Our 'Way of Life' - and the Biggest Threat to It...

Hi again - two in one day, that boy's on a roll. Promise to make this is quick as I can.

Personally I couldn't give two shits about 'the Middle East conflict' and refuse to 'pick a side' in the ongoing troubles engulfing that part of the world like many do, lining up for Israel or Palestine in the same way that people support football or rugby teams. You don't and won't hear me talking about it on these pages for precisely this reason, as I've always thought Anglo-American interference in what is essentially other people's business to be at best pointless and in all likelihood somewhat counter-productive. The nadir of our narcissistic self-obsession was probably when we appointed Tony Blair as the region's 'peace envoy' - a bad taste appointment if I've ever known one.

Yes, we bought a very expensive ceasefire in Northern Ireland (contrary to what some may tell you the underlying 'issues' have not disappeared) but it's not in our gift to do the same in Israel/Palestine and we shouldn't try to. Sometimes, as difficult as it is, you have to acknowledge that the world isn't exactly as you would like it to be and that you can't personally 'fix' everything that is wrong with the planet. My suspicion from the outside is that the main reason conflict persists in the Middle East is that the genuine pursuit of a peaceful two-State solution (with difficult compromises) is politically unacceptable to too many people on all sides - just look at the people they keep electing.

It's with this in mind that I struggled to take the 'Labour Party anti-semitism' story this week too seriously. Things reached something of a low when Jezza attended an event thrown by a group hilariously named 'Jewdas' and smirked his way through a series of foul-mouthed 'speeches' about the State of Israel, 'the Jewish history of making money' and a multitude of other topics. Now I don't think this idiot will ever become Prime Minister but for the sake of argument I'm pretty sure he'd be an unmitigated disaster if he ever did. The 'flavour' of this story, however, was more about the quality of the man's judgement and the nature of the company he keeps.

Whether it's the IRA, Hamas, Communist 'diplomats' or attending the annual Jewdas shindig it's beyond dispute that Corbyn has some 'interesting' and potentially dubious friends, although this is far more common amongst senior politicians that many probably realise (see our dealings with Pinochet's Chile, Saudi Arabia and Communist China off the top of my head). What I find most interesting in the ongoing description of his 'friends' is that they consistently represent "an existential threat to our values and way of life" - it's worth breaking that down and working out the extent to which they represent a threat and/or the biggest threat to whatever 'our way of life' is.

The last time I checked the Uk wasn't at serious risk of being invaded, nor is Sharia Law about to be implemented anytime soon. The republican movement in Ireland ended its campaign on the British mainland many years ago, while as I stated earlier we could always take a step back from matters in the Middle East and remove any potential cross-hair from ourselves. However you choose to define 'our way of life', I'm struggling to identify this potential aggressor from overseas from which we (and by extension this 'way of life') are in imminent danger. A conflation between 'people who don't particularly like us' for whatever reason and 'genuine menace' seems to have taken place.

Yes, there are alarmingly frequent episodes involving the unhinged blowing themselves up, using vehicles as weapons or shooting/stabbing people (on both sides of wherever the divide is) but it's important to ask precisely what, if anything, they're trying to achieve and respond by doing the polar opposite - I'm not ruling out the possibility that some of these 'incidents' were staged or have been carried out by people under mind control, a possibility that would have been dismissed as 'mad conspiracy theory' not long ago, but a surprising number are now waking up to. That notwithstanding, if 'our way of life' is the target then how do we go about 'not letting them win' and defending it?

Condolences to all those who lost people they cared about in terror attacks, but it strikes me that my fellow writer Pete North was onto something when he said "it's the lack of giving a fuck that will defeat terrorism". If we allow the antics of losers, psychopaths and the unhinged to dictate to the rest of us what rights we have, enable the passing of pernicious 'anti-terror' legislation and the creation of a de facto police state then we have lost emphatically. It's regrettable and you and I might be among the victims next time, but a failure to acknowledge that 'shit happens', do nothing and shrug our shoulders leaves people offering the State an opportunity to attack all of us.

So...if by 'our way of life' we are referring to basic freedoms in the areas of expression, movement, association and protections like due process then the real threat to what we claim to value comes not from Jeremy Corbyn's 'friends' but from two very specific directions. One is the British State, who we now know have been 'forgetting' to disclose evidence that would have acquitted defendants in trials (yes they 'forgot', of course they did) and mining the personal information of individuals through third parties. No police officer will be sacked, let alone prosecuted and the surveillance state could simply pass legislation do what they are already doing covertly by more legal means.

But none of this can happen without the most dangerous menace to the rights of the individual that we currently face - namely ourselves. It was Benjamin Franklin who stated that "the individual who sacrifices his liberty for the sake of his security will lose both and deserves neither" and he was absolutely right. If we keep our cool when being instructed to panic and refuse to offer up the freedom of others on the altar of some contrived 'greater good' (see 'collectivism is selfish') then those cashing in on tragedy to make power grabs for themselves will get absolutely nowhere. You have to ask why the existing mountain of 'anti-terror' legislation hasn't stopped this stuff from happening.

In short, you can't legislate 'bad things' or 'bad people' out of existence and attempts to do so only hinder the law-abiding. We need to understand this propensity we have to damage ourselves.

To answer the original question...is the Labour Party anti-semitic? Probably not.

Anyway, that'll be me done for now - catch you in the week and feel free to suggest discussion points if you have any. Thanks for reading.

Telltale Signs of an Authoritarian

Evening - it's Saturday night, just hope everybody is alright for fighting.

One of the key subjects I cover on here is the ongoing battle (currently being lost) between libertarianism and authoritarians of both the Toddler Left and Toddler Right persuasion. It is important to understand that both, far from simply being political/philosophical ideas, are manifestations of wider mentalities, mindsets and ways of life. What follows is a short and sweet breakdown of the 'bill of materials' for that classic authoritarian mindset - if you notice an individual engaging in too much of this stuff then be sure to ration your contact with them as authoritarianism is indiscriminate and, by its very definition, no respecter of your individual wishes.

So...let's crack on with it as I have a radio show to catch in less than two hours. Here are some of the telltale signs that will confirm you're dealing with an authoritarian arsehole. Eyes wide open.

Obsession with rules/authority - authoritarianism is about rules, it is about ruthless and unquestioning obedience. More than anything it is about authority that should not and indeed cannot be challenged at any time, for any reason. Anyone asking 'why?' is a dangerous maverick for whom the course of action is 1) re-educate and 2) if that fails, exterminate - you've been warned. Look out for someone who changes their mind several times over in perfect synchronicity with 'the leader' changing theirs. Speaking of which...

Seek messiahs/great leaders (or indeed believe that they might be one) - subservience by its very nature requires somebody to be subservient to. Authoritarians worship 'strong leaders' (known as demagogues or dictators to the rest of us) and place them on the same altar as the divine. Indeed the authoritarian worldview is a 'religion substitute' to many who subscribe to it. If you see someone who identifies ostensibly as atheist but preaches their political values with quasi-religious zealor then this is exactly what I'm talking about. For your own well-being, run like hell.

Logical inconsistency - typically an authoritarian will claim his or her own rights and fight for their continued preservation. It's the rights of other people that are dispensible in the name of some contrived 'greater good' and not theirs (authoritarians typically support capital punishment as a result of this formulation). For reasons that we'll go into later, authoritarians are breathtakingly inconsistent on the 'logical' level, all dependant upon which 'group' in society you're dealing with. Individualists (who of course don't deal in groups at all) tend not to have this problem.

Advocate group rights - those of us possessed of a functioning brain are aware that groups cannot and therefore do not have rights. However, Toddler Left authoritarians believe in 'group rights' based on historical oppression whereas their Toddler Right equivalent advocate collective rights based on race, where you were born or simply being in the majority (see tyranny of the majority, aka mob rule). This means society descends into a battle between 'groups' bitching at each other, competing for what they see as scarce resources, validation and control of the narrative.

Preoccupation with the past - often as a way of justifying the actions of the present. Toddler Leftists will invariably point to some act of oppression from four score and ten years ago, using the strapline "we cannot let this happen again" to justify their latest draconian measure. The Toddler Right typically believe in a golden age that only existed in their own heads, an era in which everything was so much better and the nation possessed a sort of collectivised 'glory' that it has since lost (see 'Make America Great Again' or 'Take Back Control'). Both are quite literally backward.

Nosy, judgemental, have a poor grasp (or none) of where their opinion of something is (or at least should) be of no value - very much a 'real life litmus test' which authoritarians fail. People may have opinions on the choices or lives of others, but the sane amongst us temper that with a recognition that these are their choices to make, that our point of view should (and hopefully does) count for precisely nothing. Authoritarians are typically nosy, want to know intimate details that are none of their business and gossip relentlessly in 'real life'. They also fail to respect the right of others to view the world differently to them, frequently using 'changing social attitudes' as a paper thin smokescreen for the policing of thought they don't agree with.

Everything is black and white, right or wrong - the presence of 'grey area', nuance or context is never acceptable to an authoritarian, whose palette has precisely two colours within it. We'll go into the detailed reasons for this very shortly.

Divide the world into 'sides' that are for or against - society is in a constant state of warfare when viewed through the authoritarian lens. They demand to know whose side everyone is on, including you and me, while holding no more regard to those of 'no side' than they have for those stood hurling bottles from across the proverbial road. They are Winston Churchill circa 1939 and everyone who disagrees with them is Hitler (see how often 'the Hitler insult' is wheeled out by authoritarians to shut down argument). This ridiculous analogy has also been used on many occasions to hoodwink well-meaning but gullible people into supporting our latest foreign invasion. It's true enough that one lesson from history is that we never learn the lessons of history.

Have designated 'favourite groups' who can do no wrong - the authoritarian lens is not set towards objective reality, but views events through the prism of oppressors vs oppressed and good guys vs bad guys. Toddler Left authoritarians will not hear a critical word spoken of any individual belonging to one of their 'historically oppressed groups' while the Toddler Right reserve special treatment for majorities based on race and/or nationality. This inability to see 'their own' as capable of wrong drives the logical inconsistency described earlier.

Have designated 'scapegoats' on the same basis - the Toddler Left's 'good guys' are the Toddler Right's 'bad guys' and vice versa. Nobody is an individual, everybody belongs to a 'group' and that 'group' has its place on the hierarchy. If you're in a designated 'bad group' then redemption is possible in the eyes of the authoritarian, but only on the basis of perpetual shame around gender, race, class etc. 

Support 'free speech' which is actually 'licensed speech' - and guess who decides which of us can and cannot have a license? We are all familiar with the political correctness of the Toddler Left, with its microaggressions, misuse of the word 'violence' to describe challenge or criticism and obsession with 'Hate Speech'. The Toddler Right state that they oppose this, but are actually intent on creating and imposing their own version on the rest of society. Neither support genuine free speech which is especially for the offensive, and people who disagree with them. No other form of free speech is worth fighting for or bothering with, surely?

Preoccupied/obsessed with violence and/or sex - just an observation. Socially conservative authoritarians are particularly bad for this.

Are possessed of 'common sense' and live in the 'real world' - what this typically means is that authoritarians have come to their wordlview 'in the moment', rather than distancing themselves from the emotion of their own situation and taking an abstract/birds eye view of things. Authoritarians are typically suspicious of philosophy, the pursuit of an objective truth and answering hypothetical questions (which are a fantastic example of how abstraction gets you further than talking about a 'real life' scenario you have an emotional stake in). Part of this is because they regard their issues not just as important, but altogether more important than everybody else's.

Are generally deadbeats/losers - people usually come to worldviews from which they benefit personally, then do the rationalisation later. In the case of authoritarians, collectivism gives them the chance to claim resources or 'glory' based on 'group membership' that they know they could never get near in 'real life' solely on the individual level. Most entrepreneurs, for example, are broadly libertarian in outlook and reject collectivism as the envy-driven bullshit that it is.

Typically hypocrites who live by a double standard - people very rarely live their own lives in absolute accordance with their stated worldview, but in the case of authoritarians this would effectively mean living a highly unnatural and austere existence. Speaking of which, evangelical preachers in the Bible belt are a particularly humorous example of this, banging out a socially conservative message while enriching themselves at the congregation's expense and filling more holes than a JCB in their own personal lives. See also the scores of Tory MPs caught up in scandals during the 'Back to Basics' campaign of the 1990s.

Might be libertarian on individual issues for cynical/self-interest reasons - i.e. an authoritarian who takes drugs might support drug legalisation, but this is basically meaningless.

Will deny they are authoritarian until they are blue in the face - funnily enough, authoritarians reject the label in a way that is the polar opposite of libertarians' enthusiastic acceptance of the diametrically opposing one. The paradox is that although when push comes to shove 'most people' are authoritarian to some extent, this is absolutely not how the majority of those same individuals perceive themselves and/or wish to be perceived by others. Everybody is for 'freedom' and 'empowering people' in rhetorical terms, but these concepts can and do exist solely on the individual level. The second somebody advocates 'collectivised' or 'group' forms of freedom or liberty then you know what you're dealing with. And it's about as pretty as scabies.

I hope this serves as a useful rough guide, although by all means feel free to add anything you think I may have missed in the comments.

On a brighter note, let's have some music for those of us who deal in, see and speak sense.

See you tomorrow and thanks once again for reading.

Just Look What You've Lost - Beware of Bullseye Syndrome

Evening all - a few years ago I was in a state that lay somewhere between an existential crisis and being full-blown depressed. While talking to the doctor I made a point about how there were so many people offering what was simplistic "if I were you" type advice, which, I might as well add right now, I had not asked for. The utter stupidity of those offering such peals of wisdom was not lost at me at the time. The phrase "if I were you" is its own inbuilt logical fallacy, seeing as the person offering the advice is by definition incapable of truly seeing the situation from the perspective of the person being advised. What they would do in the same material position is actually rather uninteresting.

My doctor nodded and told me this was a phenomenon he referred to as 'Bullseye Syndrome', named after the audience participation part of the game show where the team with £445 are invariably implored to GAMBLE!! the lot on the chance of winning a speedboat (which really came in handy for the couple who lived in a tower block), caravan, all-in-one home gymnasium or whatever. That the £445 already might won might be immensely useful to those in possession of it never occurs to those in the crowd, who just want a bit of excitement and have perhaps deluded themselves that this is what they would do in the same situation. How on earth would they know?

'Bullseye Syndrome' is basically the tendency of people to offer advice to the effect of "go for it and don't even consider the negative consequences" from the comfort of their armchair or soapbox, safe in the knowledge that the consequences for themselves of this being rather poor advice are precisely none. Self-justified by the ready-prepared excuse of "well you didn't have to listen to me", those debilitated by Bullseye are basically cowards living vicariously by encouraging others to take bold steps they lack the intestinal fortitude or the spine to go through with themselves. It's ten parts voyeurism and ten parts assessing the terrain of their own life.

This kind of advice exists in many forms - it could be an instruction to make a move on that person you like, or give up your secure income to throw yourself into some business venture, or something to the effect of "you might never get to do this again, so you MUST do it now". The humiliation, potentially ruined friendship and other social awkwardness of being rejected, the possibility of someone's family ending up homeless and without a pound to their name, or basically any other consideration, do not come into it. Life through the 'Bullseye Lens' is incredibly straightforward - 'going for it' = Bravery and any sane, rational assessment of risk = Cowardice. Simples.

The reality is that people offering such advice invariably do not navigate their own existences using a similar modus operandi. As I stated earlier there's a voyeuristic element to it and it can often take the form of sadism as well, with the 'executive consultant' in something of a no-lose position. If things go to plan then it was all down to the quality of the advice received. On the other hand mishaps can simply be shrugged off with "well you didn't have to listen to me", as we mentioned earlier - plus there's the small matter of a nice 'motorway pile-up' to get an eyeful of from the sidelines. In the world of moral hazard the question as always is...what could possibly go wrong?

Perhaps this strikes some of our readers as a slightly odd topic of discussion, but I take an interest in psychology and have always considered these pages to be a nice fusion of the personal and the political. Advising someone to "do as I say, not as I do" is a telltale sign of an authoritarian mindset if I've ever seen one, as is engaging in schadenfreude and reveling in the misfortune of others. I've seen where this type of 'advice' can land those too prone to trust, and note that when the shit hits the fan the armchair philosopher is off down the fire escape, several stratospheres from any offer or attempt to help clean up the mess. Talk about finding out who your friends are.

'Bullseye' advice, and those offering it, should be avoided like the plague.

If I'm honest I clocked this at fifteen when faced with a non-romantic situation in which I rationalised that the only smart, intelligent move to make was to ensure that my 'feelings' for a certain someone never became public knowledge. Watching the less rational and less cynical plunge off the cliff-face like lemmings (one made a series of unhinged late night 'booty calls' and another wrote a monologue tribute to, er, Dana, the love of his life) stiffened my resolve and, realising that two lives and not one would be turned into circuses I bit down on the gumshield and hung on for dear life. Let them think you're asexual, homosexual, anything to avoid armageddon.

You're both better than those parasites.

Doing the right thing involves not simply doing the right thing, but understanding that there is no presentation or medal coming your way for it afterwards.

But...one of the difficulties of 'Bullseye Syndrome' is precisely how many people suffer from it. Many years later I developed similar 'feelings' for someone I worked with, but it was accompanied by a lingering sense that something wasn't right, that I was being roped in by a counterfeit human being, an actress getting her lines from somewhere else. Quite regrettably I get greyskulled one night and confess the existence of these 'feelings' to someone else from work (I was stressed out and neither eating nor sleeping properly). Cue absolute mayhem, total havoc played with careers and massive interference from mulitple directions (believe me, people like this are VERY authoritarian).

Not only do I end up in a very messy personal and professional situation, I become utterly convinced that my previous act of dignity, mental strength and tactical awareness was actually some dismal stroke of cowardice, the processing of which impacted both my physical and mental health. Look, we all 'play for a draw' in life sometimes, usually because we're aware that the odds of success are greatly outweighed by the prospect of going for broke and ending up on the end of some sort of shellacking be it physical, emotional, spiritual or financial. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that, but respecting others means respecting their right to process these things the same way.

As a general rule I offer very little advice and tend to keep that which I do give to areas in which I have an established knowledge of the subject. Moreover, I limit it these days to when it is either specifically being asked for or I 'get' the topic of a discussion in which I'm involved. At the risk of breaking that rule I wish more of us approached the concept of guidance with a similar mindset, but then that probably means a great many dropping the nosy form of authoritarianism that they're sadly infested with. Other people are not guinea pigs and their lives are not 'experiments' in the laboratory of the world - they mean just as much to them as yours or ours do to us.

So...put the remote control down. Please.

And...stop asking everyone else what they think. Nobody knows you quite like you do after all.

I'll return on Sunday with something Toddler-Right orientated as I appreciate they've got off somewhat lightly in recent weeks.

Perhaps a two for the price of one piece concerning the 'White Working Class' and 'Men's Right's Activists' - let me know if you have any better ideas.

In the meantime I'll leave you with 'friend of a friend' Simon Roadnight and his distinctly above average band, Raspberry Tortoise. Thanks for reading once again and see you next time.