All faiths p 8
26.11.15 The debate about doctors pay: A Blue Revolutionary perspective on health
The British health service has too many problems for us to analyse them individually. However the elephant in the room which politicians of all sides are unable to discuss, we are able to reveal as we are not politicians we are ordinary people with an unusual perspective, one that moves away from the normal parameters of debate and hopefully generates purposeful if not challenging discussion.
The role of doctors, medics and therapists in any advanced industrial or post-industrial society is the same as the “witch doctor” in any primitive society; to get people back to their full productive capacity. The last thing a society needs are people who unnecessarily burden the economy and society. In less sophisticated societies where, shall we say, life is cheap people die quickly. Illness is a burden, personal and social. When illness requires “care” this “care” is essentially unproductive and so is done by the family, unless the person being cared for has an important role to play in society such as a monarch or overlord or if an ordinary person, they can be brought back to productive health quickly. As recently as the early 20th century the treatment of “Cowards” in the trenches of the first world war illustrates this point nicely. Officers “treated” infantry men executed.
We are not anthropologists and don’t know what implications the infirm have had on less advanced societies in the historical past. However old people and the infirm do present a challenge to any society’s productive capacity. We are beginning to experience this here in the west.
As we have progressed, society in the western world and elsewhere has been able to set aside some of its social and productive value to enable a humane treatment of some of the elderly and ill to occur. This expenditure requires of course a productive class who created the value so it could either by individual choice or government intervention be distributed to a widening group of unproductive people some of whom are old and some of whom have their productive capacity limited by illness.
The medic therefore has a relationship to society which is essentially to get rid of whatever is impeding the individual’s full health and their productive capacity be it within a tribe or an empire. The role of doctors, regardless of their pay, is to get people back to their full productive capacity. As doctors their pay should reflect their success at achieving this universal sociological objective. The elderly should have “banked” social and economic value individually or collectively within families or society and draw on it in their declining years.
This brings us back to our opening comments about the Health Service. The problem is that the health service in too many instances is no longer capable of getting people back to full health to fulfil their full productive capacity. It has become, as a result of decades of political weakness and intersecting social policies, a service which undermines individual personal and collective responsibility. It has become a service that keeps individuals alive long enough and unproductively enough to acquire life limiting ailments such as obesity, diabetes and depression to name just three.
Today we are not prepared to see people suffer or doctors under remunerated, but the reality is that the role of doctors is not to do what they are doing now. The health service was never intended to be brought to its knees or the country that finances it bankrupted by a population of unhealthy people who expect the tax payer, in the form of the government, to sustain them in a wholly unproductive and pointless cycle of illness and medical interventions.
The elderly now, who were young adults after the last world war, are probably the last generation of whom one could feel confident they as a generation created social and economic value greater than that which they consumed, and therefore deserve decent treatment in old age. But as for the rest of us, from the ‘Boomers’ onwards what social and economic value will we have to call upon in old age and more importantly where will it come from?
01.12.15 No to advertising Christianity. Yes, to the promotion of wholly commercial Christmas. Plus, allegations the US is corrupting Iranians with sex and vice. What is going on?
Is it any wonder that when many cultures in the so called second or third world look at the West, they experience a mixture of confusion and revulsion? Two stories illustrate the incomprehensibility of this secular westernism (1) as we call it.
Firstly, the Christian Churches, in a nominally Christian country; Britain, are banned from showing in cinemas an advert promoting the Lord’s Prayer. Yet at the same time, the commercial activity of selling Christmas as a period of debt and excessive consumption builds to its predictable crescendo on Christmas day. This must seem perverse even in non-Christian countries. The idea that in Iran it would not be possible to recite the Koran in public places is frankly ridiculous. The difference however would be that be that in the west in general, and in Britain in particular, it should be possible to hear the words of all faiths and none; if of course the “powers that be” were not so weak and unprincipled as to promote other faiths at the expense of our own.
It is precisely the secular wests squeamishness about its own religious heritage that has led to a decline in religious pluralism here and more significantly abroad. Let us be honest with ourselves, if the Islamists had not been allowed to think that theirs is the only faith delivering social value, and they were made aware that Christianity was capable of achieving the same, as well being capable of creating increasing amounts of economic value too, it would have challenged the view, held by many of the Muslim faithful in North Africa and the Middle East that Christianity in its secular manifestation is a perverse and perverted faith that sanctions vice and immorality.
The reason that this belief holds sway is that real moral , modest, simple Christian voices are silenced in the name of “not causing offence”, whilst to the majority of non- Christians the Christian faith is identified with commercial Xmas and all that is perverse about the west; its delinquency, a pitiful undereducated yet promiscuous welfare dependent class, its planed compromising greed. We can add to that list poor health, and the breakdown of the Christian family into a myriad of “arrangements” that put the needs of infantilised adults before the needs of the real infants and children.
The final point we wish to make, and our second story is that if we give up promoting the good that Christianity or Christian heritage can do, and, as claimed by the Iranians we take our perverse secular culture of pornography and vice and use it to try and entrap those of other cultures in an attempt to gain “influence” and game international relations, we are really stooping to a very low and frankly embarrassing level of poor moral behaviour.
On the one hand we downplay good Christianity and yet we promote vice abroad which becomes identified as bad Christianity. Christians don’t deserve to be silenced or be misunderstood like this, it encourages intolerance of them and arrogance from other faiths, but moreover Christianity becomes identified with secular westernism and that feeds rage, misunderstanding and even war.
The Blue Revolution is not intended to be a mass movement, it is simply a vehicle for encouraging a positive change in behaviour and for stimulating discussion and challenging orthodox “groupthink”. We would argue that if we had had less vice and more faith of all varieties Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu etc over the last sixty years, we may very well be having safe and culturally enriching holidays in North Africa and other troubled locations rather than embarking on yet another bombing campaign. We can start to put things right by allowing the Lord’s Prayer to be heard in British cinemas.
1 Secular westernism is the practice of free market economics within the context of a secular moral vacuum which gives rise to a type of wealth creation which undermines social value and, whilst creating income for those able to manipulate tastes, desires, and wants, creates little if any genuine economic value.
A faith to personalize, collectivize, politicize, radicalize or weaponize; what can we realistically expect from the faithful now?
The decision of Britain’s Labour leader to oppose bombing ISIS in Syria shows one extreme of the polarised position on action against ISIS; a sort of “let them get on with shooting us” attitude; naïve but well intentioned as is most left wing thinking on most subjects. On the right we have the bombing which is the “we will do what we can” approach, again well intentioned, and whilst not naïve unlikely to deliver the results envisaged. The argument that the end game is being ignored is valid but it is no basis for not bombing the ISIS criminals. It’s clear that in a place like the middle east end games are the stuff of fools; so much meddling and connivance, oil and power brokering to make any solution hard to both identify and deliver. Just look at the history of the place.
We have today a shooting incident in the USA; 14 people killed in what seems to be an ISIS “inspired” act of lone wolf terrorism. Just like the incidents in France and the potential of terror cells in Belgium. Britain will have people like this too, ready to act on impulse either when some random act by the west triggers enough anger to justify detonation and death, or simply because the terrorists feel like “todays the day”.
This is the basic problem the west must tackle, lone wolves inspired by, but not necessarily part of, the formal weaponry of radical Islam. We have been keen to talk about ISIS as criminals rather than warriors, but the recent incident in France prompts consideration of the wider Islamic community and from that thoughts about communities of “faith” in general.
Blue Revolution considers that the difficulty the western powers and therefore western people have, is that western culture is too easily characterised as “immoral” and the Muslim faith unlike Christianity is seen as an antidote to this immorality via its Sharia law. Islam is therefore seen as opposing the “problem” of the west. As people will know, Blue Revolution too views western culture as problematic, and proposes awareness of and therefore avoidance of our “Seven Deadly Sins” because there is still much in the west worthy of preservation and “problematic” doesn’t justify wholesale destruction.
What the west needs is reform, and self-regulation and the corrective of government intervention sanctioned by the people plus widespread moral renewal based on Contract, Choice and Consent between peoples and the people and their government.
So what point are we trying to make. Well faith in a modern society needs to be personalised. Those of us at Blue Revolution who have faith do not view our faith or any tenets of it, as something to be imposed on others but we do occasionally collectivise with like-minded believers. We believe that faith should be personalized. This is the reason the Christian Church of England is seen as irrelevant by many as it recognises faith is personal and not political.
British Christianity rightly lacks the power to convert based on grievance or conversion from anger. It is a big step from the personalization of faith to the political or politicization of faith. This involves people grouping together and “sharing” their grievances and their similar views, often attempting to gain converts in the name of grievance. In many ways this is the situation with certain Christians in the US in their opposition to planned parenting or their festering of race hatred. However, it also described a huge proportion of people of the Muslim faith. Adopting the dress and morals of what we have described as “dustbowl” Islam is a political act and it feeds a view of the west that sets people apart who live in the west. Finally, having become politicized it is a small step to being radicalized and fermenting hatred and another large step before one is prepared to kill or blowing oneself up or as we call it weaponse oneself. Weaponisation can occur in other faiths too, the murderers who kill those accessing planned parenting services have weaponised themselves; as of course have suicide bombers and the day tripper Jihadi on the London Underground.
All people in the west therefore needs to understand this dynamic, people of all faiths and none. It needs to be understood that if an individual, moves through “personalization” to “Politicization” of their faith it is a process that begins to harden views about others. The views of the Klu Klux Klan illustrate this point. Ordinary Muslims and southern US fundamentalist Christians should be encouraged to see their small acts of politicisation as acts which are not about personal belief but perhaps reinforce difference and implicitly encourage radicalization and for some the act of weaponisation. Jeremy Corbyn’s veto of bombing against ISIS but support for the IRA is another example of the move form personal to political to radical opinion, which for some we are sure inspired weaponisation.
To counter this process a simple and universal narrative is required and in addition an abandonment of the current “Political Correctness” agenda in respect of faith. Unless, faith is understood as a personal and possibly collective issue rather than a political movement problem will occur. The mistake of the last twenty years has been to overlook Islam’s political dimensions through the naivety of political correctness.
It would today, as a result of PC, be seen as unforgivable to ask of a veiled woman “why do you dress like that”…but it is a reasonable question in these radicalised times, and may indeed give rise to a personalised as opposed to politicised answer such as “it is how I practice modesty, or “my husband, or family tell me to”. Having said that many of the radicalised and Weaponised dress like westerners or in fatigues. So dress is rather complex on its own and gives nothing away.
The narrative we need is therefore based on the Blue Revolutionary concepts of Contract, Choice and Consent as the universal conditions of social and moral progress. These are the three key elements of a healthy society that whilst it may not be “free” or “democratic” in a western sense, provides a society that allows the 3C’s stands a good chance of evolving safely and productively in the future and creating a just society. Democracy is expensive so not all societies can afford it. However in the absence of democracy we need the 3C’s to make society just. The only thing such a society would need to avoid are the “Blue revolutionary” Seven Deadly Sins as these corrupt and corrode civility and good manners and inflict inequality and discrimination unjustifiably.
09.12.15 Donald Trump; a secular westerner sort of gets it….but only sort of!
A brief post on the back of the recent pronouncement by Donald Trump that some Muslims don’t like Americans. In that bit of his analysis we agree with him and would go further and say that some Muslims don’t like the west not Just the American bit of it.
The secular west is not a place where people of faith find comfort; as we at Blue Revolution continually point out. Trumps ludicrous reaction to recent events however just goes to show that the mass appeal he is able like all demagogues to articulate, which is essentially ordinary peoples fear and anxiety. Whilst good at picking up the right vibe his limited skills in analysis and inability to scope realistic solutions render him a buffoon on the world stage.
When there is an expectation that he goes beyond articulating fear he camps it up. For the great man Mr. Trump it would not be sufficient to merely identify a problem; he has to steam in with the Pro American saloon bar solution; thus, we had his ban on Muslims entering the US.
As Blue Revolution is a platform to stimulate debate sometime by being provocative, we are pleased that the question was asked “why do some Muslims hate the US”. It was also good to hear that political leaders were the ones tasked to find out why this was the case. Left there, a useful debate could have ensued about the combination of emotions ranging from embarrassment to hatred that is stirred up when people of faith encounter the kind of excessive consumption and trivial social relations that characterises the west and upon which western economies depend.
We don’t have to detail the litany of divorce, drink, drugs, sex, pornography and general social chaos, which is “denied” by governments who then plaster over the all too obvious social cracks with government money, in an attempt to obscure just how far from civilised the west has drifted.
There is a process of healing the world needs and it could start with a debate about these very complex social and economic issues. However in true buffoon mode Trump closed down the sensible debate and shifted things back to the silent status quo…..the middle ground, the don’t ask don’t tell approach to western problems. By managing to get every other Republican candidate to tell him that his opinions are invalid and ridiculous. ….which of course his conclusions are, the debate was quickly closed down. However, his question is very valid, and it takes people brighter than him to address it.
14.12.15 Corbyn’s New Socialists don’t know their Marx from their elbow!
The bourgeois socialists of Britain’s Corbynista Labour Party and its hangers-on are a group of people who share several left-wing obsessions in common but not necessarily all of them at once, and not necessarily at the same time.
Some show their credentials by supporting Russia, although Russia is behaving a little like the “spokes-country” for globally derided Christendom. A sort of non- secular westernism in the mould of 19th Century Protestantism. Other “left-wing” groups support 20th century secular Pan Arab causes, others Islamism in its various manifestations covering the whole range of Islamism types from the benign collectivised, to the highly dangerous weaponised Islamism of ISIS and their supporters.
One of the latest “Kids on the Block” is a bunch who wish to cleanse the Stalin brand; bringing some benign revisionism to the legacy of Uncle Joe. With the usual collection of Trots and Leninists the marketplace for the “Red Revolutionary” is looking a bit overcrowded. We thought we would offer a “Blue” perspective on our “Red” cousins, whilst also looking at some topical subjects. Regular readers will have noticed that we tend to do this; it helps to pin our brand identity on to an issue and over time to build up a patchwork of small insights that hopefully brings a coherence to the many popular agendas that perplex the world and we are about to allege the “left” lacks.
There can be no economic or social algorithm uniting the Left consisting as it does of groups who support an odd range of left-wing policies which often are at odds with both logic and common sense? They come from too many different economic, social and cultural backgrounds for there to be much coherence to their thinking.
Karl Marx spoke about his theories being scientific in character. Clearly not fully developed as science but totally undermined when his scientific socialism is placed in the hands of those of a so-called left-wing bent. We have endured these people for over a century and a half be they Russian revolutionaries, Chinese revolutionaries, Cambridge Grads circa 1940, supporters of Trotsky’s Left Opposition or anyone of a whole bunch of “revolutionaries” including we suppose good old “Woolfie Smith” of the “Tooting Popular Front”…..oh and Corbyn and crew.
So, if what unites the Left isn’t Marxism what unites public sector workers, single mums, students, Trades Unionists, autocrats and people with a dubious grasp of economics and international relations as well as misogynists, feminists, the transgendered and those who desire to change “our way of life” by force of arms.
We at A Blue Revolution have been thinking about our Red Revolutionary colleagues trying to distil the unifying theory which must be buried away somewhere in their complex and confusing matrix of political likes and dislikes; what motivates them and what do these disparate groups have in common, and we think we have the answer.
Let’s start with Capitalism; Marx understood Capitalism in the same way he understood Tribalism or Feudalism. These he saw as simply economic evolving phases that humanity went through, at different times and in different places. This is why we at Blue revolution try and avoid being too censorious about what other cultures get up to…….they may, like Somalia, be locked into a warring tribal culture that it is hard to break away from, or some others may choose to retain practices of the past like our old friend Saudi Arabia, stoning women to death for sorcery.
For Marx, all aspects of culture including its faith was a way of ensuring society could provide the value necessary to survive. So, hating Capitalism irrationally and not understanding its contribution to humanities evolution is no more logical than liking and promoting tribalism or dust bowl Islamism in the twenty first century. Culture is either socially and economically coherent with the way economic value is produced or it is not. If it is not, then why not!
Capitalism whilst promoting inequality, elitism and status was morally “coherent”.
Marx would have struggled to understand the modern manifestation of capitalism in the form of the consumer “free market” and he would have failed to grasp “Secular Westernism”. Secular Westernism is the consumer free market which is based on contract, choice and consent, but it is now devoid of any social morality. For example, welfare creating a class of adult dependents who like capitalists rely on the value created by others, but who live in idleness, ignorance and squalor. The underclass is far from a reserve army of labour as Marx would have understood them.
Thus, in a secular western world sex becomes commoditised, as do parental relationships, religion, marriage and a whole host of human relationships which should be social and psychological in nature but are in effect “commercial”. This is not “Capitalism” (although there is profit to be had) this is “Secular Westernism” and only the Bods at Blue revolution can see that it is hatred of “secular westernism” which unites the disparate collection of people who fall under the banner “left-wing”.
The danger is that by misunderstanding the benefits of the economic principles at the heart of any Marxist period of history, of which capitalism and the free market are but the latest manifestations, it is impossible to understand the confused moral character and motivations of the groups that form the allegiances that the left makes with anti-capitalist groups and how coherent the left is or perhaps is not, at maintaining a moral purpose based on freedom, choice and consent. they don’t know their Marx from their elbow.
17.12.15 Empire and the EU; “history repeats itself the first as tragedy then as farce”.
As everyone from Jeremy Corbyn down will be aware the quote above is from Karl Marx. However, it is often a struggle to identify modern situations where the quote has both relevance and accuracy. Our recent experience of the EU and our experience of empire offer an opportunity to re consider the quote within a context that is clearly Marxian in scale.
Britain’s imperialism was an attempt, and a relatively successful one, to expand the capacity of British culture to create and amass additional economic value. The process was very simple, the British exported their British Christian social values and economic competence and in doing so, enhanced their ability to amass economic value from the colonies by taking advantage of mass labour and cheap resources. It’s called imperialism.
To maximise the chances of achieving this goal the British exported, in addition to their religion and language, their evolving use of capital investment as a way of achieving increasing amounts of economic growth. The project lasted about 300 years. It ended when the elite of the people the British had conquered, grew in skill and confidence and using the “system” they had inherited from their colonial masters, felt able and empowered to grow their capitalism independently from the “parent” culture. From a Marxist perspective this was at least in part a success; in many places sweeping away tribalism and creating a proletariat. This is a point about Marxism that Modern “Socialists” don’t seem to get, as they enthusiastically rub shoulders with tribal type leaders and those who would replace one feudal dynasty with another.
Anyway back to the main point; the issue holding these newly independent ex colonies back was that whilst the “elite” may have had the skills and ability to operate a social and commercial bureaucracy, at the grass roots the populations were not fit for such purpose and the colonial model run by the British which protected and managed all sections of society, soon became a broken system which failed to deliver a well organised mass labour movement creating economic value via willing ‘exploitation’.
The whole thing quickly deteriorated into the tragedy of dictatorship. But at least they got some experience as a society based on the economic freedom of labour and a modicum of gender equality that went with it. Unlike the North Africans and Arabs who were simply manipulated then “pumped” for their oil and as a result retained a culture of tribalism or feudal monarchy with little to mitigate it modern awfulness.
The British imperial model’s ability to fully deliver an enduring proletariat failed because it was too easy to abuse rather than economically exploit disorganised labour. The workers levels of social and economic competence meant they were powerless to withstand the abuse visited upon them by the psychotic tribal money grubbers who replaced the colonial rulers, many of the worst offenders being educated in Europe to expect status and power but having no time for capitalisms nuanced legally coherent approach. Brute force and ignorance did just as well.
European colonial powers; particularly the British, should not be too hard on themselves; they left the seeds of capitalism and from that auspicious start, correctly managed the benefits of any additional economic value created would have led to a socially more egalitarian society such as has happened in Britain since the end of the Second World War; ultimately giving rise to the possibility of a mixed economy or socialism as we call it.
Unfortunately, the seeds of capitalism were killed by the combination of tribalism and feudalism which was latent in those who took over from the European colonials. The bit the British left behind, the civil service, whilst strangling nascent capitalism by draining the economy of economic value give what value there was to the nation’s leaders in the form of personal wealth, and thus provided the perfect feudal bureaucracy allowing the continuation of autocratic political control.
So perversely the bureaucrats who are supposed to be funded by the “real economy”(workers, and wealth creators) became the means by which the economy redistributed whatever economic value there is to the elite and poverty and starvation ensued. Hence the tragedy in the above quote.
In Marxian terms the Colonial powers took tribal societies, created nascent capitalist economies which, when they left, slipped into feudalism. However, the countries lucky enough (yes, we did say lucky enough) to have had the British colonial experience had some positive legacy to hold on to, and not just a world language and railways.
Some European empires were simply rape of a weak country by a stronger one. The British Empire was no like this, it was a commercial empire; trading from within, not perfect by any means but offering freedom from tribalism, and severe gender oppression for those who could become “prolatarianised”. Those who by being forced to sell their labour became acquainted with the concepts of Contract, Choice and Consent, gained the basic building blocks of a modern ‘just’ society that has the possibility to re-establish itself, and start to recognise the rights of workers to have a greater share of the economic value they have created. We at Blue Revolution call Contract, Choice and Consent the trinity of any “just society”; without these no society can progress beyond feudalism.
Now for the EU……or farce …in the above quote.
Firstly, we must identify a few obvious differences with the Colonial model. The most obvious one is that in the modern west we create very little that could be called “value”. We create wealth. So, the notion that a redistributive model is needed in the sense that workers are being “exploited” doesn’t really apply. (we won’t go into it here, but value and wealth are not the same thing). The wealth we have, is created by government borrowing and spending, the welfare arrangements propping up consumer spending, as well arbitrary asset inflation such as houses and stock leading to consumer borrowing. We also have at the upper end of the wealth continuum the “fat cats” of the bureaucracy, and those who get rich providing consumer goods and services.
Another key element of the Blue Revolution is the need for any western society to understand how little value it creates; both social and economic; and be clear about where that little bit of value ends up. In the modern EU the farce is that just like in post-colonial Africa where the bureaucracy propped up a form of feudalism which impeded social progress, so in the EU, the bureaucracy impedes the progress of society beyond a form of state sanctioned bureaucratic debt redistributive socialism.
The problem is that with so little social or economic value being created and a population who neither understands or cares about the need to create value, when the bubble of wealth next bursts, we will have an even more dependent, entitled and under motivated population, not empowered or even willing to evolve socially and economically to start the process of value creation all over again. Like the victims of African colonialism, they will fall prone to being oppressed by whoever is able to gain control of the very limited value still available in the economy. That person or group will have to be ruthless but given the likely chaos at the time, that will be easy; look at how easy ISIS have found it. We should not be complacent about this.
So at the risk or repeating ourselves, in chaotic situations like another perhaps terminal economic meltdown when as a culture we have become enfeebled having grown used to spending our wealth but not creating any value upon which it is based, the only coherent reaction is to revert to control via legitimate and fanatical management of the population. A coherent method could be found in fascism, some form of oppressive socialism…Ok fascism, or even Islamofascism. Look what happens when there is a terrorist incident, for example Paris, how quickly free societies revert to social control.
Paradoxically therefore the EU, a value guzzling socialist bureaucracy of the first order, which self-promotes an elite and keeps people placid and pliable by manufacturing consumer wealth, as it simultaneously destroys social value through welfare dependence, immigration etc is a risk to us all.
The whole EU process is undermining the likelihood of the core western values of contract, choice and consent surviving the next great economic catastrophe. As with Colonial Africa it won’t be the bureaucrats and technocrats that suffer…..it will be the rest of us. Don’t let the current farce turn into another tragedy. You have been warned!
If you don’t know what you really want in life, think about what you might end up with in death; if society can provide it by then of course!
Just think about it.
22.12.15 Ntokozo Qwabe and Cecil Rhodes; a partnership forged by Capitalism-regrettably for him!
Ntokozo Qwabe has expressed the view that the statue of the long dead patron of his Oxford scholarship should be removed as Cecil Rhodes was an imperialist and “looted Africa”. At A Blue Revolution we feel this is a topical story having appeared a day or two after our post on Tragedy and Farce. Ntokozo Qwabe’s view exemplifies the well-intentioned but misplaced conflation of political correctness, moral relativism and anti-imperialism which has dominated the debate about Empire for far too long.
Of course, Empire was “problematic” but not in the way imagined. When the likes of Rhodes and others took charge of parts of Africa, they saw the potential to spread Christianity and without being aware of it to proletarianize those who could be taken out of the tribe and put in workplace. With slavery abolished and tribalism in decline these proletarianized workers contracted as “free” labour, had choice about who they worked for and consented to remain with their employer having in theory at least the chance to leave if they wished to. Now cries will go up that this was exploitation on a grand scale. We agree it is exploitation but disagree it was wrong if the result is greater freedom for all eventually.
What Rhodes and others did was replace the poverty brutality and overt sexual discrimination of tribal life, it’s uncertainty and ritualistic practices and allowed modern values and agricultural techniques to generate greater economic value in Africa than the indigenous population could hope to have created by repeating ancient rituals and tribal superstitions. Like we always say, life is about value; how you create it, how much of it you have, who controls it, and what you do with it. Admittedly the tribal social values were pushed aside, the certainty of gender based social roles dispensed with as women were offered a degree of liberation. So, with more flexibility of labour, Empire was able to generate much greater value upon which there was greater wealth to distribute. There was more certainty, as science replaced superstition. The world of western science had started to replace world of tribal ritualism.
Now Ntokozo Qwabe makes a couple of points which whilst perhaps true, typify the limited and constrained nature of the debate. Firstly, the value taken, as he says the “resources and labour of my people” were acquired by the Empire builders but they, in exchange, liberated people from what by modern standards would be the horror of tribalism. Where this happened, it took women away from the savagery of FGM and assisted people in general to create better lives for themselves. Tribalism whether in Afghanistan or Africa is a way of life that no longer needs to exist; but where it does, lives are impoverished superstitious, obsessive and short and women’s lives often marred by institutional violence and discrimination.
The other point Ntokozo Qwabe makes is to claim that Rhodes saw Anglo Saxon culture as superior to African culture. Well if life is about creating value the Anglo- Saxon model was greatly superior to that practiced within tribal societies. The amount of value created by Capitalism allowed wealth for the empire builders (right or wrong) but also allowed some of it to better the lives of the indigenous Africans. To Claim this is racist is to miss the point. Rhodes and others were almost forced to conflate culture and race. It’s how it was for them; black people lived in ineffective tribal groups; westerners had the advantage of scientific methods to drive up value and create a way of life that reduced fear and uncertainty for all. And moreover, Marx would have agreed with Rhodes rather than Ntokozo Qwabe.
If we imagine that the ancient Egyptians had arrived in east Anglia in the UK in say 3000 BC, they would have taken the view that the tribal groups there were ineffective at providing high levels of value allowing a structured and secure way of life for all.
The Egyptians too may have made an association between skin colour and the British tribes shortcomings compared to themselves, as without doubt the Egyptians along with the Samarians were able to establish a form of feudalism whilst many cultures were still tribal. They may like the Romans much later have seen Britain as a country of savages.
Ntokozo Qwabe is benefitting from the economic system that has liberated him and could go further and liberate his continent from separatism, tribalism fear and war. It does not help the process of positive change when people criticize and attempt to destroy capitalism in Africa (and other places) and expect the result to be “socialism”. Socialism only comes through the birth canal of capitalism and through no other birth canal.
This move to socialism without passing through a capitalist phase never happens…. it can’t until people understand the concepts of contract, choice and consent (usually by being part of a capitalist economy at some point). In the absence of this understanding and full acceptance of Contract Choice and Consent plus a value generating economy society will only ever slide back to either tribalism or as we said earlier this week, with the help of an imperial civil service, feudalism can replace a failed or not yet fully established capitalism. The failure of ‘over ripe’ Capitalism in Europe in the 1920’s gave rise to a form of “technological feudalism” called fascism. Immature capitalism in Russia gave us Leninist-Stalinism.
In Africa and the Middle East today we have in too many places collapsing feudal societies and their relentless slide into tribalism. In Syria feudalism is sliding into tribalism and in Western inner cities, crime empires are, and always have mirrored feudalism but with turf wars over drugs and prostitution even inner-city gangs are adopting tribal values. The western elite don’t get this and the so-called revolutionaries like Russel Brand don’t seem to grasp it either. The moral practices of these nations or inner-city groups reflect the economic reality that they operate within be that tribal, feudal or free market.
Capitalism has failed its global mission but has left a slightly more permanent imprint in the west with its ‘market-based economy’ founded on contract choice and consent. Unfortunately, the failing market-based society (as opposed to market-based economy) undermines it and leads to corrosive “secular westernism”. The danger is that by criticising the bourgeois wealth and liberty creators of the nineteenth century Ntokozo Qwabe simply undermines the system that may still liberate the non-westernised world but with people like him the west is not out of the danger zone yet.
29.12.15 Acceptance of all faiths and none: How far is this determined by economics?
Reference has been made to the British being accepting of all faiths and none; a fact which we at Blue Revolution whole heartedly endorse. No country apart perhaps for the United States has done more to welcome and integrate those of other faiths than the British but there is another side to this good news story. This accommodation has more recently been made at the expense of our Christian heritage as much as because of it.
in the past British willingness to accommodate all faiths was largely due to Britain’s capacity to absorb labour due in large measure to its thriving capitalist economy; the ethic of which was to take people who had productive capacity and turn them into workers or as Marx would describe them the proletariat. The most ambitious of these used the opportunity of freedom underpinned by contract, choice and consent to carve themselves a niche within the system that began by employing them.
So far so good; Christianity in the form of Britain’s Protestantism driving a well-tuned economic machine which grew with enough vigour to allow immigrants to be absorbed painlessly into the economy and thence into society. The “morality” of the system was driven by the needs of the economy, so all had to yield something of their culture to the demands of the economy but as within the United States there was scope to practice the old cultures too in what was described as a social ‘melting pot’.
The UK’s post war settlement created a new “socialist” environment which saw the state owning and running industries and the empowerment of the working classes which resulted in a model for wealth redistribution with the “state” acting as the conduit for re allocation of wealth from business to the workers. The idea that we have rowed back from “socialism” is true only in the sense that today Britain has had to abandon re allocating capitalist wealth which was created by capitalism’s workers and now re distribute government debt to the taxpayers having created an army of state employees and a growing army of the welfare and health care dependent.
The upshot of this “progress” is that Christianity has been undermined by the state and this has fed what we call “secular westernism”; the pursuit of personal stimulation and self-advancement and the abandonment of personal and collective responsibility to the state. The Post war settlement only worked when the value upon which the wealth was created and distributed was created by an army of workers rather than by a handful of financial institutions.
Welfare once shorn of its legitimising Christian influence (to get individuals back to productive independence) became the progenitor of a new class of non-worker who simply settled down to collect benefits and live an aimless life of unemployment and poor health. This is where the relevance of our title comes in as into the ranks of what is colloquially known as the ‘underclass’, comes a whole class of immigrants who are also able to avoid the demands of contracted employment and the personal growth that goes with it. Contracted employment is an activity that forges a deep commitment to “freedom” based on Contract, Choice and Consent. Some settle into an angry aimlessness and a state subsidised obsession with faith as the end goal of life as is clearly spelt out in various Hadiths of the Muslim faith.
As we settle into secular western ambivalence Christianity has given up being little more than a cheerleader for the post war settlement in the UK. This coupled to the economic change that economic value produced by workers is now eclipsed by dependence on debt and welfare based consumption offers the newly arrived and more traditional faiths the opportunity to try and stop our apparently relentless decline into ‘ignorance of faith and moral depravity. In Belgium and France, we see much more worrying evidence of this process than we see in the UK. There is no point in welcoming people and then allowing them to settle down to generous welfare, subsidized to stay out of step with what freedom means to people of the west.
So, Britain has been a tolerant country and has a proud tradition of integrating migrants. The last thirty years may through welfare, the decline in the role of Christianity and the sheer number of migrants who have no heritage of freedom based on contract, choice and consent, undermine what can still, just about, be classed as Britain’s proud claim.
01.01.16 Reflections on 2015 from Blue Revolution.
It has been in too many ways a worrying year for tolerance and acceptance of all faiths and none. At the beginning of 2015 we were shocked by the murder of staff at Charlie Hebdo with too many random acts of terror littered in between, culminating in the Paris shootings. Western countries and we include the Russians in this, are now exposed to terror for trying to tackle the horror of ISIS. Yet whilst the west tries to tackle ISIS it continues to turn a blind eye to similar regimes that, whilst seemingly “civilised” by virtue to being trading nations are really autocratic bureaucracies and are as intolerant and brutal as the criminals of ISIS. By this we mean Saudi Arabia and Gulf States
To bring some coherence to this conflicted situation , the west needs to identify a coherent narrative which leads and inspires the world and makes a clear demarcation between the “values” of the west up to and including freedom and those of other cultures which whilst promoted by legitimate governments, operate to separate and discriminate on the basis of faith, sex, gender and sexuality.
The problem with creating a coherent western narrative is that the west has a whole load of problems which undermine any attempt to credibly achieve moral equivalence with more rule bound and brutal cultures.
The Sultan of Brunei’s restrictions on Muslims celebrating Christmas is probably as much about what Christmas has come to represent in the west as it is to simple religious chauvinism. The challenge for the west is to try and achieve a culture which promotes “freedom” based on the capitalist/Christian concepts of Contract, Choice and Consent, whilst reigning in the unintended consequences of lifestyles characterised by industrial scale illegitimate birth, divorce, adultery, pornography etc. We at Blue Revolution are not concerned with a person’s sexuality any more than we are with gender or sex (other than to promote equality and fair treatment for females) but we are concerned by social decay and the proliferation of unsustainable lifestyles of all types. We would argue that Darwinian theory rejects any social system that promotes self-interest at the expense of the family, the community and wider society.
The situation the west has to tackle we call “secular westernism”. It is the modern culture of pursuing self-interest based not on wealth from productive activity (creating social and economic value) but on “wealth” created through consumerism, government spending and welfare.
The free market is amoral and has been used by many who are immoral to create wealth for themselves at the expense of the rest of us our children and the planet. These immoral wealth creators undermine social values and bring about a slow social deterioration which requires government intervention to mitigate its effects; more welfare and healthcare! This process also undermines any attempt to be ecological as more housing and consumption is the outcome. In fact, as in the UK today economic “growth” is in too many ways a vicious cycle; welfare funded social decay masquerading as sound economic stewardship. It’s complex but think about it.
As far as we at Blue Revolution are concerned therefore the arguments of the so- called ‘left elite’ are incoherent because the adherents of “welfarism” fail to recognise the full corrosive nature of the social decay created in their name. They also fail to understand the life limiting effects of welfare on the individuals trapped on welfare. Additionally, the left also fetishizes the need for more state intervention to correct the declining social reality welfare creates. Hence the growing epidemic in mental health problems. We believe in welfare but not if it dulls resilience and self-reliance and promotes the social annihilation of the family.
So just as in a Dyson vacuum cleaner there is more than one vortex’s operating simultaneously; the “growth through social decay” vortex and the necessary “growth of “good” government” to sort out the mess. Neither is sustainable and neither are the solution to the west’s problems. Accepting this is the challenge for the west in 2016 and beyond. The people, not the government need to act and to understand the nature of the wests problems and then by becoming “Blue Revolutionaries” do something on a personal level to contribute to the wests economic and social recovery.
People should use their vote to support governments who want to row back a little from the march towards the kind of elite big state socialism of the last seventy years. Big state socialism is elitist and unfair the EU arguably being by far the greatest exemplar. Another example this time of big state elitism is the farce of the Paris agreement where the “public” wanted to make no changes to their lifestyle so left it to governments to negotiate what these would be but governments have no public legitimacy to do this so all agreed to collectively hand wring on behalf of their populations.
In respect of other cultures with perhaps extreme Islam (be it in Saudi Arabia, or Iran) at the most intractable end, they need to accept that the west struggles to understand the causes of its problems and does not deliberately try to promote unsustainable lifestyles that intelligent people of all faiths and none would find it difficult to encourage such as casual sex, and intergenerational welfare dependence.
The west just lacks understanding and a coherent response to the problems its “market-based economy” has created. The non-western countries need to work with the west to stop the terrorism that is intended to destroy the west and perhaps show some understanding that with the wests freedom comes the contract, choice and consent and thus allows individuals to fail and slide into immorality.
Finally, the review of 2015 suggests to us that if we could promote, as the basis of our narrative to the world, Contract, Choice and Consent then the west may be able to come to peaceful and constructive accommodation with non-western regimes. These regimes may wish to recognise that with our cultural components in place the future for their citizens are less likely to be compromised by the growing demand for freedom leading to repression and civil war.
Hopefully this may happen without the decline into social problems which has characterised the wests early adoption of freedom as a way of managing society.
Happy new year.
04.01.16 Compare Saudi Arabia and Iran to observe the different economic factors which should be used to understand ISIS
Claims that ISIS are beaten or are on the back foot and are, losing territory are largely irrelevant to the overall life span of this disagreeable group of thugs.
It is unclear how ISIS are funded or indeed how they are trying to manage the complex business of winning hearts and minds, so they achieve a level of legitimacy required of any state. In the absence of wide scale legitimacy ISIS are not a state they are a group of people who have taken over parts of a state and are now systematically destroying it by pursuing their seventh century dust bowl interpretation of Islam through terror and their brand of religiously sanctioned brutality. They will, as a result of their economic illiteracy, fail hence the reason they threaten to take their terror abroad. We at Blue Revolution are economic determinists; If there is no coherent economy for ISIS there is no state and no coherent society.
Saudi Arabia is an interesting country to compare with ISIS; Saudi Arabia is a wholly functioning state with a standard array of State attributes for example Defence, Education, Health and Justice Systems. However Saudi Arabia is a country that holds that harsh punishments including death by public beheading are a legitimate way of dealing with the consequences of an individual’s personal weakness, as well as for real crime such as murder.
The whole structure of government and the Saudi nation is paid for by oil that is simply pumped out of the ground and sold to an oil guzzling west. This is an under considered fact about Saudi Arabia; it is nothing without oil. ISIS are nothing full stop. For too many other North African nations “Tourism” is almost a proxy for oil and just as precarious in the long term too. The whole region is therefore at risk of long term economic and societal failure. Particularly if Islam returns to more puritanical regimes elsewhere in the Muslim world.
The message therefore is that unless one has an economic vision and one which is coherent with the needs of the global labour and technology markets (competing with nations like China and India Europe and the US) one cannot optimistically call ones state a “State” with a long term future. If one relies on just one natural commodity one is in a precarious state. The vulnerability of Saudi Arabia once the oil runs out, can’t be lost on the Saudi princes and may explain the regional hostility to Saudi Arabian monarchy and some recent executions.
Iran is in many ways no less intractable on punishment under Sharia law than is Saudi Arabia. The execution of gay men is commonplace. However, they are a country more embedded within the global family of nations from the perspective of aspiration, technology, and a view that their economy needs talent and education to achieve its economic objectives. With this foundation, the way Iran does business makes it more compatible with the west. This may seem odd as the west’s relationship with Saudi is recognised as that of an ally, whereas until recently Iran was classed as an enemy. Taken over a span of many decades however the consequences of picking attractive but incompatible allies (particularly if they have oil) resembles that of choosing attractive incompatible partners; the relationship will be profitable for as long as you can pretend you have something in common.
07.01.16 The Labour Party: A party for women. Oh yeah!
We at Blue Revolution are going to get unusually controversial because we going to explore the claim made by two Labour party activists, one an MP that the Labour Party is the party for women. No party in our opinion can really claim to be the party for women or indeed a party for ordinary men. The country is too diverse to enable this claim to make any sense. Women like men have a variety of aspirations and expectations that may be positively influenced by the tax and benefits system or they may not. Similarly, the nature of the economy dictates terms too, as does the culture based upon it. All this is positively received or frustratingly runs counter to the expectations of individuals or indeed their best interests
What these Labour party spokes women said was “promoting the interests of women” was little more than the self-defeating consequences of social engineering, that started out in earnest under Blair’s “New Labour”.
The modern, state regulated mixed economic system, present in most advanced western economies seems to us to financially advantage a certain type of middle class individual who benefits from either a well remunerated government job, or a well paid jobs in industries that rely on that Wizard of Oz commodity “consumer confidence”; banking for example. So, if we park these people to one side, we can look at the rest of society and look at how our “social Engineered” society has evolved since let’s say the 1990’s and how it has affected people, but in particular, women.
For far too many house price inflation and debt is a substitute for real value-based earnings. House price inflation coupled to a weakening of the Christian marital contract of “for richer or poorer” has resulted in many couples breaking up. Just when the “richer or poorer” clause should have come into its own too many couples discover they have a nice little nest egg within which they sit uncomfortably together, stressed out with children and no longer fired up with our modern interpretation of love; namely lust, so they leverage and part.
Marriages break down, children are separated from parents usually men, and women (and men) go off in search of “love”. The escalating rate of sexual abuse and domestic violence reflects this “sociological” change. As does the unrelenting increase in the number of “single mums”; too many of whom are on benefits and have “boyfriends” and can’t help bringing up children with an array of emotional problems or exposure to sexual abuse but may also be committing various types of benefit fraud.
We must not forget though that this “sociological phenomenon” has been socially engineered, because it drives consumerism, and drives the housing market and makes people feel “good about themselves”; or it is assumed it does it.
We don’t have numbers but in the UK the volume of “reconstituted families” and single parent families is something the “system” does not record. It would be too morally embarrassing to admit the numbers and that outside of the “state employment sector” the next biggest driver of economic consumer confidence is probably welfare, with its blend of “in” and “out” of work benefits delivered to a hotchpotch of fluid family units.
Now the balance sheet! By treating women as though they as a vulnerable sex as much prone to ‘unwanted’ pregnancy as their Victorian forbears we undermine their moral capacity and we do it with welfare. Unlike the Victorian who had to show moral restraint to avoid unwanted pregnancy, the modern female (and male) must show little if any restraint. This diminishes for the women the vast array of non- biological sex-based opportunities that may be available for her. For the modern woman sex is casual and sadly a social expectation. For those of faith or of a Darwinian persuasion, this leads to casual procreation; not the pursuit of social improvement but a race into the evolutionary grave yard.
Into this environment (and I’m not talking about the state employed or well remunerated private school educated middle classes) children are exposed to uncertainty and loss of dads, grandparents, homes, friends etc. It creates a range of personality problems for young people that lead to promiscuity or violence and require more of the soothing balm of state intervention, health services and welfare to mitigate its harsher side effects. The demand for better mental health provision is all the evidence we need that we are getting something wrong.
It is the girls who lose out the most in the “socially engineered” but inhumane system. Boys expecting, nay demanding sex and not just pleasurable sex love as Karl Marx called it. Boys who are insecure, unreliable and porn exposed are by and large an unappealing catch, so relationships last just long enough to pop out the next clutch of welfare babies.
This is a society without its Christian anchor points, a society that promotes the very characteristics that Faith and civilisation have been trying to overcome since the beginning of time; namely fear, insecurity and uncertainty. Incidentally Sharia law is seen by a growing number of men and women as the antidote to what we have described above. Sharia law would solve the problem and its advocates know this, but at what cost freedom and what cost to women?
Finally, with the breakdown of the family and the decline of choice for too many women to achieve more than their “traditional” role as mothers, but without the traditional security of a loving family to help them, the final humiliation for women comes in old age. With no independent wealth derived from a life-time of work and saving, and with a malfunctioning or estranged family, they slide into old age, too often alone, but “managed” by the state, the State acting, as in their early life, as a proxy the family.
This is an unintended nightmare and parody of the post war settlement, and its then proud boast; the state offering support “from cradle to grave”.
So, when the Labour Party wants to claim to be the party of women we ask; how so?
09.01.16 The EU reaping the whirlwind of naive policy on immigration.
The immigration situation in Europe is unavoidable. The Arab States and North Africa have been kept in a state of perpetual adolescence by the British, United States and European elite as to their advanced economies took advantage of these politically under-developed Nations and could make a living simply providing oil or cheap holidays in the sun. Now due to economic under development and Western foreign and economic policy wars people are forced to migrate from nations on the slide back to tribalism.
The complex nature of Capitalism with its free but unequal relationships and core of Protestant Christian theology (Which we at Blue Revolution maintain gave rise to the economic trinity of Contract, Choice and Consent) drove a period of productive growth and economic expansion that continues to provide enormous wealth for those fortunate enough to be on the right side of the debt based twenty first century economic equation. Unfortunately, as peddlers of essentially one product Arab and North Africans are on the wrong side of this equation.
What European as opposed to British “Capitalism” has failed to do is leave a capitalist legacy south of the Mediterranean Sea. Unlike the European Empires the British left proto “Capitalism” a legacy which whilst not perfect and exposed too often to the corruption of dictators has seen many African nations withstand the inevitable slide back into tribalism. Tribalism as we have said before is a form of social order that is rule based and discriminates against others and women.
However we see tribalism returning all over the world in the same way we observe authoritarianism consolidating or even re-emerging or in the case of Iraq being destroyed by a naïve US/UK Foreign policy that believed it could impose “democracy” on a country that had a heritage of submission both to God and to the secular state.
When you destroy authoritarianism as in Iraq you get tribalism and the desire to fight until a city resembles one of those pop-up car parks you see in modern city centres before the developers move in do the final pulverising. To think the UK and US considered going after Assad and even flirted with the idea of bombing Iran is absolutely frightening. These policies would have ushered in Armageddon, not with nuclear weapons but with a slow relentless guerrilla war, destruction of the west from within.
So, what do we at Blue Revolution consider to be the answer to what is clearly the worrying corrosion of advanced western values by gangs of uninvited guests fleeing countries destroyed by a combination of tribalism and western hubris?
Firstly we need to understand that western culture is not about “democracy” per se. “Democracy” and “Freedom” are by products of Contract, Choice and Consent and the only way you get these dispensed on a mass scale is through the development of a capitalist economy…Sorry all you lefties but go and read your Marx again…….. and properly this time! So, we need to get our “guests” into the habit of working for their wages and to stop the subsidisation of idleness through welfare. Welfare for westerners is bad enough (see previous posts) but for people whose politics is theological and who’s theology goes little further than worshipping God, welfare turns them quickly towards thoughts of the creation of a European Caliphate.
We misunderstand this essential point at our peril, just look at Copenhagen and other European cities and tell us that we are really looking after the interests of western women by allowing men to systematically abuse them driving them through fear back into the home and off the streets or only to venture out accompanied or with a male relative; sound familiar?
Secondly, we need to get the technocrats who run Europe to understand that money invested in jobs for migrants now they are here, is money well spent. The devil makes work for idle hands. We also need to recognise that the likelihood of any Arab or North African nation accepting “Freedom” based on Contract, Choice and Consent is unlikely within at least three lifetimes and containing the tribal impulse may need some form of slowly evolving feudal structure until “enlightenment” descends.
The EU could do this in North Africa and leave EU countries alone to get on with running themselves. We don’t need the EU, but North Africa does. Spending the EU levy to keep people in their own country and working to build their own “free” society would be money well spent.
The EU should be working with Assad and others and developing the Capitalist economy in the North African region as well as helping Africa to become the world’s breadbasket by removing barriers to trade. Not doing these things undermines Europe morally as well as economically and socially. The left will object but again go back to Marx and read him properly this time.
Finally, we must accept we have been wrong over the last 80 years in respect of our policy towards the countries now devolving into chaos. And yet we don’t change tack. We have the Saudi’s, another “infantilised” nation with their oil wealth. Let us not remain silent about them, they may be our neighbour now, but they are not our neighbour out of choice more necessity. Who else can buy their oil and sell them state of the art weaponry?
Let us also look at ourselves. “Secular Westernism” is a grotesque development of free market capitalism that has evolved because the west has lost its appetite for Christian moral behaviour. If we want to have morality springing from within each of us, rather that imposed from outside, we need to get a grip on the tendency of the market to commodify everything including sex and human relationships. Perhaps this is the biggest challenge for the west and will determine whether we succeed, or we fail to move the world towards a culture recognised globally as “good” as opposed to various types of bad.
16.01.16 David Cameron suggests lessons in family life and the EU lessons in how to treat women AIMED AT MIGRANT MEN. Both are missing the point.
David Cameron believes that the lamentable state of family life for many children in the UK can be addressed by “lessons” in how to be a family.
The EU equally baffled by what to do about the situation they now find themselves in with migrants roaming the street in search of single women who according their simple Islamic culture are immodest and are therefore offering themselves for sex by their “immodesty”, offer a similar solution.
Neither really hit the point; both are a bureaucratic response that skims the psychological surface of the problem. Here at a Blue Revolution with our collection of divorces, failed relationships and reconstituted families have an alternative analysis but as with all revolutions the solution is neither easy or without pain.
The issue of attitudes towards family life and the way migrants treat women is fundamental to the values of the individual. It is a bit like the attitude towards debt. You know how much forbearance you have towards acquiring debt; some totally opposed to it, others rack it up and then some more. Having ‘lessons in debt’ would achieve little unless there was some “pain” that resulted from the levels of debt acquired; mere lessons would quickly be forgotten when outside of the classroom and the gains and losses could be rationalised and the conclusion reached that justified ones attitude.
Shifting social attitudes is always problematic and over thousands of years attitudes are shaped by the interplay of economic, religious and social factors. In simple societies attitude shifts are often met with a violent response until over time the economic logic of the change is apparent. And so, it is with “family life” and “attitudes towards women”. We have two different problems here, but we have one single solution. The solution is “exposure to moral hazard”.
This is how we at abluerelovution.com we believe it should work. Firstly, the financing of family life is returned to the employment market as opposed to being state subsidized irrespective of the “competence” of the parents. An economically “competent” couple who manage their finances competently (whatever that looks like as long as it is legal) can offer competent parenting. The current arrangement where “welfare” babies are born to the unemployable and often criminal are a social aberration that will undermine the strength and vitality of our economy and therefore our future.
We bang on about CONTRACT, CHOCE and CONSENT as the building blocks of a free democratic society and for this to be preserved, democracy needs to have new generations of those who have an embedded sense of Contract, Choice and Consent. This is where bureaucratic Socialism goes blindingly wrong, by compromising the three “C’s” the state ultimately undermines democracy.
So if your “welfare” baby is born the parents should be given activity to do; environmental work for example, that enables them to pay for the baby, a single parent will need to find a job to support themselves and in the absence of this the baby will be put up for “economic” adoption. Economic adopters are People who adopt but don’t cut the “birth parent” out the equation and get some subsidy from the “birth parent” and state. Keeping these “birth” people on board is important as they are the sad counterpart to the concept of full moral responsibility. Over time the attitude towards parenting will shift. Parenting will be it should be (and is by some) a very responsible socially and economically important job rather than is increasingly the case the product of a morally ambiguous “money shot” from two people who have entitlement and adolescence as their defining characteristic.
Some will argue that this approach undermines women’s rights, but we say undermining a woman’s economic role by subsidising her biological role is just as undermining and skews the concept of choice.
Finally, our migrants. Work, Work and more Work. No one should simply arrive uninvited and sit around watching TV and working themselves into an adolescent froth about the absence of tribal or authoritarian “morality”. Give them all jobs, even made up jobs doing environmental work. Also give them a warm safe place in a hostel and tell them to work (i.e. paid private sector employment) their way out of it or go home, when home is safe enough for them to go. To Mr Cameron and colleagues in the EU economics we say this the answer to your issues, economics on a very personal level.
19.01.16 The Lefts hatred of capitalism is as irrational as the fetishizing of socialism. Both are unsafe in this slippery world.
Russell Brand once spoke on the subject of capitalism and identified some issues….. let us try and capture his drift:
” People are becoming hostile towards a western socio political and economic hegemony wot systematically undermines freedom and alienates the masses, creatin anger and alienation wot reflects the malfunctioning of the bankrupt prevailing military industrial system through the disillusioned antipathy of the massed ranks of workers who’s consciences must be raised by a vanguard of revolutionary leaders who highlight the exploitation of the masses and expose the criminal activities of the prevailing elite. Wot needs to change is that the mass energy of the exploited should be turned to thoughts of overthrowing this criminally obtuse system of elite self preservation……..
Well Ok he might not have said this exactly but it is the sort of pretentious half- baked Marxian waffle he would have said….or, so we at A Blue Revolution think anyway. But whilst Brand had a point, his analysis was woefully short of the mark and his solutions non-existent. But as we say….he had a point, many people have a sense that Capitalism or rather its modern manifestation “the free market” is going a little haywire and with that other things suffer too like democracy, but what exactly is the problem and is the solution more socialism?
Historically the role of Capitalism has been to free people from the bondage of servitude within feudal structures in the same way that the servitude within feudalism freed people from the horror and starvation and uncertainty of tribalism. Capitalism without doubt has its problems but the biggest one is that its early manifestations were essentially elitist in character but not in the most obvious way.
The elite feudal overlord exploited his tied workers who were bonded and essentially the property of the overlord and his land. In exchange for this arrangement the tied worker delivered his labour unwaged to those who were above him in rank and title.
Capitalism achieved the task of freeing the tied worker; creating the waged “employee” who whilst free to sell his labour was also “free” to starve. The illusion created was that at this level capitalism was no different from “feudalism”. But of course, in the case of the worker it was. The worker might have been horrified by things like industrialising agriculture and the mind-numbing monotony of the factory system but unlike the feudal worker he could travel freely, move up the social rankings and achieve wealth by dint of his own brain power and effort. Feudalism had few opportunities like this. There were some notable exceptions to this general rule; Henry VIII’s treasurer Cromwell was low born…but Capitalism opened the flood gates to this process of personal improvement. It took centuries though.
Where capitalism left a mark, usually where the British empire left its imprint outside Europe, people became workers, not slaves or feudal subjects. Capitalism is what Capitalism does. So, in terms of this process alone people became “free”. Capitalism liberated people and has liberated women, admittedly too slowly but it is the capitalist system driving social change that has brought about liberation, it is sadly not the other way around. The proto fascism of female cultural subjugation was in large measure brought under control by capitalism according “worker” status to women, slowly making the woman a “factor of production” as opposed to subordinated wife or home bound mother. This process of liberating women from biologically determined roles has now been stalled by post war “socialism” and the welfare trap within the western free market system. More of this later.
Capitalism can only be capitalism when certain pre cursors are present and these emerged about three hundred years ago. These are what we at a Blue Revolution call the three C’s, the essential precursors to Capitalism; Contract, Choice and Consent. It was with these three factors in place that Capitalism began to shift ordinary people away from servitude towards, we admit, a rather miserable freedom. But freedom it was and freedom it remains.
However, the main obstacle to workers liberation and one of the two the main and significant “feudal” throw backs within the capitalist system was that the boss simply replaced the feudal overlord. Workers might be free, but they were still exploited. They got some of what they produced back in the form of wages but the largest chunk of value they created went to the capitalist who acquired and accumulated this value giving rise to the nineteenth century socialists claim that “all property is theft”. The other throwback to feudalism is that the whole system was hierarchical in character. Ranks of managers below the boss, reflected the rank structures of feudalism and allotting a place for all within a class system.
But Capitalism had to happen, without it, people would not have been liberated. without it, Britain’s Jeremy Corbyn would not be able to try to arouse the ire of the free “workers”. He would have been slain for treason. Had it not been for Capitalism, large parts of the world would be excluded from an economic family that can trade on equal terms with trust borne of the freedom allowed by Contract, Choice and Consent. So, when we hear the left criticizing capitalism and demanding its overthrow, we ask “what bits of it do you want to overthrow?” because some of it should be kept in the interests of freedom and progress. Chucking out contract, choice and consent to deal with ‘unfairness’ using an elite bourgeois parliament won’t do it at all. It will make matters worse.
Therefore, for the traditional left-wing we believe this question is a little problematic as the “quote” from comrade Brand we hope illustrates. You simply can’t overthrow an old system without dragging bits of it into your new system. The existence of hierarchy being the bit of the old system dragged into Capitalism with the ever- present threat of its rebirth at any given moment of crisis.
The return to authoritarianism in Europe in the 1930’s arose from the collapse of capitalism in countries which were still feudal in character. The slide back into tribalism in the modern middle east due to the collapse of their authoritarian systems; no culture of Contract, Choice and Consent to spur an emerging capitalism so as to create the liberation and freedom the west enjoys (and as our 7 deadly sins suggest we abuse).
So, there is a defence of capitalism! A system that gave freedom but with a financial cost to the worker. What of the lefts fetishizing of Socialism and how dangerous is this?
Socialism would not and could not have happened without the Capitalist system; a point all too often lost by the traditional left wing. The economic model that evolves into socialism has to be based on two of that capitalist systems key features; one is the creation of value on the kind of industrial scale that can only be delivered by capitalism, and secondly to avoid the slide into fascism there must be a genuine observance of Contract, Choice and Consent.
All too often we hear the left-wing criticising capitalism whilst offering an alternative which lacks enough of the four components of capitalism namely worker created social and economic value, contract choice and consent to make the new socialist offering both viable financially and fair. The left talks about “ending austerity” without recognising that if your economy lacks the productive capacity to create value, you have nothing of value to re distribute. The usual response is that the government can borrow or nationalise the banks and just about everything else. State borrowing however is unfair as it places the greatest burden for repayment onto the poorest and drives the cost of borrowing up too; hardly Robin Hood. Nationalisation creates a perverse parallel universe in which the benign State becomes the malign capitalist owner of the means of production. Along with other nationalised industries the whole economy slowly becomes a calcified job creation scheme producing nothing that people want other than unproductive government jobs. Socialism is basically a wealth redistributive arrangement. It took a while but in Europe we have learnt that governments do not make good capitalists. In the past these government capitalists created too little economic value. Look at Russia in the 1950s to 1990s the economy raced to the bottom from its high point in the 1930s. Far from “all property being theft” “all property becomes debt”……exactly as it is now and we in the UK are could not cope with more, no really we could not.
Once the economy is under the control of the government there is a massive reduction is the amount of Choice, and Consent there is around and indeed the whole “free” basis upon which the capitalist system operates becomes eroded. Rights diminish and the system run by technocrats or so-called experts rather than the people, guide the social and moral agenda. Therefore, lovers of totalitarian ideas from fascists to Jihadists love socialism and these groups hatred of capitalism is why socialists love them back.
Now arguably when the left talk about economic reform or identify problems with the current economic model they may have moved away from full on nationalisation. But within socialism the belief that governments know best prevails and limits progress. This desire to put government in control is the slippery path from capitalism to socialism as bureaucratic authoritarianism; top down, lacking progress, and prone to collusion, corruption and coercion. The perfect cocktail to undermine freedom anyone could possibly come up with.
In this slippery world of Sepp Blatters’ and corrupt regimes, to lose sight of Contract, Choice and Consent and replace them with more incompetent government and a bankrupt redistributive economic model is folly indeed.
And finally the EU is precisely the kind of “government” that is unproductive and bureaucratic, run by technocrats and therefore should be seen for what it is a fanciful 20th century form of bureaucratic authoritarianism. Not progressive at all really……not now.
So Russell Brand had a point and if you are still with us, you will recognise that the answer to his problem is not to overthrow all that is capitalism or to replace it with all that is socialism. The answer is a Blue Collar Blue revolution.
21.01.16 The life of economic value. Where does it end up?
In the west some of us delight in the world of the celebrity; we love the antics of Paris this or Justin that and the world of the acting and celebrity profession somehow adds glamour and gravitas to the view that the world is so unfair and poor people need glittery advocates to promote their interests; at no actual cost to the “profession” itself of course. The acting profession and the Z listers who clutter up the day time TV slots and magazine racks have become good at skimming off a hefty chunk of what little economic value the western world creates. The mechanism involves magazines, films and television as well as the new trend for you You Tube celebs offering advice on all things trivial.
There is clearly nothing wrong with the entertainment profession; the western world has enjoyed poetry, song and theatre for centuries, and now enjoys Film, TV and Radio. However when one considers that the business of creating value is typically down to those who actually toil in fields and factories with the bankers (services nor speculation) and some of the high export earning celebs (Beatles etc) coming up the rear with foreign earnings (Jeremy Clarkson!) it is clear the vast majority of those celebs who make wealth out of the economic system we call the “free market” are simply acquiring the spoils of other peoples debt, welfare and welfare supported earnings, for little of any discernable value to the individuals concerned. The question is this; is this justified?
Well whether it is justified depends on your vantage point in respect of wealth and how it is created and then acquired. If as many do, one takes the view that the way wealth is created and is acquired does not matter “one is relaxed about wealth” as one new labour stalwart commented, then the fact that the poorest members of the community are wasting money on frivolous rubbish will be of little concern as long as someone is getting wealthy. If however one takes the view that the stewardship of what ever income or wealth one has (whether it is from earnings or welfare) is very important if one is, as one should be, serious about providing for ones family, one should be saddened about the celebrity culture in the west and the waste that goes with it.
So if the likes of Paris that and Justin this start to wonder about the “global hegemony” they needs to look no further than their excessive earnings, acquired largely at the expense of the poor and misguided, to see how they could do their bit to help to sort out the West’s social and economic malaise; they could stop talking stop preening and get a real job.
30.01.16 Does the world need Britain more than Britain needs the EU.
The battle for the votes of the British people in their much fought for referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU is beginning to take shape. It promises to be an emotional campaign full of the usual fury and righteous indignation, shonky statistics, falsehoods exaggerations and half truths on both sides delivered by a collection of “Big Guns” who sell the “concept” in or out one way or the other. This will be a campaign short on facts and honest argument.
Stuck beneath this thick adversarial froth with be the British people, required to take sides with little understanding of what is really at stake. So to get some thoughts in early we thought we would give some pointers as to how we feel at a Blue Revolution.
We always talk about “Value” rather than its liquid and easily produced derivative “Wealth”. Value is to economic survival what water is to physical survival. We have consistently argued that how a person country or empire produces value and who gets to control it is absolutely fundamental to understanding how that nation is constructed and more importantly how it works; namely to who’s advantage.
We have written about the EU before likening it to a feudal system and imploring people to consider what might happen if the EU gets too well established by say a British yes vote and like all systems an eventual fight to survive might ensues in the face of contradictions emerging. The EU will twist and turn and diminish people power to survive. Now it is time to develop that argument a little further.
Everyone with a basic education has heard of the aristocracy; these are the people who wield power and to secure their position acquire a nations surplus value (essentially its valuables) based smply on their inherited rank, many will have heard of a theocracy, people who within a faith based rank structure achieve pretty much the same thing and finally the plutocracy a system of power based on who has money or can control money. All are autocratic.
As we point out money and value are not the same thing. You can create a lot of money with very little value so a Plutocracy is not the same as an aristocracy but through their wealth the plutocrat controls society rather than through rank as it is with the aristocrat. However power is still wielded top down.
Post war Europe needed some overarching governance arrangements to ensure that it did not slide back towards armed conflict. Imagine a post war Europe, small nation states decimated by armed conflict twice within 50 years. The EU was an aspiration based on the desire to co operate and build strength through trade and a strong single market. Unfortunately just as all our other “ocracies” have had their day the EU quickly achieved the zenith of its original aim and then settled back into becoming a bureaucracy, and then from that it became a publicsectocracy.
This is a Blue Revolution word made up by us at Blue revolution to describe a society where the vast amount of social and economic value is controlled by a public sector paid for by the tax payers. This society consumes value because it has to keep its bureaucrats in work. The question is; does modern Europe still require this bureaucracy, is the work of the bureaucrat still essential as it was when post war Europe needed rebuilding, can we afford to keep this Bureaucracy fed with taxpayers cash? As a substitute for the bureaucracy we have proper trading agreements, a shared understanding of the importance of autonomy among nation states, and we have got over the neurosis of the last two wars, at least in economic terms. We trade with consent, choice and contract so essentially people understand how to operate in a civilised way….we would therefore argue; we no longer need the EU…….no one in Europe does!
The argument we would further advance is that the world needs more trade and co operation by those who create the social and economic value beyond the boarders of Europe, Africa and the Middle East for example. We need much less of this unaccountable EU bureaucracy which employs people on inflated salaries, salaries that don’t add social or economic value but is simply personal wealth for the recipients, who as individuals deliver little if anything of any economic worth.
In the same way we have thrown off control by feudal overlords and the clergy we should vote against more control by publicly employed Eurocrats and their form of autocracy their EU, a massive publicsectocracy. Down with another ocracy!!!
The world can trust the peoples of Europe to co operate and to trade with each other and other nations beyond Europe; spreading the language of trade and co operation based on Contract, Choice and Consent.
Britain needs to lead the way to a truly global approach to trade by voting “no” to the EU and thus “no”, to yesterday bureaucratic solution to tomorrows global problems. The world needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU and the people of Europe need Britain to vote out to get the blue revolutionary ball rolling.
01.02.16 Blue Revolution as seen from space.
Astrounaughts have been quoted as saying on their first orbit of the earth they talk about their nations, the second orbit their continents and the third their conversation turns to discussion about the world. They become it seems shamelessly internationalist.
Internationalism is usually associated with two ideologies; firstly Marxism lays claim to the original internationalism. The global rise of the proletariat. A few Trots still cling to the idea that there will one day be a Marxist revolution that will encompass the whole world. But modern experience suggests to us at A Blue Revolution that there is little chance of this happening when the recent experience of red revolution is a “vanguard” or revolutionary people of vision, become the government. When government is seen as the means by which “revolutionary” change comes about out democracy goes out of the autocratic window.
Islamism is the second pretender to the Internationalist throne. But whereas aspiring internationalist governments typically usher in an autocratic system similar to the feudal system, Islamism on the basis of recent experience ushers in Chaos and delivers horror on an industrial scale without even the small scale legitimacy conferred on an actual tribe.
When the spacemen and women are looking at the world they become immune to the nature of the political reality on this planet.
However we at a Blue Revolution have taken the view that it is possible to be “internationalist” without being either a government with feudal aspirations or a rag tag army of jihadists. We rely instead on the fact that more and more people on our blue planet have had their humanity and values installed by capitalism and therefore understand that human relationships both intimate, inter personal and legal are based on Contract, Choice and Consent. The western worlds legacy to our blue planet.
With these three harmless words emblazoned on the banners of the revolution (as opposed to their alternatives; corruption, collusion and coercion) people can begin to evaluate their contribution to the cause of Blue Internationalism with its underpinning fairness and equality.
Internationalism cannot be delivered by governments or quasi superstates like the EU….Their role is to protect individual people and businesses who are operating from within their jurisdictions thus promoting trade. This process of trade will eventually extend to people from other nations for the benefit of mankind.
All freely trading nations lift their people out of poverty and move their societies towards greater freedom and democracy for all. The only word of caution has to be that to achieve this internationalist goal there has to be a moral dimension to the “global free market” which does not encourage actions which promote moral decline. Our seven deadly sins and secular westernism sum up these risks. However with the renewed prospect of real social and economic value being created through co-operation between real economies by real working people as opposed to bureaucrats there will be less need to manufacture “wealth” (ie by QE) wealth which ends up in the hands of plutocrats like “Donald Trump” and Hugh Heffner.
When David Bowie sang “planet earth is blue and there is nothing I can do” we would respond with; yes there is, look at the planet and join a blue, as opposed to red or even green revolution. In today’s toxic world only ours is truly internationalist revolution…….but also perfectly safe.
04.02.16 The EU must accept Brexit…its progressive.
We sometimes disagree at a Blue Revolution. Like everyone in our neck woods the EU is testing us. Some of us were solidly in and others solidly out. But overall the arguments in and out are on the basis of different parts of the debate argued simultaneously and there are further splits generationally.
Younger people are on the whole pro EU seeing the economics of membership as essential to the survival of the UK. Statistics are used in the argument which are compelling and suggest that the possible consequences of Britain leaving the EU would be economically catastrophic. There is little evidence that this catastrophe is likely to happen….but it is a strong an powerful argument. Alongside it is the power and influence argument; we would loose power and influence if we left. On the other side of the debate we have older people who perhaps measuring the changes brought about since our membership of the EU sense that things are not quite as they expected them to be; too much immigration; too much power transferred to the EU too many restrictions and regulations.
The problem with this dichotomous debate is that it lacks a certain vision on both sides, but this lack of vision is without doubt most pronounced on the “out” side. Young people like vision. It is therefore from the perspective of the young a case of “In” is progressive and evolutionary and “out” is little Britain in decline. The “Out” campaign has nothing with which to build what seems to be their limited “out” vision, aside from memories of the 1970’s and echoes back to Parliament as sovereign. Thus the Out campaign is characterised by its opponents as being led by wonks, anoraks and weirdo’s and looses credibility as a result.
At a Blue Revolution we are people who like to think of ourselves as visionary so for us the reality of “out” is not quite so simple as unhappy feelings and a few historical facts. Here is why.
Britain was the first nation to industrialise and to drive capitalism throughout the world via its trade links with her empire. Elsewhere the industrial revolution began to send out into the world via industrialisation the keys principles of capitalism Contract, Choice and Consent. Contract, Choice and Consent are the building blocks of all free s0cieties or societies that aspire to be free.
The legacy of Capitalism (apart from Contract Choice and Consent) was to generate economic “value” in quantities that would have been mindboggling to simple tribal peoples. The combination of man, materials and machines made everyone better off and as importantly made life more certain. However some people got very rich and this gave rise to demands for the “product of the workers labour” to be more equally distributed. This would not happen out of choice, all property might be theft but there was no authority who could take it away and re distribute it, at least not until the 20th Century.
Eventually socialism in the form of the state took over in the UK and governments of all colours began, via taxes and benefits, nationalisation and state control to “redistribute” value and empower the working class. To do this ministries were set up and people employed to deliver the state objectives. This process cost money and eventually it began to cost too much and deliver too little so in the UK a general drift away from state control began under the Conservatives in the 1980’s and continues, sort of, today
Whilst this growth of socialism was going on in the Uk after the war, on the continent, wounded countries came together to achieve peace and prosperity by doing a very similar thing; creating a bureaucracy to manage relationships and economies to ensure peace between people, groups and countries. This process grew into the EEC and then EU and is still seen as an evolutionary process even though the process has really reached its zenith and has started to impede the Evolution of global free trade. Global trade that will be the liberator of peoples beyond Europe.
The “Internationalist” Blue Revolution vision therefore cannot come easily from a large mono ethnic and class based bureaucracy that controls many diverse and economically distinct and unique economies. But whilst that is a problem for many it does not have to be the way things are done. No European country needs this Bureaucracy to protect them and to “do their business” and “mediate” for them. They all have a deep awareness of the need to create value by respecting Contract Choice and Consent as the basis for freedom, equality and democracy. The Europe of the 21 century could safely desolve its super state and pass control back to its many nation states. This will promote the worlds next phase of evolution “Internationalism”; taking trade and co operation to the rest of the trading world thereby promoting through trade, freedom, equality and democracy and achieving greater peace in trade than can be found in war.
The EU was a reaction to a specific post war problem, that problem no longer exists and the EU now impedes the worlds economies preventing too many coming together to trade using the common language of Contract Choice and Consent. Britain leaving the EU is not the act of a reactionary “old” country but the evolutionary act of a revolutionary country who wants to break away from the political limits of its own continent and go out into the world to trade and trade with confidence.
05.02.16 The US might introduce socialism with Bernie S but let us hope they preserve self respect and personal responsibility unlike the UK version.
Socialism is a phase of social evolution identified by Karl Marx which within a Marxian paradigm is the “negation” of “capitalism”. In the west we still occasionally refer to “capitalism” as though our capitalism is the “Capitalism” that Marx would have recognised. Thankfully that capitalism no longer really exists. There are many complex reasons for this but the biggest killer of “Capitalism” has been the drift in the 20th century away from the capacity of “capitalists” to create economic “value” and the drift towards the new obsession with debt based “wealth”. This debt based wealth funds consumer spending or as it is better known “consumerism”. We no longer ask how much value does something have? we ask how much wealth or money can you get from trading it?
Capitalism was and will always be about creating economic value its inherent unfairness or “contradiction” was that this value created by labour was misappropriated by “Capitalists”. This no longer happens, at least not in the west. The demise of “Capitalism” and the intervention of government have changed the nature of western economies. Initially in Britain there was full on Socialism with state ownership of the means of production; now there is just welfare.
Socialism in the early to mid 20C and mainly in Europe was the point at which the state began a redistributive programme; taking value from the “Capitalists” and reallocating it through state ownership, health programmes and welfare to the workers. In Marxist terminology the government is giving more of the workers economic value back to them. It started in the UK after WWII.
The problem for the west is that the western economies no longer create value in anything like the quantity necessary to support all the welfare and health obligations to which they have committed themselves . We export our value creating requirements to China and within the “free market” the banking system and governments generate debt based wealth. Therefore we only seem to be able to support our people on the proceeds of debt…it is a kind of economic subterfuge; it looks like an economy based on real value but hold on, what’s this underneath it looks just like…….oh my god is it really just cash and personal wealth based on a pile of over-priced houses, stock, collateralised debt obligations and quantitative easing? Yes I’m afraid that is all it is. Welcome to post- industrial economics.
Delivering “socialism” in the US in something that is long overdue. The likes of Trump, Heffner, Buffett et al simply benefit from debt backed wealth. So whilst Capitalism no longer exists to be “negated” this unfair US system with its strutting coiffured buffoons who somehow benefit more of the proceeds of the nations debt than any one else, needs to be tackled. The workers of the US have had their noses rubbed in it for long enough.
In a debt based economy there should be an equality in how much of other peoples debt you benefit from.
So US socialism will be debt not value based. In that sense it is like the UK welfare system is now. Debt not value is the contradiction in modern socialist type systems. Debt will eventually overwhelm the Euro zone too and slowly re shape the EU and possibly even the US.
However a word of warning; as part of a “socialist programme” welfare should be a net to catch those in need, not a trap to keep them enslaved to welfare. Any US welfare system should therefore preserve self respect and self reliance and should avoid creating entitlement. failing to promote or maintain self respect and self reliance amongst too many welfare recipients is the problems with British welfare and it therefore undermines any attempt to get back to a more egalitarian “value” based economy. An eonomy where real economic value and real social value are created. An economy which balances the creation of social and economic value whilst preserving personal responsibility one might identify with as blue revolutionary.
09.09.15 segregation and faith- demanded by some but is it still necessary
There has recently been the debate about women only carriages on trains, seemingly supported by a Labour leadership contender. This along with the demand for gender segregation in universities who have accepted some Islamic guest speakers, as well as the use of the veil and other kinds culturally specific practices and behaviours, seems to have caused confusion to commentators and some politicians alike. There seems to be among some well- intended and liberal minded people the view that acceptance of these requirements confers important inclusive status on them.
Perversely there has also been a growing intolerance by some females who identify themselves as liberal feminists but who rail against men who have the audacity to speak to them in public. Whether these men are “chatting them up” or are simply trying to make polite conversation in that strained British way, is perhaps irrelevant; the point is why react so aggressively to what is on the face of it harmless attempt at human interaction. Perhaps segregation provides the answer.
The main issue in these scenarios is that it is gender based and thus open to a whole world of confusion and misunderstanding; particularly in respect of what is suggested and intended. This happens in the absence of a coherent position about why such segregation is demanded. Should that position statement offer support for segregation though? Should it be general segregation, segregation in lecture halls, segregation on trains and the veil as a means of emphasising segregation. Are these the right and proper responses to the issues thrown up practically and culturally by men and women sharing the same space in lecture halls, trains and the world in general. We at Blue Revolution think not and wonder why there is little compelling analysis of why not. The well-intentioned liberal sleepwalking towards a world of sexual discrimination on the back of demands for cultural inclusion. You couldn’t make it up.
Culturally mankind has been through phases where such segregating behaviour was not only logical it was necessary to preserve the social and economic context that provided the value and wealth necessary to sustain the community, be that a family, tribe or nation. Men and women had separate spheres of influence and therefore separation seemed logical and created stability where otherwise instability may have cast a shadow over survival. Like much that is outdated but “cultural” such practices become totemic of particular cultures or as with the veil, fetishized politically as a means of emphasising one’s faith based moral superiority. This is done not always with a calm and deep conviction that adherence to such beliefs about modesty is about personal identity, but as a loud expression of cultural and group difference. Culture can get caught in a time warp and distorts faith so it provides a reactionary solution to very modern problems if indeed some of these things are problems. Things like being chatted up on a train; solution; women only carriages, sexual delinquency in the community; public separation of the sexes, abuse of women by men; the veil. Really?
Of course rather than accept these ideas at face value it makes sense to explore them sensibly and to arrive at a coherent perspective; the danger of not doing so is that the rights argument kicks in and the whole issue is drowned out as it is in France by the application of competing rights to do and not do. A kind of fetishism develops on both sides of the argument. The real question is this; just how necessary is segregation, in a world that needs to progress cooperation between the sexes so that mankind’s creative social and economic power can be maximised and perhaps the production of people curtailed.
Do we really need to adopt practices which were more in keeping for an age of uncertainty, contingency, war, disease and famine?
Now apart from confusion about how to solve the wests gender related social problems, what often leads to the demand for gender separation amongst the liberal minded is that the advocates are largely from a range of nationalities who feel their largely Islamic faith is persecuted by the west, thus oddly legitimising any anti-western cultural position on anything. So, some on the left give advocates of separation a sympathetic hearing. Some thinkers and even feminists appear sold on the idea that the capitalist world commodifies or objectifies people on gender lines too, therefore a solution is to segregate the sexes for non- capitalist reasons and thus neutralise the power of that capitalist objectification. This for us at Blue Revolution is like accepting the removal of a leg to cure the pain of an ingrowing toenail. We have explored objectification ourselves in previous posts. It is one of our deadly sins, the solution is nor separation though.
Of course, the west has issues, big ones too. The freedoms allowed in the individuals having rights to Consent, Contract and Choose means that we can promote lifestyles which of excessive and bad for us and for our communities. We at Blue Revolution call this negative side to western culture “Secular Westernism”. However, the solution cannot be separation or segregation. We need to address the West’s problems be they problem of debt based over consumption, illegitimacy, divorce, depression, drug or alcohol misuse; but we can’t do this at the expense of our freedoms and our ability to mix and mingle together as genders because this is how we deliver social and economic value.
If you look at the joyous outcomes of the West’s freedom; the technology, engineering, space exploration, medicine, arts and sports one would not want to turn the clock back to any kind of separation or segregation based on a social and economic model that is now largely defunct apart from in ISIS territory. The blue revolution is not about taking away choice, contract and consent or removing anything that is positive about the way the west has evolved; it is about analysing and understanding why things are as they are including oddities like the demand for segregation.
However, we counter these demands with a positive celebration what the West could achieve if individuals controlled their personal behaviour and adopted a more coherent view of life based on the freedoms they enjoy, but with the practice of personal self-restraint. This Blue Revolution is in the minds of individuals and unlike past “Red” revolutions not in the head of the group, be that group a segregated one or not as the case may be.
14.09.15 What should a Corby win mean for those of faith?
This may be a bit polemical but it is clear for the Labour Party that a coalition of the socially vulnerable, the ill-informed and the downright stupid have elected leaders of such breath-taking economic illiteracy that it is to be hoped that they never have control of the leavers of government. People of faith or no faith, people who value their freedom to live a moral life or faith based life, feel safe to hold their own opinions and express their genuine fears about the state of the world however they see it, should worry a little more now. There will be unwanted interference from a party, even in opposition, who have declared a will to tax high and disincentivise work, effort and profit and who will, more importantly, try and define and control the social and economic paradigm in a way never seen before; simply to maintain fear and build support. This will mean the views of the Labour movement or the spokes people at its head, determine what is politically acceptable or unacceptable, who is in and who is out; what is socially acceptable and what is not, all driven by naïve collectivist thinking influenced by goodness knows who.
There is no “capitalism” that needs bringing to heel; we are not living in the 1900’s. The changes that have been positive at least in part since the last world war, have delivered a socialism (Initially the catastrophic government ownership of business and industry then re distributing wealth and protecting the vulnerable). However, the socialist dream in Britain and the American dream in the USA have delivered from “Capitalism” a free market system that has many faults and flaws. It has given rise to the commodification of people, given rise to illegitimacy and substance abuse plus needless consumption and waste of the planet’s resources. As we at Blue Revolution are always trying to point out the solution to this “Secular Westernism” is not collectivism on an economic level or socialism or sharia law on a social level but for people to embrace freedom and responsibly; not a Corbyn Red Revolution but a Blue Revolution with no head just millions of freethinking intelligent moral minds.
17.09.15 Modern Deadly Sin Number 6- Selfishness
Selfishness is a socially corrosive behaviour and to many people it is not something they readily associate with themselves. However, selfishness must extend beyond the personal into the social sphere for it to be a deadly sin. It is not simply about putting yourself first by taking the last piece of cake, although clearly this is selfish too in certain circumstances; it is about living your life based on fulfilling your personal needs and desires without any consideration being given to others. Working in the public sector; retiring to Spain and returning when infirm to be cared for by the NHS is clearly an act of selfishness. Ignoring the needs of adult children in a world where challenges for them are great and their chances are limited by straightened economic circumstances is selfish if what wealth you have goes on holidays or cars; divorcing the partner with whom you have children of whom you has tired or no longer find attractive, is selfish.
There are many similar examples. Selfishness is linked to other modern sins such as Objectification (number 2) and Want Based Consumption (number 5). At its worst one must objectify others to overcome one’s own scruples about being selfish and more often than not selfishness is about having money for one’s own excessive personal over consumption.
The social and economic consequences of this sin is that we withdraw emotionally from wider society or indeed from our families. We cease to be socially active and therefore our positive beliefs and values become obscured by our preoccupation with applying these values to ourselves i.e. generosity, kindness etc. In practical terms this means have fewer volunteers to staff everything from Charity Shops to soup kitchens to community litter picks. We have fewer people to support and work with the vulnerable, we have more single parents for whom partnering to raise children is not a selfish enough lifestyle choice. We have children who are simply not wanted but were brought into the world because of the access they gave to resources, often taxpayers resources, to pay for tattoo’s, alcohol and drugs flats cars and houses. We have the elderly being looked after by the state.
Selfishness which was once frowned upon by those of faith (and for some if recognised, still is) is like our previous modern deadly sins, a component of what we call Secular Westernism, It is something all good people of all faiths and none need to distance themselves from; so the right social values start to filter back into those parts of society which need them and people come to accept that whatever one has or does not have, we should never turn our backs on our widest responsibilities to others.
To make a positive change part of our Blue Revolution, it cannot be directed for us by the state but must come because we realise that our selfishness is bad for us but more importantly it is bad for our community, our society and gives a very poor impression of our Western culture.
20.09.15 Men and women; has our creative tension gone toxic.
The more we at Blue Revolution kick the topic of “men and women” around; particularly when we stray from a purely European or US centric model of gender relations, the more some of the fundamental issues we have covered over the last six months or so can at a very basic level, be put at the door of poor inter sex relationships.
The Muslim faith is want to refer to “the role of women in Islam”; a very important role but one largely dependent on women accepting two principles: one being a woman’s role is essentially social in character rather than economic and the second being that a woman acts in line with the requirements of her faith as determined by her husband or father who in turn takes his advice from the local religious leader who is an expert in the Qur’an and hadith. Now there is little scope within Islam to be of a “reformed” persuasion. Hence, we think we get the confusion over Islam and extremism. From a secular western vantage point much of Islam seems extreme; and indeed, it perhaps is.
It seems that for many within the faith that the “reformed” can be construed as un-Islamic. Therefore, relations between the sexes are quite prescribed; but living amongst people of the Islamic faith in the UK one is struck by the overall sense of peace that applies to the Islamic community in general. When it works it works well, but perhaps not to every secular western taste or social appetite.
Women with hair covered marshal their usually largish brood with love and devotion whilst father is at the Islamic club, work or mosque. There is overall an acceptance that this a prescribed way of life and therefore dissatisfaction is both pointless and unacceptable. We suspect this is a fact lost by the left wing who whilst promoting the destruction of the family through a change in values engineered by tax and benefit arrangements, also buy in to the wider collectivist moral values of the Islamic faith.
When one looks at the lives of women culturally through the ages one sees by modern standards some very barbaric treatment; some of which has become fetishized around faith or culture such as veiling, shrouding, stoning of “Harlots” and adulteresses, the dowry, arranged marriage, foot binding, neck coils, and FGM. This treatment of women which we at Blue Revolution have described as a form of “proto fascism” has evolved over many thousands of years and apart from the fact cultures differ, the intent seems to be the same; to control women, constrain them in a “patriarchal” hegemony t0 protect male wealth and or status. No wonder once women lose their cultural link to this type of hegemony in whatever form it takes and for them it ceases to have legitimacy, some can get politically angry whilst others seem to want a kind of revenge for patriarchy’s past ills of which the hapless males in their lives are often on the receiving end. Paradoxically some women seem to turn to Leninist socialism; the bedfellow of all moral collectivist ideologies. The majority however it seems to us at Blue Revolution simply revert to a kind of primitive reproductive behaviour which is neither moral, sustainable or fair; particularly on their children.
If anyone is reading this; you may be getting a little angry; we are not however advocating any return to patriarchy. Alternatively you may start recognising that there is something rather odd about a hegemonic patriarchal almost universally derided culture which was at its creation designed to preserve the species through male power and supply both the maximum amounts of social and economic value and whilst legitimately being thrown away has no obvious replacement. Now in the west patriarchy has been abandoned its loss throws up anomalies like industrial scale child illegitimacy, lone parents; the oddity of people step parenting other people’s children whilst someone step parents theirs, lonely grandparents locked out of families with the loss of social values lost to a generation and mentally ill fathers with little contact with their kids and the need to unlearn “love”, kids in cars being driven for “access” and so on and so forth.
The question therefore arises thus; is there something innately human and dare we say legitimate about this derided way of ordering society. After all it goes back to the days when humanity was wealth creating as it is now. Or is there something wrong with how we as a secular western society have managed the sexual revolution in the absence of any faith-based belief in the ways we did things in the past. Whatever your views, (and there will be many, most, we suspect conflicted at a social, political and psychological and personal level) it is in our opinion a good question. We will consider it and return to the topic later.
29.09.15 The world drifting Left? -What does this mean.
The Pope is going left when it comes to an array of issues including global warming, world economics and migration; the Labour Party is giving up the “middle ground” and going left wing. They are taking with them an array of morally well-intentioned, but we think muddled individuals who amongst other things attack “gentrification” by “direct action” and claim to represent the “working classes”. From the perspective of Blue Revolution, the self-confessed left wing whether people of faith or not, are something of an oddity. Faith has always acted to influence personal behaviour and the outcome has generally been positive and generated social and economic value. Notwithstanding unacceptable by-products of discrimination against women and gays being in modern terms unacceptable but culturally specific, the benefits to the majority were all to obvious.
The differences between faiths have been essentially cultural but the unifying characteristic was the requirement to observe certain ways of conducting one’s self; one’s behaviour was required to conform to social rules to maximise societies survival. The rise of Secular Westernism has seen the west strip away any broad observance of moral as opposed to strictly legal behaviour. Britain’s New Labour specialised in the kind of “moral minimalism”.
The consequence has been the rise of issues which require state intervention to correct; the correction usually comes via welfare subsidies and the moral decline that is caused as a result, simply adds to the overall problem generation on generation. The solution adopted by right of centre governments is to restrict the availability of Government generosity; the so called “austerity agenda”. The problem is that unless there is a moral revival those who feel the loss under austerity and are “entitled” to support, become angry when the support is restricted, reduced or removed. This is in simple terms the cause of the rise of the left wing.
The problem however is that the modern left wing sees more Government as the solution. More Government means more government workers, more tax, more welfare and ultimately less opportunity, freedom and choice. If the Government was so good at planning and getting it right, we would stop the disaster of modern dating and relationships and ask the Government to find us our friends and mating partners. But we don’t and that tells us all we need to know.
The left really is old hat. The idea of the government stepping in may have been necessary in 1900 but today…it’s a quaint throwback to an era that we are never going to return to. There are problems with “the free market” but the solution is not “Leninist socialism”. We at Blue Revolution agree regulation is necessary to ensure the producer/providers relationship doesn’t overwhelm consumers. But, the main power for change is the mass choice of morally informed people who reject the lifestyle of Secular Westernism by their positive economic and social choices. At the same time, they should also reject any laughable idea that bureaucratic state socialism has anything positive to offer either. Go figure!
01.10.15 Love me do…….But in the bar the piano man’s found another nail for my heart
One of our occasional contributors was listening to a radio show in Stoke on Trent in the UK and heard an interview with the 1970’s and 1980’s pop group Squeeze. The interviewer was apparently very excited about interviewing them asking questions about influences such as location in south London etc. What struck our contributor however was that the lyrics of the songs written by Squeeze in the 70’s and 80’s resonate with images of a life of disastrous relationships, unplanned babies, failed marriages and general emotional sorrow. Men (and women) of a certain age let us say 50 to 60 were weaned on the Beatles “Love me do” but too many have, in the last 30 years, had nails riven through their hearts. These songs perhaps speak to that generation. As he says what kind of society can be cold hearted enough to think that the emotional warmth of the loving union of two people can be thrown away on an almost industrial scale and somehow that society survive more than a couple of generations. We agree; and we believe it is another symptom of Secular Westernism and unless we all address it as individuals by being more coherently caring with each other we will all be “up the junction”. ”Now, is that love” we ask?
02.10.15 Migration-can faith offer some hope?
Migration is different and somehow the same as it has been for centuries. People moved away from the straight jacket of Catholicism as it was becoming a stifling brake on the aspirations of the motivated and proto entrepreneurial. In the past as we have said before the Catholic faith had a legitimate role for the poor as well as for the rich and a whole culture was based on faith and feast days, Matins, Vespers, Compline and the Latin mass. But this didn’t make a good basis for progressive social and economic development. The people who escaped from Britain and its Anglo Catholicism went to America and founded states and great cities. Their faith evolved but there was a faith that endured. Their faith required hard-work and self-reliance. Not the dogmatic certainty of rich men in castles and poor men at gates.
Today we have again faith-based migration caused by what is seen as a predominantly political crisis engulfed in a war. This crisis as with earlier ones promises to engulf economies, societies and enduring certainties; yet for some reason it seems not to be called a faith-based migration. But the more we look at it here at Blue Revolution the more it is clear that this is exactly what it is. People are fleeing warring tribes in Iraq, ISIS in Syria, they are leaving repressive regimes but in all these scenarios they are leaving a religious faith that is unyielding to the demands of modern economic progress. Thus, we have western attired youths and young people who are escaping the confines of Islam…not abandoning their faith but finding a place where their Islamic faith is more compatible with their own desires and aspirations. They are for this reason clearly more “economic” migrant than refugee….although there are many of them too.
So, looking at this as a crisis within a faith specifically Islam a number of suggestions can be offered; Places we call “dust bowl” Islamic countries need to see these migrations as evidence that there countries need to move from the 16th century to perhaps the 19th. Establish principles such as Contract, Choice and Consent as the basis of a slow move towards democracy.
Countries that are currently repressive 19th and early 20th Century in the way they maintain order i.e. through bureaucracy, repression and lack of accountability, need to move forward to the 21st century, promoting human rights and freedoms irrespective of gender, sexuality etc. Saudi Arabia falls into the first category, Assad’s Syria the second. Much of Africa is in the former category. The western world’s fetishizing of “Democracy” needs to be tempered by the realism that until people can freely support themselves within their societies and to create economic value through contract, choice and consent; democracy will simply be a pipe dream. We think Putin gets this point better than western leaders.
Is there a word of caution in all of this; well of course there is. Firstly, the countries from whom the migrants flee are the cause of their problems; not the countries to which they wish to migrate. Migration can be temporary as technology and transport remove the enforced permanent geographical and cultural separation migrants endured in the past; think air and sea travel, Skype and the internet; forces for good as well as mischief. But there is a lesson in all this for the west too. As we at Blue Revolution are always saying Secular Westernism is a cultural aberration caused by a lack of personal moral behaviour within a liberal economic framework and thus not fully worthy of the title civilised. For those people of faith who come to the west we must accept that many of them will find our culture deeply troubling. Rather than assuming they are wrong why don’t we accept they have a point and adopt the principles of the Blue Revolution to ensure we can accommodate people of all faiths and none.
07.10.15 Dust bowl economics in Britain- some mistake surely
The conference season has come to an end, thankfully! What are our observations? Well Tim Farron gave the most passionate speech about migration, wonderfully delivered but unfortunately it lacked the smack of realism; a kind of German welcome without the jobs or the infrastructure. Labour were back on the old socialist treadmill; sucking up value created by working people and spending it on government projects to help, well the government; government employees, and perhaps the army of people who have been undermined by years of moral minimalism at the hands of New Labour. These sad and vulnerable people now lack not only skills, but the values that make work the first thought in the morning rather than the thought dismissed as the duvet goes back over the head at eleven PM. We understand what causes this problem it’s the secular nature of modern western culture; secular westernism as we call it.
As for the Conservative party; we would prefer to refer critically to what we view as a policy designed to appeal to the imagined “middle ground” but which has as much moral substance as borrowing from the future to pay for the excess of the present; we refer of course to the myth of home ownership and the destruction of lands productive food value.
Now let us define our terms; we at Blue Revolution are only concerned with value; social and economic. Value is inherent in land, as it is in people’s productive capacity both for economic production and the production of social value in the form of cohesive behaviour that promotes the survival of the group be it family, tribe, country, kingdom or empire.
Taking a piece of unproductive land and building housing on it allows that land to realise some social value as well as create some wealth. As unproductive land it has the actual food producing value of a piece of rock. However, take some fertile farmland that gives up it produce in the form of food value and you turn a repeating cycle of value into merely wealth. That wealth might increase, but the food value inherent in the land is gone. Even open unfarmed land has some social value as recreation. So, if you promote house building on farmland, are you really creating anything of real economic value or is it simply a case of creating wealth, which simply feeds the monster of secular westernism? Paying as it does for consumption and with that all that the secular market offers but which has no discernible social or economic value.
This is the “dust bowl” economics in the west. Whilst the moral outcomes are not inhumane, the process is like that of the oil rich states; you take value out of the ground and use it to prop up an increasingly unsustainable economic model. As you do this people become more dependent on the valueless wealth and entitled to receive it and the whole socio/economic model becomes utterly incoherent, unable to pay its way in the long term. Incidentally we also feel that the Conservatives “own rather than rent” policy drives the same kind of incoherence; trapping people into wealth generating “homes” which simply feed the desire to consume unsustainably. We agree that all forms of home ownership and good quality tenancies are legitimate; but the government has no place interfering in the market at all. Germany does a lot better than us because there the economy produces value rather than using home ownership to generate wealth.
Oh, and all the above explains why socialism is the ideology of the past and has no place in anyone’s future. Socialists only speak of wealth; they have regrettably lost all notion of value. But expanding on that, is a post in its own right.
13.10.15 Labour and Conservatives; what if anything do, they have in common?
Most notably they both define their economics in terms of the nation’s wealth, its creation and distribution as opposed to the nations value its creation and distribution. Wealth has become a shorthand for value but is it?
They have differences of perspective of course but they are economically less striking than they at first appear. Since Adam Smith first penned his “Wealth of Nations” the term wealth creation has become the shorthand for what economies should do; they create wealth don’t they? Politics of course is about how governments manage the nation’s wealth and how and to whom they distribute it.
Those who read the Blue Revolution posts will possibly be aware we very rarely refer to wealth, preferring the term value. Value has two essential types; social and economic. Social value is about the capacity of a society to behave in a stable way within the economic context which defines how economic value is created. The creation of economic value is determined by the way society mixes the resources (land, labour, money and skill) necessary to feed and support its people. Both types of value are connected but to really appreciate the raw necessity of this link we need to look at tribal society.
Tribes are simple societies, but they have faith in and are compliant with their tribal system which defines everything from the age at which one comes of age and what one is expected to do at that age, to how food is acquired and consumed. Value therefore is about how we maintain ourselves within a stable community based (hopefully) on a shared belief system. Beliefs which are necessary to maximise social and economic value.
Wealth on the other hand is not what a tribal society had to worry about managing, they don’t generate wealth.
Simple wealth arises when one is able to generate more value than is required by society and then having created it, store it and accumulate it…..storing it became easier with the discovery of precious stones, gold and silver. As we said above to get to even simple wealth creation you must generate more economic value than you need. Once this has happened the next stage of development is politics because wealth can be controlled and does not have to be distributed. Unlike the cave man dragging the valuable carcass of an antelope into the tribal compound to be consumed by all before it rotted; wealth could be stored, managed, and therefore controlled. The person who controlled wealth had power, power to hang on to it all or give a portion of the stored value on those who served them. Their wealth conferred for loyalty would be used to buy food shelter etc.
Now this simple wealth has a strong link with value; because simple wealth is an accumulation of actual economic value. Our early political evolution was essentially a process by which we argued about to whom simple wealth was distributed; feudal overlord or merchant trader. later, Marxism was about the distribution of wealth and the need to change the whole social and economic system to achieve a fair distribution to those “workers” who create the wealth, rather than the “capitalists” who it was claimed exploited the “workers”.
The above is a whirlwind trip through the history of faith, society and economics all three sort of linked in a somewhat wobbly but coherent progression. So far so good but what has it to do with modern politicians. By the time Karl Marx was writing the obvious abuses of wealth accumulation were hard to avoid. Poor people were working to create wealth for the rich and suffering extreme poverty as their reward. Not even tribal society with its gender defined roles and tribal mutilations was responsible for such extreme differences in what people had within the same community. Hence Marxism’s claim that capital is misappropriated by capitalists under a cloak of contract and consent.
Anyway; how can we pull this together and answer the question above? Well once we were able to escape the tyranny of wealth based directly on actual use value and we developed ways of creating wealth based on smaller and smaller amounts of real value and politically wealth distribution and consumption became a social pre occupation, we were able to use some of this largely valueless wealth to “speculate” on the future. Borrow and pay back tomorrow, buy now and sell at a higher price later. Then even more recently take something of no actual value (stocks and Shares?) and sell them for money borrowed from banks by the person who buys them or in the case of ‘shorting’ borrow the shares themselves. Once we have got to this point wealth bears no discernible link to value and is indeed a froth on the surface of a very impoverished economy paying for a slowly diminishing society. We call this secular westernism, others casino economics
It remains the objective of modern secular western politicians to oversee societies which create and distribute “wealth”. Both Conservatives and Labour old and new are interested in wealth and its redistribution; But what relationship does this wealth have to social and economic value. We at Blue Revolution suggest very little. Broadly but not exclusively government has taken on a role generating wealth via Quantitative Easing and spending to create a budget deficit if. The banking system, house building, increasing house and stock values creating wealth too. Both are in very simple terms ways of manufacturing wealth rather than creating value. Of course, this is a very simple model; it ignores things like low interest rates as a positive way of driving progress, stock issues as a way of facilitating investment and the need for a complex society to have underpinning it a complex and accessible economy. It also ignores the role of the rest of the world producing the value we no longer can, perhaps because we simply have too many unproductive people here in the west a consequence of capitalism’s failure and evolution into a free market.
We at Blue Revolution believe that what western society needs is to get closer to creating proper value; even if we are poorer in terms of our apparent wealth for doing it. We believe we will be happier as a result. This is the basis of our Blue Revolution; moral renewal and value creation by proper un-gendered social and economic endeavour. We will explore this later and explore what we can all do to become a Blue Revolutionary.
17.10.15 What might happen if women lose their biologically and sociologically defined role as child bearers and mothers?
All faiths and even many of no faith; governments and other groups continue to promote a biological and sociological role for women; encouraged with varying degrees of emphasis or compulsion by the welfare based incentives offered in the west to the threat of punishment up to and including execution for those who fail to deliver on this “expectation” elsewhere. We have described the historical treatment of women by early culture as “proto fascism” and when the reality of past women’s lives are examined that term seems to acquire serious relevance today; particularly in places like the definitive dust bowl economy that got lucky; modern Saudi Arabia with its ancient gender and faith obsessions parading as civilised behaviour in the twenty first century. No chance of women in Saudi being given choices to re-evaluate what is a biological accident but which determining a thoroughly ghastly sociological reality. Anyway, we have Blue Revolution observe more interesting places that Saudi Arabia and Japan is one such place.
On the face of it Japan probably doesn’t strike one as being of much of interest to the secular western populations in Europe and the US; less of an economic power house more of a post-industrial society settling down to the reality of declining influence and exposure to the exhausting effects of global competition. A bit like us in the west. However according to what we have been told there is a sociological phenomenon taking place in Japan which is quite fascinating and probably needs some Blue Revolution evaluation; men in Japan in the critical 20 to 40 year old demographic are losing their interest in sex; at least sex with other people.
We would vouch that when you empower women and they are able to assume an economic role as opposed to following the pre-determined path towards motherhood; the effects on men is to turn sex into simply another narcotic experience; and for the Japanese and I would suggest the more protestant inclined amongst the Christian community plus others, this “narcotic effect” of sexual behaviour in not worth the complex sociological and psychological consequences on men of getting tangled up in unnecessarily complex relationships. The relationship with a woman who is economically independent would become like that of any good friend. Is this a good thing or a bad thing we ask?
Well anything which gets away from the biological predetermination based on sex and gives people real as opposed to an imagined “choice” about their lives, has to be good; so long as they work to create the social and economic value necessary to support them and their community. It also has the effect of reducing carbon emissions and is kinder to the planet. With fewer people the planet might stand a chance of recovering from the combined effects of carbon dioxide, monoxide, methane, sewage and plastic bags. The oddest phenomenon for us is the sight of the right on earth parent with seven children who wants to save the planet. No chance.
So, to conclude our latest rant; what is our conclusion. Well bring it on. Reduce the incentives for women to have babies; there are enough people in the world having children in cultures where sex is for reproduction rather than for the narcotic effects, we in the west “enjoy” and obsess about. There will be fewer by products often paid for by an unwilling taxpayer to parents who would have been better off drinking a strong coffee or doing some aerobic exercise or simply “sorting themselves out”. The longer we continue to define a woman’s role in religious terms and engineer a welfare system to support it within a culture that sees reproductive sex with someone else as a recreational entitlement, the bigger our problems will be in the longer term, economically, sociologically and environmentally.
26.10.15 Feminism and the obsession with the biological role of women- Why not join the patriarchy
Feminists including the sainted Germaine Greer obsess about “women’s experience” as though it unalterably different from men’s experience. In some specific situations it is, but really, we are talking about some specific instances. Ms Greer who we at Blue Revolution understand is something of an apologist for the cultural barbarity of FGM, overlooks the fact this is a practice that is intended to lock women from traditional societies into a subservient social and biological role, in contrast to the more “important” male role of ‘economic’ provider. If it happens here in the west it is because we have helped establish the absurd idea that all cultures are equal without the qualification as to how we might measure equality. This is Ms Greer’s problem. Cultures are only equal in the sense they provide the framework for the creation of social and economic value. In simple societies and ones that separate sex for cultural reasons this is gender based. How cultures justify this is either coherent to the means their society has of creating social and economic value i.e. it makes sense socially and economically; for example men and women’s segregation in 7th century Arabia; or it is totally at odds with how value, social and economic is created and preserved today.
If any modern society or feminist commentator, observes the pre-eminent role of women as “biological and social” and in the case of government this perspective gets props up with the support of a welfare system that reinforces women’s biological rather than economic role, they are over playing the significance of the role women have been fighting to escape from for centuries.
In the west biological and economic roles are hard to combine effectively; hence past discrimination. By supporting the biological and social role of women, sympathisers such as Ms Greer are setting a trap for western women that many cultures of the world would like western women to fall into (Saudi Arabia anyone?). They are, without even being aware of it, aligning women with the patriarchs of male hegemony; seeing women in purely biological and social roles; from which here in the west, it is all too easy to fall. Our broken families attest to the challenge of combining so many roles.
Ms Greer’s views on transgendered people is illustrative of the point. Gender is irrelevant unless you see people as social and economic gender specific terms. If you see people as a mix of social and economic and that the mix is determined by them and by no one else, the women’s experience for those who opt for an economic role becomes no different from that of men and people who are transgendered. You work, you contribute to society (be a good citizen) you die. It really is time we started to ignore the ideological academics who capture a view that bears little relevance to reality and in its pretence is a dangerous distraction from the aim of creating first gender and then genuine faith and cultural equality. This gender equality of course must be distinguished from the transactivism agenda. Even if equal they are still biologically women as distinct from biologically male.
28.10.15 America-a country in need of help?
John Kerry believes that the world is an angry place; people are angry he has said; the flood of people from Syria and Libya and other places in Africa reflects a flee not just to wealthier economies but from the anger of War and hard-line Islam. In America gun crime and the all too predictable schoolboy shootouts continue as evidence of individual bursts of insane anger by a collection of sad and lonely misfits.
In the UK the anger feels less pronounced but bubbles up with either nationalism or socialism amongst the more political, its effects mitigated elsewhere by a welfare system which promotes for too many citizens “self-actualisation” through survival by fornication and the consumption of welfare income. This promotes a pointless hamster wheel lifestyle for too many Britons that achieves little but is unlikely to generate too much in the way of revolution, as it dampens rage, but also delivers little or no social or economic value.
Compared to the US the UK has also managed to avoid some of the pitfalls that have both positively and negatively shaped America, its economy and faith. America has a frontier mentality, something which is sublimated in the form of the “American Dream”.
Whereas the class system in a country like the UK has placed a psychological limit on what citizens believed they were entitled to achieve, in America there is no such constraint and failure is very personal. Whilst class has lost much of its relevance in the UK it has left something of a perverse legacy and people are less inclined to “self- pathologize” their failure, the welfare system assists them to adapt by expecting very little of them for the welfare they receive. They can of course blame the Tory government.
Whilst the value created by the British economy is like all western economies much lower than the wealth it can generate via its banking system, the effects of the old class system and the generosity of the welfare system take the sting out of peoples sense of personal failure.
The role of the economy in creating “wealth” as opposed to “value” is a major contributor to American anger. Wealth is fluid and can like fluid flow only through channels created by people. In America these channels are manufactured by the leaders of the financial system and direct the wealth to those within the system. It is not as American Senator Bernie Sanders says a “casino” system….that is too random. It is a system like the political system in America, designed to maintain the status quo. The old-fashioned Marxist term “Hegemony” i.e. an enclosed system which operates to benefit only certain privileged groups, applies to America more than any other western country. Unlike the UK there is no generous welfare system softening the blow of low achievement and failure.
What the US hegemony delivers, or so we at Blue Revolution believe , is a situation where the poorest become angry and polarised, with low expectations poor state schooling and poor health. Unwilling to accept their personal failure they turn on each other hostile to black people, white people, Hispanics, Jews, Freemasons or just those who seem to be able to ride the wave of wealth that flows through the American economy. The geeky conspiracy theorist no different from the KKK fanatic in the speed at which they get legitimately angry but ignorantly willing to blame another group often irrationally. If one can’t understand what is going on it is easy to be empowered by blaming another racial group.
Politicians who have to tap into banker’s wealth to get re-elected and who then get richer on state and federal finance are seen as part of the greater American problem.
Like the other countries of the west, social value has been supplanted by an obsession with creating mere wealth. In the US more than elsewhere this alchemy of wealth creation doesn’t benefit all people, only the “elite” and the Government. The elite being those who are born into or have made it into this system. Now one point implicit in what we have said but not made explicit yet, is that those who see themselves as the human failures in the American system are genuinely failures of the system. There is no attempt to empower them, educate them, or even wrap them in numbing welfare. They are ghettoised and imprisoned become racists or gangsters determined perhaps to achieve the American dream by making others the failures in their own closed system.
All criminals are vulnerable and entitled in the way they achieve status at the expense of others. Prison gets them out of the way but doesn’t take away the “hegemony”; of being in an enclosed system of alienation and poverty, discrimination and abuse to rival the worst third world ghetto.
The UK has less of these American problems too because it has a sane attitude towards guns, preventing for the most part those who do become insanely angry about their loss of economic position and opportunity the option of shooting up other people.
Essentially America espouses bourgeois freedoms which create expectations but offer a system to fulfil them which creates not value but wealth, which is then channelled into the hands of bankers, stockbrokers and those commissioned by government to create weapons to reflect American status on the world stage. The poor in America don’t have the cushioning or numbing effects of seventy years’ worth of welfare, they don’t have a culture that at least is well intentioned if not always successful in driving social progress and inclusion. Whilst the UK has to row back a little in terms of the numbing effects of welfare and like America and the west has to get away from mere wealth creation and move towards a value-based economy.
America has to move towards a system which is probably unaffordable given the extent of the people problem, ignorance, obesity anger, conspiracy and vested interest up to and including government contracts and political influence mean that for America Secular Westernism will be a hard ideology to shift.
02.11.15 Do we need a revolution? if so, what type should it be? Red or Blue?
Some wag once commented that there was no such thing as a free lunch. There is certainly no such thing as a free revolution. Whichever past revolution one selects there is mayhem; destruction, death and the promotion of one special interest group over another, someone pays!
Revolution, it seems to us at Blue Revolution ushers in one repressive regime, often ousting something out of date muddled and incoherent, but replacing it with something, perhaps more coherent but, if not at least as bad in the short term probably considerably worse. Why this might be is not altogether clear to us (we are not academics, historians etc) but of course things settle down eventually, once society recovers from the “birth pain” of the new order.
Over the last 2000 years we have progressed in fits and starts but not without pain and bloodshed on mankind’s muddled revolutionary journey.
If we look at what is going on now (early 21 century) we see that there are, demographic, religious, economic, political and gender-based tensions, accompanied by a demand for “change” and “something must be done” growing ever shriller.
We at Blue Revolution have written about this global anger and have stressed the need to finally move away from economic, racial and biological determinants of social class, caste and position as the best way of healing society and moving us all forward. We thought we had put aside western class-based determinants of social position, but, whilst significantly diminished they are still here, and they too need finally addressing. But how?
There are people; and groups of people who would like to engage us all in violent revolution based on the overthrow of the dimming embers of our current class and establishment paradigm. This old-fashioned approach however owes too much to the past and too little to the future. These people seem to demand a spitting and shouting, burning and destroying with Red style Revolution. They, like we, see the fault lines in the west….they see our “Secular Westernism” for example not as a product of the interplay of numerous forces including global economics coupled with faulty individual moral choice and poor judgement, but as the product of a corrupt and corrupting economic system. They want a violent struggle and an overthrow of the past to replace the hated rule of the “corrupt elite” (Banks, right wing governments, industrial conglomerates and Stock holders in particular) with the rule of errrrr…..an elite force of well-intentioned and informed super moral people in super moral governments all somehow financed and licenced to guide plan and steer our lives . However, they don’t stop and think that as part of the past, these people if appointed, would like the rest of us, be part of the problem not the solution. Power, control setting the agenda, limiting freedom would simply replace wealth, control, marketing and restricting opportunities through exclusion.
The Red Revolutionaries do have a point…Secular Westernism is bad….it is particularly bad for those at the tail end of societies, societies which are today as corrosive psychologically and socially as in Victorian times the faith- based counterpart was corrosive physically and socially.
Secular Westernism leads to a moral vacuum corrupting those who have neither the stamina or the self-esteem to hold their nerve, having to manage their lives within its marketplace of unavoidable levels of economic and social uncertainty.
The State to mitigate the effects of this moral vacuum has, rather like the Christian faiths of old, provided security, a welfare as opposed to spiritual security that makes the system seem legitimate in the minds of the most vulnerable. This is particularly true of the UK but also to a lesser degree America and elsewhere. So why the current high levels of anger?
The west has created a global free market with consumption at its heart……for us therefore it is not capitalist we have moved beyond “Capitalist”. We are now buccaneering free marketeers.
Capital has actual value owned and controlled by, well “Capitalists”. It is stretching a point too far to say that a made-up stream of central bank, government and credit based ‘funny money’ sloshing around the globe is “Capitalist” in character. There is little real capital around anymore. What we have are systems of wealth creation and wealth allocation which favour certain groups at the expense of others. Some mitigation through welfare is possible, but essentially the free market is both the cause and the cure of the problem. The “problem” being defined as too few people having too much money backed by too little if any real value.
Whoever you look at who has “loadsamoney” be it Beckham or Trump, pop stars and celebrities, or a person who made their millions selling personalised this or tat related that, the truth is that they have far more money than there is value behind their money; and therein lies the dilemma for our “revolutionaries”. What exactly is being “reallocated” in the revolution…….”funny money!!”
What the Red revolutionaries seem intent on doing; depending on which one you listen to, is empower the government to do what the financial and other markets currently do, but to do it for the benefit of the poor. However as with previous revolutions if they simply replace one busted system with another version of the same system, they fail to progress society and in the case of our spitting taunting shouting and burning Red Revolutionaries they will replace one group of power and wealth grabbers (let’s say Bankers) paid for with funny money with another, let’s say state officials, paid for by funny money. The moral hazard associated with this funny money continuing to make people both idle and entitled and increasingly unproductive. The process will survive until the Government, or rather the people go under. Not so different than the current risk of individuals eventually going under. Same destination….different route and scale so to speak.
Now here at Blue Revolution HQ the Blue Revolution approach is just as radical but considerably more difficult to explain, but we think better informed. Of course anyone who reads our posts will know we are no fans of the corrosion inflicted by Secular Westernism, with it’s under regulated global free market undermining personal and public morals. Its lack of moral hazard forging societies which don’t resemble civilizations and alienate and makes enemies of people who, quite understandably, but illogically, find answers to the west’s problems in old world type discriminations. People for whom control and discrimination (gender, faith racial sexual orientation, nationality etc.) are the solution and who all too often and perversely become the bedfellows of the Red Revolution as they all want to “change the system” by force.
The Blue Revolution takes as its starting point the fact that wealth and value share little in common these days. They have since we learnt to store value been different; one depending on the other (wealth depending on value) but in a ratio which was on a human scale. Now wealth is out of control and is consuming value as fast as it can be pumped out of the ground, harvested, built over or manufactured. The slush of wealth corrupts life and bloats expectations, creating the moral vacuum in which we all co-exist and which taints all of us.
The Blue Revolution is not a violent revolution, it is the nearest thing to a free lunch. It asks everyone who can think and has the capacity to control and modify their behaviour to do so on the basis of certain principles; down scaling expectations, have belief in the capacity of people to do good and actually do good; behave in a thoughtful and moral way putting back and not just taking out. An act of kindness, selfless and unrewarded is the simplest form of “value added”. Recognise that wealth, our wealth and that of others, is of no value unless it is backed up by hard work rather than luck, over confidence and the vagaries of the market.
We must also moreover recognise that if the Government must bail us out it is the nation’s people bailing ourselves out. With better regulation by government we as consumers can use our power to influence the market, to bring about the necessary change in the hope our improved outlook translates via the free market into change and acts to inspire others.
The Blue Revolution is the real “power to the people” not a committee of ministers and senior Civil Servants with over publicised agitators, acting on behalf of the people. We have this power because we have the free markets, the last thing we want is that power diminished by a traditional left wing, well intentioned, ill-informed but creating an emboldened state. The state for all its positives, when it becomes too powerful, will make too many of us just a little angrier, and some people are angry enough.
05.11.15 The final deadly Sin: Immodesty
We started this process of describing the modern “seven deadly Sins back in April 2015. The idea was to link some personal behaviours over which we all have control to the concept of corrupting “Secular Westernism” which is the Blue Revolution description of the self-destructive “it’s all about me” morality that undermines western culture.
The idea is to try and make the point that many of us will have taken our freedom and with it contributed to the decline of western standards of public morality. The consequence is in our view a reduction in social and economic value, both of which are essential for the health and sustainability of all economies and communities. In the west wealth has become a very poor substitute for social and economic value. However, wealth unlike social and economic value flows into the hands of too few people. The solution is not to redistribute wealth but to demand the creation of social and economic value; the Blue Revolution so to speak.
Our seven deadly sins are global sins, but they are particularly relevant to the modern western culture. They leave individuals at risk of being exploited and yet also prone to exploit others. The western world’s global “Hegemony” based as it is on creating too much valueless wealth, makes sinners of too many of us. Of relevance is our final Sin.
Our final is also our most widely committed and most controversial sin although by no means our worst; it is immodesty. Let us examine this in more detail beginning with immodesty in places where you may not expect to see it.
Modesty is a universal requirement of faith. Most if not all faiths require us to cover up, be calm and temperate, and to behave in a modest and restrained way. Virtually every culture in the modern world has found a way around this, (it is in many ways the most pervasive of sin) and it includes the immodest braying of fundamentalists of all hues.
In Africa and the Middle East, the hateful criticism of other faiths and ways of life from Christians criticizing Gays to the Sunni Muslim Monarchy in Saudi Arabia banning all other faiths but Islam. American televangelists promising wealth and salvation if you part with your money. Each shows an arrogance that is ill befitting of faith; a self-regard and easy default position that everyone else is wrong. Ones sympathy with the North African Migrants starts to evaporate when one observes young men swaggering across Europe demanding a new life uninvited, aggressive and bearing the entitled attitude and angry expression of our own entitled from top publicly paid officials like MP’s to bankers to some welfare recipients.
The ancient behaviours of averting one’s eyes and prostrating oneself, open palm gestures and respectful speech, modest dress codes etc which in the west became symbolic of “good manners” all show how important it is to show respect through modest behaviour. Modesty really is universal. To behave in a modest way promotes social harmony and cohesion and a respect for others within and outside our personal relationships. It also promotes a positive and safe social context within which crime could be much lower and economic and social activity would be much higher. In a world of gender equality such as we have in the west, the biggest threat to the individual comes from their own and others immodest behaviour. So, to all we would encourage a revival of modesty in cultural and economic life.
Any discussion of immodesty can’t ignore the fact that when it comes to industrial scale immodesty it becomes “part of our way of life” and it undermines us in the eyes of others. No one in modern times does immodesty quite like “the west”. Immodesty promoted via the internet is a blind spot for the individuals and the western culture in general. We are all ‘at it’.
We don’t want to labour the obvious point but people from most cultures who observe the west see nakedness as a symptom of something going badly wrong, particularly when the wests sexually saturated culture is viewed as both arousing and yet repellent by a more traditional world.
The freedoms we enjoy, our generally fair treatment of one another, our belief that people can reform, and should be treated with compassion are all overlooked as the focus moves onto our casual attitudes towards marriage and relationships, our pornography our widespread obsession with looks and celebrity. Cure this and the west will genuinely become a good and moral place unequalled for fairness, respect and equality. But if to “cure it” means taking away the freedom to do immodest things and behave in an immodest way then it’s not worth it. This is rule book morality a regime. Therefore, we can’t expect government to “put things right”; it is up to us.
The answer is, as with all our sins, simply not to indulge in them. The Blue Revolution is not about telling people what to do but is about showing anyone who is interested that to preserve the best of what we have we need to avoid the worst places that our culture will allow us to go. If I am modest in what I do it may rub off and other people may be modest in what they do.
As a society if we begin to control our behaviour, our generally good culture will become better. Over time a culture which unfortunately encourages some of us to misbehave will slowly modify; a process of slow almost invisible change will take place.
The world which discriminates and abuses to enforce moral behaviour will observe that in the west you don’t have to mutilate and punish, discriminate and control, kill and maim to ensure that society creates the maximum amount of social and economic value possible; it happens because in the west we have grown out of the impulse to be immodest. Evidence of this can be measured by the extent to which we have exorcised the demons of celebrity and gross planet consuming over consumption. Let us start this revolution now. Lets avoid the seven modern deadly sins.
10.11.15 The great immigration debate- good or bad?
David Cameron the UK Prime Minister has spelt out that he believes the basis of the UK’s negotiation with the EU should be prior to the much-vaunted referendum sometime between May 2016 and Nov 2017. The four negotiating points consist of the political, social and economic but without doubt the most controversial contains elements of all three. His demand to limit the access to “in work” benefits for migrant workers is causing ripples of applause and muted heckling from both sides of the debate. Too radical for some not radical enough for others. As we move towards the referendum, we at Blue Revolution will give an opinion on in or out; however, for the moment let us consider the immigration issue.
There is no doubt that the shift from “free movement of labour” to the “free movement of people” has caused a gearing up of numbers coming here from Eastern Europe. However, we must not forget that in the 1970’s and 1980’s the flow of Labour was from Britain to amongst other places Germany and from the 1990’s onwards the free movement of people was to amongst other places Spain and France. We have taken advantage of the borderless arrangements in Europe so should not be surprised when others want to come here. Left leaning Policy forums are claiming that in addition to the principle of free movement being a good thing as we benefit from it too, migrants also “add value to the British economy”. Now this is a very controversial claim…or so we think.
Firstly, anyone familiar with Blue Revolution will know we are a little obsessed with “Value”. For us the whole purpose of society is to create social and economic value to enable the survival of our culture and in the west to ensure the continuation of equality, consent, choice and contract as the heart of an expanded democracy. To ensure this we need to avoid the pitfalls and temptations of secular westernism and the seven deadly sins. So how does migration interface with our aspirations for western culture as experienced in the UK….it will be different in other places of course.
In the UK we have a culture and economy which is heavily reliant on the state to provide income for workers, services for service users and benefits for those who are unable or unwilling to work. Housing, education, and heath provide a minimum level of intervention for those who need it and we have a humane and fair system of justice with help for those in need. We are however burdened by an economy which has driven out skill and driven down wages to the minimum and locks those wage levels in place with a supply of willing labour; keen to benefit from the above. This arrangement suits too many people in different ways. The welfare recipients don’t have to work; wages are too low to incentivise gainful employment and in any event if you have to claim “Tax Credits” rather than out of work benefits, you won’t be so much better off, so it fails to make that early morning start in mid-winter worthwhile.
The rest of the stuff on offer; healthcare etc, is available to everyone anyway, worker or not. So, within the context of employment there is a major downside to mass immigration a downside in the form of depressed wages, British workers or potential workers dislocated by choice and from the active labour market. This is an unforeseen social engineering nightmare the social costs of which are pregnancy, single parenthood, depressed adults, low aspiration and unemployment. If there were less mass immigration wage levels would be driven up and there would be benefits to the economy and society. There would be greater levels employment amongst the indigenous British due to higher wages and there would be lower levels of the social problems identified above.
That it is the “left” who peddle the notion that immigration from Eastern Europe is positive is slightly perverse.
What the left fail to take into account of is that the wealth distributed in welfare to migrant workers does not create economic value, simply personal wealth and company profits, through subsidize low wages, and it adversely drives out for many British people their capacity to maintain high levels of social value independence, resilience and social responsibility for example. Less widely discussed but also relevant is the issue of housing demand; arguably we need more housing to house both migrant workers as well as our own economically inactive people many of whom have children and come from broken families. We also have our workers to house many of whom also have broken families too. Perversely house building and a ‘buoyant’ housing market create the illusion of economic growth; hence the governments obsession with it. Of course, this analysis we believe applies to Germany and France Sweden as well as the UK.
What about the other “old Chestnut” immigration as a driver for genuine economic growth? We have referred to housing demand creating an impression of real growth, but in our opinion house building has simply short-term benefits and does not add long term value. Housing feeds into the asset inflation mirage of growth, looks good on paper but like stock values is just froth, masquerading as real value. growth. Economic growth therefore must be more than building houses for a growing population of those with housing needs including migrants.
Having to understand the term migrant is also a challenge. There are many types, (EU, Non-EU, Illegal immigrant, Refugee, Student, legitimate non-EU immigrant, Asylum Seeker) but the group almost universally cited by left and right wing alike as having had a positive impact (i.e. value creating) is the pre-war migrant who “made good” and contributed to Britain’s post war economic boom. These were predominantly Jewish migrants fleeing Nazi Germany.
In the context of modern migration this clam needs some analysis. Firstly, we do believe that the post war economy grew as a result of pre-war immigration. Highly skilled men and women with ability who were driven from their homes by a genocidal regime and came to Britain escaping to freedom, created value both social and economic. Many were wealthy and well connected and talented; but not exclusively so. These migrants are used as evidence to support the idea of widespread mass immigration today. But regrettably the situation is not the same. Much as the political class wish it were.
Modern migrants are not on the whole wealthy or highly skilled…of course there are some who are. They are also coming here in huge numbers far greater than in the past. Many fleeing crumbling economies in North Africa bring their faith which has different expectations of how as a society Britain should create and preserve its economic and social value offering a rule-based regime with expectations and entitlements based on sex for example or tradition such as halal slaughter. For many of these newly arrived there is too much reliance on the service and hospitality sector and within this overcrowded sector a reliance develops on government financial business support.
So, what are we left with? There is no doubt migration can be very positive. The value of migration to the British economy and society in general depends upon who is coming and what values and skills they bring with them as well as how many come. To detach the issue from social and economic realities of value creation and preservation as the “something must be done” people or the immigration is simply about ‘diversity’ people believe, is utterly naïve. There is evidence of good and bad in respect of migration, but you need to look more analytically at what is really going on socially as well as economically.
What seems interesting to us is that with modern technology and transport there is no need for people to leave their culture of origin; they can connect and re connect anywhere and whilst this may promote a view that the host culture is alien and needs change it also allows the notion of location to be separated from the notion of nationality and cultural identity. In many ways we are free to be anywhere and the idea that we have to locate permanently anywhere is absurd, if you can’t cut it socially and economically where you are… it is not that difficult to go home and maybe you should not have left in the first place.
13.11.15 Jihadi John and moral confusion; can we help?
Jihadi John killed in a drone attack; one view is good riddance the other regrets the lack of a trial and “proper” justice. two conflicted views. The Americans show the usual lack of restraint and treat the death of one pathetic if psychotic individual as though it is the climax of the battle and in so doing demonstrate exactly the kind of western hubris that should antagonises people on all sides of the moral debate as well as unintentionally harden the resolve of ISIS to get their own back. Tone it down a bit guys!
There are enough innocent westerners in these war zones to kidnap and behead to avenge the death of Jihadi John, so we should show restraint in our success to avoid provoking more bloodletting. One of our Seven Deadly Sins (the things that make modern western culture problematic to those of all faith and some of no faith) is immodesty and it is a characteristic of the swaggering ISIS too. Irrespective of the way he was dispatched, we should restrain our impulse to gloat at his death. He represented nothing good and his death should not be significant either.
Now the subject of whether we should have put him on trial rather than execution by drone is interesting we think; The liberals in the west and ISIS themselves should not necessarily expect a proper trial for people like Jihadi John. Jihadi John lived in a chaotic and cruel dustbowl. A place where economic and social value is eroded by barbarism and a lack of coherent economic ambition. A trial would have been impossible for practical reasons (arresting him?) and it would be impossible to make a trial meaningful for those who support the ISIS cause. Justice has to be if nothing else a reminded to all that the values of civilization have been breached and the process of justice and the sanction are an example of right being re-established or restored in the face of whatever was wrong; dishonesty, violence or evil.
In the case of Jihadi John and the criminals of ISIS they do not see western justice as re-establishing the values of civilisation but the exercising of infidel justice on the virtuous warriors of Islamic State. On that basis it is naive to think that any good can come of our imposing our justice, however benign, on them. They do not value what we value and have set themselves against the culture of the west and elsewhere; cultures that are to varying degrees more likely to respect the individual and believe we should work peacefully together to grow together through co-operation greater social and economic value……things of which they have declared a violent hatred.
Given this perspective it is right to ask why in the west perspectives are so conflicted about the right response to Jihadi John; a humane if naïve judicial response or a gloating aggressive one; typical of reductive polarisation. We at Blue Revolution believe that it is because the west does not have a clear and coherent view of what the basis should be for western justice in the 21st century. After all the west is a bit of a moral shambles itself as we never tire of pointing out, greed, arrogance and stupidity on an industrial scale create major social problems in the west. Our Blue Revolution is our preferred response to this calamity but the fact there is a moral calamity means getting a moral perspective is quite hard.
However there may be a way forward; we don’t think many would disagree with us that the aim of any civilized community (at any point in history) including in the west (with the exception the major lapse of moral judgement in the Bush/Blair years) is to preserve value, be it social or economic in nature. ISIS put themselves outside the culture of any legitimate nation or state because it does not believe in preserving the legacy of the past for the benefit of the future. It destroys the past and the value that belongs from the past so it can’t be used to help society evolve socially, culturally or economically. Therefore they do not deserve to have any more than the minimum amount of scarce human and economic and social value deployed to remove their crazy life limiting and soul destroying ideology….the fewer of us who are harmed or the least time wasted in that process the better. ISIS are sad, mad and bad and they need to be eroded but let us not bray about it…let us just quietly get on with it; it is a bit like having to put down a violent dog.
17.11.15 Terrorism in France – “something must be done”
Have you ever driven the wrong way down a motorway? No neither have we; however, we imagine it would be very scary once you had worked out what was going on. The rhetorical question you might ask would be “oh shit something must be done” and “how can I deal with this FFS”. These are question’s the French specifically and the west generally are asking in the aftermath of the French terror attacks.
The Journey down the motorway would have started easily enough no cause for concern, nothing to worry about; I might have been 3am and the roads were clear at the start. However, as mile upon mile passed the slow realisation that something didn’t add up would have dawned and eventually you have traffic travelling towards you at 70 miles an hour to contend with. At which point there are two choices; panic or evaluate the threat properly. What you could not do is blame the road, or blame the other traffic, swerve around or brake hard. Neither could you carry on oblivious to the risk. This is a very self-inflicted problem.
The above feels to us like the situation Europe faces now it has woken up to the fact it has allowed it’s continent to become, in places at least, the nearest thing you can get to a caliphate. The European political elite, comfortable, multi lingual, and living off he labour of ordinary Europeans have from civilised subsidized citadels, allowed their “splendid isolation” to blind them the obvious fact that many who come here from North Africa do not share our values and are appalled by what we do with our freedoms. So faced with Paris what is the solution having finally worked out that we have been travelling the wrong way down the motorway for the last two decades or more?
Firstly, we cannot jam on the brakes; we are travelling at 70 miles an hour. We cannot carry on either as we must deal with the threats from other traffic or eventually, we will have an accident. We need to think about how we safely turn around or pull over put the hazard light’s on to make ourselves and others safe and get out of the danger zone and not repeat the same stupid mistake again.
Our Blue Revolution recognizes the march towards a common culture will happen over time and should be organic in character. So, in many respects driving the wrong way onto the slip road was an easy mistake for most western countries to make. The idea that cultural convergence would be a product of simple mass migration is an easy justification for mass immigration. What is there to worry about?
However, the Blue Revolutionaries at Blue Revolution link cultural convergence to the production of the collective social and economic value within a modern context of freedom and equality based on contract, choice and consent. This is the bit that all western countries fail to recognise. Convergence is not simply about “celebrating diversity” or “being PC” as has been the belief since the mid 1990’s. It’s not about ghettoising migrants who have been “rescued” or “allowed to remain”. Cultural convergence is not about closing boarders to migrants either. We don’t want to speed up on the motor way or jam the brakes on. We must have a controlled and measured response.
So here the west there are all these countries, France, Germany, Belgium, Sweden even the US and others all driving the wrong way down the motorway, it all looks ok for some time, no one had until recently seen the on-coming truck because the road was empty. However now we need to deal with the issue. But how?
Firstly, that seven or eight deranged psychopaths can cause so much carnage is something to exercise the minds of western leaders and westerners in general. As is the level of fear that eight people generate. The evidence from Paris would suggest that there was an element of “making the targets up as they went along”. They had the guns, the bomb making capability and the hatred, but the targets were last minute. They hadn’t got tickets to the match! So, two blew themselves up quite safely! The idea of an ISIS mastermind is therefore unlikely. More a general position of “we hate the west, here are some bombs and guns go and destroy the infidel”. This is both a worry and a reassurance. More planning would leave a detectable trail. Organized with the sheer amateurishness of the planning here means they strike out of the blue.
So, the first thing we suggest is not to exaggerate the ability of any one to detect what is likely to happen. Agencies might foil plots, but they might not. To change a way of life beyond recognition probably isn’t worth it in the long term; a bit like a meat and alcohol-free diet you might live longer but it will be a hard life. The second point is that to police and to protect will impede the economy and although western economies produce too little value for the amount they spend. The west needs to continue to produce value both social and economic value and you can’t do this in a police state.
The second point is that we need to develop a shared “narrative” with people from all faiths and none and identify a way of linking with international partners which isn’t a rerun of the cold war but neither is clouded in denial about what those with whom we partner get up to behind their own boarders. This “narrative” cannot be the usual western fetish about “democracy” great though democracy is.
At Blue Revolution we link our blue revolution to three key elements; upon which democracy can be based but so can other ways of ordering society. We believe that Contract, Choice and Consent practiced between all adults is the defining benchmark of a civilised post enlightenment society; whether democracy or not. If countries allow relationships between adults to be governed by the 3 C’s then eventually democracy and freedom with begin to flourish.
The next point is that social and economic value is as much the victim of war as the lives of people killed. Therefore, the adventures of Blair and Bush destroyed too much social and economic value in Iraq for the aims they set themselves, namely “regime change”. On this basis going after IS needs to be proportionate to the long- term aim of preserving enough social and economic value to enable communities to heal. However, the destruction of IS, is essential as they are themselves destroying the very social and economic value they seek to conquer.
Finally, the Blue Revolution is not just about the values of others; it is about the crazy behaviour in the west too; “secular westernism” as we call it. Any society which promotes or ignores the undesirable consequences of our seven deadly sins, is promoting secular westernism. It is not as dangerous as Islamism or fascism or Stalinist communism but is its own way it is equally as corrosive. Secular westernism undermines social value and compromises the ability to create and maintain economic value and gives the enemies of the western world plenty of things to hate us for…..and after Paris; hate us, too many seem to do, even if it is only a handful, it’s a handful too many.
23.11.15 Secular Westernism- who are the Secular Westernists?
The last week and a half have been dominated by France and Belgium specifically and the threat from their friendly neighbourhood caliphates generally. The phrase Islamism and Islamist to describe those who advocate violence to others to further the ambitions of violent social and economic degeneration is becoming common place. We are also at last beginning to get a worldwide perspective on ISIS and their violent hostility to the universal goal of humanity which is bind people together by faith and culture, so they create the social and economic value necessary to enable them to survive.
The future of evolution is peoples of all faiths and cultures working to the same end. ISIS stand apart from this “law of nature” and destroy value and the capacity of mankind to create more value by their violence and a rigid social code that only works if your aspiration is to live in a cave and scratch out a living in the desert. Or you are an oil rich monarchy.
However, whilst the west lacks the criminality, cruelty and violence of the Islamists, the Islamists may not be the only ones misunderstanding value and limiting mankind’s capacity to create more. The west has a more subtle approach to undermining the creation of value; it is hard to see and problematic to tackle as it has become the wests economic orthodoxy. It is what we call Secular Westernism something others have called the “western hegemony”.
We use the Blue Revolutionary term Secular Westernism as we believe that amongst every level of western society (elite to unskilled worker) there are the foot-soldiers of the Secular Western hegemony. It is as much personal as structural. Let’s call its advocates Secular Westernists. In contrast to the Islamist the Secular Westernist achieves undesirable outcomes by simply pursuing personal self-interest within a moral vacuum that lacks a faith based or Darwinian imperative to create the social and economic value necessary for society to evolve.
We talked about the seven deadly sins as the kind of behaviours which when practiced on an industrial scale have negative consequences on society as a whole; but we can add to the seven deadly sins the belief that wealth is a substitute for value, that the more wealth you have the more valuable you are and that wealth is “real” and is not a variable financial figure based on confidence or hubris overheating various markets.
To the Secular Westernist wealth being “real” is more important than human relationships or producing economic value. To a Secular Westernist wealth made by producing pornography is “real” wealth rather than simply money earned by producing something which has no objective value. Try and think of other examples; making money by selling personalised number plates for example or offering sex phone lines or even ‘shorting’ within the equities markets.
Add to this the fact that the various financial crises are evidence that when stock values collapse people loose wealth; there is no objective value there then and worryingly pensions depend on it.
This stuff is hard to understand but you need to think about how much of what a rich person has, is based on something real and how much is simply what they have borrowed or blagged or made by selling to the desperate, ill-informed or plain stupid, and is therefore the froth on the economy rather than the economy itself.
The challenge for the Secular Westernist and enlightened western governments as well as the Blue Revolutionary is to simultaneously see the “free market” as both the cause and the cure for Secular Westernism, and to see many of the great western general public as the foot-soldiers of the western hegemony; blindly promoting it, rather than being the “victims” of an evil system that only a governments of the red revolutionary type can overthrow.
A British minister asked how many decades until a British worker works as hard as a Chinese worker, 10,20, 30 years. The answer is as long as it takes the western worker to understand that getting rich is no substitute for creating value either social or economic ……..and how long will that be? Perhaps we need to start by understanding more about value and desiring less personal wealth.
24.11.15 You can take the Islamist out of the dust bowl, but you can’t take the dust bowl out of the Islamist
You can take the Islamist out of the dust bowl; but you can’t take the dust bowl out of the Islamist. This corruption of a British industrial working class saying has so much relevance for our understanding of the origins of Islamism. Indeed, it may help us to understand the passive support violent Islamists receive from the ordinary Muslim faithful and indeed perhaps the world’s Leninist left wing who offer sympathy to the economic underdogs of the world’s dustbowl economies. This Left wing believing the west is wholly to blame for North African poverty rather than seeing it as a combination of geography, greed, discrimination and corruption often with the overt connivance of the west.
Essentially as we have argued before, too many nations that profess Islam as their nation’s faith adopt it as a ‘dust bowl religion’ in respect of its reaction to social and economic justice. It could all too easily occupy a place where making a living was (is) hard and precarious and where value (the product of economic and social activity) could be easily destroyed by war, crime and famine.
This sort of society would be coherent with Islam. In such an environment it would of necessity be hard and uncompromising; high expectations and harsh punishment for disobedience. The separation of social and economic roles would be applied, and women’s role would be crystalized as social as opposed to economic in character and subject to the guidance of men. This would meet the needs of society and its economy, but it would leave little scope to evolve.
Firstly, such an economy would produce too little value and what value it did create was, as in all societies of the era except tribal ones, acquired by overlords. The faith was rigid economically excluding of women and hierarchical; but it worked and in dust bowls to this day still does. Blair and Bush’s folly was not understanding this when waging war in the middle east.
We would argue that when an Islamist comes to the west, they don’t see opportunity they probably see sinning on a grand scale. Their reaction is to reject “our way of life” and some; the most psychotic, take up arms to purify our culture of sinfulness. The fact that our freedoms create medicine, art, engineering and so on and so forth doesn’t occur to them, they are obsessed by the obscene freedoms the west has whilst looking enviously at the west’s wealth. Look around the middle east and you see absolutist kingdoms, wealth being held by monarchs and tyrants, you see a desire for hierarchy, authority and a somewhat hypocritical desire (amongst males) for purity. You don’t see values such as Contract, Choice and Consent which for us at a Blue Revolution HQ was the first rung on the ladder towards equality, freedom and democracy for all. And we still have some way to go.
So, whilst we have much to criticize the west about (too much superficial culture and wealth) it can’t be faulted for the commitment from all countries to Contract Choice and Consent. These three concepts need to be understood and promoted by all those who want to “fit” into the west. When someone from North Africa is able to demonstrate that they understand these three basic building blocks of freedom and can apply them in their day to day lives, they will clearly have taken the dust bowl out of their beliefs. Of how many Saudi princelings could one say that?
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.
10.02 15 Why Tolerance Should Give Way To Acceptance
Why acceptance rather than tolerance? Well tolerance is a term used in engineering and refers to the amount of pressure or strain a material can take before its yields and bends or breaks. It might have been a word that could be applied to any society which is strong morally like a steel girder, stressed only by modest weight, as we in the west once were. However with more and more pressure applied the weight gets too much and the consequences of too much tolerance becomes collapse. It is therefore not a word which works well in a world where we are no longer that steel girder and our tolerance is too often at breaking point as the pressure gets greater. The breaking point is the problem as is the build up of the pressure.
Acceptance fits better into our modern global scenario; for we accept many things and many faiths but we should not accept everything. We should not stand by silently like the steel girder being put under more and more weight until it fractures while injustice is all around us. We must be outspoken about what we are prepared to accept, and as importantly, what we don’t accept. There has to be a movement of people who across the globe say that they accept all faiths and none but they cannot accept injustice, cruelty or to be terrorized by anyone of whatever faith.
So why do we need to develop a concept of acceptance? It is because tolerance has failed to deliver stability. We acquiesce too much and burden ourselves with numerous untold problems due to our tradition of tolerance.
All faiths have at their heart the desire to preserve those who accept whatever faith. Mankind has always, out of necessity, sought to survive within different tribes or groups with their own single moral code and single moral purpose; all different but with one aim preservation: Tribes become kingdoms, kingdoms become nations and nations become empires. Eventually empires morally and economically over extended, decline, a process through which we are living now in the 21st century as the empire of the west seems likely to have entered its final century, the consequence of which is an unimaginable horror for those who believe in Choice and Consent.
Whether tribe or empire the purpose is the same; to deploy a unique morality to deliver us from contingency and fear and to create value to enable our survival. The challenge comes in who controls that value or as it is better but inaccurately known wealth. Who controls the value is a political issue but its creation relies on people adhering to a particular faith. This is why we have all faiths and none, because essentially faith speaks of human survival through the creation of value.We may not like the culture of others or the faiths from which those cultures evolve but we must accept their reality and view of the world and challenge them through peace and open dialogue if the faith is being used to harm others or is failing to recognize their rights. We must not tolerate harm, but accept the reasons why that harm might be legitimised and challenge bravely that which we don’t accept.
So why is this approach of acceptance so relevant now. Firstly lets assume the British and American empires are simply the empires of the western world; with the decline of empire there is a consequential loss of its moral purpose and a self-indulgent aimlessness sets in based on the past rather than the future; a reaction to which is to impotently impose the will of the empire on those it fears. And this sadly when there is neither the vision, the resources nor the necessity to do so. The resultant chaos exposes the weakness of the old empire and that weakness invigorates a new tribalism which thrives intent on replacing the old empires with its perceived lack of moral purpose with a new moral empire. Unfortunately, the old empire’s attempt to impose its values by force creates the chaos that leads to the very contingency and fear mankind has spent tens of thousands of years trying to escape. It thus forces those destroyed communities into having to accept a new simple moral purpose if only as a means of survival. This is understandable but not acceptable. Arguably the west has provided a fertile environment for ISIS by causing chaos in the middle east. Tribalism returns out of necessity.
In our inner cities in the west we have criminal gangs and fanatics who traffic, enslave and kill whilst the authorities are impotent to control or fully understand these groups or their behaviour. This is the re-establishing of the tribal mindset within our culture. These groups can thrive because they have a simple philosophy and simple moral purpose; to survive by preserving the leadership who in turn preserves the minions. But it is a survival where the individual, long considered to be of moral worth in the west, is accorded no value at all. This is the paradox of liberalism, horror and abuse of people exists because the ability and willingness to challenge it has been muted by a confused tolerance which lasts until the tolerance gives way and wars are waged and cultures destroyed.
At an international level the actions of the old empire in seeking to impose “democracy” or “freedom” on its adversaries unleashes tribal instincts which attach themselves to religion and reek havoc across huge swathes of the world taking advantage of the inability of the declining empire to maintain its grip or moral purpose .
To stop this madness people of all faiths and none, must understand the problem of too much tolerance; the pressure, fear and chaos it creates when it breaks down and counter its seduction with a new vision of acceptance or indeed non acceptance expressed confidently. With a belief in acceptance, non acceptance and peace we must show solidarity with all peoples and all faiths by promoting peace through acceptance and where tensions exist we must engage in healthy disagreement.
Politics like faith has to enter the 21 century, if that is, we want to see the rights of all individuals respected and preserved all over the world as lasting legacy of the influence of the west on world culture. In two hundred years there may be little of the Western empire left; but it is essential that its legacy of the rights of individuals to speak and be heard is preserved regardless of race gender, sexuality or faith and as humans in whatever groups we find ourselves we must never again be subject to the whim of the tribe mentality or the brutal overlord.
17.02.15 Faith and sensitivity
The recent criminal violence carried out in France against Charlie Hebdo, in Denmark yesterday (14/02/15) and Australia by people claiming to represent the Islamic faith, highlights serious issues on both sides of the troubled freedom of speech debate. In the West, we fail to see our own role in fuelling this violent criminality by challenging a faith that is understandable but ideologically much less able to view challenge in any terms other than as a threat to its existence. To any ideologically simple and unforgiving moral code, any threat is existential and requires a violent and uncompromising response. The reason for this is that faith was in the past and for some still is mankind’s response to the fear of being thrown back into chaos and contingency. If faith is threatened, therefore, for some people the response is going to be severe. This is not how it should be……but it is how it is.
In addition to the threat to the faithful presented by the direct challenge to the sensibilities of the Islamic faith such as cartoon depiction of the Prophet Mohammed; our lifestyle in the west is, in itself, a challenge.
We need to look at our own behaviour, the behaviour that challenges those of faith and some of no faith, for example our inability to manage within coherent family units without the collective misery of divorce or separation our reliance on single parenthood as a promoted family context within which to bring up children, our welfare system subsidising poor moral behaviour, consumption as a national preoccupation, celebrity culture and so on and so forth.
All this adds to the yawning gulf between the secular world and those of faith but particularly Islam. The West borrows and spends with little obvious moral purpose, other than maintain its pre-eminent global position; this is an unsustainable situation and the criminals who operate in the name of Islam know this. We need to look at both sides of the violence from and against Islamic groups and turn the war into a war of words. We cannot allow chaos to prevail as in chaos only unforgiving Islamism could survive with its brutality; something we have not yet come to recognise.
24.02.15 East and West -morality in a conflicted world
Over the last two weeks, we have explained our view that the lack of moral purpose in the West has contributed to the anxiety aroused in people of the Muslim and other faiths. This issue results in widespread fear and contributes to the rivalry among faiths and therefore their competing moral systems. Rivalry generally plays an enormous part in fuelling an unstable world and, in our opinion, a strong moral code based on peace will help overcome this rivalry, securing a stable world in which our children can safely grow up.
All moral codes are intended to preserve their different cultures from mankind’s past horror of contingency and the inability to create value to support and nourish people. Mix too many cultures together without a strong overarching “meta” value system (such as existed in the past with the Empires of Britain and the US stabilising Europe after the Second World war) and the existential anxiety will trigger violence to an extreme point. This is where we are now.
Our own intervention in the Middle East has only made the situation worse; by exposing the problem. Where there were once dictatorships holding down the violent impulses of different groups, we now have an understandable explosion of chaos in the Middle East: the imposition of “faith” based violence and aggression a symptom of this chaos. However, whilst the faith-based violence is the action of criminals, there is little chance of these fanatical groups imposing enough mature order on the areas conquered to allow their subjugated communities to create the value necessary to thrive and survive. They simply enact barbaric and pointless acts of murder reinforcing chaos thus recreating the fear and contingency mankind has been running away from for many millennia. To be progressive you need stability, to be properly regressive you need to create chaos, or have oil wealth necessary to subdue people and to police your repressive regime…
In certain sections of the media, there is an odd reaction to some these barbaric regressive banalities. There seems to be a conflicted position in which some people see the criminals in the Middle East as somehow both perpetrators of violence against innocent victims but also simultaneously victims themselves. Seeing oneself as a victim as do Islamic State is the response of a group that wants to gain control sucking in followers and resources. Being treated like a victim is the way the powerful gain control of us. To some extent our desire in the West to tolerate the despots of the Middle East (and later declare war on some of them) has led certain commentators to the view that, not only is the violence due to the West but the military machine of the West and mainly the US is to blame for the victimhood of a whole faith group in the region. Hating the US appears to offer justification for treating the criminals of the Middle East as though they are genuine victims. The West is not the cause of the violence but has, instead, provided by sheer incompetence the context: the chaos in which the criminals thrive.
Seeing victimhood as a virtue has for a long time been a problematic perspective offering little hope of betterment like the peasants of mediaeval Europe and the intergenerational unemployed in the UK today. It is a tool for control or controlling. For the survival of the real victims, the intervention of a greater force for good is required. For some commentators, the further intervention of the West sorting out the mess we have made in the Middle East is worse than allowing the greater force to come from the criminal militants themselves.
With no power going in to sort out the mess and I don’t mean the West, nothing will happen and the serious risk is that the criminal militants will not stop harming until someone comes along and stops them. This must happen the failure to act will simply enslave and degrade millions of innocents. Starting with Christians, gay people and other non-conformists.
If international socialism were still a viable option then I’m sure some would have supported that intervention, but it too would simply have done what the despots were doing for years: holding the lid down. The answer has to be to understand how the progress of the western world through the application of more and more skilful and technological means of production, has largely left the Middle East in a kind economic slow lane. In the West, we have developed our market-based capitalist system which has come to respect the right to trade and contract, move freely with goods and services so maximising personal choice. We accept that within this context, freedom of speech and faith are important parts of the deal. The only other issue one of personal concern is one’s own moral behaviour – helping to provide an environment within which one contracts one’s labour and manages one’s affairs so as to avoid depending on others and to contribute to the greater good. Contract, choice and consent are the economic outcomes from the maturing of the free market system giving rise to freedom of speech etc. They became pillars of our culture and benefit us all. Within this moral and economic context, we all created value and avoided contingency, uncertainty and fear whilst also giving rise to the demand for democracy. Sadly, in the late 21st century, many of us have lost the ability to function in a broadly moral way. Relationship issues, tax avoidance, greed, immodesty etc have taken hold. The cultural pillars described above worked because of our personal moral framework. They were designed to work in sympathy with society’s widest interests.
Therefore, to fully understand what has been going wrong in the Middle East and the West we must draw upon our knowledge of history, philosophy and psychology.
Essentially, the Middle Eastern societies that were, in the past, beacons of science, art and enlightenment, have slipped backwards as a result of their communities failure to become engines of their own progress through capitalism and the free market. The process of turning the trapped retainer into the contracted worker and expanding the number of opportunities that this would have provided, never really occurred and, indeed, with the discovery of oil, the need to do this – to achieve the economic value needed for supporting populations – became unnecessary. The oldest form of fascism too; man’s dominion over womankind has also in varying degrees held back progress, making families little autocracies rather than working partnerships. Thus, the situation we are all in now is that many countries in the Middle East were wealthy enough to become self-sufficient due to oil and open up opportunities for their people. However, they were unfortunately so politically unsophisticated to the extent that they fell prey to dictators who wanted complete control of oil value to create personal wealth Saddam; Gaddafi etc
Religion in this situation becomes the conduit through which revolution was being fought, and these revolutionaries were suppressed. The ensuing tussle, resentment and the demand for change (which the West muddle-headedly interpreted as a clamour for democracy) ultimately became the justification for war.
The West needs to accept that the “Western Democratic Model” is probably not going to get established in the Middle East anytime soon, the value base does not accept individual rights, but acceptance of others could be a good place to start to make progress. Perhaps for a decade or so a better model would be along the lines of a ‘scrutiny’ of the dictators to ensure that very basic human rights are observed, a kind of Magna Carta. The EU could easily take on this function to ensure that places like Syria, no less undemocratic in the immediate future though they might be, are upholding very basic human rights. The drift towards opening markets and trade could then stimulate other market type phenomena such as consumer choice, consent and contract. This could be the basis for social and personal arrangements becoming more liberal and the movement towards democracy might take hold.
We in the West also need to make significant changes to the way in which we lead our lives so as to avoid undermining our own culture. As I mentioned above, we have lost much of our moral purpose. In many cases, our personal conduct works against the interests of others and society at large. We could look for inspiration to other, more ‘faith-based’ moral codes. For example, we did at one time find in the Middle East an approach to life that was designed to coherently hold society together to avoid contingency and fear. Unfortunately, it has been corrupted by despots, oil and war. Fostering social order creates value and enables us to create wealth, meaning we can provide for ourselves and our families and safeguard our society and its rights.
If we choose not to do this we risk exacerbating our differences (particularly with Islam) and ushering in a long period of escalating violence. The likelihood of the Western powers and Western people doing this is not exactly likely due to the fact that we would have to reduce our consumption and behave in a more moral way, avoiding many of the lifestyle choices we have come to expect as normal at every social level. The issue for us has a lot to do with the relationship between Companies, the Government and the taxpayer. More of this, later.
03.03.15 The role of the faithful supporting those in need
A slight digression from the usual stuff about morality in a globalised world with something closer to home. It is a real sign of the quiet convergence of various faiths that they see the common purpose helping the poor and those in need here in the UK. There are food banks run on behalf of church charities as well as Muslim groups in Bradford and Sikh faith groups e.g. in London who offer support to others of all faiths and no faith. We have made the point in earlier postings that the west has lost its moral purpose, which undermines its economic and social purposes; this can be partly explained by the trend for expecting governments to take over the roles within communities that are the proper stuff of charities and the communities themselves; yes there is clearly a role for government, but groups who offer a model of clear help with moral expectations, as opposed to entitlements will provide a stronger basis for future progress for those who find themselves in need of help.
We all have to do what we can to add value to our lives and the lives of others by what we say and what we do. The opportunities granted to us by out liberal democracy should not be undermined by adopting an overly liberal approach to anything which essentially undermines everything. This happens because in the hands of a bureaucracy people fail to develop a sense of obligation to other human beings, lacking empathy and commitment to do more than wait for the next government payment to arrive. Faith groups and some secular charities seem to understand this approach better than governments and with their intersession, a sense of positive expectation can be fostered. Understanding the links between charitable relief, the role of the family ….so important to people of faith, and self-help will bring people of all faiths and no faith together and secure a more positive future for all who need assistance. In addition, the social and economic functions of society are enhanced by the role of faith and charity. People are helped to become more functional and socially and economically active. Even in the early days of faith and religion; the role of getting the dispossessed faithful back into alignment with the larger community fell to the religious groups through charity. Back then, however (as is the case in some parts of the world today) the faithless are not considered worthy of support and harsh and brutal punishment was administered. Today we have a more accepting approach which does not judge others because we don’t have to judge them. The poor are not a threat to our society.
To many, this idea of a charity supporting the poor will seem like abandoning the poor to the modern workhouse. We disagree. We do not advocate the end of the government’s role in welfare just the greater role for faith and charitable groups. There is no institution advocated here, no four walls, just a caring community that expects everyone to do whatever they are capable of doing to add to the common good. This avoids the poor becoming ghettoized, marginalized and thereafter despised and ignored. It brings them back into the community as visible contributing people. Anyone can add value, adding value is not the same as wealth, many activities create social if not economic value; tidying the community and fostering children add value, selling shares simply creates wealth.
14.03.15 What is faith for?
So far, we have attempted to explain our simple theory that all faiths and some beliefs that involve no religious faith have in the past played a crucial role in mankind’s development. Faith was the means by which we became functioning social units bounded by a common sense of purpose. The common purpose being to work to avoid what we call “contingency” but which perhaps is better understood as uncertainty and thereby to increase the chances of survival by productive activity. Productive activity creating the value which enabled our forebears to survive.
Who did what in the family was an important component of this process. The better we became at controlling our environment the more value we created and the better able we were to survive. Faith was the kingpin to this wonderful process. It has to be accepted that the rules applied to society by different faiths particularly if you head way back to the past were in too many ways discriminating, they met the needs of those societies they related to at that time. However, the value created by society was often taken by the powerful and denied to those who created it. We should not, however, judge these societies on our terms; we would not have had the progress we have had since we emerged from a state of living on our instincts into one based on consciousness, had we remained a fearful group of suspicious small tribe hunter-gatherers. Faith gave mankind coherence and ensured our survival.
Faith, therefore, was an essential component of our survival as a species…it is clearly Darwinian in its importance. However what relevance has faith now? To answer this, we need to look in more detail at what faith did for us in the past and ask are we better off without it or should we try and return to some of the basic truths contained within the faiths of our past.
It is important to clarify from the beginning that the way faith was used in the past to control people and enable our survival, had a historical context; so, for example, some current “faith” based societies have fetishized certain old faith-based practices. Stoning, flogging, and amputation may have been an absolute necessity in a world of fear, starvation, and uncertainty but today it is just a weird abuse of human life almost but not exactly turning human suffering and death into a spectator sport. We are not, therefore, going to even start to suggest that any faith should promote a return to that kind of thing. In fact, as the criminals of ISIS will discover it is not possible to avoid contingency crisis, fear, uncertainty, and anxiety when you are the cause of it. In situations like this people will not be able to create value and so eventual decline and slow extinction with follow on. Without oil, Saudi Arabia would have been extinct decades ago.
We have a good reason for saying that we no longer require draconian culture propped up by draconian faith. The reason being that we are no longer in fear of our old enemies contingency and uncertainty and therefore have developed the capacity to create value (or in the case of Saudi Arabia pump it out of the ground) without in reality having the fear that dissenters from faith will cause some kind of cataclysmic social catastrophe. The same thing does not apply to the criminals of ISIS. These throwbacks to a past age of fear and uncertainty have little if any chance of using their “faith” or criminal incompetence to create the kind of social and economic value which provides security for their children and the communities they control. They are quite simply not up to the job of building a modern nation. But as I will go on to suggest, neither are we in the west.
We in the west need to take a long hard look at our “culture” with its ludicrous idolatry of celebrity and pornography, our shallow obligations to one another causing mental illness on a grand scale and our requirement particularly in the UK to be paid for anything we do stripping it of all social value and rendering it merely wealth creating. The culture of welfare turning socialism into the new “opium of the people” is a new and emerging challenge and all this straddled by politicians who I honestly believe can’t see the cultural wood from the economic trees.
We are therefore in danger of inciting a cataclysmic clash of cultures; Faith groups but particularly Islam being fuelled by a legitimate and credible dislike of the self-destructive “culture” of the west; whilst the west blind to the obvious causes of Islam’s objections to our culture sees Islam as an existential threat. For the west, the debate becomes laughable, about Islam’s dislike of democracy and freedom. So this justifies regime change and more chaos. Hmm seems like Armageddon is almost unavoidable.
To bring all faiths together and create peace through acceptance we need to start to get a debate going in the west about the west. Understand Islam and all the stuff it does but contextualised it in terms of the role of all faith in all cultures. Then once we have started to sort ourselves out we can start to comment on the modern role of Islam in a world of IT, equality, contract, choice and democracy.
In our next post we comment on how in the west we have unwittingly recreated fear and uncertainty on a very personal level.
15.03.15 Sorting out a moral/social/ economic problem the western way!
We have commented that in the west we have issues to address and by making the simple assumption the world’s problems lie elsewhere (Russia the middle East, Africa) we are being dishonest with ourselves.
Our reaction is particularly hazardous if we fail to grasp what is really behind all faith communities’ concerns about western culture and some nonfaith groups too. Most particularly the problems we in the west must confront exist largely on a personal level rather than a political level, so it is easy to convince ourselves that everything is all right “in general”. Politicians, some established Church people and those with a stake in the status quo, can have no basis for considering anything is wrong.
Again, it is important to show understanding of their lack of concern, but be critical none-the-less. The reason they seem ambivalent whether police, politicians or civil servants is quite simple; social issues don’t really touch them or if they do the consequences for them can be mitigated by higher income and a higher social position. Or they are employed to try and tackle the problem, unaware that it is the flaws in our “liberal tolerant” society that cause the problems in the first place.
In the past faith helped mankind by bringing certainty to people’s worlds even if that certainty had cruel dimensions. Today in the west for our most vulnerable people there is little personal certainty and therefore little capacity to create value social or economic.
Take the issue of teenage sexual exploitation. Most commentators, politicians and the police have now concluded that the fault lies with the abusers not the abused. The line here is agencies failed to react to evidence of abuse due to cultural sensitivities (since when has crime been excused based on cultural sensitivities…? Oh yes quite often; Domestic Violence, animal cruelty, FGM and so on and so forth). The major issue, however, was that within this situation there has been a clash of cultures which sadly characterises the conflicts of culture we have tried to outline in earlier posts. We have males who culturally have come to expect high moral standards from females (the woman is the citadel of Islam).
The Islamic faith places women behaviour on a high pedestal but like all high pedestals it will be a hard landing if you fall off, and the girls at the centre of the abuse had fallen off and their hard landing was to become viewed as their worthlessness. Now, this situation was made worse by the fact that the males and agencies who should have been protective took a similar view to the abusers; the girls were out of control etc. Which I can accept is possibly true, but is no justification for the abuse they experienced; their lives should never have been seen as worthless.
So, we have a toxic moral mixture which in many respects reflects the wider conflicts between of western and other cultures as seen by many faith groups and this includes Islam. Like all generalisations, there is a degree of truth within it.
We are sexually preoccupied and ambivalent about it. We see many others lives as worthless rather than as a reflection of the grace of their God. We have a low tolerance for the spiritual needs of others and rely on the government to step in. This is seen in many areas of society, but particularly in our past muddled response to the crisis of abused children. The states response to child abuse; lessons in consent for children!
Lessons in consent should be unnecessary in a culture where people (adults) take the time to get to know each other properly and respect each other as individuals, rather than categorising each other based on looks or affluence as young people are now tending to do. Young people learn from the adults around them and develop toxic values which leave them open to abuse.
Young people should see their lives as more than their outward bodily appearance and should avoid obsessing about what they could to with the physical gifts of nature bestowed on them. They should avoid benefiting themselves rather than benefitting others. Children should not be made to feel it is necessary to give or refuse consent; this path like every other “western cultural solution” has the seeds of a major disaster ticking away in its DNA.
Consent for illegal behaviour should not be given by a child in a healthy culture, but if given by a child, encouraged by the system to exercise what should be an adult right, it will be on the basis a sad desire to be wanted; it’s a predatory charter. Once consent is given there is no “cooling off period”. Whoever dreamed up this idea for dealing with Child Sexual Exploitation should be subject to close scrutiny because as ideas go it is utterly appalling. But it reflects we suppose an utterly appalling society.
Girls need to be raised in loving homes within a family that loves them for who they are. The adult male should be (wherever possible) the actual biological father.
Both should take the time to exercise choice and consent before settling down to have children and cooperate as equals in their daughter’s upbringing; even if this includes a parent staying at home to do this. The family should be a place of values and a place of safety for all. The sick spectacle of pre-teen precociousness should be seen as creepy and unacceptable, stealing childhood.
Step-fatherhood should be an exception rather than a rule. Boys should mirror the father’s respect for the mother and should see girls as their equals, not as objects.
All faiths require modesty and modesty should be an expectation, particularly for children. The answer to sexual abuse is like many other things a matter of putting values back into society. Reverse the wholesale destruction of the primary family unit. The fact that too many stakeholders can’t bring themselves to say this, explains why when the system looks at the issue, the solutions are muddled and perverse. Preserve the status quo and achieve nothing more than more harm, abuse and unhappiness. Changing things for the betterment of children might just make life less exciting, more responsible and routine for adults but then you can’t go on blaming cultural sensitivity and the failure of expensive state agencies when children continue to copy adults, sexual behaviour and too many are abused.
The fact that in too many parts of the west adults put themselves first and pervert the environment for their children is the reason why faith communities see the west as weak and self-destructive. Raising stable families freed from the fear of emotional uncertainty who can be socially, if not economically productive, requires time and effort. In the absence of this time and effort from parents, the government has to pay for it…..and paying they are, or perhaps more accurately we all are!
22.03.15 Tunisian museum tragedy- The criminals Vs the West V1
The horror of the shootings at the museum in Tunisia only serves to highlight the impasse between the criminals who identify themselves as Muslim and the rest of the peoples of the world. The fear we have is that this is a war neither side can win; it’s a Mutually Assured Destruction but fought with bombs, bullets and brutality as opposed to the technologically out of reach Weapons of Mass Destruction. Although that could, of course, come later.
The statement by ISIS was chilling in its content as for the first time we heard a statement to the effect that all westerners are legitimate targets simply for being westerners; There is no attempt to distinguish one from any other; this is the criminals setting themselves against the world in all its beautiful and wonderful diversity. The west and the world must now be starting to recognise that here we have a culture of brutality and ignorance that will not respond to any kind of appeal to better nature, common sense or humanity. So how do we deal with it? As to deal with it, we must.
The first thing the west needs to do as we have said many times before is look at itself and the way its culture might adversely affect the planet and challenge the world’s morality. Western culture has many obvious flaws some of which we have referred to in previous posts so won’t re-rehearse them again here. What we have not explored to date is why the west has considerable social problems that often become economic in character. These problems create victims, financial winners and losers and spawn often deplorable lifestyles around which a fetishized obsession develops among many people of faith, and which becomes incendiary within the minds of criminals who adopt Islam as a cloak of legitimacy for their violence and brutality.
In the minds of many people of faith, the western world is adopting an illegitimate way of life, based on a concept of wealth which has for decades owed little to our ever-decreasing productive capacity. This is for us the essential weakness of western culture and the hair trigger for violence against us. We magic up from nowhere the wealth of such enormous size and complexity that it flows around the planet; not doing good but creating the context for lifestyles that are as unsustainable as the “Dust Bowl” Islamism favoured by ISIS.
The capacity to produce true value in the west is considerably smaller than the amount of wealth created on the back of that value. The wealth which has little real value flows around and unfortunately ends up all too often in the hands of either the corrupt or the criminal. For every Bill Gates, there are far too many racketeers and hucksters in every country in the world, inspiring fear, and frustration at one level and hatred and violence at the other.
The solution to this massive global problem is the west recognising that a lot of what is called wealth is nothing of the sort. It has no real value and the people who have it may not be particularly deserving of it but have just got lucky. This applies to businesspeople and perhaps more appropriately our celebrities and those who feed off the dreams of others, pop stars and the like.
The glitz and glamour funded by worthless debt-based wealth which is pumped into the system by frightened Governments who fear war and revolution if the money-go-round slows down. For the rest of us, the money-go-round is simply a form of enslavement trapping us into faithless and pointless lifestyles which offer little hope of happiness or salvation and which because it is debt based widens the difference between value and wealth even further.
Wealth without any value is simply an immoral hoarding of someone else’s debt. So for us the driver for our unsustainable western lifestyle is our ability to create money with no value and to thereby fund lifestyles of no value…….with all the attributes you would expect; abandoned elderly, divorce, adultery, illegitimacy and so on and so forth. These horrors will happen and in a tolerant western society for some time to come, we guess it is to be expected. That is why the Western governments are compelled to deploy wealth harvested from real production to tackle the problem but augment this with consumption based on indebtedness.
As lifestyles go we have come to practice the above all too casually, and on an almost industrial scale. So when Criminals identify themselves as Muslims and looks at the west they can see a lifestyle which is bogus, inhuman and essentially unsustainable paid for by money created in an Alice in Wonderland economy.
Such a view triggers the violent instinct that believes a dose of dust bowl Islamism will cure the west of its ills. The purity of a simple desert life with apostates being beheaded and adulterers stoned seems to be a way of solving the very crux of the west’s obvious problem, but that problem isn’t simply moral it’s economic too; that is too much money chasing too little morality.
We believe many people of faith will agree with the above, hence we suspect the number of converts to Christianity, Islam and other faiths may well increase. In addition, there may be a return to primitivism within some faiths. However what people of true faith will not be interested in doing is destroying the culture and character of their faith or the faith of others and replace it with, for example, a 7th-century dust bowl variety of faith, based on brutality and fear.
People with deep and enlightened faith will adopt a faith-based lifestyle for themselves which puts some much-needed morality back into lives blighted by too little social or productive activity. Our weight gain and poor health our idleness and self-obsession are easily identifiable symptoms of the problem
The ISIS criminals want to destroy western wealth which they fetishize as the cause of our problems. As we have said our wealth creation needs to be brought down to a level where it has a closer approximation to an actual value created (less froth more real value) and is less prone to drift into the wrong hands, but the west should not and does not deserve to be destroyed. The ISIS dust bowl has absolutely no productive capacity and as we have said previously it is the role of individuals, families, tribes, nations and empires to create value to sustain themselves. ISIS destroys not only wealth but value and by destroying value they will ultimately destroy themselves.
We think in our next blog post I’ll look at the humanity and freedom the west offers the world and explore this strange notion of value.
30.03.15 Tunisian museum tragedy- The criminals Vs the West V2
Value plays a key role in all societies and was particularly significant in the past. There was in the very early days of mankind’s existence social value generated by individuals observing their belief system, enabling them to produce economic value with minimal fear, harmoniously in most cases, to provide the food to support their families and community.
War was then, as now the destruction of value usually by one group against another but sometimes within the same group. Faith was closely linked to stability; therefore any behaviour outside of the “norm” which affected the ability to provide food to support the whole community required serious retribution. It made no sense to waste value on transgressors. Some faiths still support the practice of harsh punishment because the link to their past is still quite strong and the link to the perception of survival is raw.
As society moved forward technologically this social value became a bit less important as more complex social arrangements emerged; detached from the survival issue by technology albeit only plough and Oxen the link was weakened further between what people did and whether they contributed directly to the general survival of all or could lived on the value produced by others. By this time economic value could be stored in the form of money or other valuables rather than immediately consumed. It was at this point that politics emerged as a force, competing with faith not only to control people’s minds but control the value they created. This was the shift from pre-agricultural society to post agriculture; organisation, primitive technology, and investment began to emerge.
The value created was economic value on a greater scale. Once value could be created and stored rather than immediately consumed, “faith” became a means by which the ruling classes (Kings, Pharaohs etc) exercised control to ensure that people surrendered their share of the economic value they produced to the ruling class. Society was pretty much like this for millennia; with the west and their reformation most recently starting the process of gradually weakening the control of the kings, and via capitalism, and then in some places socialism, reallocating value to the “organisers of the means of production” or government respectively.
The ancient Egyptians had a society that took the value from the Nile and created a Kingdom which lasted five thousand years. The value was not sent back to the people who created it and many Biblical stories reflect this period of slavery; value creation, requisition, submission, and control. The stories capture the role of faith in tackling the issue of value requisition and how the societies involved, tackled the problem. For the Egyptian society to last five thousand years the faith of the people in the legitimacy of that society and their place in it must have been very strong.
Value is therefore whatever is created by an individual or society that allows them to survive. It can be stored and accumulated, gave rise to complex societies and its existence in a stored form is why politics was born. Value is the birth mother of politics, and faith its handmaiden.
Now there was a limit to how much you can accumulate and store value in hard coinage and bullion terms. We suspect the reason the Pharaoh’s survived as long as they did was because the value that the Nile created was sufficient to allow them to hoard a lot of value, and employ and feed workers and slaves and this coupled to people’s faith in the gods made the whole enterprise legitimate for all concerned. The Pharaoh’s were essentially the guarantors of stability and sustenance for all. They removed the fear and contingency that in mankind’s very early days, faith alone had done; by spending some of the surplice value on “projects” that employed and fed people.
The birth of politics had weakened faith as men and more recently women began to realise that the status quo could be challenged. The allocation of economic value away from those who actually created it was viewed as wrong. Faith, unfortunately, became popularised as “the opium of the people” by thinkers like Karl Marx; thus it became seen as a reactionary force, holding society back. Enterprise which is essentially the creation of economic value is of course a good thing, so there needs to be some premium paid to the person who organises the production process. But really should the economic and social system be so perverse a system that it creates today’s super rich. Those of faith could now do more to challenging the system.
This concept of the super rich in today’s society (people on par with the Kings of the past) brings me onto the next theme of this post. That is how, over thousands of years, from value being pretty much what humans picked off trees, pulled out of the ground or killed, it became sufficiently plentiful and storable for people with big sticks to hoard it, deny it to others and make themselves rich. What has happened since this time of the initial hoarding of value is that the kings have gone (although the oligarchs in Russia and the thugs of ISIS are an obvious throw backs to the men with big sticks. In the case of ISIS however there is no value to be created from new and future production. They are essentially parasites with no economic capacity, simply a perverted idea of social value they impose with brute force, dust bowl Islam as I call it).
The western world has created the conditions for the super rich to emerge. Since the early days of economics in Biblical times the world has created lots of cleaver ways of making a little value look like a lot of wealth, rather than creating more actual value. Creating real economic value is hard work;it involves combing land, labour and capital in proportions which make a profit. Making a little value look more impressive is relatively easy, once you have the financial smoke and mirrors set up.
In the west there is little promotion of social value (old fashioned faith type value for example or doing something for nothing) and a reliance on debt rather than the creation of economic value. This debt is brought into existence with some cleaver tricks of accounting, allowing money to be printed to stimulate “consumption”. By leaving our faith base we have become too entitled and moved our governments into a world of “Alice in Wonderland” economics to drive the economy. In such an economy a pea sized amount of value can be turned into a planet sized amount of wealth via debt. Of course the major problem is the poor pay for this and the and the rich acquire it; including Russell Brand…whoever he is. Wealth creation is where the fun starts as it involves Banks and Governments and bogey men of all descriptions.
So what we have now after a millennia and more of growth and development in our “Financial Services” is a total disconnection between value (which is something be it social or economic that has to be on a human scale and created by complex human activity as opposed to pressing button on a computer) and wealth which is no longer linked to value and which can be multiplied out of all recognition based on airy fairy concepts such as confidence or belief in the market. This is the real problem for those of faith who believe in things being both real and on a human scale and having social as well as economic dimensions. The problem for those of faith and the more enlightened of those with no faith is that we are simply peddling a broken economic model which taxes the poorer to create wealth for the richer and in doing so undermines our moral purpose; there is little in the way of real value supporting or underpinning the whole teetering edifice.
Our economic model malfunctions due to a number of modern phenomenon driven by our drift from faith and belief in the need for survival. Welfarism; paying people to be idle and simply exist for themselves or to farm babies on an often industrial scale to tap off wealth for themselves wealth created by taxpayers and government debt. It also works through the public sector; paying people to do jobs that should not be necessary if society functioned to create social and economic value. Well paid jobs bankrolled on the back of a debt economy that costs the poorest the most through taxes they have no choice but to pay.
Some public sector salaries in Great Britain are twice or three times what the British Prime Minister earns. How odd is that. Not odd at all if you consider that the upper reaches of the Public sector including Westminster politics has become the occupation of choice for many in the British upper classes. Well that or Acting! Finally with all this valueless wealth sloshing around, largely created for and on behalf of the Government “the rich” are able to tap it off by creating businesses which appeal to people’s baser drives for example sexual services and “want” based consumption. The whole thing is offensive to those of faith and some of no faith because it reflects a race to the moral bottom, creating debt for the Government and the poor, whilst rewarding the “rich” for whom their principle moral reaction to their good fortune is to pay as little tax on profits or earnings as possible
The upshot of this system is that the economy does what it is doing now…..it starts to fail. We have referred to how this failure manifests itself socially; divorce and illegitimacy on an industrial scale, domestic violence, obsessions around spending and consumption, a society of entitlement rather than social or economic duty. How far we have come technologically yet morally we are little better than our squabbling ancestors trying to make sense of a strange frightening and confusing world whilst allowing the overlords to take most of the wealth. The difference is; we started to sort it out once and now we are throwing the legacy away.
In a future blog post we hope to explore two key elements of the modern western world by looking at how the “relationship” industry and housing industry work in a morally unacceptable way. Both are a product of the poverty in social and economic value, and both reflect the flight from faith and Darwinian survival; both sowing the seeds of the unfortunate and unnecessary but relentless destruction of the west and its diverse culture based on choice, contract, and consent.
06.04.15 Tunisian museum tragedy- The criminals Vs the West V3
We seem to be unintentionally creating the conditions in the world where Christians are being killed simply for being Christians. Whilst blame should and will always remain with the criminals we must look at contexts to understand the situation with a little more sophistication. Christians are being butchered in some of the most barbaric ways imaginable as well as simply being mown down by gunfire. The perpetrators of this behaviour are a murderous class of criminals who identify themselves with Islam, but who fail to understand the difference between Christianity and the more widely known secular western culture.
I can well imagine the fanatics in the caves and compounds viewing western culture and hating every second of it whilst at the same time being strangely aroused by the freedoms, particularly sexual freedoms on offer in the west which true Christians feel are as absurd as many of other faiths and none. I have written about this in an earlier post. When barbarity stops being a reaction to possible extinction it becomes fetishised. The Saudi Arabian culture captures this most profoundly. People (many I am sure poor, mentally ill etc) experience their last, sad, pathetic moments of life as a spectator sport, at the Friday beheadings. Now this template of Islamic culture has a wide appeal and along with intolerance, sexual prejudice, and obsession for cultural purity is alluring for those who despise the west. In this scenario things like the west’s sexual freedom come to justify cruelty towards Christians on an unimaginable scale.
The sexual freedom the west has experienced for most of the last fifty years has unfortunately let to widespread and indifferent promiscuity with all the personal tragedy that this throws up. However whilst the response should be that you don’t kill people because you object to what is seen as their culture it becomes more compelling when the justification is a mix of cultural hatred and sexual excitement.
There are those in the west with a fetishized fascination with death; on the internet death is viewed as entertainment by the immature curious and perverted. Within fanatical groups the voyeur becomes the practitioner, where motivated by a desire for retribution arising from their own repressed sexual excitement the blood lust becomes fanatical indeed. ISIS and al Shabab are reacting with violence and cruelty because they hate arousal, particularly sexual arousal that western culture causes them. Dealing with the whole western moral swamp is the western world’s biggest challenge.
This brings me to the point about ISIS and al Shabab criminality and the abuse of Christianity. In my opinion Christians are being slaughtered because of the moral “sins” of the western world; yet no Christian would sanction the kind of behaviour which the Criminals of ISIS et al find so arousing. There is no place in Christianity for immodesty, pornography and greed. So when ISIS or al Shabab kill Christians they are killing people who have a certain view of how life should be lived which would be in harmony with their own if they were not simply criminals hell bent on blood lust and slaughter.
For all faith’s and those of no faiths to live in harmony the west to turn back to a more moral way of living not just Christian living, but any moral code which promotes moral behaviour. In world like this Criminal gangs of ISIS and Al Shabab would have no support within the ranks of their own professed faith, they would have to stop killing and grow up.
06.04.15 Britain- a Christian country? Some mistake surely
Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron was not alone in suggesting this Easter that Great Britain is a Christian country. Whilst quite rightly endorsing, as we do, that we accept all faiths and those of no faith the idea Britain is Christian rather than secular liberal is one of the reasons why Christianity is despised by many who hold a strong faith be it Islamic or Buddhist or whatever faith or set of guiding moral principles including Darwinism. However not surprisingly traditional Christians too reject the outcomes arising from the destruction of faith-based morality and the promotion of the secular liberal moral sursum corda stripped of all moral content.
It would be more correct to point out that Britain was a Christian country but is no longer (just look at the declining attendance numbers at Church) however it has a Christian tradition which when coupled to economic freedom drove the British economy to a level of global power which has never been surpassed. If you take out the specifically “Christian” elements of Christ and the Gospels; what Christianity helped to create in Britain whilst constraining within moral boundaries, were the three elements upon which western culture and latterly the west’s freedoms evolved; namely consent, contract and choice. These are elements within the world’s DNA of which Britain can rightly be proud. Yet without the moderating influence of Christian morality these elements throw up horrors and perversity of a truly deplorable kind; family breakdown, pornography, abuse and exploitation, illegitimacy, idleness and greed. Without a moral framework contract, choice and consent create the seeds of the west’s slow destructive devolution and perversely make other “rule” as opposed to “conscience” based faiths seem more legitimate.
Just a thought at Easter.
08.04.15 What happens when rules replace morality?
If you look at what is happening in Britain and the rest of the western world something quite odd is going on. In earlier times we had to rely in strict rules and justification for our day to day behaviour. The reason as earlier posts have explained is the need to protect value…an essential component in any society which expects to survive. As we have matured, we became less reliant on “rules” imposed from outside of ourselves and accepted that some rules were just good in observance and seemed to come from within. This conferred legitimacy. This is morality coming from within us and not imposed from without us. The problem was that certain things like sexuality became subject to this moral code and were considered unacceptable; homosexuality for example. However, what has replaced morality is a set of rules that the state is required to enforce. This is expensive and lacks “buy in”. Are we really a society that respects all faiths and no faith groups or indeed people who choose a different lifestyle? Do we really support all who are none-the -less are value promoting and legitimate?
What has happened is that we have created a rule-based society-like we had in our distant past. The difference now is that these rule based modern societies or rather their governments are not protecting social and economic value by consuming a small proportion of that value to preserve the rest; they are creating debt based wealth to uphold their rules even though those rules are decent and well intentioned it costs a lot to uphold them. It was once said that history repeats itself; the first time as tragedy the second time as farce. That sort of explains where we are now re-establishing a rule-based society funded by borrowed money to preserve a society that creates no value. The rules may or may not be right but the cost of upholding them is unaffordable. They need to be come moral faith based rather than rule based to survive and preserve the west’s culture of contract choice and consent.
Unless people and particularly politicians understand these contradictions in how we rely on rules the values of the hard right or rule-based faiths start to look legitimate; hence Russia as the upholder of Christendom and ISIS et al the upholders of Islam. Wow – what a combination.
19.08.15 A message to the Jihadi “brides”
There has been much speculation about why you would have chosen to go to Syria and become the brides of the criminals fighting out there. It has been said that it was because the police didn’t stop you or somehow your education failed you. , I don’t want to go into any of that, no do I want to suggest you were “groomed” on the internet. No, I want to suggest to you that you went because you wanted to go; you saw, as I see, as a person of faith, that some activities are morally worthwhile. The view you have adopted will see the decadence of what you rather naively see as Christendom as an affront to Islam. If you agree with me so far you must accept that Western culture is, as I have said before, in its more deranged manifestations, an insult to Christianity and all other faiths too, not just Islam.
However, whilst the west parted company from Christianity decades ago the desire to slay the beast of Christendom continues. You I believe were drawn to what you will probably argue is this moral cause. However, a word of caution…you may be devout and Muslim but you are also western. Let me explain.
As a western woman you will have become used to being listened to and to use an irritating “right on phrase” having a voice. You expect this because you are educated and happy and alive. The opportunity to be like this comes from the western world’s belief that you have rights….not conferred by your husband or your religion but by your western culture. You have the right to choose; for example what to wear, who to marry, whether you want to have a sexual relationship………or whether you don’t, whether you want a job or children. In your new world this choice will be taken away. Your husband will decide all this for you and your “voice” will be drowned out in a hail of anger and violence. Your western culture affords you the right to consent, you may choose to marry but not consent to being beaten or being forced to wear a veil or have children or worse. In your new world the concept of consent does not really have any place. No one is consenting to anything. It is brute force and ignorance on an industrial scale. Finally, you can contract so that what you agree, you can expect, be it the mundane purchase of a washing machine or a service of any other sort for example health care. In your new world social contracts are a piece of decadent western nonsense so when something harmful happens, you will not be treated with kindness and get sensible recompense; you will be lucky if you are spared any time or humanity at all.
Finally, the criminals of ISIS will not like your views, views that you should expect to contract have choice and consent to things that affect you. These western values will in all probability be beaten out of you, so you become a Jihadi bride, uncontaminated and cleansed of western decadence and western rights.
But whilst I can see your strong faith as the motivation for joining Isis….. as I have suggested above frankly you are not what they want, you are too cleaver, sensible, sane and have the normal expectations of any western woman, that you live your life your way. The fact that in the west we abuse and debase our rights making short term stupid moral choices does not mean our rights are wrong, just that some of us are wrong, as you will no doubt be discovering from some ISIS controlled sand pit somewhere in Syria. Oh and the same applies to the boys as well.
26 April 15 The new seven deadly sins
Over the next seven weeks I am going to explore the concept of sin from the perspective of what I want to call the “new seven deadly sins”. The old “sins” remain problematic; gluttony, Ire, Greed etc but whereas in the past such behaviours would undoubtedly have caused harm to others in the longer term the harm is significantly less pronounced today and in many ways these old sins affect the perpetrator much more than the recipient. The new sins are in my view both more problematic and in the long term more harmful to the perpetrator, recipient and society at large, although as with everything faith related the real harm from modern moral decline does not in all cases impact immediately but slowly by stealth over time. I hope also that these new “sins” can form the basis for inter faith discussion as many of them both challenge and conform to faith based ideas of what is sinful, whilst placing these sins within the context of the twenty first century.
To start with I will simply list them in the order in which I consider their seriousness; staring with what I consider to be the most sinful of all behaviours. I will explore these sins in more details over the following weeks.
03.05.15 Deadly sin number 1: Cruelty
There is obvious cruelty such as that committed by ISIS et al however this as I have suggested previously more akin to serious and violent crime than a mere sinful act perpetrated on another individual or ones-self. So, what do I consider to be cruelty which falls short of a crime? That which does not include harming animals or being violent towards one another.
One of the problems people of genuine faith feel about the modern world is that there is too much emphasis on each of us getting our own way; having what we want; being stimulated for example by drink drugs or sex. Cruelty is what is carried out when someone realises, they may have made a mistake but not before they have allowed themselves to get into a situation that they subsequently discover they don’t like. The sort of cruelty I am referring to therefore is most often but not exclusively seen within families or other close nit groups. Cruelty has to have an element of viciousness or vindictiveness about it and the aim of the perpetrator is to cause hurt as a response to an error of judgement they may have made in getting into a situation they no longer value respect or like. Racism is cruelty; antisemitism is cruelty at the level of picking on some individual with hurtful words which fall short of being a crime; beyond that is clearly a crime. However thankfully aside from a small group of criminals; some self-identified as people of faith, this type of cruelty is comparatively rare.
The cruelty which I believe to be more common is the cruelty played out in homes all over the place. We rush into ill-considered relationships driven by our out of control sex drives urged on by a combination of the reproductive instinct and the stimulation of the drug and dream like effects of sexual activity itself. We don’t stop ourselves from this headlong rush to get “intimate” and indeed there are people who see little harm in widespread promiscuity. However the prevalence of promiscuity reflects two fundamental issues closely linked to cruelty; the extent to which people throw away something which should be special; their naked physical presence in the company of a partner whom they wish to love and cherish, and from whom they expect the same, and the lack of any really considered application of thought about whether the relationship has any long term value. By the time these decisions have been made there may be children and responsibility the boredom of a relationship with a partner with whom one has “intimacy” but whom one neither respects of loves. This is the environment within which cruelty breeds. It is manifest in a number of acts some easily understood such as adultery, all the way down to causing someone to worry (staying out later than agreed and not returning concerned calls), words of indifference “oh do what you want”, words of irritation “oh go away” to words designed to cause harm “you are stupid/ugly/useless”. These casual acts of cruelty harm the recipients emotionally and ultimately are a sign that someone has made a poor life choice but is unprepared to take responsibility for it. Cruelty causes depression and suicide drug and alcohol misuse. I think the proliferation of pornography is to meet the needs of men and women trapped into unsatisfactory relationships yet preoccupied with sex; and its use can be an act of cruelty itself. At the most extreme the toxic context of cruelty can provide the self-justification for domestic violence and child abuse particularly in “reconstituted households”. This is the reason that in the western world I consider cruelty to be the deadliest of the seven deadly sins. To avoid sinning we need to return to a way of life that requires us to consider our relationships carefully and avoid getting into situations where cruelty is the means of feeling better about ourselves in our self-inflicted dire situation. The West championed the three concepts of Consent, Choice and Contract as a means of protecting the individual, we need to observe them but use them wisely otherwise we will leave ourselves open to the claim that unfettered by “rules” we simply behave like animals.