Ed Milliband evokes Liverpool dockers and Upper Clyde ship workers

Apparently Ed Milliband sees the affinity between the working people of Britain as more of a reason for Scotland staying within the United Kingdom than any argument which contends that Scotland is too poor or too weak to break away. In a speech in Glasgow, among other things, he said: "When a Scotsman who works in the shipyards of Govan meets an Englishman who works on the docks in Merseyside, he doesn't see a foreigner, he sees a fellow countryman." Of  course, he neglects to mention that the likelihood of that happening is extremely remote.

Firstly, the main dock area in Liverpool has been transformed into some sort of theme park, where any jobs available are more likely to mean working at Costas, or some other retail outlet, than unloading ships and secondly, the chance of getting a job in one of the two major shipyards that remain in operation on the Upper Clyde is extremely thin to say the least.

Moreover, Mr Milliband might want to point out that when it came to saving those dockers jobs during a strike from September 1995 to February 1998 those striking were betrayed by their own union and Mr Milliband's  hypocritical Labour Party, while at the same time not forgetting to mention that working in one of the few jobs still available on Upper Clyde would probably mean helping to produce weapons of death  for BAE and a corrupt arms industry against which all real socialists should mobilise. Furthermore, even if morals are to take a back seat in the "thinking" of a "celebrity big brother" intoxicated population, it might be pointed out that some twice as many jobs could have been created in health Care, social services or education for the same amount of money.

The Labour Party leader and his ilk have nothing to do with socialism and when Mr Milliband spouts  platitudes and seeks to evoke affinities in the manner mentioned above we would do well to remember this. Of course, when it comes to Scottish independence we might do well to remember the adage, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", and the joke, "what happens when the pope dies? Up popes another one." Nevertheless, whatever the case for an independent Scotland, the hypocrites, liars and criminals, do the union no favours and you never know, while the evidence tends to suggest otherwise, the Scots on their own might just do things a bit better.

The Shadow World

In his book 'The Shadow World' Andrew Feinstein comments how, following investigations into deals with Saudi Arabia, Tanzania, Sweden, the Czech Republic and Hungary,. BAE were fined hundreds of millions of dollars by the US authorities. With the evidence of corruption being irrefutable we might be tempted to clap Uncle Sam on the back for doing a job which the British themselves failed to do. That is if it weren't for the fact that they are such hypocrites.

Therefore, while ostensibly tackling unfair competition at, and corruption by, BAE, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that their own arms companies in general, and Lockheed Martin in particular, are also more than competent when it comes to practicing  corruption at home, while going out of their way to determine the course of American foreign policy abroad. In the late nineties, for instance, the erstwhile CEO, Norm Augustine, promised the Romanian government that it would use its influence in Washington to support that country's entry to NATO, if they bought Lockheed Martin's new radar system (Feinstein: 290). Of course, this is not to suggest that BAE does not use its clout in a similar manner.

Moreover, this is hardly a situation of dog eats dog; in the arms industry, there are in fact no losers, as Dan Margolies in his article, 'Cocktails and wiretaps signal a new anti-bribery era' explained:
"But when you go through the DOJ's own allegations and add up the amount of the bribe payments and the amount those bribes caused the companies to get in business, you're still in a situation where they come out net positive."  In other words the even with fines totaling almost half a billion dollars, business is still good, very good, for BAE.


Of course, in order for business to remain good, the Orwellian war on terror has to be continued and new battles have to be fought. Therefore, it is that we should bear in mind on reading in Monday's 'Guardian' that,: "Tehran on Monday escalated its threats against the west after Europe struck at the Islamic republic's lifeblood by agreeing to impose an oil embargo on it." Too crazy to contemplate, perhaps,  but with Benjamin Netanyahu praising the EU's decision to impose oil sanctions on Iran as "a step in the right direction," and with a  freeze of the assets of the Iran's central bank, while we might question the "step in the right direction", we could just  be a step closer to once again seeing exactly where that "disastrous rise of misplaced power" ultimately leads. Of course, in understanding this, we would all do well to stop listening to make these liars and hypocrites genuinely accountable.

Tony Blair: "It's about getting things done."

In providing political leadership Tony Blair informs us that his "African Government Initiative" (agi) "draws on his ten years as Prime Minister to offer leaders the kind of advice on reform that only someone who has stood in a leader’s shoes can give."  Well, if we agree with Mr Blair's contention  that "we should support African leaders who improve people's lives, and not simply evaluate systems of transparency and accountability in government", and that "governance is also about effectiveness, the capability to get things done"  we can reasonably conclude that he is indeed the right person to give advice here.

After all, this is the man who used his final weeks as Prime Minister to block the Serious Fraud Office's criminal investigation into the sale of fighter jets and other weapons to Saudi Arabia, who has the extrajudicial execution of his "good friend" Gaddafi to thank for his shady business dealings and secret meetings being kept away from public scrutiny and who ..... but where do you stop? With his involvement in the selling of arms to Tanzania, a country which has problems feeding its own people, or with his support for his new "best friend" the despot, Paul Kagame? Perhaps, we should begin but a look at the organisations that serve to cover the crimes of a man who is there "to get things done."

That though is a problem as we don't even know where to begin before getting sucked into 'Tony Blair Inc.',  "a Byzantine web of highly specialised limited partnerships and parallel companies, is baffling in its structure". However, we don't have to uncover the myriad of crimes and corruption that accompany a man who, in his role as  international Middle East envoy, is biased towards Israel , who a senior Palestinian negotiator, Nabil Shaath, says "sounds like an Israeli diplomat" and who is considered persona non grata in Palestine by the Palestinian leadership. Rather is sufficient to simply consider a fact which is always going to accompany this liar and hypocrite and that is that he is a war criminal.

No ambiguity there;  "the invasion of Iraq was illegal. Every applicable law unequivocally confirms this conclusion. There are no grey areas, no extenuating circumstances. Not according to the law." But  do we really think Tony gives a shit? After all, there is evidence to suggest that he "has been cashing in on his contacts from a conflict that destroyed the lives of millions to make millions of his own and with his latest little partnership with Kazakhstan's dictator, President Nursultan Nazarbayev, in full swing, we can rest assured that Tony is quite sincere when he advises all and sundry that it is about "getting things done" and if that means not only a lack of transparency and accountability in government, but also millions of dead, we shouldn't be too harsh on him. It is, after all, nothing personal, it is just business.

Ron Paul "America's last chance"

There can be not doubt that the United States is owned lock stock and barrel by the military-security complex, Wall Street and the Israel Lobby and while there has not yet been the descent into complete tyranny that is only a matter of time. Moreover, it isn't as if we couldn't have seen it coming.

Fifty one years ago, in his final speech from the White House, President Dwight Eisenhower appealed for the government to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex," while adding that "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist." The advice was not heeded and while Paul Craig Roberts, might see the Republican candidate Ron Paul as being "America's last chance" we can at least suspect that even if this were true, it is a chance that will not be grasped.. Indeed, while Mr Craig's sentiments are noble, his appeal is a trifle naive. That is the least we might deduce from the news from today's 'Guardian'.

At the at the South Carolina Republican presidential debate in Myrtle Beach. Mr Paul summed up his stance and in doing so might have appeared to justify Mr Craig's faith in him.. He said:
 "My point is, if another country does to us what we do others, we're not going to like it very much. So I would say that maybe we ought to consider a golden rule in foreign policy. Don't do to other nations.what we don't want to have them do to us. So we endlessly bomb these countries and then we wonder, wonder why they get upset with us? And yet it continues on and on. I mean, this idea that we can't debate foreign policy, then all we have to do is start another war. I mean, it's warmongering. They're building up for another war against Iran, and people can't wait to get in another war. This country doesn't need another war. We need to quit the ones we're in. We need to save the money and bring our troops home." . Yes, the man  at least talks sense.  However, and unfortunately, as the 'Guardian' pointed out this is not what a Republican audience is used to hearing and the speech was met with boos.

Of course, we might go further and suggest that this is not only not what a Republican audience is used to hearing, it is not what it wants to hear and while the 'Guardian' might see Mr Paul as still doing well in the polls, the reality is that there is no way he is going to get his party's nomination. While I am on your side Mr Craig, considering Fox News's grilling of Mr Paul, the gung-ho jingoistic garbage spouted by Newt Gingrich and the boos of the party faithful, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that we are extremely unlikely to see Ron Paul running against the resident hypocrite and we are even more unlikely to see him become the president of the United States. There is no need to doubt that the odds are still on that complete descent into tyranny that so worried Mr Eisenhower fifty one years ago. 
 

"Human rights are not a prescription for national suicide"

"Human rights are not a prescription for national suicide,"  wrote Asher Grunis, one of the judges in the Israeli supreme court's 6-5 majority ruling upholding the ban on thousands of Palestinians who are married to Israeli citizens from joining their Israeli-Arab partners.

One is reminded of the Zionist historian Benny Morris who views ethnic cleansing as a necessity in Israel's case and, therefore, not morally reprehensible. Indeed, the decision made by the Israeli supreme court would appear to support Morris's hypothesis that not only was the ethnic cleansing necessary, but that it was "unfortunately" left unfinished and "the Israeli Arabs ar a  time bomb ...... a potential fifth column." Of course, anyone who either believes that human rights should be sacrificed for a mythical national ethos, or that ethnic cleansing might be a necessary evil are inevitably morally bankrupt.

The oxymoron Jewish "democracy", built on ethnic cleansing, while flaunting international law and the human rights of 20% of its population can never have any moral high ground. It is a hypocritical farce and the its pseudo democrats and intellectuals are farcical hypocrites.

John Brockman's 'salon for the world's finest minds'

In today's 'Observer' a certain John Naughton almost demands our interest by advertising a certain John Brockman's website 'Edge' as being "a salon for the world's finest minds" . A bold claim and not ontradicted by the fact that these "finest minds" are based on academic and intellectual reputation rather than fame and fortune. Indeed, it might be argued that this only cements Mr Naughton's assertion.

Unfortunately, what we do get when we look at the biographies on Mr Brockman's "salon", is an array of the usual white faces from the usual elite universities. Not exculsively so, and there are some notable exceptions such as the Chinese dissident Ai Weiwei, but, nevertheless, enough to suggest that Mr Brockman's "finest minds" are exclusively those that he has come into contact with in his role as a literary agent. However, according to Mr Brockman that is not the case and someone is added to the Edge list when someone like "Richard Dawkins" tells him to add them.

However, it is there that the platitudes of this all too limited elitist view of "the finest minds" should end. All the more so in view of the fact that Mr Brockman sees those minds as constituting a "third culture" of people "who, through their work and expository writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual in rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are."Does he honestly believe that we need a Richard Dawkins to do that, does he honestly believe that?  Dawkins might  loquaciously formulate a hypothesis that we already hold, but something new? Or, having spent two years living in China and working with some exceptionally intelligent, and, of course, exceptionally stupid, Chinese, do I need Ai Weiwei to tell me how fucked up the system in China is?

Humbug, of course, and it goes without saying that the, while the "finest minds" represent a group of people who are in a position to influence those who have access them, there influence is invariably marginal, if not limited. No more and no less, and while even that is still something, we cannot help but feel that in John Naughton, even if he does refer to the above flaws in his article, John Brockman has found someone to promote him not only as a literary agent., but also in his prime role as a networker. Well, John you scratch my back and I will scratch yours and expect to see John Naughton having a profile on 'Edge' in the not too distant future.

There is no objective social reality which is not already mediated by political subjectivity

Using 'Stresemann's Vermächtnis'  as an example E.H.Carr shows us how documents are usually only a reflection of the author of a particular documents perceptions. He goes on to write that Streseman's faithful secretary, Henry Bernhard, who was entrusted with the editing of the, documents, quite naturally emphasised Stresemann's successful western policy, at the expense of his less successful eastern policy in general and very inconclusive negotiations with the Soviet Union in particular. According to Carr it is the Historian who is left to decipher the documents (1961: 16,17). Of course, implied in this is an assumption that the Historian would bring some sort of objectivity to the proceedings, which might seem that we are seeing at least some flaws in Carr's own determinist view of history.

Nevertheless, the determinist view remains essentially correct and it iis not only a Bernhard whose views might be determined from the outsed. Historians too would bring their own particular prejudices and preferences to bear when looking at any materials which they might encounter. Indeed, when he writes of Georg Lukàcs believing that "there is no "objective social reality" which is not already mediated by political subjectivity", Slavoj Žižek's could at least be suggesting, that this cannot be otherwise and in doing so might even feel that this is almost a paraphrase of Marx's belief that our being in society determines our consciousness. Even if, in the West today, the tools at the disposal of Chomsky's "manufacturers of consent" are such that the ruling elite can manipulate our "objective social reality" to a large degree. Indeed, in the present climate it is to be expected that neither the "occupy movements" that are sprouting up throughout the West, nor the riots in the summer in England, have found a political voice and it is to be expected that people who have been effectively disenfranchised will refer to some jingoistic nonsense, which effectively supports the City of London and is effectively curtailing their rights, in the 'Daily Express' as representing political sense.

Of course, although there is not a level playing field, the "manufacturers of consent" do not have a complete monopoly and as we might expect, while the tools at the disposal of the elite facilitate their manipulating the "objective social reality", there is a hitherto undreamt of body of  alternative information. A little bit of searching, a click of the mouse, some skimming and scanning and whatever happened to those WMDs? What really happened on 11/9? What is the truth behind the story in this morning's 'Süddeutsche Zeitung' regarding Iran blocking the Hormus straits? Unfortunately, questions are not being asked often enough and we still have the disenfranchised masses willing to don their poppies and wave their flags in support of illegal wars and a fictive capitalism that continues to roger them on a daily basis. Not only that but it also facilitates a climate whereby half-baked intellectuals can flourish and give voice to the prejudices and banal lies of the day.

Recently, a friend of mine went see a launch for Sir Ian Kershaw's new book in Munich. Apparently Sir Ian, who has officially retired, said that the reason for the book, which covers the last few months of the Second World War, was that when he was in Baden Württemberg some time ago he discovered that the Nazis were still executing deserters etc a couple of days before the end of the war even although the outcome must have been already clear to them. Apparently, someone in the audience asked him what he expected? Nevertheless, Sir Ian's views only reflect the "official" line in 'Blighty' which is still been cultivated for political ends. Of course, it also represents a fundamental misunderstanding of an "objective social reality" which has been mediated by "political subjectivity", but more than that it represents a fundamental misunderstanding as to the nature of man.

As a student I  researched the press in Germany from 1933 to 1945 in the "Staatsbibliothek" in Munich and was struck by how life went on after even the carpet bombing of the German cities. For instance, in the "Dresdener Anzeiger", a couple of days after the worst attacks in the middle of february 45, you could read job advertisements and advertisements for products and even announcements for births alongside long lists of people who were missing or dead after the attacks. At the end of April 1945 the children were playing in their gardens, in the "Kindergarten" or in the school yard when they were told to go home and pack their things. The Russians were five kilometres away. The point is the person who asked Sir Ian the question was quite right and the only question I would ask is what are we doing while our "objective social reality" is being formed by the manufacturers of consent?

We continue to watch Premier League football, programme our televisions from our iphones, consider "the Guardian" to be an objective newspaper and in the meantime we have allowed and are allowing the financial and political elites that rule us to conduct illegal wars, to economically ruin us and to effectively disenfranchise us. However, there is now a mass of alternative information and we can access it. Mass murder has been and is being committed in our names and, despite the political subjectivity which the manufacturers of consent mediate we can have no excuses.

Craig Murray: "Christopher Hitchens R.I.P."

Although I can empathise with Craig Murray's conclusion that the world will be a better place without Christopher Hitchens, it is difficult to share the sentiments fully. Indeed, while British journalism might be "full of people of the same generation who have lurched from the Trotskyist far left to a crazed neo-con agenda with no intervening period of sanity" , it has to be added that this too is hardly a phenomena that is unique to British journalism. Or what about Horst Mahler?:
"He once was an extreme-left militant, a founding member of the Red Army Faction. Subsequently he became a Maoist and later shifted to the extreme-right. He was for a time a member of the National Democratic Party of Germany. He has been repeatedly convicted of Volksverhetzung  ("incitement of popular hatred") and Holocaust denial and is currently serving a 12-year prison sentence."

No Craig, Mr Hitchen's death at best reminds us of the"up popes another one" in answer to the rhetorical question of what happens when the pope dies? In the great scheme of things the "Christophers" and "Horsts" of this world do not matter one iota and it remains essential that we remain focused on the social forces that produce them. Time to demystify Mr Hitchens and move on and in moving on we will discover that it is indeed our being in society that determines our consciousnesses.  There was nothing unique in Mr Hitchen's thought and there is certainly nothing unique in Mr Mahler's. 

Obama and support for Israel

Speaking before the Union for Reform Judaism conference in Maryland on Friday, President Obama stressed that his administration has done more than any other to support Israel. There is no need to look for the details that might substantiate that statement for in doing so we might only conclude that the Obama administration has done at least as much as those of Ronald Reagan, George H Bush, Bill Clinton and George W Bush in bending over backwards to support the Zionist state. It has done no more and no less and the evidence would appear to suggest that Washington's support for Israel, is and has been for a long time, unconditional.

Nevertheless, the political discourse needed to sell this unconditional support is still required. Therefore, we have Obama telling the conference that:
"We stand with Israel as a Jewish and democratic state," he said. "America's commitment and my commitment to security of Israel is unshakeable."  Of course, this oxymoronic jargon is nothing new but it does have a continued appeal; we have "a democratic state" and nobody has the right to deny any people their right to self determination. Values that are as American as apple pie and values which "middle America" just loves to identify with.

Of course, the reality that another people have to be ethnically cleansed for the Jewish state to come into existence and the reality that 20% of the population of Israel are being effectively disenfranchised in this "Jewish state" is being ignored. Therefore, we might do well to pick up on this gobblydegook by pointing out that only when a state becomes a state for all of its citizens can it become democratic and that if that happens in Israel, it will, of course, no longer be an exclusively Jewish state.

 A "state for all its citizens" that really does sound as American as apple pie. Indeed, we might even be talking about the United States that Obama swore allegiance to. Now, wouldn't helping to establish this  kind of state in the region be really supporting Israel and who knows, once that state is established, it might not be important what it is called. At least it would be a viable and far preferable alternative to the "Bantustans" that they will call "Palestine" and the oxymoronic "Jewish Democracy" that we have at the moment.

Whose interests was Cameron protecting?

'The Guardian' reports; "Arguing he had to protect the City of London, Cameron demanded that any transfer of power from national regulators to an EU regulator on financial services be subject to a veto." David Cameron has followed the agenda of the City of London and the people who are responsible in the first place for the financial crisis. However, this was to be expected and any real news might have been a decision to the contrary. Nevertheless, that should not prevent us from having a look at two obvious consequences of this decision to continue with the disaster capitalism that got us all into this right old mess in the first place.

Firstly, as the 'Guardian's' Jonathan Freedland points out, the "two speed Europe is here and Britain is in the slow lane." However, the belief that some in the City and in the Conservative Party might have that the UK will be in some sort of  "new Switzerland" is viewed with scepticism by Mr Freedland who goes on to write:
"We'll need to retrieve the fondue set that's been lying under the stairs since the late 70s, find a way of making the trains run on time when there's snow on the ground (and when there isn't), develop a love for cuckoo clocks, build a nuclear shelter in every home and get used to not mowing the lawn at the weekend. And of course no wars, no puking in the streets on a Friday night and no poor people. Piece of torte."
We might not always love boring Switzerland but the people can cook, they tend not to be frustrated to the point where they they throw up on the street and ..... well, they do make good products and they have been preserving their Welfare State. Indeed, we even get the impression that the bankers in Zurich at least realise that part and parcel of their having their "torte" and eating it is at least keeping the natives at home happy.

Not so back in "Blighty" and as Olaf Cramme quite rightly points out, another major consequence, of Cameron's pandering to the "Eurosceptics" is that:
"this approach will seriously undermine Britain’s attempt to rebalance its economy. The City of London is set to benefit further from a policy which puts low corporate taxation and regulatory exemption at the heart of the economic strategy. The consequences could be far-reaching and if the financial service industry makes up an even bigger share of GDP because of its growth and revenue potential, other sectors, including manufacturing, can only shrink further. In the end, all this will make it much harder to boost productivity levels in an economy which requires a greater qualified mid-level work force. A return to the pre-financial crisis folly is looming."

..... there you have it folks and at it is at this point that the little embedded video becomes compulsive and compulsory viewing and it is at this point any British reader of this post might just ask him or herself the simple question; "whose interests did Cameron protect yesterday?"