Sunday, 6th October, 2019
Reporting, Base Camp, Tottenham, London
‘…Masquerading ‘hate’ as ‘pride’, is I believe, where we need to re-assess, WHAT are our priorities ?…’
‘…HOW do we want the rest of the word to see us (?)…’
Woman’s Politics Weekly: ‘Brexit’: ‘Me no speak Americano’: Socialism versus Socialism: Smoke & Mirrors: The Men making billions behind Syria’s War
‘…Now, for some reason, all our wars, are fought in foreign countries…’ -George Orwell
Syria: ’Stuck in the middle’ (?)
During the Spanish Civil War, the Russians, then thought to be socialists, were asked for help.
Instead of bringing the ammunition that they promised the Spanish republic, the Russians, shot all the Spanish revolutionary forces, and stole all the Spanish gold.
Notorious for the ‘Russian Gulag’, Stalin, did not want any country having a socialist revolution like him, as this would prove, that he was not actually leading a socialist nation, but something closer to, a facist state.
‘Communism’, at that time, was closer to fascism, than ‘Capitalism’.
People were turning to cannibalism, as a method, to feed themselves, yes, that is how bad it was.
Because the Russian state at that time, were collecting all the people’s money, similar to how present day leaders and governments do, through votes, political campaigns and taxes, but not paying the people properly or enough, or maintaining the expenses of running a country, whilst living a life of luxury and expensive habits, drinking Champagne and eating Cavia.
Masquerading ‘hate’ as ‘pride’, is I believe, where we need to re-assess, WHAT are our priorities ?
HOW do we want the rest of the word to see us (?)
Meanwhile in Syria, on a more serious note, Assad’s forces have been accused of torturing and gassing tens of thousands of civilians and forcing 12 million to leave their homes.
Why would I attack my very own military (?) Assad pleads to iwon news, an Indian news channel.
America are the ones, attacking my very own military, and gassing my civilians, clearly, it’s a method of logic, he continues.
I don’t know what to think, but usually, these ‘eastern’ news channels, give you a better perspective of things.
According to the FT Weekend Magazine, America and Europe blame Assad’s family, autocratic rulers for nearly 5 decades, and his army, with the help of Russia and Iran.
There is 1 thing these 2 countries have in common: a revolution. Iran 1979, Russia 1917.
Nearly 60 years, between each other.
Both have been sanctioned, many times, it appears, this is really, the peak of the ‘Cold War’.
Or a world revolution.
It depends what you want to think, but at the end of the day, it appears, the Americans and Europeans are blaming Assad, the Russians and Iranians, whilst Assad, the Russians and Iranians, blame America.
It’s kind of like, the 2 kids in the room, and when you blame ‘someone’, for stealing the crunchy nut cornflakes, both point a finger, at each other.
When are the ’east’ and the ‘west’ going to come up with a better excuse, for fighting over the crown ?
An entire lecture theatre at the University of East London for example, can only come up with 2 solutions (collectively) to a 5 solution task (Stratford, 2011, Dr Nash Popovic).
But notably, each of us can only come up with 1 of these 5 solutions and will argue, and try to legitimise why solution 1 is correct compared to the other solution 2, even though both are correct and there are 5 solutions.
This is because the prioritisation of numeracy and literacy (logical mathematical and verbo linguistic thinking styles) means that collectively, we can only think in 2 different thinking styles.
Both logical thinking styles, informed by the left hand side of the brain.
This may seem trivial, but it is very serious.
Despite diversity, our trivialisation of creative thinking styles informed by the right hand side of the brain, thus fosters logical, left hand sided, unequal binary oppositional thinking, whereby we think that what is different, is wrong.
Promoting prejudice and conflict.
Moreover, we consistently revert to old and outdated methods of solution as we cannot think innovatively.
Because we think that what is different is wrong, we neglect thinking styles, we neglect thinking styles that differentiate from the logical mathematical and verbo linguistic.
It’s a nemesis, an enigma, that we think cannot be solved.
Through the trivialisation of creative thinking styles informed by the right hand side of the brain, we have also become creatively stifled.
This is because the right hand side of the brain, facilitates lateral thinking which enables you to think creatively, solve practical problems and innovate.
At first they thought it was a ‘black’ thing.
Then they thought, it was a ‘working class’ thing.
Then they thought it was a ‘woman’ thing.
It is very common, especially in places like northern Ireland for example, for people of creative talent, to come from very traumatic backgrounds or experiences.
Then they realised, it was, a, ‘Post Traumatic Stress’ thing: ‘I am so oppressed, and, or abused, my brain has adapted, mutated, and we have developed the right hand sides of our brains, to cope, adapt and innovate, new solutions to problems’ thing.
Hence the rise of reggae, rap and ‘drill music’ perhaps.
So oppressed, the oppressed have mutated, and managed to, ‘adapt’ what has been identified as right handed brain creative thinking styles.
Syria, one of the few, like our own, to be run by an aristocratic family, is caught in the middle.
‘The war has hollowed out Syrian Society. ‘The middle class is gone,’ says a regime insider. ‘Only the rich and poor are left.’ More than 80 percent of Syrians are living below the poverty line,’ the FT Weekend Magazine reports, with a photo of a burnt down or bone dead tree, and a boy, sitting on a tank fume extractor.
Will this be the end to a capitalist society (?)
Or the start of a socialist society (?)
And Theresa May, throws in a falling iron bird, somewhere along these tracks.
Whilst ‘America is only interested in Britain insofar as Britain is a member of Europe’ a previous American Ambassador to the UK says (The Financial Times).
Meanwhile, Trump creates a nuclear pact with Europe, Britain excluded, thanks to ‘Brexit’ (The New European).
Will this be the end of Capitalism, or ‘A New Dawn for Capitalism’, the Financial Times reports.
“I believe in capitalism, I believe in our financial system,” American revolutionary Marty Lipton adds.
‘If we don’t act now, I don’t think capitalism will be around in the next 50 years’, he continues.
In 1979 Marty Lipton published an article, ‘Takeover Bids in the Target’s Boardroom’, which ‘floated a then-revolutionary idea: that corporate leaders and investors should stop focusing on short-term shareholder returns, instead chase long-term value for “stakeholders” such as employees, clients and communities.’
“Nobody wanted to listen”, Lipton chuckles over the Rockefeller silverware.
It is from these elevated perches, that Marty Lipton, has been waging a decades-long battle with America’s establishment.
‘Last month, 181 American executives issued a collective “statement on the purpose of a corporation” that abandoned their long adherence to shareholder primacy. Instead, the group – which was organised by the Business Roundtable under the leadership of Jamie Dimon, head of JPMorgan – pledged “a fundamental commitment to all our stakeholders.”
‘For decades, shareholder interests have dominated the boardroom. Now bosses are busily promoting the idea of purpose beyond profit’, Gillian Tett from the Financial Times reports.
Interesting, how the capitalists are trying to save capitalism with socialism, whilst the socialists are trying to save socialism with capitalism.
Please see also,
Politics Weekly: ‘Brexit’: Marty Lipton: The ‘Poison Pill’ & ‘Takeover Bids in the Target’s Boardroom’…
This may seem trivial but it is very serious, with cuts being made to vital services and industries, this has led to the resurgence of different and previous marginalised and subjugated debates, a backlash, and the radicalisation of a new, young generation.
Fast learning the power of combination and organisation, is enough to alarm all thoughtful people as to the look-out ahead of us.
A new right-wing party, the ‘Brexit’ Vote Leave Campaign, was launched in 2016 promising to deal ruthlessly with foreigners and to entrench ‘nationalist’ or what appeared to be white supremacist control permanently.
Within a matter of months, it managed to consolidate a disparate collection of conservative factions into a single, effective political organisation. Supported by nationalist workers who feared foreign competition, the ‘Brexit Vote Leave Campaign swept to victory in the 2016 referendum, setting the Conservative Party on a perilous course.
Once in power, the Conservative Party became obsessed with the need for independence.
With independence, neither the Remainers or foreign investors would have any confidence in the country’s future.
In other areas, the Conservative Party has been seen to be abandoning national interests and communities to the hazards of privatisation and ‘international capitalists’.
For 3 fruitless years, the Labour Party has pressed these arguments on the Conservative Party.
‘We cannot look to this or to any similar government to put through the necessary changes of its own accord,’ George Orwell states.
‘The initiative will have to come from below’, he continues.
‘That means, there will have to arise something that has never existed in England, a Socialist movement that actually has the mass of the people behind it,’ he adds.
‘In England there is only 1 Socialist party that has ever seriously mattered, the Labour Party,’ George Orwell states.
‘The Labour Party was and is primarily a party of the trade unions, devoted to raising wages and improving working conditions,’ he explains.
‘This meant, that all through the critical years it was directly interested in the prosperity of British capitalism,’ he continues.
‘In particular, it was interested in the maintenance of the British Empire, for the wealth of England was drawn largely from Asia and Africa’, he explains.
‘The standard of living of the trade-union workers, whom the Labour Party represented, depended indirectly on the sweating of Indian coolies’, Orwell continues.
‘At the same time the Labour Party was a Socialist Party, using Socialist phraseology, thinking in terms of an old-fashioned anti-imperialism and more or less pledged to make restitution to the coloured races,’ Orwell states.
‘It had to stand for the ‘independence’ of India, just as it had to stand for disarmament and ‘progress’ generally,’ Orwell continues.
‘Nevertheless everyone was aware that this was nonsense,’ he adds.
‘In the age of the tank and the bombing plane, backward agricultural countries like India and our African colonies can no more be independent than a cat or dog,’ he soberly, suggests.
Had any Labour government come into office and then proceed to grant anything that can be called ‘independence’, these countries would simply be absorbed by China, or divided between China and Russia or other more ‘predatory powers’.
To a Labour government in power, 3 imperial policies would have been open.
‘One is to continue administering ‘Empire’ exactly as before, which means dropping all pretensions to Socialism’, Orwell suggests.
A second is to set our subject colonies ‘free’, which means in practice handing our colonies over to China, ‘or other predatory powers, and incidentally causing a catastrophic drop in the British standard of living’, Orwell explains.
‘A third is to develop a positive imperial policy, and aim at transforming Britain and ’empire’ into a federation of Socialist states, like a looser and freer version of the Union of Soviet Republics’, he adds.
‘But it cannot arise when we have once introduced a reasonable degree of social justice,’ Orwell claims.
‘The lady in the Rolls Royce car is more damaging to morale than a fleet of Goering’s bombing planes’, George Orwell adds.
‘When the pinch comes, no one bred in the western world can accept the Facist vision of life’, Orwell states.
It is important to realise that now, and to grasp what it entails,’ he adds.
The English speaking civilization is the only obstacle in Trump’s path.
‘It is a living contradiction of all the ‘infallible’ dogmas of Fascism’, Orwell explains.
‘That is why all Fascist writers for years past have agreed that England’s power must be destroyed. England must be ‘exterminated’, must be ‘annihilated’, must ‘cease to exist,’ he continues.
Strategically it has been possible for this ‘Brexit’ to end, with Trump in secure possession of the EU, with the British Empire intact and barely affecting British seapower.
But ideologically, it is not possible; if the EU were to make us an offer, ‘it could only end treacherously, with a view to conquering England indirectly or renewing the attack at some more favourable moment,’ Orwell states.
‘England cannot possibly be allowed to remain as some sort of funnel through which deadly ideas from beyond the Atlantic flow into the police states of Europe’, Orwell explains.
‘And turning it round to our point of view, we see the vastness of the issue before us, the all-importance of preserving our democracy more or less as we have known it. But to preserve is always to extend‘, he continues.
‘The choice before us is not so much between victory and defeat as between revolution and apathy,’ he suggests.
‘If the thing we are fighting for is altogether destroyed, it will have been destroyed partly by our own act’, he adds.
‘Any intelligent socialist movement will use their patriotism, not insult it as hitherto…’ he states.
‘One cannot see the modern world as it is unless one recognises the overwhelming strength of patriotism, national loyalty. In certain circumstances it can break down, at certain levels of civilisation it does not exist, but as a positive force there is nothing set beside it. Christianity and international Socialism are as weak as straw in comparison with it’, George Orwell explains.
‘There will be a bitter political struggle, and there will be unconscious and half-conscious sabotage everywhere’ Orwell details.
‘At some point it may become necessary to use violence’, Orwell even suggests.
When the English sense of national unity disintegrates, and patriotism is finally stronger than class hatred, ‘the chances are that the will of the majority will prevail’ Orwell explains.
‘It is no use imagining that one can make fundamental changes without causing a split in the nation; but the treacherous minority will be far smaller (during times of disintegration) than it would be at any other time’.
‘The swing of opinion is visibly happening, but it cannot be counted on to happen fast enough of its own accord’.
This ‘Brexit’ is a race between the consolidation of Trump’s Empire/the EU and ‘the growth of democratic consciousness’, Orwell continues.
‘Everywhere in England you can see a ding-dong battle ranging to and fro – in Parliament and in the Government, in the factories and the armed forces, in the pubs and the air-raid shelters, in the newspapers and on the radio’.
‘Everyday there are tiny defeats, tiny victories. Morrison* for Home Secretary – a few yards forward. Priestley* shoved off the air – a few yards back’.
‘It is a struggle between the groping and the unteachable, between the young and the old, between the living and the dead’.
‘But it is very necessary that the discontent which undoubtedly exists should take a purposeful and not merely obstructive form’.
It is time for the people to define their aims, Orwell explains.
‘What is wanted is a simple, concrete programme of action, which can be given all possible publicity, and round which public opinion can group itself’.
‘I suggest that the following six-point programme is the kind of thing we need’, he suggests.
‘The first three points deal with England’s internal policy, the other three with the Empire and the world:’
- ‘Nationalization of land, mines, railways, banks and major industries.’
- ‘Limitation of incomes, on such a scale that the highest tax-free income in Britain does not exceed the lowest by more than 10 to one.’
- ‘Reform of the educational system along democratic lines’ (Orwell suggests that all education should be made free or state funded, to quell socio-economic inequality).
- ‘Immediate dominion status for India, with power to secede after the war is over.’
- ‘Formation of an Imperial General Council, in which the coloured peoples are to be represented.’
- ‘Declaration of formal alliance with China, Abyssinia and all other victims of the Fascist powers’, (George Orwell).
The ‘Brexit’ dispute at present, is not over the question of granting independence to a minority Labour government, for the British government raises no objection to this prospect; it centers on whether the Labour Party and Conservative Party should make constitutional concessions, to ensure that no independent government can thwart British progress once it is set free from ‘EU control’.
Please see also,
Politics Weekly: ‘Brexit’: Marty Lipton: The ‘Poison Pill’ & ‘Takeover Bids in the Target’s Boardroom’…
Please see also,
Woman’s Politics Weekly: TABOOS AROUND MENTAL HEALTH: A WAR of WORDS: Women, Black Men, PTSD & ‘Patient Profiling’…
Please see also,
Politics Weekly: TABOOS AROUND MENTAL HEALTH: A WAR of WORDS: Women, Black Men & ‘Patient Profiling’…
Please see also,