given the availability of money to support them they are able to turn prejudice into a cruel and barbaric ideology. We must all be on our guard for prejudice in our own treatment of people and our thoughts about them. That said there are debates to be had about important issues such as migration; radicalisation; western culture, welfare etc, however we don’t have to treat individual people who may share some of these characteristics as an exemplar of our particular issue and be prejudiced against them for it. Because prejudice feeds objectification and cruelty it is my third modern deadly sin.
31.05.15 Hot Feminist- a view from Blue Revolution
We have recently been made aware of a book called “Hot Feminist” written we guess by a self-declared “hot feminist”. The redeeming characteristic of this book is that it encourages women to be loyal to one another and not engage in the kind of woman on woman character assassination that so many women tell us blights their lives; and this is particularly so in respect of insecure and vulnerable younger girls. However, with that bit of positive woo out of the way what are we to make of a book that tells women to ignore the “rules” of feminism and embrace sexiness and self-promotion.
Having only recently written about the corrosive effects of objectification we were amazed to find that here was a book promoting our second most deadly modern sin. Sexiness is important to men and to women; it is the way we attract a mate so that we can move from the sphere of singledom and its limiting social and economic value creation to the realm of coupledom with the possible expectation that our roles will be merged or will morph to allow us to bring a child or two into the world; a secure world of certainty and the absence of unnecessary contingency and risk. What the “Hot Feminist” advocates however is a form of self-objectified narcissism. The “old feminists” with their tribal rules warned against the objectification of women by men….and rightly so. The modern “Hot Feminist” wants to get in first; objectify herself and be the sexy one in the workplace as well as the bedroom. How exactly we ask can this total act of self-absorption assist society in its job of bringing up well balanced children and particularly girls. “Hot feminists” will almost certainly wish to attract otherwise committed men and potentially undermine the family (not intentionally perhaps but by default). Alternatively, they will tire of the man who doesn’t salivate whenever they purr into the room. They will make other women jealous and angry and even more importantly they will set themselves a very high bench mark for their own psychological gratification which will be fine as long as they are young and attractive or in respect of the many relationships being “Hot” is likely to lead to, compliant with the demands of the men they seek to be involved with and whose role is to reinforce their self-perception as “Hot”. As they get older dissatisfaction with life and looks will set in (it does for us all) and may possibly lead to depression and loneliness as well as Botox and plastic surgery for those who can afford it. Such nonsense as the “Hot Feminist” peddles undermines the most impressionable women in their longer term by filling their heads with rubbish in the short term and has no place in a society which desperately needs to address a shortage of solid social values (loyalty, modesty, chastity, selfrestraint even politeness etc) if it is ever going to stop wasting hard borrowed economic value to pay for government initiatives in health and welfare that plaster over the social cracks that make modern society lonely and uncertain and for the young and vulnerable a fairly psychologically toxic place to grow up……..something we think the “Hot Feminist” needs to do; and before she settles down and has children.
11.06.15 Girl bares breasts in Malaysia and goes to prison – nothing sums the worlds moral contradictions better
A young woman and a few friends get naked in Malaysia…apparently triggering an earthquake and end up in prison. Nothing sums up the sad state of modern world morality better than this rather strange tale. For the Malaysians we at All-Faiths-and -None ask “What” are you serious! However, whilst the “earthquake element” is probably a bit of casual tabloid sub contextualized racism the point for the west to consider is why is it considered so Ok or indeed normal to behave in this way. Nakedness because of its association with sex and reproductive intimacy immediately causes one to forget the person and concentrate on the sexual object when seen out of an intimate context. This is bad enough but on a mountain with friends it falls outside the context of intimate behaviour occurring within an environment where intimacy should or could take place. In the west nakedness, sex and stimulation are seen as goods to be pursued and even traded at all costs with no concept of the consequences; be that “offending the gods” or getting pregnant with a child one may not even want.
29.06.15 Tunisian Beach Massacre-Do we really understand this war on our way of life.
From the slightly ridiculous “breasts on the mountain” conflict between the East and Western culture we have another far more tragedy with 36 people dead on a holiday beach. Again, the politician’s response is correctly to identify this as a war on our way of life; criminals identified with Islam shooting half naked holiday makers on a beach. The Prime Minister of Britain comments that it is a challenge to our democracy peace and tolerance”. At A-Faiths-a-none we believe a slightly different direction needs to be taken in respect of this debate. We saw with Charlie Hebdo that our desire to poke the wasps nest ends up causing a loss of life often more than one life at that and always more than the mild provocation merited or could ever justify. But still it goes on.
“Islam is a religion of peace”, all faiths have promoted themselves as religions of peace; but until comparatively recently this peace applied to “believers” only. As we have said before faith helps bring stability to groups of people be they family, country, or empire. Faith removes the uncertainty and fear that would make civilisation impossible. Islamic “civilisation” was a place of rules and strict punishments that worked when a society was eking out a living in a dust bowl or an area of economic and social uncertainty. These Islamic rules of civilisation are no longer needed by the western societies. We don’t need to make the world “gendered” and discriminatory. We have through welfare and economic growth all but removed economic insecurity. However, in doing this we have created a social world in which common place rules of Islam are flouted at every turn. Immodesty being one obvious one but also the abandonment of the family to a make it up as you go along lifestyle. We don’t want to go over all the issues here but perhaps the real problem between the west and Islam is similar to the conflict of beliefs between the unconstrained secular world (the world of porn, over consumption, social uncertainty and valueless wealth creation) and the beliefs of those of faith….any faith and those with a secular morality which puts the long term ahead of immediate need for gratification; that is one of lifestyle. To a simple Muslim way of thinking our high levels of “immorality” renders our way of live unsustainable; and ready to be brought down.
Perhaps our western societies with our lack of collective moral identity and behaviour in respect of so much of what extremist Islam is still obsessing about, is our main weakness. Perhaps we should accept that what we do and the way we do it, promote it and brook no dissension that it is “liberating” for us all, is a problem. If we don’t get this right soon, we will for very many in the world confuse with immorality with democracy; a very much unintended consequence. By seeking a wider debate with those of all faiths and none we might understand a little better why the “western lifestyle” is hated by a growing number of people in the world……before it is too late.
03.07.15 The Left and the cause of the confusion over faith race and extremism
We have commented on this topic before and suggested that any attempt to segregate the sexes is a romantic throwback to an era and culture when segregation was more a fact of hard economics than a fetishized behaviour by zealots which cannot capture or promote the way modern society either should do or needs to operate.
However, the topic does not go away due to the link all things gender related have with “extremism” and the apparent sympathetic view taken towards those who peddle gender discrimination, perversely get from the British left; particularly the student left. All-faiths-and-none being both faith based and Darwinian always view the opinions of the young as generally a little ill-informed as their views are generally not based on tried and trusted social or economic progressive models but on the need to experiment with some daft ideas and theoretical concepts which offend parents in particular but any authority in general. However whilst most youthful opinion is generally seen as harmless and indeed “progressive”…evolutionary if you like…sympathy with segregation is most definitely devolutionary and harmful to society in general and women in particular; giving modern western women the taste of an era and culture where women were routinely segregated out of economic and social necessity. This really hasn’t happened in western cultures for thousands of years and certainly not on the grand scale you see in the modern Middle East even now. So what is really going on, is the student left is supporting a form of cultural imperialism, demanded by Islamic cultural extremists, that has no and never has had any connection with the culture of the west…..probably but they are too ill informed to know that. Is that a problem…..well no if segregation is not forced on the unwilling and is understood as being both an irrelevant and discriminatory practice that is alien to the West and counter-productive in terms of enhancing social and economic value but yes if somehow it is enforced and used to try and undermine the wests attempts to preserve freedom and equality.
To preserve and promote a culture based on gender discrimination you have to undermine any society and its economy if it is based on freedom and choice, contract and consent. The student British left are like the man sawing off the branch of the tree he is sitting on. Beware of what you wish for guys ……the girls may never forgive you.
08.07.15 To counter the pessimism of Tony Blair let us explore “Secular Westernism” as a cause of terrorism
Terrorism is not inevitable; it is caused and fuelled by ideological and religious forces with only the very fringes objecting to democracy, freedom and equality. However, a far larger group of the faithful of many faiths object to the culture of what we at Blue Revolution call “Western Secularism”. The interpretation of secularism peculiar to the west which has perverted most of what is essentially good about western culture, good which is inherent within the wests “free market” systems (consent, choice and contract). We call it Secular Westernism, as opposed to say Chinese secularism, simply because they are very different, have different influences and radically different outcomes.
What we argue is this; that the faith community and those Darwinians who promote the concept of the long term survival of the most able and adaptable societies, dislike the outcomes of Secular Westernism and the combination of unrestrained moral freedom and the free market effectively marketizing areas that were once managed on a personal level by individuals making pro social moral choices. This was most often based on a belief in the preservation of social value (community, the family etc), all-be-that in the past, supported by religious faith. Today too many people enjoy unrestrained personal excess as the expense of the State, the community, the family and indeed their own good health and moral hygiene and have no concept of wider moral values beyond their own immediate freedoms and needs.
So, let us not pretend there is no solution to the problem of terrorism and religious intolerance. That is true if you are as Tony Blair arguably is, the high priest of Western Secularism…….but not if you believe as we do that there is an alternative in the form of encouraging a new wide spread moral revolution…..as we call it; the Blue Revolution.
11.07.15 The Next Modern Deadly Sin-Number 4; Breach of Trust
This one is relatively simple to explain but breach of it can be devastating as it applies to situations where there is an expectation of trust such as a workplace or as in our “Sin” a relationship. What should we make of a society where many; perhaps too many intimate relationships fail out of complacency or boredom and the people in those relationships deceitfully seek comfort elsewhere?
Of course, relationships should end when there is violence or cruelty and ending it is the best option for all parties. However, we have looked at “objectification” as a sin and where this exists there is pressure to move to a more adoring partner or seek more excitement. This often happens deceitfully as no one wants to be breaching trust and therefor being essentially dishonest. We have therefore built breach of trust into the normal expectation of relationships and as relationships are the building blocks of society, so we have built it into the wider expectations of society. No society can thrive with dishonesty “downloaded” into its informal social structure and in the west, we survive because the moral jeopardy associated with relationship dishonesty is largely met by governments.
Breach of trust in relationships is a “sin”, it damages people and families it undermines communities and so widespread is it, that one could claim it is a part of the Secular Western culture we describe as “Secular Westernism”, as described in the last posting. To avoid “breaching trust” within the no faiths secular community, failing relationships should be consciously uncoupled or ended with respect on both sides, and both parties move on in the knowledge that no dishonesty has taken place. Hopefully without children. However in respect of the faith communities we would support the view that a relationship failure should be avoided and care should be taken to ensure faith based friendship is the key stone of the relationship rather than money, looks, narcissism, or objectification rendering it a short term arrangement at the outset. The term Secular Westernism really sums up the values totality of the western world with all its marvels of freedom, choice, consent, contract but with the downside of our “seven deadly sins” letting the side down and antagonizing too many people of faith. More sins to follow.
20.07.15 ISIS are not the same as religious extremists; David Cameron needs to understand the difference
As we have said in the past ISIS are simply criminals; people who destroy value or impede the creation of value are criminals and the evidence of this seeps out of ISIS controlled areas daily. Brutality and destruction, fear and hatred provide no framework for creating the economic value and wealth necessary to support a population. But ISIS don’t care because they don’t understand economics and if they did, they would probably regard brutality as the only way to run, what we at A-F-a N call a dust bowl economy. A dust bowl economy for those unfamiliar with the term is any economy where economic value is not created by diverse human endeavour either because such value either doesn’t exist even in the raw form of primary resources (as in ISIS territory) or is simply pumped out of the ground by industrial processes whilst the wealth extracted props up an oppressive feudal system.
I hope you can see where we might be going with this.
Anyway, David Cameron the British PM wants to tackle extremists when what we suspect he means are either violent extremists or better still Criminals identifying themselves as Muslims. The culture of Westernism is confused about Islam; as it is about all faiths, having abandoned faith-based morality, in favour of a now failing secular model of morality based around consumption as opposed to production. This happened sometime after the Second World War. We believe the “driver” for this was the belief that politics could deliver what Christian faith would or could not, namely “equality”. But an apparent equality to consume is not the same as real political equality, a point we will I am sure develop over the next few years.
As with Marxism the prevailing post war view was that religion was the opium of the people. Holding back the desire for political and economic equality. There was at that time as now the basic principles of contract, choice and consent; the building blocks of freedom and democracy, but these were, it was argued, not delivering “equality” thus this equality was not available to all. Women, and those who’s sexuality was not heterosexual were penalised and the poor and working classes were seen as having limited economic choices, so the religious morality underpinning Christian Westernism had to go. The point that was missed though was that Christian morality was more about ensuring economic stability to produce rather than as now creating economic conditions to consume. The point however is that the culture back the was very different from today’s culture even though we had the same core principals the social outcomes were vastly different.
So, what you may ask has this got to do with extremism. Well back before the rise of Secular Westernism we imprisoned gay people, women had unequal pay and a Christian wife was expected to give way in all things to her husband. Rape was not illegal in marriage and an establishment ran things their way with their morality designed to protect them and preserve their little peccadilloes. Sounds to me like the views of extremists and all of that apparently (if not actually) supported by state religion; Christian religion. These were extremist times, but they were not violent extremist times. And the non-violent extremists are still out there; many Muslims like their devout Christian compatriots have strident views about sexual morality, women’s rights, welfare, marriage, abortion and so on and so forth. They have views about modesty, adultery and illegitimacy but it doesn’t make them want to go out and bomb, mutilate and stone people (even though some might argue for this). Extremist Muslims are just one group of the very devout who don’t like Secular Westernism, but they must not be confused with the criminals and violent extremists who are ISIS and want to destroy it. They must also not be identified as people who threaten the West’s culture of freedom and democracy based as it is on Contract Choice and Consent because, like the West, they can enjoy wealth created by the economic value available within our diverse society and with choice and consent they can practice their faith as they see fit. What they are quite right to do; as we at Blue Revolution do and that is look at the positives that Secular Westernism has delivered…..but also look at how by opting out of faith based morality altogether Western Secularism has creates a moral context which offends very many faith communities and not just Muslims. David Cameron understands this but like the secularised Church of England……he doesn’t I suspect want to be seen to do morality!
Disliking Secular Westernism now that it has gone too far from being overtly moral in character is no proof of criminality any more than seeing Saudi Arabia as a brutal and oppressive throwback to the moral Dark Ages makes you a racist or cultural imperialist. Strong moral views are good, irrespective of how much someone may loath them…….enforcing them on others with violence is criminal and should be treated as such.
26.07.15 British Lib Dem equivocates over homosexuality- is this Ok we ask?
Tim Farron the Lib Dem leader who is a Christian is evasive about homosexuality. The British left wing is now on a mission to “out” him as an intolerant bigot so the public can be reassured that morality in safe in the hands of the British Left and the “Guardian” reading intellectuals. We at Blue Revolution say what rot. The mischief here is that in the realm of opinion as opposed to behaviour Mr Farron cannot hold a moral position without being taken to task and effectively “closed down”. The role of religion has become so removed from Western culture in all but a few symbolic relics such as “Presidential Oath of Office” in the US or in GB the State opening of Parliament etc it is now seen as irrelevant; unless of course its views conflict with those of the oh so right on morally muddled Left Wing.
What gives the British Left the right to close down someone’s argument simply because they have private views that they, the left wing doesn’t like. Mr Farron would we are sure bear no malice towards gay people, he would we are sure afford them respect and the right to live their life as they see fit. However, he may not identify this lifestyle as one that morally fits into his framework of reference as he is a Christian. If you ask the young men coming out of Mosques their opinions, they may agree with Mr Farron but unlike the Christian many may express harder opinions perhaps including punishment for Gay people.
The left of course fails to see that any faith or moral opinion that does not wholeheartedly support homosexuality, is not necessarily un-accepting of that different lifestyle. We at Blue Revolution do not support adultery as a lifestyle choice, but we don’t think people who are adulterous should be punished. And so, I am sure it is with Mr Farron and his views on homosexuality. The real sadness in this story is that the collectivist Left long associated with despotism and intolerance, for those who don’t concede to their dogma, are at it again, peddling intolerance and stupidity. There is more similarity between the modus operandi of the left wing and the regimes of Saudi Arabia and The Peoples Republic of China than there is between Mr Farron the British left or these ghastly regimes. He needs to openly uphold the right to have moral opinions which differs from that of the Left, and by implication much of mainstream Secular Westernism. By doing this he will be allowing people (Christian and Muslim alike) to experience moral disagreement within a free society which promotes peaceful acceptance of all beliefs within the rule of law. Something the left wing has never really “got”.
01.08.15 Migrants in Calais-what does a coherent response look like; the Blue Revolution view
The BBC sympathises, or appears to, the left criticizes the language used to describe the migrants, “swarms” for example, the French want rid of them and the British don’t want them so they try and keep them in France. The British Army may be mobilised; but what is really going to sort out this long- term global problem. In reality the problem can and will get worse; and it is a bad problem because whilst the human rights lobby see this as a simple an easy enough to fix humanitarian crisis and extend concern, understanding and a home in the UK, the crisis is essentially an economic, cultural and moral crisis and is best understood as such.
As we at Blue Revolution continually say; faith and culture are and should be intrinsically tied up with the creation of value both social and financial, out of which a society can support its population; faith or lack of it can promote or hinder this process. In the west value both social and economic is created by the diverse interplay of people of all faiths and none with an enthusiastic acceptance that, whilst we all may have different views about many things, we are on the whole united in our belief that limiting human productivity on the basis of gender race, age disability or sexuality is wrong. This is the basic culture of the west; delivered by its Christian but now largely secular heritage. There are problems however, we are too promiscuous, and our family units are unstable, we don’t manage those who fail the system very well either, so we have depression, crime and substance misuse. Plus, we have too many who commit our new “seven Deadly Sins” (some still to follow) and undermine the basic “good” in western culture.
There in lies the problem.
The Eritreans, Somalis, Sudanese, young men queuing up at Calais are not bringing with them values which we need or can realistically use, so in large numbers they will fail to deliver “value” in our complex society; be that social value or economic value. Whilst there may be exceptions to this, on the whole they will bring a set of beliefs and values that will be ideal for supporting a more traditional society of rule based morality where there are clear definitions of moral and immoral behaviour which as with all traditional societies (completely understandably by us here at Blue Revolution) relates to gender and sexuality much more so than it does in the west. They will have views which identify difference as something to be feared and therefore fought and punished. In our view this is the main misunderstanding by the “human rights lobby”. We believe it makes us look delusional in our dealings with other faiths and cultures and to some extend makes us vulnerable as a culture to being taken advantage of.
If the west and in particular Europe wants to deal with this crisis in a humane way they must first understand the moral background of the people who want to come here and on that basis stop being as deluded about what the migrants can offer, as the migrants are themselves. Then they should ensure that the tide of migration stops at the ports in North Africa and that the vast amounts of money wasted in supporting the EU “machine” is used to promote diverse and thriving economies in the countries of North Africa. The entrepreneurs who “swarm” here would be better using their risk taking resilience to build value of a more 21st century character into their own societies benefitting from the liberalising effects of trade, rather than coming to the west; becoming overwhelmed and angered by a culture that alienates them…..and many of us too.
There can be no justification for propping up a failing Bureaucracy in Europe whilst Europe as an economy is being assailed by migrants who simply become dependent on its social welfare systems and resentful of its culture and its failure to respect and absorb their more intolerant values. We all need to look more critically and objectively at what being part of different cultures actually means for both the migrant and ourselves. Of course the crisis situation in Calais is humanitarian…..but it is cultural as well, on both sides.
05.08.15 Thought Crime, conflict and faith
We were thinking the other day having written a number of blogs relating to subjects such as extremism, sexuality and Immigration and the role of faith in the debate about these issues that the western world has over the last decade or so entered a period of casual but very obvious “thought crime”; whilst we believe what we have said is moderate, we experience in daily life the views of faith communities being challenged as extreme, abusive, fundamentalist for example. Words like “problematic”, “unacceptable” become ways of closing discussion and stifling the evolution of the human mind and human shared experience. This is done by ushering in a slow devolution of the human mind and spirit by limiting the topics and views one can express in the political or public sphere. The two words above are the opposites of acceptance and understanding, particularly when the prefix is “that is” and the suffix is “to me”. This elevates silencing debate to a level of emotional manipulation which is at odds with an open society and, as during the New Labour years, is a way of deliberately closing debate, then done under the banner of “diversity” to “protect” “vulnerable groups”. Protection is the least likely outcome. The effect is that such tactics simply send the controversial discussions underground and as a result makes the public feel alienated and angry. We have seen this within working class communities with the whole issue of the EU and immigration and within other communities it manifests itself in a deep dislike of the “decadent” culture of Secular Westernism. Don’t stifle debate whatever the topic…..
08.08.15 What price Love- Kids Company and the bean counters
Camilla Batmanghelidjh the articulate and eccentric head of Kids Company (KC) managed to get philanthropists and Prime Ministers to part with large sums of their own and tax-payers money to support her project offering hope to inner city Kids. The main issue seems to be she claimed KC were helping tens of thousands of children, yet the evidence indicated numbers in the mid to late hundreds. Another issue seems to be that envelopes of cash were being given to kids with no accountability as to how the money was being spent. From the Blue Revolution perspective there are two things which are relevant to this story. The first is that Camilla Batmanghelidjh and I am sure the salaried people who worked for KC loved the children they worked with. The evident chaos and mismanagement criticised by Civil Servants would happily reflect the environment of the big loving family so evident in the past but less in evidence now. Today and more so in our inner cities we produce too few loving families and too many “family units” comprising an array of characters some permanent some temporary, and the young, displaced by this arrangement end up, in South London at least, seeking love and care with people like Ms Batmanghelidjh. The second point and perhaps the keystone to the whole saga is that today in every relevant context “love means money”. The problem for Ms Batmanghelidjh is that the money was tax-payers money. How many middle-class families have very much loved, sons and daughters who need the odd £20.00 un-repayable “loan” two or three times a week.
We at Blue Revolution don’t know how one squares this circle, but it seems to us everyone in this story has a valid point. The problem is the valid points do not solve the puzzle of how we provide the love that is missing in a society where a component of love has unfortunately become money. Perhaps the whole thing starts; as we have said before, with people making moral choices about whether and when to have children and with whom; and when those children arrive, making the now superhuman effort to bring them up properly so they don’t lawlessly spill out onto the streets at all hours. We would then not need Ms Batmanghelidjh or the tax-payers money she is accused of wasting. However as with much of the Blue Revolution philosophy, that is not likely to happen anytime soon.
10.08.15 Deadly Sin Number 5- Want based consumption.
Of the Seven Modern Deadly Sins this one is the widest ranging and touches upon almost all of the subjects covered in this blog to date. It touches on philosophy, economics, theology and perhaps somewhat unexpectedly ecology. It is not the most harmful of the seven deadly sins, harmful to individuals in the short term at least, but its range is vast and over time its impact will be massive. It forms a large component of what we call “Secular Westernism”
In the past the culture that most people were exposed to was shaped by the needs of the economy and reflected the social reality to which the economic realities gave rise. The nomads and slash and burn economies were differentiated by the different ways’ wealth was created. Wealth being maybe a regular supply of forage or hard-won meat such as Deer. As we have said in previous posts the dust bowl economy of the Middle East was a thousand years ago a hard environment to fashion into wealth creation so the culture was hard and rigid; this was to minimise waste and avoid any dissent which might undermine the economic model in existence at the time. The accent was on production and inequality was a powerful element in ensuring the value created as high as possible. The slave society and social rank played a part in keeping the economy supplied with sufficient value to allow all but the most dissenting and troublesome to survive.
Obedience to the social norms meant personal and family or clan survival. This is the context that ISIS operate within today and the place their policy of violent destruction of western values, would like to return. At Blue Revolution we believe this desire to return to the dust bowl is so we can exist in a pure rule based moral state complete with stoning and beheadings to remind us that we live in society where Value is hard to create and they the criminals of ISIS are in charge of the production of what little value is created. The enlightenment and Christian faiths ability to adapt to it finally liberated us from the horror of this type of existence three hundred years or more ago. However, we have we believe at Blue Revolution thrown the value creating baby out with the want based consumption bath water.
Based on the Blue Revolution analysis (should you choose to accept it) the dust bowl or fearful and meagre existence of the past is a place we have been to and not a place we should be in any hurry to return to. However, life is full of paradox and by maintaining a culture on the basis that want drives the economy rather than need, we have moved too far away from the production of value as the factor that underpins Western culture and morality. We call this Secular Westernism as it is what happens when you remove the moral rule book and allow people through millions of individual choices to drive an economy based on their personal desire to consume, when that consumption is derived not from production but from credit and overzealous Government spending and welfare programmes.
We all share some of the blame for the Banking crisis, for social instability and the many other sins and vices that we at Blue Revolution gather up and call Secular Westernism. As a result of these issues we produce too little economic value, too little social value and the bit that makes it look like this broken system works is want based consumption paid for by debt and the funny money of government spending. Secular Westernism is essentially a Junk Society; a high calorie confection of spending, insecurity and debt with no nourishment.
With production of real value as the base of the economy rather than want based consumption, people’s expectations would be more realistic. Families would hang together, as getting out of the family would not in these circumstances, lead to a widening of the income sources available for want based consumption; by freeing equity for example. Want based consumption is planet destroying; it promotes an unsustainable birth rate amongst groups who would be economically incapable of having children were the state not to step in and subsidize their offspring. More tellingly every Pound Stirling, dollar or Euro produced to meet consumption needs (predominantly via consumption debt) is driving the carbon economy more than any other single factor. A modern parable is useful here. It is about two men; one wise and one not so wise.
The wiseman who produced fruit in his fields sold his produce at market and made himself very wealthy. He took his wealth much of which he did not need for the support of his family and pot it in a large hole in the ground, unmarked and with the expectation he would never dig it up. His neighbour sole his fruit at market but used the money he made to buy cars and take holidays, his expectations and those of his family became set at a life style too high for the fluctuations in the harvest to support so the man borrowed to enable his lifestyle to continue. Who might you ask was kinder to the planet?
21,08.15 Jeremy Corbyn; left wing ideology and violent Islam What does this love in tell us about all three.
Left wing politics; the home of supposed tolerance, is also the home of anti Semitism, trans activism and radical feminism and to varying degrees has framed policies that over the years we at Blue Revolution believe have undermined the family, the rights of fathers and children and ushered into existence a hitherto unheard of a class of people who are detached from the expectation that they should work, behave responsibly, and make some kind of social or economic contribution for the benefit of wider society.
The so called “under class” is a product of a welfare system shorn of moral content as it was set up by Victorian capitalists to correct short term labour market failure. Only the naïve Guardian reader or handwringing beneficiary of a salary from working within the system could possibly see this as a good system. Its bi products of this cash on demand system are divorce, promiscuity, drink, drugs and industrial scale illegitimacy and are clearly not the kinds of outcomes that any traditional rule based society would tolerate. Indeed in Isil territory as we know, stoning takes place as it does in Saudi Arabia for “crimes” such as “Harlotry”. How many “Harlots” do we have in many of our towns and cities of whom violent Islamicists would exercise little sympathy and where the promiscuous male becomes the persecutor of immoral behaviour when that immoral behaviour is homosexuality or promiscuity by women. Collective moral action it could be called shorn of any respect for the individual based on contract, choice and consent.
And yet it is the British left who are cradled in the loving arms of the very men who would have a violent reaction to most of the policies the British left has introduced and continues to support and promote.
We at Blue Revolution also support acceptance and the freedom to be homosexual or promiscuous but we on the other hand don’t accept the behaviour of violent Islamicist and so would not hob nob with them as the British left do. This situation of mutual support between the violent religious and political group think and the left is one of those paradoxes which only makes sense if you look at the whole thing at once; a bit like an Escher drawing. The Left’s support for Islamic traditionalism makes sense if you look at it as racial, as underprivilege to be addressed by taxation of the rich, or wealth redistribution, or social projects to support diversity or Palestine or alleged American Imperialism. But look further beyond those safe set piece areas of common ground, and it all starts to look a little less safe for the individual. There is much bad about the West its Capitalism and its “secular westernism”; but left-wing collective action combined with other collectivist groups of a more intolerant hue probably isn’t the answer.
We need to de construct the relationship between the British left and violent Islamicism to understand the risks, and when we do, we will see that the British left is intolerant and in its own way aggressive to the rights of the individual. Gays and women are at serious risk of harm from the views of the violent Islamicists becoming lodged into the wholly naïve views of British left. Their muddled idealism will act as the vector for forces hostile to the rights of the individual. The lingering remnants of “dust bowl” morality in the world will be nourished by these naïve people who fail to see that their grand political causes are simply a means for the intolerant to undermine the rights and freedoms of others.
Marxism began life as a liberal ideology; and Marx himself in many ways never removed himself too far from the rights of the individual, seeing the role of Capitalism to confer bourgeois rights on the individual to trade and contract freely, admittedly in purely economic terms, but at the core of the model was freedom…….including as he rightly condemned the freedom to fail and to starve. The latter becoming the emotional driver for state intervention which in turn became collectivist as opposed to liberal Marxism, with its violent revolution and its perverse willingness to see people starve.
Revolutionary Marxism caused limits to be placed on the rights of the individual as the revolutionary model requires individual rights to be set aside in favour of the rights of the collective. One extreme of this is National Socialism, or perhaps the role of Socialism in giving collective heft to theocratic revolutions such as Iran in the 1970’s, or Arab Nationalism where getting a mob to support an idea was the required way of gaining and keeping power.
At the other rather more harmless end of collectivism where for example equal pay was undermined in the 1940’s to the 1970’s collectively by Trades Unions in favour of male employment, and then when equal pay came in companies went bankrupt as they had to level their wages up.
The failure of Capitalism it could be argued has been in not bedding into other cultures the concept of personal freedom and in the case of advanced capitalism, not expressing personal freedom fully and democratically. Capitalism in attempting to protect its system from the mob limits power to Parliamentary process. In addition, too many communities remain dominated by control of the individual be that control exercised through religious or patriarchal means.
Because the Left abandoned Marxist “freedom”, in favour of harnessing the collective “will of the people” shaped and managed by experts or leaders, it meshes very well with other collectivist bodies and groups many of which are unreformed rule based and religious or political in character. For these groups respect for the individual does not extend to protecting individuals from deliberate physical or psychological harm.
It is this fit which makes the Left and Mr Corbyn a man to watch. Blairism for all its many failings was pro individual rights, Blair’s success in promoting extended rights to minorities was in part a product of the slow relentless decline of the “industrial powerhouses” of Trades Unionism where since the war Misogyny and homophobia was casual and common place as anyone over 40 will surely remember. A characteristic of the masculine culture of the time.
Corbyn is essentially a useful fool for the likes of Hezbollah, and Hamas the IRA or even perhaps Isis……he clearly does not understand that freedom is based not on Government empowerment of the interests of the aggressive political or theological collectives. Remember the adage that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Freedom from tyranny comes with empowerment of the individual through amongst other things the Blue Revolution trio of Contract, Choice and Consent, practiced within a regulated free market framework and available universally to all adults.
If we support our politicians siding with those whose obligations are to the collective and the collective, whoever that is, believes some horrible stuff, our politicians won’t be able to put the genie of individual rights back in the bottle if that genie escapes…….they can only hope as they are rubbing the lamp that the genie stays put.
26.08.15 British girls-unhappiest in EU. But why?
Much of what we have covered so far is relevant to the question; why British girls are so unhappy. Commentators speculate about pressures of school-work, broken families and relationships, but these applies to boys also. As an insightful group of people we thought we would add our Blue Revolution perspective on what in public health terms is probably as much a problem, if not a more serious problem, than the British diabetes epidemic. We will explain why.
We recently wrote about the jihadi brides, and more recently still about the inherent misogyny of “collectivist” cultures into which we folded groups who ignore individual rights (by for example blowing people up) such as Isis, Hamas, the IRA as well as to a less extreme degree the hard left of the Labour movement. At the most extreme the Jihadi brides expose the terrible conflicts faced by girls. To be desirable to a man but not to be overtly desirable conflicts with cultural expectations. To be cleaver but not so that it confers independence and may result in the traditional social role ascribed to girls being undermined. To be subordinate to one’s culture in a world which offers the most grotesque forms of self-promotion and self-expression. Being conflicted is hard to deal with…..ask any abused person who loves their abuser! So, in the case of Jihadi Brides the easiest way of escaping this psychological torture chamber is to opt for one side of the conflict or the other. Violent Islam wins out against Secular Westernism. The fact these Brides are too western to cut it with Isis we presume only dawns on them once they are trapped in a pitiless well of psychopathy and random aggression.
If Jihadi brides are the extreme how can this conflicted situation apply to Secular Western girls with one presumes no such personal, familial and religious challenges. Well just because there is no obvious religious pressure it does not follow that there is not an oppressive secular western culture causing conflicts of psychological intensity for girls. We have our seven modern deadly sins to complete, but so far we have looked at cruelty, objectification, breach of trust, want based consumption, and arguably just these four set a confusing context for young people.
Being measured by looks with the unwanted attention that this brings, whilst being insecure due to the absence of trust within many modern relationships will be stressful. Having the expectations that looks will bring financial success and therefore “want based consumption” whilst also having to grapple with the reality that childbirth will takes much of it away. Even in the 21st century childbirth remains the foundation of the proto fascism in the form of men’s dominion over woman.
The politically naïve and ideologically muddled Jeremy Corbyn supports women only carriages on trains an obvious throwback to women’s primary role and mankind’s primary expectation of women; childbirth and seclusion, whether they like it or not. In western culture girls who see themselves as having no economic role, do what nature requires of them, but not as society intended. For many there is no loving coupling but life as a stressed single mum whose choice was never “free” but heavily influenced by “welfare”; promoting the lifestyle of babies with no greater economic role but to consume benefits.
With the west offering, but not always delivering or fully respecting, the hard fought for “economic role” for girls, is it any wonder girls are unhappy. Boys don’t have this complexity to navigate. Girls do have this psychologically conflicted set of choices and in all honesty only the very brightest and economically most literate can navigate a coherent way through it. Perhaps we should focus on the economic role of girls, rather than the biological role that has led to thousands of years of oppression. We should stop promoting and subsidising childbirth as an option for girls, aside perhaps from only those who can cope with it sharing the role with a partner as necessary, in order to do it properly.
Promoting the idea that girls have an important economic role without babies, do not have to have babies to be valued by society, and should avoid being seduced by the state into having babies for purely individual economic reasons, will surely help girls feel less conflicted and therefore a little bit happier.
03.09.15 Faith and revolution- Red or Blue
Faith and religion has had a mixed reception politically; somehow linked, but closely, obliquely or distantly depending on its political use. Roman Catholic attempts to regime change in South American nations three or more decades ago; as well as the revolution in Iran in the late 1970’s and in Burma much more recently. There has been Marx’s view that it was the “opium of the people” whilst Russia and China suppressed it in the same way that the dust bowl elements of Islam do the same to all faith but their own. In Britain the success of Christianity has been its failing as its ability to drive enterprise and risk taking has delivered past economic success whilst paying for relentless moral decline. The state in the form of Her Majesty’s Government stepping in to prevent some form of 21st century Peasants Revolt but making the problem worse. In pre Tudor times poverty was revered and the poor and those who gave alms were chosen for heaven, through to the 16th Century when the idea began to emerge that being poor was a crime to be punished and therefore to be avoided and not subsidised by state or the wealthy.
In the west and in America what faith there is, is too often associated with narcissism, hubris and greed. Theology offering wealth to the devout and God-fearing TV subscribers! In the Middle East we have a combination of dust bowl economies, some super rich and immoral by modern standards, and some poor and immoral as well as criminal. In the west and in Britain we have an established church which has defaulted to secularism in the last 30 years to such an extent the theology might best be described as the theology of being nice, with a nice undemanding liturgy to go along with it. However today alongside nice faith we have angry people looking for an angry faith or an angry politics. I need not dwell too much on this but to invite people to think about where these angry impulses are finding expression.
The faith that seems to offer some hope to some people is Islam, rule based and helpfully for some dogmatic. The politics which has gained recent traction is a kind of nationalism which has no traditional left right dimensions but is all about expecting “Government” to protect us; in Britain, it’s never clear protecting us from what. The Bankers, migrants, immigrants, the rich, the poor, who knows, but for some reason best known to Britain’s army of middle aged, armchair Prime Ministers, both Jeremy Corbyn and Nigel Farage capture the spirit of what they are supporting politically. And that seems to us to be a kind of collectivism that for these people binds the nation together, nationalism as a substitute for class, although we don’t think many would recognise that as informing their opinions. In this post class world, the nation unites and binds in the way that class used to. hence the success of Ukip and SNP and strangely perhaps the Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn. Should we be concerned? Are we at Blue Revolution concerned? Well yes and no.
In Britain the problem for the Church of England is that without the church being linked to a political collectivism, like class, it loses the ties that bind people to the faith, thus in the west the Christian faith is in terminal decline. In Britain the C of E is still operating, though on the back of wealth accumulated over the last 600 years or so. In America faith survives with televangelism and snake oil, but like in the UK, not in places where faith is really needed.
With Islam the theology is more political, both local and global. Immoral immodest behaviour at home, western aggression or indifference abroad. The political issues grant a collective legitimacy to Islam that is echoed and respected in the political collectivism of the left. Though as we have said in previous posts this attraction isn’t really understood by either side. A bit like two people drawn to each other but neither really understand why. Thus, there is a political and faith convergence which would be a cause for celebration amongst people of faith like us, if the thing that linked them wasn’t an out of date and possibly hazardous collectivism. Collectivism we believe leads to the rights of the individual being ignored as the individual is pushed aside by the clamour to achieve “collective outcomes by collective action”. The growing albeit ill defined demand for collectivism and government intervention amongst our armchair PM’s both erstwhile and new labour party “supporters” will lead the Labour Party in the UK to fracturing somewhere down a fault line to the left of its centre. The centre right parliamentary party we believe, will be pushed to breaking point by the accession of Jeremy Corbyn. The centre right MP’s will either be shoved out, to find a home in other parties or will just go willingly elsewhere. The Political left and the collectivist hangers on will make the Labour Party, not a serious party of government, but a left wing campaigning collective with a hotch potch of ideas that will in time increasingly ignore the rights of individuals and groups that don’t fit in to their world picture. It certainly won’t be All Faiths and None but more my “faith” not yours. This is the problem with the British hard left, they won’t know when they have fired the starting pistol for an attempt at a Red Revolution.
We at Blue Revolution advocate a Blue Revolution. It should be clear what this is from what we have written so far. It is a revolution in the hearts and minds of individuals who recognise that peace comes from using the freedoms accorded by Contract, Choice and Consent in a moral faith based way (Blue Revolution) that supports democracy, supports and respects all people of all faiths and none and rejects behaviour which is cruel, immodest, needlessly consuming, untrustworthy etc but all delivered at a personal level by individual moral agents….because in a world dominated by immoral or sinful behaviours only the collective action of the state can bring control to the chaos……..it’s a pity no mainstream faith can combine their theology with the theology of freedom as reflected in the Blue revolution.
07.09.15 Sexual offending, exclusions, unhappiness- What is going on with British students
This is going to be a short but topical post to try and offer the Blue Revolution perspective on British youth who have hit the headlines this week for some of the worst reasons. It has to be accepted that there are some inspiring young people, those who are brave in the face of adversity and challenge and those with potential to achieve great things on behalf of themselves and their family and their community. However in this post industrial world of Secular Westernism too many young people lack belief ; belief in a creed, belief in a God or even a belief in themselves. The Blue Revolution view is that this leaves them vulnerable to the superficial temptations of Secular Western culture with its self medicating stimulants of Sex and drugs and needless consumption. When these are not easily attainable by a growing number of low aspiring young people the lack of belief in themselves to achieve something for themselves encourages rule breaking. Thus we have too much sexual offending and too much unruly behaviour and low performance and further reduced expectations.
We are not called Blue Revolution because we believe some people don’t have faith in themselves, but because we accept that not all people have a religious faith; however we accept Darwinism as a substitute for faith and we can identify the concept of group survival as integral to the role all faith has had in mankind’s evolution since we first became self conscious thousands of years ago. Hence the need to accept all faiths….. and none. More young people need to be inspired to have faith, even if it is limited to faith in themselves and the contribution they can make to the long term development of humanity as reflected in their group or community. Every human being regardless of age or ability is gaining, through technology, the opportunity to contribute to their group and community; but for some the lack of personal belief set in a world of superficial social and economic charms, proves to be too tempting for them, and thus harmful to others.
The revolution starts in the heart of the individual and not the head of the group.