poverty

The Stepford Daughters of Brexit and Slavery and the Emergence of Capitalism

Yesterday for our amusement the awesome Kerry Anne Mendoza posted a video on twitter made by two very definitely overprivileged girls talking about the evils of socialism. The two young ladies were Alice and Beatrice Grant, the privately educated granddaughters of the late industrialist and former governor of the Bank of England, Sir Alistair Grant. With their cut-glass accents and glazed, robotic delivery of their lines, they seemed to fit the stereotype of the idiotic Sloane perfectly, right down to the ‘Okay, yah’, pronunciation. Mendoza commented ‘I don’t think this was meant to be a parody, but it’s the perfect roast of the “yah-yah” anti-left.’

Absolutely. In fact, what the girls were describing as socialism was really Communism, completely ignoring democratic socialism, or social democracy – the form of socialism that demands a mixed economy, with a strong welfare state and trade unions, progressive taxation and social mobility. It also ignored anti-authoritarian forms of socialism, like syndicalism, guild socialism or anarcho-Communism. They were also unaware that Marx himself had said that, regarding the interpretations of his views promoted by some of his followers, he wouldn’t be a Marxist.

But it would obviously be too much to expect such extremely rich, public school girls to know any of this. They clearly believed, and had been brought up to believe, the Andrew Roberts line about capitalism being the most wonderful thing every invented, a mechanism that has lifted millions around the world out of poverty. Etc. Except, as Trev, one of the great commenters on Mike’s and this blog, said

If “Capitalism works” why are there a million people using foodbanks in Britain today? Not working that well is it? Why did the Government bail out the Banks using our money? Why did the Banking system collapse in the first place, was it because of Socialism? I don’t find these idiotic spoilt brats in the least bit funny, I feel bloody angry. When was the last time they ate food they found in the street? Bring back the Guillotine!

See: https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2019/08/14/these-young-ladies-of-brexit-need-to-be-seen-to-be-believed/

The two girls were passionate supporters of the Fuhrage and his wretched party, and were really looking forward to a no-deal Brexit. It shows how out of touch these girls are, as Brexit is already wrecking the British economy, and a no-deal Brexit and subsequent deal with a predatory America would just wipe it out completely. Along with everything that has made post-war Britain great – the NHS and welfare state. But these girls obviously have no connection with working people or, I guess, the many businesses that actually depend on manufacturing and exports. I think the girls’ family is part of financial sector, who stand to make big profits from Brexit, or at least are insulated from its effects because they can move their capital around the globe.

The girls’ views on the EU was similarly moronic. They really do seem to believe that the EU is somehow an oppressive, communistic superstate like the USSR. It wasn’t. And the reason anti-EU socialists, like the late, great Tony Benn distrusted it was partly because in their view it stood for capital and free trade against the interests of the nation state and its working people.

And they also have weird views on slavery and the EU’s attitude to the world’s indigenous peoples. To the comment by David Lammy, the Black Labour politico, who dared to correct Anne Widdecombe for comparing Brexit to the great slave revolts, they tweeted

“Lammy being pathetic as usual. The chains of slavery can be intangible, as amply shown in China, the Soviet Union and the EU; to deny that just shows your ignorance and petty hatred for the truth”.

To which Zelo Street commented that there two things there. First of all, it’s best not to tell a Black man he doesn’t understand slavery. And second, the EU isn’t the USSR.

They were also against the Mercosur deal the EU wishes to sign with the South American nations, because these would lead to environmental destruction and the dispossession and exploitation of the indigenous peoples.

“As usual the GREED and selfishness of the EU imposes itself using their trade ‘deals’ in the name of cooperation and fake prosperity. The indigenous tribes of the Amazon need our protection not deforestation”.

To which Zelo Street responded with incredulity about how they could claim environmental concern for a party headed by Nigel Farage.

And they went on. And on, going on about how the EU was a threat to civil liberties. And there was more than a touch of racism in their statement that Sadiq Khan should be more concerned to make all Londoners feel safe, not just EU migrants. They also ranted about how Labour had sold out the working class over Brexit in favour of the ‘immoral, money hungry London elite’. Which shows that these ladies have absolutely no sense of irony or any self-awareness whatsoever.

In fact, Zelo Street found them so moronic and robotic, that it dubbed them the Brexit party’s Stepford Daughters, referring to the 70s SF film, the Stepford Wives. Based on the novel by Ira Levin, the films about a community where the men have killed their wives and replaced them with robots.

See:  https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2019/08/brexit-party-presents-stepford-daughters.html

There’s a lot to take apart with their tweets. And perhaps we shouldn’t be two hard on the girls. They’re only 15 and 17. A lot of young people at that age have stupid views, which they grow out of. But there is one issue that really needs to be challenged.

It’s their assumptions about slavery and the genocide of indigenous peoples. Because this is one massive problem to any assumption that capitalism is automatically good and beneficial.

There’s a very large amount of scholarship, much of it by Black activists and researchers, about slavery and the emergence of European capitalism and the conquest of the Americas. They have argued that European capitalism was greatly assisted by the profits from New World slavery. Caribbean historians like Dr Richard Hart, in his Blacks in Bondage, have shown that transatlantic slavery was a capitalist industry. For the enslaved indigenous peoples and the African men and women, who replaced them when they died out, capitalism certainly did not raise them out of poverty. Rather it has done the opposite – it enslaved them, and kept them in chains until they were able to overthrow it successfully with assistance of European and American abolitionists in the 19th century.

And among some left-wing West Indians, there’s still bitterness towards America for its constant interference in the Caribbean and Central and South America. America did overthrow liberal and progressive regimes across the world, and especially in the New World, when these dared to challenge the domination of American corporations. The overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz’s democratic socialist regime in Guatemala is a case in point. Arbenz was overthrown because he dared to nationalise the banana plantations. Which upset the American United Fruit Company, who got their government to overthrow him in coup. He was replaced by a brutal Fascistic dictatorship that kept the plantation workers as virtual slaves. And the Americans also interfered in Jamaican politics. They were absolutely opposed to the Jamaican Labour party politician, Michael Manley, becoming his nation’s Prime Minister, and so did everything they could to stop him. Including cutting trade.

And then there’s the enslavement and genocide of the indigenous peoples.

Before Columbus landed in the New World, South America had a population of about seven million. There were one million people in the Caribbean. I think there were similar numbers in North America. But the indigenous peoples were enslaved and worked to death. They were also decimated through diseases carried by Europeans, to which they had no immunity. The Taino people were driven to extinction. The Caribs, from whom the region takes its name, were able to survive on a reservation granted to them in the 18th century by the British after centuries of determined resistance. The conquest of the New World was a real horror story.

And Britain also profited from the enslavement of indigenous peoples. I doubt the girls have heard of it, but one of the scandals that rocked British imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was that of the Putomayo Indians of South America. They had been enslaved by British rubber corporations. It was this abuse of a subject people that turned the Irish patriot, Roger Casement, from a British civil servant to an ardent Nationalist.

On the other side of the world, in the Pacific, British imperialism also managed to dispossess an entire Polynesian people and trash their island. This was in the 1920s. The island was rich in mineral deposits, and so moved the indigenous people out, ultimately relocating them to Fiji. Their island was then strip-mined, leaving it a barren, uninhabitable rock. In the 1980s the survivors were trying to sue the government over their maltreatment, but with no success.

This is what unfettered British imperialism and capitalism did. And what I’ve no doubt Farage and other far right British politicians would like to do again without the restraints of international law. It’s why I believe that, whatever the demerits of the Mercosur agreement are, it’s probably better than what individual nations would do without the restraint of the EU.

The girls are right to be concerned about the fate of indigenous peoples. But they are profoundly wrong in their absolute, uninformed belief that unregulated capitalism will benefit them.

It doesn’t. It enslaves, dehumanises and dispossesses. Which is why we need international organisations like the EU, and why the Brexit party isn’t just a danger to Britain, but to the world’s weaker, developing nations and their indigenous peoples.

Johnson’s Fascistic Denunciation of ‘Collaborators’ with the EU

Yesterday Mike put up a piece commenting on Johnson’s Fascistic rhetoric describing those opposing a no-deal Brexit in parliament. Simply put, he described them as collaborators with the EU. The Blonde Beast said

There’s a terrible kind of collaboration as it were going on between people who think they can block Brexit in Parliament and our European friends, and our European friends are not moving.

We need our European friends to compromise and the more they think that there’s a chance that Brexit can be blocked in Parliament, the more adamant they are in sticking to their position.

As Mike points out, Johnson is falsely claiming that the ordinary people, who don’t want a no-deal Brexit, have teamed up with the EU. It also identifies his enemies as a unified cause, which is also one of classic features of Fascism. Following the infamous forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Hitler viewed everything that he considered damaging to Germany to be part of a massive Jewish conspiracy. Financial capitalism, socialism, Communism and democracy were all parts of this conspiracy to undermine Germany and destroy and enslave the White, ‘Aryan’ race. As were decadent modern art, music, literature and unAryan scientific theories, like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, because Einstein was Jewish.

See: https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2019/08/14/terrible-collaboration-speech-johnson-flashes-his-fascist-credentials/

Johnson hasn’t gone quite that far yet, and Mike points out that he isn’t a Fascist. But he is showing many of the warning signs. So much so that one tweeter put out a picture of BoJob with the caption ‘This man is the biggest threat to Britain since Adolf Hitler’. It’s an exaggeration, but a forgivable one, considering that BoJob’s Brexit is already wrecking British economy and industry, and that he and his backers in the Murdoch press are looking forward to a trade deal with Trump’s America which would see our agriculture and industry bought up by the Americans, including the Health Service, the welfare state dismantled, workers’ rights removed completely, along with our environmental protection laws. All so that BoJob and the elite rich can enjoy absolute unfettered capitalism and massive profits for their own businesses.

And I’m not surprised that Johnson is sounding like a Fascist. He’s a massive egotist, like Donald Trump, and both men are extremely authoritarian. Trump talked about having newspapers and press people, who criticised him shut down. Johnson, when he was mayor of London, spent millions of taxpayers’ money on three watercannon that were illegal in mainland Britain. And BoJob’s the leader of a highly authoritarian party. Under Thatcher the Tories had links with very unpleasant South American Fascist regimes, like Chile’s General Franco. The Libertarians in the party, including Paul Staines, used to invite to their annual dinner the leader of one of the Fascist death squads in El Salvador. The Freedom Association also wanted the suppression of trade unions, workers’ rights and the welfare state and NHS, and unfettered capitalism. It was very much freedom for the rich, and wage slavery for the poor.

And he’s supported by a fanatically authoritarian press. Remember how the Tory papers demonised the judges and lawyers, who had ruled against one of Tweezer’s Brexit plans as the enemies of the people. It was the classic rhetoric of authoritarian, Fascist regimes.

And you can bet that as opposition to Boris mounts, he and his backers in the media are going to become even more splenetic and Fascistic in their denunciations. They’re already demanding anti-democratic measures to get what they want. This is the suspension of parliament, as advocated by the Torygraph, so that BoJob can force through Brexit without opposition from MPs. Who are our elected representatives.

BoJob is a menace to British prosperity, British industry, British working people and British democracy. Get him out!

 

The Strange Case of the Missing Money

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/08/2019 - 11:58pm in

Woman holding coins and "make a change" written on a scrap of paperPhoto by Kat Yukawa on Unsplash

“Economics lie at the very root of practical morality”

Josephine Butler, English feminist, social reformer and campaigner against injustice.

Boris Johnson has been distributing largesse. Well, not quite distributing it; it’s still in the pot of promises. There will, apparently, be extra money for the NHS, money for policing and education and even some to manage Brexit. If it were true then potentially it’s a good thing, but of course like everything the devil is in the detail.

After 9 years of being told endlessly there was no money and that cuts were necessary to deal with Labour’s economic mismanagement suddenly it just appears out of nowhere. Shouldn’t someone be asking how are they going to pay for it? Has someone checked out their fully costed budget? If it were Labour doing the spending then, of course, these are exactly the questions that would be being asked, even though they don’t represent monetary realities.

Of course, in the lexicon of monetary orthodoxy, aka household budgets, we can all thank the previous Chancellor who squirrelled away money in the ‘rainy-day fund’ for just such an event! Except, of course, that the question of how we pay for it doesn’t reflect how money works at all; the rainy-day fund is a figment of former chancellors’ imaginations because governments don’t spend like households and neither have nor don’t have money; they cannot put money aside or save for future expenditure. Those of us who know how it works might suppose it is simply missing knowledge on both sides of the political divide but maybe it is just a torturous game played out in the Houses of Parliament over the despatch box to deceive the public and deliver political agendas.

On the other hand, the new Chancellor Sajid Javid doesn’t seem to get it at all – or maybe he does. Whilst Boris Johnson is going on a spending spree of promises to keep the nation sweet in the run-up to a possible election, deal with the initial fall-out from Brexit and avoid the possibility of recession (currently being blamed on Brexit by media pundits whilst carefully ignoring the impact of 9 years of cuts to public spending on the economy), Javid said this week that he’s not expecting a recession at all (he’s checked with the orthodox economic oracles). He has claimed that increased growth will allow the government to meet its spending pledges (despite a contraction in the economy between April and June). Presumably, he’s counting on the additional tax that will be poured into the government’s coffers in the event of the engines of the economy perking up. Just how that miracle will occur is anyone’s guess given that the government actually has to spend before anyone can even pay their tax! If he knew this long kept secret (except he probably does but must keep to the business of government’s fiscal discipline) he could increase spending at a stroke of a computer key to avoid or lessen the worst effects of any potential recession which of course he is denying is a possibility.

Apparently, according to him, ‘the fundamentals of the British economy are strong – wages are growing [and] employment is at a record high”. Did anyone tell that to the funeral director offering budget funerals in this the final episode of the BBC programme Broke who is working a variety of jobs over 120 hours a week to keep his and his family’s heads above the water? Or those other people featured in the programme series who struggle every day working long hours on low wages, on zero hours or in the gig economy to keep their household budgets balanced and out of debt or indeed live on the beach for want of proper accommodation? There is a huge dissonance between the spoutings of government ministers and the realities on the ground for ordinary people.

Now let’s get back to that extra money Boris Johnson was talking about. Boris made his announcement in an article in the Sunday Times saying, ‘It is thanks to this country’s strong economic performance that we are now able to announce £1.8m more for the NHS to buy vital new kit and confirm new upgrades for 20 hospitals across the country’. So here we are again back to the idea that a healthy economy with higher tax revenues allows a government to spend (not withstanding that the economy is currently spiralling downwards along with other economies across the world). The suggestion is that the Conservative government has been fiscally prudent and that its economic policies which have resulted in higher tax revenues allow it to spend more. Again, a typical household budget response to government spending which is a cynical deception to cover its ideological intent.

However, not long after this announcement it became clear that this £1.8bn cash injection for the NHS capital budget which covers buildings and equipment isn’t extra money at all. It isn’t even new money, and nor will it be sufficient to make up the loss of NHS funding after 9 years of cuts to public spending. Krishnan Guru-Murthy from Channel 4 in an excruciating interview with the health minister Chris Skidmore suggested that it was money hospitals had saved by cutting services that they were now able to spend on capital projects. Trying to get Skidmore to admit the truth he said:

“I’m trying to work out where this money has come from. Hospitals up and down the country have been saving money for years but have not been allowed to spend it. And the understanding from experts like the Nuffield Trust is that this is an accounting exercise which now releases that money to be spent. Money that they saved by cutting on services that they’re now able to spend on capital projects.”

It turns out that Trusts couldn’t spend the cash they had saved until of course Boris Johnson claimed in a fanfare of trumpets that he was giving the NHS more money. This is nothing but yet another act of sleight of hand meant to put the government in a good light in the event that it will have to fight an election.

And let’s not forget either that small issue of Boris Johnson’s big red bus and his promise of £350m a week for the NHS if we voted to leave the EU?  People may have thought it sounded a great deal of money when multiplied up but it wouldn’t even cover the real costs of the cuts the government has already made over the last nine years and is a few specks in the ocean compared to the annual government expenditure on the NHS which in 2017/18 was around £122bn, of which £108bn was spent on day to day running costs.  The well-being of the nation and the economy, which depends on a well-funded publicly paid for and managed NHS, has been at stake for the past nine years, while the government has pretended there was no money for our health service and pushed through reforms designed to irrevocably change it and finish the work of successive governments. The NHS has lost its ‘N’; services and treatments are being cut left, right and centre, hospitals closed or downgraded and ‘care in the community’ has become the next big byword for change to cut costs as private healthcare companies no longer taking over through the backdoor are brazenly and openly charging now through the front door.

In another analysis this week, on Johnson’s funding pledges for education it would also appear that things are not quite as they seem. The Prime Minister committed to ‘invest in our schools and close the opportunity gap in our country’. However, new research published by the Education Policy Institute this week has not only found that the pledge would cost double what the government has promised, but also that it would disproportionately benefit the least disadvantaged schools thus reinforcing the educational inequalities that prevent many children from getting the best start in life.

Furthermore, the proposed extra money fails to take account of the real-life circumstances of children who won’t only lose out from an unfair distribution of education funding. Combined with the cuts to public spending on services, reforms to the welfare system, poor wages, insecure employment, homelessness and poor housing not to mention children in temporary and unsuitable accommodation or coming hungry to school, the effects can equally compromise a child’s future life chances and ultimately that of the nation itself. Government cannot continue to ignore the social determinants of a healthy society which cuts to public spending have undermined.

GIMMS might have missed it, but the one spending commitment that seems to have been left off the list is the environment. If anyone can tell us differently then we would be pleased to stand corrected.

The most pressing issue that we humans face is global climate change and in the last few weeks our planet has been displaying extremes of heat, storms and flooding and wildfires in the Arctic. Professor Michael Mann at Penn State University, one of the world’s leading climate scientists confirmed in an interview last year that the impacts of global warming on our planet ‘are now ‘no longer subtle…[and] we are seeing them play out in real time’.

Scientists who were meeting in Geneva earlier this week are soon to publish a stark warning about the damage also being done to the land surface of our planet as a result of the human activities which have led to soil degradation and erosion, expanding deserts and the destruction of forests and biodiversity.  Land which has been an asset in combatting climate change has now been turned into a major source of carbon as the battle for land increases to grow biofuels, plant material for plastics and fibre, timber for paper and furniture and food for growing populations.

As citizens of planet earth, we should all be concerned about the lack of real action by governments across the world. Whilst we all can make our personal contribution to changing our own behaviours, the reality is that it is only government with its sovereign spending and legislative powers that can drive the level of change we actually need to save ourselves.  We have a choice, as Professor Mann explains, we can keep on walking out into the minefield or we can reverse course and get off as quick as we can.

When politicians and think tanks ask where the money will come from to invest in addressing climate change, it is the wrong question. We should instead be asking what the consequences will be of inaction, as increased consumption and growing world populations put ever increasing pressures on nature’s resources which are being depleted far faster than the planet’s ecosystems can renew them. This is the only overspending that we should be concerned about.

Arguments about the size of deficits and debt should be put aside for the more important arguments about how we address these challenges. We must identify what resources we have and how we can use them effectively, not only to preserve planetary life but also deal with the increasing poverty and inequality that has arisen as a result of both a flawed economic system and a warming planet, which are already increasing the pressures on land and water use.

An understanding of how money works combined with an appreciation of what a Job Guarantee is and a discussion about the Green New Deal are an important start to the public conversation about where we go from here. Certainty is an impossibility. Life doesn’t deal in chocolate boxes, but we have to start somewhere and as Professor Michael Mann said we have a choice we can keep on navigating the mine field or we can reverse course.

In a recent article, Larry Elliott and Richard Partington posed the question “Boris says he’ll spend but who will pay? Will they break with austerity even if that means higher public borrowing they ask? The article notes that the Institute of Fiscal Studies has indicated that Johnson’s tax promises are expensive commitments which could cost £9bn a year. The authors quote the OBR which said that it would push government borrowing and debt up from the levels in their forecasts adding that there was no war chest or pot of money set aside that would make them a free lunch. They refer to Gordon Brown’s ‘golden rule’ only to borrow for investment (now where have we heard that before?) and George Osborne’s pledge to eliminate the deficit within five years and quote the UK’s ‘total debt pile’ and the fact that the deficit is still a ‘problem’. They even refer to John McDonnell, who has suggested that Labour would ‘raise spending with greater responsibility, as the party would increase taxes on high earners and businesses.

This is the false language of household budgets and quite simply does not apply to a sovereign currency issuing country. A government that is monetarily sovereign neither needs to tax or to borrow in order to spend. And yet our politicians, many journalists and institutions hang on to outdated concepts, regardless of the realities of modern money. The discussion hangs on deficits and debt, balanced budgets and surpluses when these are no more than red herrings which take no account of the economic context, the economic record of the government or the consequences of government policies on the lives of citizens.

If the government is us then it is beholden on us to use our power to change how things work. Let’s not pay the price for not doing so. There is an alternative world out there if we choose to stand against the tide. The first small step is understanding that a government is defined by the spending choices it makes and that there is no scarcity of money, only lack of political will.

Share

Tweet

Whatsapp

Messenger

Share

Email

reddit

Viber icon
Viber

The post The Strange Case of the Missing Money appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

Anti-Disabled People Hate Tweet MP Nadine Dorries Now Minister for Mental Health

In the words of the late, great Victor Meldrew, ‘I don’t believe it!’ Boris Johnson, in his infinite wisdom, or massive lack of it, has decided to make Nadine ‘Mad Nad’ Dorries minister for mental health.

This is nothing more than a slap in the face for disabled people, and shows exactly the contempt Boris has for them. Two years ago Nads Dorries issued a hate tweet at her disabled critics on Twitter. She called them ‘window-lickin’ trolls’. An excerpt on Mike’s post about this, which quotes the leader of Inclusion London, Anne Novis, explains why it’s so offensive. According to the staff running disability equality training sessions, the term ‘window-lickers’ started as an insult to people with Down’s Syndrome or cerebral palsy because these poor souls often have difficult controlling their tongues. Since then, it’s expanded to cover all disabled people. The excerpt then quotes Novis explaining why it’s unacceptable, and makes Dorries completely unsuitable for the post to which she has now been appointed.

Novis said: “It indicates not only that Nadine Dorries would use such offensive language but also that her understanding would be very poor about issues faced by disabled people, including mental health issues.

“You wouldn’t accept it around racist, or religious or cultural difference; you just wouldn’t accept that sort of language and expect someone then to go into a post that is meant to be assisting those people.

“There would be no confidence in her. We would have no confidence in this person being a minister because of what she has brought across through her language.”

Absolutely. It’s hate speech, pure and simple.

And a petition has already gone up calling her to be dismissed. To sign it, as I have, please go to Mike’s article at

Window-lickin’ bad: Disability ‘hate tweet’ MP appointed mental health minister

And follow the link.

But this really is amazing. Johnson seems to be choosing all the wrong people for their ministerial posts. Of course, as they’re Tories they’re not the right people in the first place. But he’s gone further than that and posted men and women who are supremely, actively incompetent or otherwise unfit for their office. Like Sajid Javid. Today Mike put up an article revealing that the Mekon’s minion in the financial sold duff financial policies, CDOs, when he was at Deutsche Bank. These were financial instruments designed to turn toxic bad debts into good investments. Like so much of the other financial investment being flogged by banks like Goldman Sachs before the Crash of 2008, they did nothing of the sort. In fact they contributed to that disaster, which the poor of the rest of the world is now having to pay off while the fat cat rich, like BoJob and Javid himself, get even richer. It’s a good question whether Javid was stupid and naive in selling them, or if he actually knew the open secret in the financial sector that they were toxic. In which case, he’s a fraudster.

Sajid Javid helped cause the UK’s financial crisis. Why did BoJob make him CHANCELLOR?

Then there’s Priti Patel, who was sacked from Tweezer’s cabinet because she decided that her position meant that she could work for herself and for her friends in Netanyahu’s wretched extreme right-wing Israeli government, rather than for her country and its people. She’s an active security risk, but Johnson has made her Home Secretary.

And the leader of the House of Commons is Jacob Rees-Mogg, an ardent Brexiteer, another millionaire, whose riches are based on his investments, with an extreme right-wing voting record, who doesn’t believe in women’s reproductive rights.

It’s almost as if Johnson is doing this deliberately to wind up the British public as far as he can, while the Tory press and lamestream media praise him to the heights as some kind of genius, who will deliver us from the mass poverty Brexit will inflict and has already inflicted.

Get him out, and get these incompetents and frauds out too!

Hell and the Mean and Exploitative Rich in the Non-Canonical Gospels

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 06/08/2019 - 9:58pm in

Leafing through the book The Apocryphal Jesus: Legends of the Early Church by J.K. Elliott (Oxford: OUP 1996) yesterday, I got to the chapter on heaven and hell. The book’s a collection of extracts from apocryphal Christian literature, the Gospels and various lives of the Apostles that weren’t included in the Bible because they were not considered historically reliable by the bishops of the Early Church. Despite being outside the accepted canon of scripture, they were nevertheless widely read and have influenced Christian art and literature. These writings include descriptions of the delights of paradise and the torments of the damned. Most of the torments are for moral offences, like fornication, adultery and homosexuality and failure to live according to proper Christian standards or neglect or rejection of Christianity. It’s grim stuff, and is the type of material and doctrines that now puts people off religion. How can a loving God inflict all these torments on people for all eternity, especially since the sexual revolution of the 1960s? Pre-marital sex is now the norm, homosexuality is accepted and opposition to it is seen as bigotry. It’s a good question, and I’m no fan of the hellfire and damnation preaching myself. As for Hell, I tend to follow the Father Duddleswell attitude from the books about the Irish priest by Neil Boyd. God’s justice demands it exists, but his mercy means there’s no-one in it.

But several of the torments described in these apocryphal books are for the rich and the exploitative. Like some of the people in the Tory and Brexit parties. One of the extracts is from the Acts of Thomas, in which the apostle raises up a dead woman, and commands her to tell what she has seen. And amongst the damned were people hung up by various parts of their bodies, including the hands.

Those hung up by the hands are they who took that which did not belong to them and have stolen, and who never gave anything to the poor, nor helped the afflicted; but they did so because they wished to get everything, and cared neither for law nor right. (p. 191).

In the Apocalypse of Peter, it is Christ Himself who describes the torments of hell, including those reserved for the rich.

‘And beside them, in a place near at hand, upon the stone shall be a pillar of fire, and the pillar is sharper than swords. And there shall be men and women clad in rags and filthy garments, and they shall be cast thereon to suffer the judgement of an unceasing torment; these are the ones who trusted to their riches and despised the widows and the women with fatherless children … before God.’ (p. 194).

In the Apocalypse of Paul, it is this apostle, who is taken by an angel and shown the heaven and hell, including this description of what happens to usurers:

And I saw another multitude of pits in the same place, and in the midst of it a river full with a multitude of men and women, and worms consumed them. But I lamented and sighing asked the angel and said, ‘Sir, who are these?’ and he said to me, “These are those who exacted interest on interest and trusted in their riches and did not trust in God that he was their helper.’ (p. 202).

We now have a government that is packed full of rich, highly rapacious individuals, who really don’t have any thought for the poor, the widows and the fatherless. And all too many of them are connected to the financial sector, like Jacob Rees-Mogg. Mogg and several other Tories come from the Christian right. It’s a pity they don’t read these passages, and those in the Bible itself, urging concern for the poor, the sick and marginalised, and do the right thing.

Which is stopping these exploitative, murderous policies of immiseration and exploitation, and resign!

As an old piece of graffiti in Bristol used to say: ‘Repent of your sins, Maggie Thatcher!’

 

Sutton and Cheam Tory MP Wants Brexit to Save Standard of British Curry

One of the most ludicrous reasons I’ve heard from those demanding Britain leave the EU is that of Paul Scully, the Conservative MP for Sutton and Cheam. Way back in October 2015, the Sutton and Croydon Guardian’s Anders Anglesey reported that Scully was supporting Brexit because he feared that the EU was preventing proper curry chefs from Bangladesh coming to Britain. Without them, the standard of the British curry would fall. The report quoted Scully as saying

“The curry industry is struggling at the moment, partly because of some unintended consequences of our immigration policy.

“Leaving the EU would give us more flexibility to control our borders and tackle some of the unintended consequences of immigration from outside the EU.

“Things such as the curry industry – bringing curry chefs over – might benefit.”

Mr Scully clarified his position in a Facebook post. He said: “Curries may well be tastier after Brexit.

“By leaving the EU and controlling our own borders, we could be able to be more flexible in our immigration policy when tackling unintended consequences with our traditional Commonwealth partners, such as the shortage of skilled curry chefs.

“I’ve just got back from Bangladesh when even the President lobbied us on the issue. It it actually causing a number of restaurants to close.”

The newspaper also spoke to Oli Khan, vice-president of the Bangladesh Caterers’ Association, who said that there was indeed a problem getting enough trained Bangladeshi curry chefs. British-born Bangladeshis want to become lawyers or work in other jobs, rather than cook like the parents. They have tried using eastern Europe migrants, but there is a problem as many of them don’t speak English. Mr Khan was hoping the government would introduce a six month contract to allow people from Bangladesh to migrate here, and have their contract renewed if they do well.

See: https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/13885920.leave-the-eu-to-get-better-curries-for-brits-says-mp-paul-scully/

Now I do like a good curry myself, and I sympathise with Mr Khan’s concern for the prosperity of his industry. But Brexit threatens to destroy British agriculture and manufacturing industry, accelerate the privatisation of the Health Service as Trump and the Americans buy it up as part of their wretched trade deal, and cause massive poverty and unemployment. It will even harm the financial sector as many foreign banks and financial houses move out of Britain to Europe.

Compared to all this, supporting Brexit because you’re afraid EU migration law is preventing you getting the right chefs for a good curry is bonkers and risible. I hope Boris Johnson’s government falls at the earliest opportunity, and Paul Scully is forced out along with the rest of the Tory clowns.

Private For-Profit University Collapses in London

Last Thursday’s I for 1st August 2019 carried a report by Ewan Somerville on the  collapse of one of the private universities set up in recent decades, GSM, on page 11. The article, titled ‘Private London university GSM collapses’, ran

One of Britain’s largest private universities has collapsed into administration, leaving thousands of students fearing they will not be able to complete their degrees.

GSM London, a for-profit private degree provider with 3,500 students, will close in September after failing to “recruit and retain sufficient numbers of students” to stay afloat. It says 247 jobs are threatened.

The UCU lecturers’ union blamed the “marketisation of education” and warned against an “increase in poorly regulated private providers”.

Jeffrey Fernhout, 23, who has just completed an economics degree at GSM, told the I he received “no warning” about the collapse. “This has left a lot of students angry, frustrated and uncertain about their future,” he said. “But the organisation was very badly managed so this isn’t a shock.”

The Office for Students, the higher education watchdog, said its “priority is to ensure that students are able to complete their studies”. GSM promised to “support as far as possible “those needing to be relocated.

The Department for Education reiterated its stance of not “bail(ing) out failing providers”.

So much for their superiority of market forces and private enterprise. Of course, this isn’t the only university in trouble. Very many are experience financial problems, partly due to cuts in government funding. When I was studying for my Archaeology Ph.D. at Bristol, I was told that the archaeology department was faced with laying off some of its teaching staff because of funding cuts made by the Blair government. Blair, Mandelson and co. funding policy was inadequate to support courses that required expensive technical equipment. I also heard from academic friends this weekend that one university has also been forced to close their conservation course for archives and libraries, despite it being considered the leading course of this type in the country. Again, the reason was the high cost of funding against the small number of students taking the course. It’s a financially simplistic attitude that ignores the fact that archives and libraries need skilled conservators, and that the money spent on such a course is repaid in the continuing upkeep of rare and valuable materials held in institutions up and down the country.

I also think that many other universities, which are similarly experiencing financial problems, also have problems recruiting the necessary number of students. Years ago, way back at the beginning of the century, another academic friend of mine predicted this would happen. He had been looking at the demographic rates, and concluded that the bulge in the number of people in their late teens and early twenties, who would enter Higher Education, had passed. Colleges and polytechnics, which were perfectly good as they were, were encouraged, if not required to expand into universities. I think that as a result, many of them have seriously overstretched themselves. Universities have complained that the initial student fees they were allowed to charge, which were capped at £3,000, were inadequate. Hence the increase to £9,000. And this has led in turn to massive student debt.

Many students now feel that they cannot afford their education, and that includes nurses. A little while ago BBC Bristol produced a documentary reporting that students number on nursing courses had fallen. Interviewing some of those still on the course, they explained that the reason was that they simply could not afford to support themselves and pay the tuition fees. Some of those still on the course explained that they had to work to support themselves. These young people often worked long hours, as well as the time they spent on their academic and practical studies. Those aspiring nurses, who are continuing their studies in this environment, are clearly to be admire for their dedication. But it’s a deplorable way to treat the future skilled medical staff which Britain needs, especially with its aging population.

And the situation has not been helped by the concern of university management and administrators for their own enrichment at the expense of teaching staff. I understand that many of the lecturers at universities are actually poorly paid. Quite a number actually work only part-time, because full-time positions are rare and extremely difficult to get. Meanwhile, we’ve seen a procession of university chancellors awarding themselves salaries in the hundreds of thousands of pounds. This mirrors the way business management has consistently voted massive pay rises for themselves, while cutting investment and freezing pay or even finding ways to deliberately underpay their employees. Like zero hours contracts.

But despite the precariousness of university finances, thanks to Thatcherite educational policies, the government is determined not to give financial support to those failing. Which means that if they go under, tens of thousands of students will have racked up tens of thousands in debt for zilch.

The introduction of market forces and the privatisation of Higher and Further Education is a failure. It’s leaving universities in financial trouble, forcing some lecturers and other non-management staff to accept poor wages and job insecurity, and leaving students with a mountain of debt which many will find impossible to pay off.

It’s another example of the utter failure of Thatcherism, despite its continuing loud promotion by a shrilly intolerant media and political establishment. It’s time to bring it to an end, and get rid of it. All of it, including the parties supporting it – the Brexiteers, the Tories and the Lib Dems. Get them out, and a proper Labour government in.

 

 

 

Green shoots and new horizons – there is an alternative.

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 03/08/2019 - 11:03pm in

Open hand holding green plant shootPhoto by Ravi Roshan on Unsplash

As the new Prime Minister processes around the country like the emperor with no clothes, families are struggling, children are going hungry, people are sleeping on the streets and those with disabilities are treated with contempt.  In one of the richest countries in the world.

‘This subject has been covered endlessly by GIMMS’ we hear you say and yes, that is true. But when the government fails to acknowledge the pain and suffering that has been caused by 9 years of cuts to public spending, then it behoves others to keep it in the public eye, to hold it to account and stand in solidarity by raising awareness of the plight of many UK citizens. In addition, people are entitled to know that there is an alternative to austerity and what that alternative is.

The government works tirelessly from its propaganda bunker, shamelessly wheeling out its spokesperson, to respond to media articles which reveal the tragic human stories behind their austerity policies. You only have to scroll down to the end of an article in the mainstream news to find an unbroken litany of spin, obfuscation and downright lies that contrast completely with the realities.

In fact, just a quick look through the papers this week reveal examples of the endlessly repeated narratives;

‘Tackling poverty will always be a priority for this government’…. We want to build on our progress to ensure every family can thrive….’

Behind these oft-repeated narratives lies a much more distressing picture; one of the human cost in suffering, rising poverty and inequality. Government-created destitution in some cases.

In recent weeks, GIMMS has referenced research from charities, other organisations and campaigners revealing some very awkward statistics for the government.  Again, this week there is yet more bad news.

The Social Metrics Commission published a report which revealed that currently there are 14.3 million people living in poverty in the UK. The figures include 8.3 million working-age adults, 4.6 million children and 1.3 million pension-age adults. The figures also showed that nearly half of those living in poverty (totalling 6.8 million people) live in a family where someone is disabled. You can read the report here.

Also this week, the Disability News Service reported on the inquiry being held by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Health in all Policies which is being chaired by Debbie Abrahams; the secretariat for which is being provided by two of our own GIMMS advisors Deborah Harrington and Jessica Ormerod. The Committee is examining the impact of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 on children and disabled adults.

Evidence was heard from experts, charities, think tanks and grassroots groups. David Taylor Robinson, a professor of Public Health and Policy at the University of Liverpool, noted that there had been very unusual rises in child mortality in the most deprived areas of the country and that families were ‘living in a state of profound anxiety about how to get by from one day to the next’. ‘He also said that: “Poverty is absolutely toxic for children’s life chances”.

The Disability News Service also quoted Dr Aaron Reeves, an associate professor in social policy and intervention at Oxford University, who indicated that there was ‘preliminary evidence’ that the benefits freeze was ‘contributing to food poverty’ and that cuts to social security were ‘a source of stress and anxiety’ which had grave implications for mental health. He also reported that the proportion of people who were finding it difficult to feed themselves and their families had risen dramatically but was concentrated amongst those who are disabled. You can read the article here.

While Brexit gets top billing in every news broadcast or newspaper headline, children are going hungry and getting sick.

As reported in last week’s MMT lens, community food banks are stepping up their efforts to provide meals for children during the school holidays. The 2017 APPG report on Hunger’s “Hungry Holidays” cited research that estimated that the loss of free school meals added between £30 and £40 per week to parents’ outgoings during school holidays. It also estimated that up to 3 million children were at risk of going hungry during school holidays.

Last year the Trussell Trust handed out 87,496 food parcels to families in the UK during the summer holidays – that was a 20% increase over the same period in 2017. These shameful figures come against a backdrop of spiralling food bank use in the UK in 2018/19. The Trussell Trusts own figures show that:

  • Between 1st April 2018 and 31st March 2019, food banks in The Trussell Trust’s network provided 1,583,668 emergency supplies to people in crisis. 577,618 of these supplies went to children.
  • This is an 18.8% increase on the previous year, when 1,332,952 emergency supplies went to people in crisis; 484,026 of these went to children.

The charitable organisations working on the ground see the consequences of government austerity on a daily basis. As the South London Mission director Janet Corlett said ‘“Destitution is creeping up on people. We’ve got kids with anxiety and mental health issues because their lives are insecure, and in the summer the pressures increase.”

Nye Jones at Novara Media also reported this week on the huge rises in the numbers of people homeless and sleeping on the streets in London.

The statistics show that these are at record levels, with 8000 sleeping outside between April 2018 and 2019. Across England, there has been an increase of 165% in those with no option but to sleep outside, while homeless deaths have more than doubled in the past five years.

As the author comments So why do so many of us turn a blind eye to such blatant destitution? Why, in the sixth richest economy in the world, isn’t there uproar that some people are living under such obviously difficult and often fatal conditions?”

Why indeed?

A similar question might be asked about poverty and food bank use. It gives us all a nice warm feeling to think that people care enough to donate to food banks, and we are uplifted by notices in supermarkets about how much food they have contributed to feeding hungry people.  Of course, one should not knock people’s generosity – that is an entirely good thing – and yet what we are seeing here is the normalisation of food banks as if they were a natural part of the scenery. In the same way, homeless charities seek to alleviate the hard lives of those who, for whatever reason, find themselves living under a railway arch with pieces of cardboard to keep warm as if there was nothing else to be done but depend on charitable giving.

As we put our donations in the box, do we stop to think about why this has happened? Are these really natural phenomena beyond our ability to address and find solutions for?

According to the government, the reasons why people use food banks are complex, as are the causes of homelessness, and have nothing to do with government policies. Such declarations ignore the consequences of government spending policies which have led to cuts in almost every area delivering public purpose, from the NHS and social care to education, welfare and other vital public services yet the government continues to deny any responsibility.

The social and economic inequalities that shape our environment didn’t just happen. People didn’t choose their poverty. The suggestion that it occurs because of people’s own inadequacy or inability to manage their lives is just another way for government to abdicate its responsibility for the well-being of its citizens and the health of the economy. The cost of this inequality is significant in terms of lives ruined and lives lost, as well as the considerable cost to the economy.

The imposition of austerity had nothing to do with economics. It was always about delivering the neoliberal ideology of a small state (whilst selling off our assets to the private sector to deliver services for profit with public money as the cash cow) and promoting the primacy of the individual and personal responsibility. It has, in fact, been the politics of abandonment.

However, politics is the art of the possible, particularly when it suits an agenda.  On Thursday, it was announced by the newly appointed Chancellor Sajid Javid that he will be providing a ‘new’ immediate cash boost of £1.1bn and will make a further £1bn available if needed to manage Brexit.

In the same way, the new Chancellor could give a cash boost to public services, the NHS, education and welfare.  If he chose to do so. It wouldn’t need the people’s tax or to commit to borrowing – the Treasury could simply instruct the Central Bank to make the necessary payments with the caveat that it has to have the available resources to do so or face inflationary pressures.

The message Labour should be conveying is not that it’s an ‘appalling waste of taxpayers cash’ which could have been spent on ‘our schools, hospitals and people’ but rather that the Conservatives have made political choice which is unrelated to the state of the public finances. The implication is that money is scarce, and that government has to make spending decisions based on a limited pot of public money, which is absolutely not the case. The question of either/or never comes into it.

The Conservatives are seen as the party of fiscal discipline and for the last 9 years they have stuck to the ‘two plus two equals four’ model of the economy. No doubt they will explain that they’ve done so well in controlling the public finances that they have got some fiscal slack and now have room to spend. The public needs to know that this is ‘room’ they’ve always had as the sovereign currency issuer and that there was never any need for spending cuts on public services. Unless, of course, you were making them for purely ideologically driven reasons.

If we have to repeat ourselves we don’t apologise. GIMMS’ objective is to make it clear that the Tories have put balanced budgets before the lives of people on the back of the lie about how our money system works. Our public infrastructure and our public assets, both local and national, are disappearing at an ever-faster rate and local government is struggling to deal with the fallout from cuts to government spending. Our public services and welfare system have been under ceaseless attack with devastating consequences. All for political reasons which have nothing to do with financial necessity. In the meantime, the rich have been garnering an ever-greater share of the wealth.

In 2016 it was suggested in an article on the IMF’s website that neoliberalism had been ‘oversold’ and that some neoliberal policies, instead of delivering growth, had increased inequality and jeopardised expansion. The proof lies before us and the consequences are clear for all to see, whether in the UK, Europe, the US or around the world. What is shocking is that after having promoted austerity politics in the ‘belief’ that a reduction in government spending would result in economic expansion, people and the economies of many countries have paid the painful price.  And yet the IMF is still an organisation that defaults to the scarcity of money and the need for fiscal prudence arguments. The system is skewed towards the wealthy and the corporations both at global and national levels. It’s time for a change.

To return to the earlier discussion, GIMMS leaves the last few words to Emmie Reevie from the Trussell Trust who said last month:

 ‘If we are to end hunger in the UK, we need to make sure everyone is anchored from being swept into poverty. The Government needs to ensure benefit payments reflect the true cost of living and work is secure, paying the real Living Wage. Every family should have enough money coming in for a decent standard of living. No child should face going hungry in the UK.’

Armed with the knowledge that there is an alternative vision for the future which is facilitated by an understanding of how money works and how government programmes can be paid for, we can encourage those green shoots of change that are beginning to appear, to grow into something positive which will bring better times for all and ensure a healthy sustainable planet to boot.

Remember ‘the government is us’ and we can make a difference.

 

Note:  Deborah Harrington and Jessica Ormerod, as well as providing the Secretariat for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Health in All Policies are also founders of the not-for-profit organisation Public Matters. If you’d like more information about what they do please follow the link here.

 

GIMMS is raising funds to cover the costs of the venue hire and associated expenses for a fringe event during the Labour Party Conference in September.

GIMMS is a non-profit organisation which relies exclusively on the donations of its friends and supporters for funding. The GIMMS team and the speakers will give their time voluntarily and without pay but we still need to cover the costs of events, travel, printing and other expenses associated with running the event.

If you are able to and would like to donate, please do so at our Crowdfunder page here.

Share

Tweet

Whatsapp

Messenger

Share

Email

reddit

Viber icon
Viber

The post Green shoots and new horizons – there is an alternative. appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

Anti-Black Racism and the Anti-Semitism Smears

Looking back at two of the most notorious instances, where decent anti-racists have been smeared as an anti-Semites, it occurred to me that behind them there’s a very nasty strain of anti-black racism. These two cases were the attacks on Jackie Walker, the vice-chair of Momentum by the Campaign Against Truth and the Jewish Labour Movement, and against Marc Wadsworth by Ruth Smeeth. Both were not only passionate and committed campaigners against all varieties of racism, they were also Black.

Walker is Jewish by descent and faith. Her partner is Jewish, and she sent her daughter to a Jewish school. She is an outspoken opponent of Israeli apartheid, and began attacking it through her activism against its counterpart in South Africa. Because of this some Zionist organisation has apparently identified her as the second most dangerous threat to Israel along with Jeremy Corbyn.

She was accused of anti-Semitism when snoopers from the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism dug up an old Facebook conversation between her and two or three other historians and scholars discussing Jewish financial involvement in the slave trade. Walker made it clear that she was looking at it partly from the angle of being a Jew herself. She said that the Jews involved were ‘my people too’. It’s a legitimate area of historical research, and Jackie has subsequently very ably defended herself by citing studies of this by mainstream, respectable Jewish historians. Nowhere did she claim that the Jews were solely responsible for the slave trade, or even its main investors. She has made it clear that the responsibility for the slave trade lies with the Christian monarchs of the states that engaged in it.

Nevertheless, her words were taken out of context and further distorted, and she was the subject of a vile article in the Jewish Chronicle claiming that she had. This formed the basis for a complaint against her to the Labour party demanding her expulsion. She was also accused of anti-Semitism by the Jewish Labour Movement. They secretly recorded her at a workshop on the proper commemoration of the Holocaust for Holocaust Memorial Day. Jackie complained that she was unable  to work with their definition of anti-Semitism and objected to the way Holocaust Memorial Day concentrated exclusively on Jewish suffering to the exclusion of other groups, who had also suffered similar genocides, like Black Africans. I believe the definition of anti-Semitism to which she objected wasn’t the normal definition that it is simply hatred of Jews as Jews, but the IHRC definition, which conflates it with opposition to Israel. And while Holocaust Memorial Day does mention the holocausts of other ethnicities, there is increasing hostility amongst some Zionists on their inclusion. As Tony Greenstein has shown, the Israeli state is keen to present the Holocaust as a unique phenomenon which targeted only Jews, despite the Nazis’ determination to murder other groups and races, like the Roma and the disabled, not to mention the Slav peoples they intended to enslave and turn into a class of peasant serfs.

Jackie was duly expelled from the party, though not for anti-Semitism, which he accusers couldn’t prove, but on other, spurious charges, like bringing the party into disrepute or some other nonsense. Since then, she has been the victim of sustained, vicious abuse. She has been told that she should be hanged from trees, or killed and her body dumped in bin bags. This is so vile, that she has forbidden her daughters from reading her email, because she doesn’t want to see them upset by the abuse their mother is getting. And amongst these accusations is the claim that she cannot be properly Jewish, because she’s black. Which is itself definitely racist.

Now it seems to me that at the heart of these smears against Walker is the assumption that, as a Black anti-racist activist, she must be an anti-Semite. This is based on the very public comments several decades ago of two leading Black American figures, Louis Farrakhan and the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Farrakhan is, or was, the head of the Nation of Islam, the religious movement led by Malcolm X. Although it sees itself as a form of Islam, it is by Muslim standards highly heretical. It’s based around the worship of W.D. Fard, a Syrian immigrant to the US, as God incarnate. It also has elements of those new religious movements centred on UFOs, like the Aetherius Society. Farrakhan claims that he was taken up by a UFO from a mountain in Mexico to an orbiting ‘mother wheel’, where he was told that W.D. Fard and Jesus were alive and well on Venus, where they would direct the future war against Whites.

As well as bitterly hostile to Whites, Farrakhan is also vehemently anti-Semitic. He really does believe that the Jews were responsible for the slave trade. This is definitely rejected by every proper scholar of the subject, including Jackie herself. 

In the late 1980s and 1990s, Farrakhan organised a series of events protesting against the conditions of Black people in America. One of the most spectacular was the ‘Million Man March’, in which a million Black men were to march on Washington D.C. It was supposed to be a men-only event, as the religion has very traditional views on sex and gender roles. Women were supposed to be at home, looking after the children. And it was supposed to be for Blacks only. In the event, the organisers could only reach the numbers they wanted through letting Whites join.

The Reverend Jesse Jackson was a Christian minister, who was also a Black anti-racism activist. He was popular, and at one stage it looked like he might win the Democratic presidential nomination. Eddie Murphy in his stand-up comedy routine included jokes about the shock White racists would get after they drunkenly voted for him as a joke, only to wake up the next morning to find Jackson in the White House. It’s possible that two decades before Barack Obama, America could have seen its first Black president. Jackson’s political ambitions took a nosedive, however, when he began to move close to Farrakhan and made anti-Semitic comments. The most notorious of these was when he called New York ‘Hymietown’ because of its large Jewish population.

It therefore seems very strongly to me that the accusations of anti-Semitism against Jackie Walker were partly intended to recall the real anti-Semitism of Farrakhan and Jackson. The implication there seemed to be that because she dared discuss Jewish involvement in the slave trade, she must share Farrakhan’s odious views. Not least of which is because she’s a Black anti-racist activist, and so was he.

Ditto with Marc Wadsworth. He was smeared by Ruth Smeeth because he caught her passing on information to a Torygraph journo next to her at a Labour party event. She then claimed that he was guilty of using the anti-Semitic trope of Jews as leaders of a conspiracy against her. The lamestream press had a field day with this, repeating this lie and even screaming that he was the Labour activist, who made her cry.

Wadsworth is not Jewish, but he is a committed anti-racist activist. Among his achievements was getting the parents of the murdered Black teenager, Stephen Lawrence, to meet Nelson Mandela. He also worked with the Board of Deputies of British Jews to formulate improved legislation to protect Jews from real anti-Semitic violence after a spate of attacks by the NF/BNP in the Isle of Dogs in the 1980s. He’s very, very definitely not a racist. But truth doesn’t matter to these scoundrels, and they libelled him as such anyway.

Like Jackie Walker.

I think part of the underlying assumption here is that both Jackie and Marc must be racist themselves, because they’re Black. When riots broke out in Black communities across Britain in the first years of Thatcher’s reign c. 1981/2, the Tory press claimed that they weren’t caused by poor social conditions, lack of opportunities, high unemployment suffered by British Blacks, or institutional racism in British society. No! The real reason Blacks in Toxteth, Liverpool, St. Paul’s, Bristol, and Brixton in London, was because they were anti-White racists. And although nearly four decades have passed since then, I think that’s still the assumption, or the implication, behind the accusations against Marc and Jackie. Black anti-racism activists must be anti-White, and anti-Semitic, because of the assumptions and events of over three decades ago.

Meanwhile, it’s noticeable how uninterested in combating racism, or actively racist those making the accusations of anti-Semitism are. the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism has precious little to say about real Fascism and anti-Semitism, preferring to rail instead against Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters. Margaret Hodge did so little to combat the NF/BNP in Islington, that when the BNP’s Derek Beacon and his storm troopers got onto Tower Hamlet’s council, they sent her a bouquet of flowers. Tom Watson, who has done his best to facilitate these accusations in the Labour party, was a friend of Phil Woolas, who was prosecuted for running an islamophobic campaign portraying Muslims as terrorists. David Rosenberg of the Jewish Socialist Group has written on his blog about how the Board of Deputies of British Jews in the 1980s did their level best to prevent Jews from going on anti-racist marches and events like Rock Against Racism. The ostensible reason was that they were afraid Jews would be exposed to anti-Zionist propaganda. But others suspected that the real reason was that the Board did not want them mixing with people from different races and communities. And the respected historian of Jewish community in Britain, Geoffrey Alderman, was put under pressure by the Board in the 1970s to remove from his book his finding that 2 per cent of the Jewish community in the UK voted for the BNP because they hated Blacks and didn’t want their children going to school with them.

Of course, the people making these defamatory accusations of anti-Semitism against decent people don’t confine them to Blacks. They also make them against Whites, and particularly against Jews critical of Israel. These latter, who obviously include Jackie, are subjected to the most vile abuse, which would automatically be considered anti-Semitic if it came from non-Jews. Like some of the comments Tony Greenstein has received by Zionist Jews, telling him that they wish he and his family had died in the Shoah.

But it seems to me that behind the smears of Jackie Walker and Marc Wadsworth there is nevertheless a very strong undertone of anti-Black racism, a racism that permeates their accusers and the right-wing media, which supported those smears.

 

 

High Court Judge Calls for Donations to Charity for People without Lawyers

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 30/07/2019 - 9:34pm in

Yesterday’s I for Monday, 29th July 2019, carried an article by Brian Farmer on page 13 reporting that Lady Hale, the president of the Supreme Court, had made an appeal for donations to a charity for people, who can’t afford lawyers. This should resonate with everyone supporting Mike in his battle against the false libel claim against him by Riley and Oberman, and for the 17 other victims of their vindictive legal mendacity. The article ran

The UK’s most senior judge has appealed for people to give money to a charity whose volunteers support those embroiled in civil court cases who cannot afford a lawyer.

Lady Hale, president of the Supreme Court, asked for donations to the Personal Support Unit yesterday.

She made this week’s Radio 4 Appeal, a BBC programme in which well-known people ask for donations to charities.

“I know how intimidating the civil and family courts can be for people without legal knowledge of help,” Lady Hale, patron of the Personal Support Unit, told listeners. “Everyone deserves access to justice whether or not they can afford a lawyer.”

She told the story of a woman helped by the unit after becoming involved in a family court fight with a former partner. A year ago, the then most senior family court judge in England and Wales talked about problems caused by increasing numbers of people who found themselves without lawyers.

It seems from this that she was mostly concerned about disputes in the family courts, but it applies right across the board. This has been partly caused by the Tories slashing legal aid, which has made justice unaffordable for all too many poor and working and lower middle class Brits. And Mike’s case appears to be another example of a SLAPP lawsuit, in which the rich and powerful attempt to silence political opponents by punitive legal action, which they hope their victims won’t be able to afford to challenge or defend themselves against. Mike, for example, has been forced to go to crowdfunding to ask for donations for his own defence against Riley and Oberman. He’s also been lucky to have the support of so many people reading his site, like Damo from Cornwall. People who’ve never met him, but enjoy and appreciate his site and the hard work he has put in trying to defend the disabled and their carers against a vicious, persecutory Tory and Lib Dem regime. I know that their contributions to Mike’s fund are greatly appreciated. But he’s not the only one to hit with legal suits he can’t afford to challenge without the support of charity.

This has to end. Legal aid should be restored to proper levels. And the libel laws should be reformed so that the rich and vindictive cannot use them to silence reasonable, truthful criticism. And legislation is definitely needed to prohibit SLAPP lawsuits by the corporate rich and political right. Only then can the poor really expect justice.

Pages