‘The Seeds Of Revolution Are Present In The Machinery Of Oppression’

On Corruption and Cover-Ups, Guy Mankowski interviews Will Black

Will Black is a writer and journalist with a background in anthropology and mental health care. His latest book, Psychopathic Cultures and Toxic Empires, examines the corrupting influence powerful psychopaths have on societies.

Guy Mankowski is a writer and academic. His current novel, Marine, explores whistle-blowing, cover-ups and corruption. He was recently awarded an Arts Council Grant For The Arts to research this subject, and has interviewed experts on corruption in sports and banking.

Guy and Will caught up for a chat about corruption and cover-ups, subjects which are hitting the headlines increasingly often.

Guy Mankowski: I found your book a brilliant read. You say in it that “the more complex organisations are the more opportunities there are for psychopaths to seize control”. Do you think the façades of professionalism, and its attendant bureaucratic tools, are consciously employed by psychopaths to cloak their behaviour?

Will Black: It’s hard to know, and I’m sure there is variation. But certainly some people who look at the world in a selfish and exploitative way would look at aspects of ‘their’ organisation and professional structures to maximise their influence and gains. And also protect themselves from losing those things.

This has weakened, fortunately, but historically there has been a rigid caste system in Britain, encouraging relatively narrow groups of people to enter and thrive within certain professions. The ‘high walls’ and ‘razor wire’ repelling those from the wrong ‘class’ from key professions historically may have done those professions harm, as they also kept out scrutiny. And enabled the undeserving privileged to dominate for too long – which is a waste of more widely-dispersed ability.

While these little empires remained like fortresses, the cultures within them would have appeared normal to many of those within them. This gives toxic characters free rein to maintain and develop the toxicity of those organisations.

GM: Your book describes toxic cultures in which systematic child abuse has tragically occurred. Given your background as a clinician, I wondered if you think that paedophilia might, in people with a vulnerability to psychopathy, be a reaction to a specific early psychological trauma? I am wondering if such trauma, combined with the psychopathic need for power, could be an explanation for mass child abuse in toxic cultures?

WB: It’s very hard to say. It seems to be the case, in Britain and elsewhere, that celebrity figures and abuse ring procurers have been investigated and prosecuted much more readily than the most powerful have. The few reasonably influential child abusers and rapists who have been convicted appear remorseless so far and, given any opportunity, use their prominence to smear victims.

I know there is great work going on in some prisons, in the UK and abroad, which encourages sex attackers to face up to what they have done and their impact on victims. So there is potential for us as societies to gain more insight into the above. However, I think it’s more complicated when it comes to abuse rings than solitary sex attackers – and especially so in the networks of powerful abusers that authorities are finally looking into. Coming clean enough to offer insight into the above question seems less likely in this ‘elite’ group, as they have a strong sense of entitlement, are supported by and protected by institutions and wealth, and any admission would breach the fortress of the group and cast darker shadows across ‘elite’ society.

The alleged Westminster abuse networks – and other ‘elite’ networks – appear to have a stronger code of silence than the Mafia at this stage. As a consequence, we can only speculate on the dynamics within these groups and what factors led members of the rings to do what they have done. When we hear accounts of those brave victims of abuse rings who have come forward, it certainly seems to me that ‘paedophile’ is the wrong word. Brutal violent rape of children is not about an ‘attraction’ towards children. It may be about power, transgression of societal norms (as Ian Brady sought). Or some kind of twisted personal or group rite, to amplify their sense of importance and power.

It may be that some of these powerful perpetrators were abused, but we must not assume a simple correlation. Some people who have had charmed lives still manage to become sadists. Their doing so might, in some cases, be influenced by a disposition towards psychopathy, but it could also be something enabled and encouraged by malignant aspects of ‘elite’ culture that have been hidden from public scrutiny. It seems very unlikely that it just so happened that a bunch of ‘VIPs’ suddenly started abusing children in networks in the 1970s and 80s. It seems more likely to me that culture has shifted enough in the last decade or so that more survivors have come forward. Furthermore technology (such as blogs and social media) has allowed muted voices to become amplified. It may very well be that these sorts of rings have operated for considerable time, but a culture of shame, fear, denial and oppression prevented victims from coming forwards in the way many have done in recent years. Whether or not the predators abusing those children can be described as psychopaths, the rings themselves would have appeared monstrous and all-powerful to the children preyed upon.

GM: Later in the book you talk of the challenges facing those who would like to test for psychopathy, in order to undermine the power of psychopathic systems. Do you think it would it be useful for society to consider developing psychometrics to assess psychopathy in mass figures? Perhaps using their public behaviour and discourses as material instead of private material gathered in one-to-one sessions? Because – as you say – psychopaths in public positions would resist assessment.

WB: It’s a very tricky notion as, beyond the scientific integrity of doing so, in creating a shift in culture aimed at curtailing the influence of psychopaths, we could create a hostile and paranoid environment. It might turn out that this is what happens, but I don’t relish the prospect of societies feeling compelled to do something like this. Transparency is one thing, but a surveillance culture armed with psychological models could be as toxic as what we have now.
Fear of child-abusing strangers has already taken from many children the freedom my generation had to play out with friends and experiment with life – things vital to develop resilience and social intelligence. So, as well as harming their victims, abusers have cast a shadow over societies and infected culture with cynicism and fear. To create a business environment of such scrutiny that people can’t function naturally could cast a similar shadow. I think a better solution is to reward empathetic leadership practices, long-term thinking and a systemic approach to problem solving – rather than (as has often happened) reward a more psychopathic approach to business and work.

GM: I am surprised, when shocking stories about systemic abuse surface, that there isn’t a greater outcry. With regards to the Dolphin Square scandal there seems a) the widespread belief that it in due course it will be covered up and b) the sense that the government have no real appetite to address it. For instance, we saw Nick Clegg recently resist claims to investigate Cyril Smith, citing semantics about the fact that he is not in the same party as Smith was. Do you think this lack of willingness to investigate might at all be related to networks which assure mutual survival or destruction? (Without casting aspersions on any individuals).

WB: Yes, I’m sure that is true and I’m sure there are people involved who are not psychopaths and who are frankly scared and disgusted with what they have been party to. I think we sometimes credit individual ministers with too much power though. A former MI5 officer made the point at a talk a few years ago that governments come and go but the security services carry on as they see fit. And within specific intelligence services there are different factions with different agendas, but an ultimate function is to maintain social order and stability.

With that in mind – and before the internet made it possible for former care home children to have a voice, it might have seemed perfectly rational and right to help cover-up things that would unsettle society and cause unrest.
From a utilitarian perspective, non-abuser spooks covering up abuse in the past could have convinced themselves that they were doing something pro-social rather than psychopathic. However, now that more and more people can see the rot seeping out from the Establishment, it seems like a reprehensible thing to have done. It added to the abuse and betrayal of victims.

Those covering up these crimes in the 70’s and 80’s probably couldn’t have imagined that soon almost everyone would have devices that can broadcast information around the world in seconds. I’d suspect the abusers and those covering up thought victims of abuse were more likely to die young or become disregarded substance abusers than become articulate, supported people with a strong voice, compelling stories and the ability to broadcast what has happened. The problem now for the authorities is that the rot is so apparent to so many and – until people are satisfied it’s been completely exposed and cleaned up – all of politics and the security services will look suspect. As does the CPS and the police, when cases don’t make it to court.

GM: I worked in health care for quite a few years. There is lots of talk about psychopaths in business and politics, but I wonder if professions like psychology can be fertile grounds for a particularly elusive kind of psychopath, e.g. one who can call and respond with ideas of empathy and self-awareness to hide their aggression?

WB: The concept of psychopathy – or at least the term – is relatively new. I think we have a lot further to go in understanding different types of psychopaths, and others deemed to have antisocial and narcissistic personality disorders. Research into mirror neurons and the ’empathy switch’ has been illuminating, as it showed how empathy can be switched on or dialled up in certain circumstances. I suspect we will find more about how for healthy people in extreme conditions – such as war – it can be also dialled down. So in the fairly precarious, chaotic and confusing environment of a psychiatric ward or A & E service, there are certainly clinicians who previously shared no characteristics with psychopaths who learn to suppress normal human responses – like fear and horror – to make rapid decisions and manage to sleep at night. Equally, there could be some perfectly good clinicians who are drawn to the excitement and power of making life-changing decisions, but who – under different conditions – could be rather unpleasant psychopaths.

GM: In my novel I explore the fact that organisations do not protect whistle-blowers, and so social networking is increasingly exposing and confronting corruption instead. Are you concerned that powerful organisations will find ways to close this loophole? You mention in the book that the Wikipedia pages of the powerful seem to be changed very quickly if any evidence of their wrongdoing is placed there.

WB: We can’t assume that the freedom we currently have on social media will always be available to us – and many people have nothing like the power we have in the UK to communicate without being dragged off somewhere. However, the internet has become such a vital tool in business that, if it ceased to function, corporations and economies would also struggle to function. All sorts of markets are now so dependent on the internet that nations would be destabilised if the web went down. This reality means, ironically, that as long as capitalism as we know it operates, the masses will have communication tools at our disposal to challenge aspects of the system. As is often the case, the seeds of revolution are present in the machinery of oppression.

Psychopathic Cultures and Toxic Empires is available via Amazon and bookshops.

Guy Mankowski is the author of the novels ‘Letters from Yelena’ and more recently ‘How I Left The National Grid’.

Confucius Say…

 

“By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.”- Confucius.

“If I am walking with two other men, each of them will serve as my teacher. I will pick out the good points of the one and imitate them, and the bad points of the other and correct them in myself.”- Confucius

“He who learns but does not think, is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger.”- Confucius

“It is more shameful to distrust our friends than to be deceived by them.” – Confucius

 

 

 

 

Joining The Dots.

Apologies for being a little quiet for the last few days. Contrary to some rumours I’ve not been assassinated by Op Greenlight, I’ve been unwell, and that is not because I’ve been poisoned with radioactive polonium by the Mossad, I’ve had a cold, probably caused by the change in weather and my own stubborn refusal to dress appropriately for October.

It’s astonishing that simply by not being as active as normal due to man flu  and not addressing some issues that some people have raised, some are able to construct extremely implausable scenarios to explain it. I guess it says something about human nature that given a couple of dots we can’t help but try to join them, often when there simply isn’t enough information to create an accurate picture.

Of course joining the dots is nothing new. People have been looking up at the night sky and doing it for millennia. Below is a picture of the constellation of Taurus.

Now, someone has very helpfully superimposed the image of a bull on the constellation but you can still see the individual stars that make it up and you can also see that these dots in the sky have been joined up. If you didn’t already know that it was the constellation of Taurus would you think it looked like a bull? The cultural impact of this particular dot joining shouldn’t be underestimated. One in twelve of the population when asked what their star sign is will answer Taurus and many each day will check their horoscope to discover if they should talk to their boss about the pay rise they want or whether to kiss the girl they like but I can’t help but feel that some time a few thousand years ago there was someone with a very vivid imagination and too much time on their hands. What is remarkable is that this person was able to persuade other people that the image of a bull could be perceived by joining these dots.

I think something similar happens when people see faces in everyday things.

Left: Jesus on Toast. Right: Virgin Mary on Toast.

It seems that our brains are hardwired to recognise faces. This would seem to be an extremely beneficial survival instinct. It’s very important to be able to differentiate between friends who’ll help you and foes that will harm you but it seem that this instinct is so ingrained that even given a tiny piece of visual data, we are capable of constructing in our minds an apparently more detailed image.

“Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable must be the truth” 

How many times have I seen this famous aphorism that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle put into the mouth of Sherlock Holmes used to justify the most outlandish conspiracy theory ? Almost without exception the person who is using it has not only eliminated the “impossible” but also the most plausible explanations before arriving at their own “improbable” (sometimes extremely improbable) theory. The aphorism is a good one, it’s simply misused.

William of Ockham , a Medieval English Franciscan monk, developed a principle which is today known as Occam’s Razor. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words the simplest explanation is the most plausible. It does not mean that just because an explanation is more plausible that it is true but it does suggest that the simplest and therefore most plausible explanations, given all available evidence is more likely to be true and that the more complex an explanation is the less plausible it is.

Isaac Newton, over 100 years after William of Ockham came up with a similar principle which guided his scientific method he wrote “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes.”

The first sentence is the important one here, “admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” In other words Newton is suggesting that if there are simple explanations they should not be ignored in favour of more complex explanations.

Now, I can well understand why some people enjoy constructing elaborate theories to explain some things. Some people enjoy the intellectual challenge of thinking outside of the box, others might see it as a form of fiction writing and 99 times out of 100 it really has no impact. Lizard people, aliens, Loch Ness monster, JFK, moon landing, as far as I’m concerned you can all let your imaginations run free, it’s of little consequence. However, the issue of child abuse is a different matter altogether.

It’s well to remember that even if you consider your own elaborate theory to be purely speculative, it may be that some directly affected by child abuse might read what you write and not perceive it in the same way.

W.B Yeats once wrote “But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.”

To paraphrase, I’d suggest that all should be careful to tread softy when commenting on other people’s nightmares.

I’d just like to take this opportunity of thanking Lemsip for all their help and support over the last few days!

 

Extract: ‘Letter From A Birmingham Jail’

16 April 1963 Martin Luther King

…”You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an “I it” relationship for an “I thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state’s segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection”…

The Love Of Money.

“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”– King James Bible

Elected President ?

“Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” ― Douglas Adams, ‘The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’

Be The Change.

“If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. … We need not wait to see what others do.” – Mahatma Gandhi

The Secret State.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. – Corinthians 13:11

What kind of country do we really live in ?

At the beginning of each year it publishes government papers which have been kept secret for the past 30 years – under the UK’s “30 year rule”…….

………..If a record is judged too sensitive by a government department then it can apply to “extend closure” until 40, 75 or even 100 years have passed.

BBC

WHY!

A DA-Notice or Defence Advisory Notice (called a Defence Notice or D-Notice until 1993) is an official request to news editors not to publish or broadcast items on specified subjects for reasons of national security.

Wikipedia

WHY!

Why is it that in a supposedly free and democratic country, the government  can decide what you can and can not know ? In fact, is it even possible for a democratic electorate to make an informed choice about who should represent them if they are consistently and systematically denied the information they need to make such an informed decision ? And if the answer is ‘no’ to that last question then, do we really live in a real democracy, or are we really just deluding ourselves that we do ?

Some will automatically respond, as if they’ve been conditioned all their lives to respond, that ‘we’ collectively need state secrets, that ‘our’ collective national security depends on the government’s ability to limit the information that ‘we’ collectively have access to.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? – Who will guard the guards themselves?

Let’s look at the example of Sir Cyril Smith, other examples will be forthcoming soon enough, but let’s look at this example. In what way was ‘our’ collected national security protected by the security services when they covered up this politicians systematic  abuse of children ?

You may, if you live in Rochdale, have even voted for him, were you in the position to make an informed choice ? I somehow doubt that he would have been elected if it was commonly known that he sexually abused young boys – if this is democracy then it’s the democratic choice of the sheep to be herded into a pen.

The answer, of course is that Sir Cyril Smith was not alone, and that if he was exposed for the child abuser he was then others would be too, and that this would undermine the present aristocratic/oligarchic political system which masquerades as democracy. National security, when used in these circumstances, has nothing to do with ‘our’ collective security, it in fact is just a cover for sustaining the power of the wealthy and privileged.

If perpetuating and covering up systemic child abuse is essential to this state’s security, then I say that this is not a state that deserves to be secure, it is certainly not a state that I wish to live in.

But then there is the freedom of the press. We are hearing a great deal about this recently because all the press and all the crony politicians are taking every opportunity to tell the general public that freedom of the press is essential because they feel threatened by the possible restrictions which might be imposed on them following the Leveson Enquiry.

I’d be more sympathetic to the whinging from the MSM on this topic if there was such a thing as a ‘free press’ in this country. How can there be a free press in a secret state ? How can there be a free press when the most egregious crimes have been committed against the most vulnerable in our society and it passes without comment ? A free press is yet another delusion that we need to divest ourselves of, there is no such thing. If the press aren’t complicit in their silence imposed on them by the establishment then they are motivated by the financial interests of their proprietors. There is no political affiliation, no ideology, or even principle, there is only the desire on behalf of the most powerful in society to reap the further financial rewards of  political patronage.

Only on the internet is there any true democracy, you don’t have to visit this blog. Only on the internet is there any real meritocracy, if you didn’t find this blog interesting then you’d soon stop coming. Only on the internet is there any semblance of a free press, no wealthy MSM proprietor would allow these remarks to be published.

And why ? Because the internet is essentially Stateless and without borders.

Seen But No Longer Herd.

A very good point made by Mammon

What were you expecting? Unique? Exclusive?
You…yes you…………. are very special, unique and exclusive, you just haven’t realised it. Do wake up

Mammon

Fiat Justitia Ruat Caelum

“Let justice be done though the heavens fall”

– Lucius Calpernius Piso Caesoninus (Roman Consul 58BC)

 

MLK on State Censorship and Unjust Laws.

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an “I it” relationship for an “I thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state’s segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.

Full transcript of Martin Luther King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail

Why I Don’t Vote.

Democracy has become a religion and anyone who criticises it is labelled a heretic.

How many times have you heard the mantra that ‘if you don’t vote, you can’t complain’? Whereas, actually, the opposite is true, ‘if you do vote, you can’t complain.’ It is no coincidence that the emergence of the philosophical concept of the ‘Social Contract’ runs parallel to democratic development in the modern era.

In political philosophy the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.

Source

Democracy legitimises authority.

Every time you vote you sign the Social Contract.

If you vote and your ‘favoured’ candidate does not win, you have absolutely no right to complain because by voting you have accepted the process and are bound by it’s result. It is not a coincidence either that you are asked to put a cross, also used as a replacement for a signature for a person who is illiterate and thus cannot write their name, next to your choice on the ballot.

The policy differences between different candidates are exagerated. This encourages you to sign the Social Contract by making you believe that you have a real choice. But the choice is an illusion because the true policy differences are slight and 99% of leadership is management, keeping the bureaucratic apparatus of state moving and reacting to events.

For the overwhelming majority it makes little difference which candidate wins any election. Only the wealthy and powerful who can expect some kind of reward, in the form of patronage or largesse, Government contracts etc, for their financial, political, and media support have a dog in the fight.

Your role, by voting, is to legitimise this corruption.

Democracy encourages short-termism. Instead of our leaders planning for a sustainable future they pander to a selfish and fickle electorate who only want jam today and who will punish any politician at the polls who does not give it to them. As a consequence the farsighted, fairminded and responsible leadership that the world needs in the 21st century, is completely absent, made obselete by an evolutionary process which rewards the shortsighted, corrupt, ambitious, greedy, and vain.

This is a genuine story, In 1974 in the UK there were two general election. The first in February was inconclusive and it led to another in October. In the run up to this second election the leaders of all the main political parties made the most extraordinary undeliverable promises to buy the votes of the British electorate.

I was six years old, and attending my local infants school, when the teaching staff there taught me one of the most important lessons I’ve ever learned. They decided to hold their own school election at a special assembly at which all the parents were invited to attend, though only the children would vote. Before the assembly they took myself and a young girl into separate classrooms, to the young girl they explained the needs of the school and what changes would be beneficial to the pupils education,. To me they just gave one simple instruction “Just get elected.”

The young girl addressed the children, parents, and teachers and made a very sensible address, “more books, longer school hours, and a healthy diet”.

I, on the otherhand, decided to stand on a very simple platform of “Chips (fries) everyday, and longer breaktimes.”

The result will come as no surprise, I won by a landslide. As I grew older and began to reflect more on this the lesson became clearer. The electorate will always vote for what they want, rather than what they need. The electorate are no better than a cohort of infant school children.

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

Aristotle would have disagreed with Winston Churchill. Aristotle thought that democracy was a perverted form of Government which served the indignant (or capricious) mob at the expense of the broader interests of the state and it’s citizens.

Revolution is Evolution.

This article should not be read as support for violent revolutionary political change but hopefully it will demonstrate that, far from revolution being unnatural and contrary to evolution, it is actually a process of evolution.

All organic structures can be modelled using evolutionary theory and governance, politics and economics, which involve the cooperation of millions of human beings are no exception.

Because everyone is more familiar with evolutionary theory being used to model changes in the natural world, we’ll start by looking at examples in the natural world where revolution occurs as part of the process of evolution, demonstrating that revolution is not an artificial human construct but actually quite normal under particular circumstances.

Revolution occurs in the natural world when a lifeform becomes extinct because the environment it depends on for survival changes at a faster rate than it can evolve.

This can happen in two ways, either the environment is subject to sudden change, as in the case of the dinosaurs or, far more commonly, the environment changes gradually and the lifeform finds itself increasingly ill-adapted before becoming extinct. Because each lifeform has a relationship with other lifeforms there is a knock on effect.

Evidence of extinction in the natural world is the history of the end of one regime precipitating a revolution. Under circumstances where a better adapted lifeform survives occupying a similar ecological niche to the lifeform that becomes extinct, the consequences or upheaval due to this revolution on other lifeforms within the environment can be minor. Where there is no lifeform already naturally adapted to assume dominance within that ecological niche the consequences can be complex and considerable until evolution restores a balance once again.

Having outlined the circumstances under which revolution occurs in the natural world let’s look at two historical political revolutions. The first we’ll look at is the American Revolution. In this example the dominant ‘lifeform’ which became extinct would be Great Britain and the environment would be what is now the eastern seaboard of the USA. Great Britain was surpringly ill-adapted to this environment, it’s dominance was due primarily to the fact that other ‘lifeforms’ were even less well adapted. Great Britain ruled and projected it’s power over a great distance [it is interesting to note that it could take up to 6 weeks to send instructions across the Atlantic to put that in some perspective it took Apollo 11  in 1969 a total of 3 days, 3 hours and 49 minutes to fly to the Moon]  In the end a better adapted ‘lifeform’ evolved within that environment. Although the American Revolution was not without conflict and upheaval, because a better adapted political model  had come to dominate, the transition was relatively smooth.

Our second historical political revolution is the French Revolution and the ‘lifeform’ which became extinct is the Ancien Régime of King Louis XVI. These circumstances are completely different from the first example. The Ancien Régime had in the past been fairly well adapted to it’s environment but that environment had changed and the Ancien Régime had not sufficiently evolved to meet that change. In 1789 the regime became extinct but there was no better adapted entity to take it’s place within that environment. Bloody revolution was followed by bloody counter-revolution. It is interesting to note that it was not until almost 80 years later when, in 1870 the French Third Republic was formed, that a stable regime had evolved to govern within that environment.

These two examples stand in stark contrast to each other with the former, relatively smooth American Revolution, being the exception rather than the rule. Still both examples clearly show that political revolution is part of the process of evolution, just as extinction is.

Right, now let’s look at the current economic system because it too has evolved to be incompatable with it’s environment and now faces extinction. It is like an animal which has consumed all of the resources it needs to survive within it’s environment, it is now consuming what it has previously excreted. It has  polluted the environment thus irrevocably changing it but it has also evolved to be extremely specialised within it’s niche and can not evolve, therefore it will become extinct.

But there is no alternative economic model that can easily take it’s place. Therefore, my conclusion is that it’s inevitable extinction will be followed by an extended period of turmoil and unrest potentially bloody, before an alternative economic model evolves.

Edit: An explanation for my conclusion can be found here – The Difficult Transition from ‘Kaputalism’ back to Capitalism.

Challenging Ideological Shibboleths

A Shibboleth is a distinguishing password, custom, principle, or belief which identifies its speaker as being a member, or not, of a particular group.

The word itself is Hebrew in origin and literally means the part of a plant containing grains but it’s modern usage has its roots in the Bible, Book of Judges.

Chapter 12 – “Gilead then cut Ephraim off from the fords of the Jordan, and whenever Ephraimite fugitives said, ‘Let me cross,’ the men of Gilead would ask, ‘Are you an Ephraimite?’ If he said, ‘No,’ they then said, ‘Very well, say “Shibboleth”.’ If anyone said, “Sibboleth”, because he could not pronounce it, then they would seize him and kill him by the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites fell on this occasion.”

The Ephraimites, unlike the Gileadites, had no pronounced sound ‘Sh’ (as in ‘ship’) in their language and without a life time’s practice they were unable to replicate the sound and avoid being identified.

Since that first recorded example from over three thousand years ago, Shibboleths have been fairly common. During the Second World War US troops would distinguish their fellow Americans from German infiltrators by challenging a strangers knowledge of baseball.

The term ‘Shibboleth’ has, over time, developed a broader meaning in the modern lexicon. It can refer to a view which if expressed identifies the person who expresses it which a particular political party or ideology.

Pro life = Conservative, Pro Choice = Liberal,

For nationalisation = Socialist, For privatisation = Capitalist.

Shibboleths can be as obvious as the above or as subtle as your choice of newspaper.

My full views on ideologies can be read here, ‘On Heraclitus and Against Ideology.’

I find ideologies stupid, different situations call for different approaches and to be constrained by ideological packages of policies is ridiculous.

Political parties love Shibboleths, they appeal to the grass roots of the party many of whom have given up thinking independently long ago, as a consequence those political parties also stop thinking.

And that is dangerous for our politics.

It is a shibboleth common to all, who’ve been brought up in a western democracy, that supporting banks, no matter what, is essential to our way of life and that no sacrifice is too great.

We fear what we don’t know and cling to the familiar. But life will go on if the banks go bust. The economy, after some disruption, will find it’s level, and we’d have expunged the parasites who dominate our society.

Parasites who, through bought influence, take every opportunity, in the media, to reinforce that shibboleth in the minds of the people.

In my own view, ideological Shibboleths should always be challenged, even if after doing so you continue to agree with them.

On Heraclitus, and Against Ideology.

Heraclitus, painted by Johannes Moreelse

Heraclitus of Ephesus was an early Pre-Socratic Greek philosopher who lived around 500BC and I’ve always had a bit of a soft spot for him. He believed that the universe was in ‘flux’, always moving, a modern physicist might intrepret that ‘flux’ as the ‘arrow of time’ constantly and relentlessly rolling onwards.

To demonstrate this and his many other insights, Heraclitus developed a large number of maxims, the most famous of which attempts to describe the nature of the ‘flux’.

“One can not step twice into the same river, for the river is always moving and you are never the same person.”

For me, this short analogous maxim articulates perfectly my primary objection to all forms of ideology, whether economic/political or religious/philosophical because ideology presumes that the world does not change, that history repeats itself, and that a set package of rules can be applied which can provide the solution to any problem regardless of the circumstances. As this is obviously not the case, and most people instinctively understand that it is not the case, it’s probably worthwhile taking a little time to examine exactly why it is that human beings are so attracted by ideology before returning to Heraclitus.

The Universe is complex, life is complex, and frankly, it would be near impossible for any sentient being to evolve and function unless most of that complexity could be set aside, ‘rules’ provide the method of setting aside much of that complexity. Very broadly, there are two types of rules that human beings apply, mostly without ever consciously understanding that we are doing so.

The first are physical ‘rules’. If you were to drop a glass, you would apply a number of rules. You would ‘know’ that the glass will fall, you would instinctively anticipate it’s rate of descent, and, if the height from which you dropped the glass was high enough and the surface onto which it is falling hard enough, you will anticipate that the glass will shatter on impact. You don’t need to actually drop a glass to accept that this is true because since birth you have developed ‘rules’ from your own experience. It is important to quickly note the limits of the physical rules that we all apply, when the glass shatters you will instinctively jump backward, not because you antipate that shards of glass will hit you but because, from experience you have learnt that the distribution of glass fragments is unpredictable and you potentially might be hit by flying glass. Here you intuitively apply a general ‘rule’ of unpredictability.

The second class of ‘rules’ are social. They range from the blindingly obvious, if I punch someone on the nose, that person is unlikely to react positively, to the extremely subtle but these rules  exist and are leant from birth.

So ‘rules’ are a good thing. Without them there can be no learning experience, we would have no method of departmentalising the knowable and the unknowable and the complexity of life and the universe would overawe and overwhelm us all. Intelligence can not evolve without rules, just as rules can not evolve without intelligence and so we can see that part of the story of mankind’s intellectual evolution has been the small incremental development of intelligence and rule making in parallel.

It is exactly because rule making is one of mankind’s most successful developments that we are all so easily seduced by ideology. Afterall, wouldn’t it be so much easier if we didn’t have to consider complex issues on their merits and instead were able to apply simple packages of rules ?

But Heraclitus of Ephesus identifies the problem that all those who unthinkingly adopt any political/economic or religious/philosophical ideology fail to consider and that is that some situations and circumstances are just far too complex to allow us to adopt simple rules.

“One can not step twice into the same river, for the river is always moving and you are never the same person.”

Let’s use the current economic crisis to measure the validity of Heraclitus’ observation because currently there are very large numbers of people who want to apply an ideological solution to the problem, whether that is capitalism, socialism, liberalism, conservatism, or whichever ‘ism’ takes your fancy.

Heraclitus’ river is continually moving, you could set up a movie camera and film it over a year and you would see that it is never the same river twice but when you stop filming does the river stop flowing and changing ? Of course it doesn’t, this is analogous to economic history, there is a broad canon of recorded experience on economic matters, with the benefit of hindsite it may look like a comprehendable narrative but is not. The ‘now’ is always unpredictable and economic history is a compendium of consecutive ‘now’ moments which appear to retrospectively make sense  only because we are applying an artificial ‘rule’ of history.

Similarly, none of us are the same person as yesterday. The main difference, in such a short time frame, is that we have the experience of the last 24 hours which differentiates us from how we were yesterday and by extension, which magnifies the differences, society is not the same, the economy is not the same. Knowledge and experience have changed us all.

It is one thing to learn from history, it is quite another to draw ideological conclusions from it and then to apply those conclusions to form general rules.

For my own part, I don’t believe that the solutions to resolve the current economic crisis will be found within the dogma of any ideology, and it is precisely because of this that I conclude that this is not only an economic crisis but also a political crisis. Any solution must have elements of socialism within it, which those who are ideologically opposed to Socialism will disagree with. Equally, it must contain elements of Capitalism which will not satisfy ideological Socialists. Any solution which people will consider to be ideologically inconsistent will be extremely difficult to communicate, and in any democratic country how can any solution be pursued if it’s so difficult to communicate, especially if the electorate have become ideologically polarised ?

There is only one solution, each and everyone of us must recognise that all ideologies, though comforting in their simplicity, are just misapplied rules, we need to set them aside and think independently of them.

We, each of us, need to metaphorically step into the river and recognise for ourselves that it is continually in flux.

The Wisdom of Thucydides

by gojam

Thucydides was probably born about 460BC and was for a time a General on the side of democratic Athens against aristocratic Sparta in what is known as the Peloponnesian War in which most of Greece took a side. After being exiled he wrote his famous history. The passage that I’ve quoted in full below is, in my opinion, one of the finest passages of classical antiquity. I was somewhat surprised not to be able to find it elsewhere quoted online. It describes the breakdown of civil society and in doing so it perfectly describes every civil war and revolution that has taken place in the almost two and half thousand years since it was written including the English Civil War, French Revolution, American Civil War, Russian Revolution, and Spanish Civil War. Human nature, it seems is immutable.

I bring it to attention in the vain hope that those who have blindly pursued the policies which have brought Greece to the brink and risks plunging the whole of Europe into the abyss, might consider more keenly the consequences of their actions and change course before it’s too late.

“So revolutions broke out in city after city, and in places where the revolutions occured late the knowledge of what had happened previously in other places caused still new extravagances of revolutionary zeal, expressed by an elaboration in the methods of seizing power and by unheard-of atrocities in revenge. To fit in with the change of events, words, too, had to change their meanings. What used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one might expect to find in a party member; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one’s unmanly character; ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action. Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was perfectly legitimate self-defence. Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted and anyone who objected to them became suspect. To plot successfully was a sign of intelligence, but it was still cleverer to see that a plot was hatching. If one attempted to provide against having to do either, one was disrupting the unity of the party and acting out of fear of the opposition. In short, it was equally praiseworthy to get one’s blow in first against someone who was going to do wrong, and to denounce someone who had no intention of doing any wrong at all. Family relations were a weaker tie than party membership, since party members were more ready to go to any extreme for any reason whatever. These parties were not formed to enjoy the benefits of established laws, but to aquire power by overthrowing the existing regime; and the members of these parties felt confidence in each other not because of any fellowship in a religious communion, but because they were partners in crime. If an opponent made a reasonable speech, the party in power, so far from giving it a generous reception, took every precaution to see that it had no practical effect.

Revenge was more important than self-preservation, And if pacts of mutual security were made, they were entered into by the two parties only in order to meet some temporary difficulty, and remained in force only so long as there was no other weapon available. When the chance came, the one who seized it boldly, catching the enemy off his guard, enjoyed a revenge that was all the sweeter from having taken, not openly, but because of a breach of faith. It was safer that way, it was considered, and at the same time a victory won by treachery gave one a title for superior intelligence. And indeed most people are more ready to call villainy cleverness than simple-mindedness honesty. They are proud of the first quality and ashamed of the second.

Love of power, operating through greed and through personal ambition, was the cause of all these evils. To this must be added violent fanaticism which came into play once the struggle had broken out. Leaders of parties in the cities had programmes which appeared admirable – on one side political equality for the masses, on the other the safe and sound government of the aristocracy – but in professing to serve the public interest they were seeking to win the prizes for themselves. In their struggle for ascendancy nothing was barred; terrible indeed were the actions to which they committed themselves, and in taking revenge they went farther still. Here they were deterred neither by claims of justice nor by the interests of the state; their one standard was the pleasure of their own party at that particular moment, and so, either by means of condemning their enemies on an illegal vote or by violently usurping power over them, they were always ready to satisfy the hatreds of the hour. Thus neither side had any use for conscientious motives; more interest was shown in those who could produce attractive arguments to justify some disgraceful action. As for the citizens who held moderate views, they were destroyed by both extreme parties, either for not taking part in the struggle or in envy at the possibility that they might survive.

As the result of these revolutions, there was a general deterioration of character throughout the Greek world. The simple way of looking at things, which is so much the mark of a noble nature, was regarded as a ridiculous quality and soon ceased to exist. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each side viewed the other with suspicion. As for ending this state off affairs, no guarentee could be given that would be trusted, no oath sworn that people would fear to break; everyone had come to the conclusion that it was hopeless to expect a permanent settlement and so, instead of being able to feel confident in others, they devoted their energies to providing against being injured themselves. As a rule those who were the least remarkable for intelligence showed the greater powers of survival. Such people recognised their own deficiencies and the superior intelligence of their opponents; fearing that they might lose a debate or find themselves out-manoeuvred in intrigue by their quick-witted enemies, they boldly launched straight into action; while their opponents, overconfident in the belief that they would see what was happening in advance, and not thinking it necessary to seize by force what they could secure by policy, were the more easily destroyed because they were off guard.

Certainly it was in Corcyra that there occured the first examples of the breakdown of law and order. There was the revenge taken in their hour of triumph by those who had in the past been arrogantly oppressed instead of wisely governed; there were the wicked resolutions taken by those who, particularly under the pressure of misfortune, wished to escape from their usual poverty and coveted the property of their neighbours; there were the savage and pitiless actions into which men were carried not so much for the sake of gain as because they were swept away into internecine struggle by their ungovernable passions. Then, with the ordinary conventions of civilised life thrown into confusion, human nature, always ready to offend even where laws exist, showed itself proudly in its true colours, as something incapable of controlling passion, insubordinate to the idea of justice, the enemy to anything superior to itself; for, if it had not been for the pernicious powers of envy, men would not so have exalted vengeance above innocence and profit above justice. Indeed, it is true that in these acts of revenge on others men take it upon themselves to begin the process of repealing those general laws of humanity which are there to give a hope of salvation to all who are in distress, instead of leaving those laws in existence, remembering that there may be a time when they, too, will be in danger and will need their protection.”

If you liked this why not check out ‘On Heraclitus and Against Ideology’.