More food for thought

Continuing the festive theme of hypocrisy and contradiction, the global production and consumption of food is one of the biggest ethical issues of our time, and it’s an interesting reflection of the multiple realities which most of us inhabit that we can be simultaneously aware of those issues, whilst still being in thrall to celebrity chefs wiffling urgently about shards of butterfly wing on truffle-encrusted piglet nipples, in an operatic cookery contest which makes not the slightest reference to sustainability, seasonality, or even nutrition.

Arguably, such television programmes (MasterChef and its ilk) are more to do with the “human interest” of watching kitchen gladiators slugging it out in their chosen arena than they are to do with a serious attempt to change our eating habits. In other words, decadence as entertainment, vicariously accessible to us all, not just to the privileged few.

Declining civilisations have often been characterised by extreme decadence, whether as a symptom or a cause, but this is maybe the first time it has been so channelled and broadcast through a toxic combination of the cynical & manipulative mass media and the rapacious & relentless commodification of every aspect of our lives. 

The positive side is that future historians should have an easier time seeing where it all went wrong.

Yo ho ho

As we probably all know, Xmas was originally a Germanic pagan festival, Yule, long before being appropriated by the Christian church. The original purpose was to celebrate the winter solstice – the turning point of the year - after which the days slowly lengthen again. 

Even in those early days the celebrations revolved around eating way more than necessary, and drinking a lot of alcohol, albeit at a time when such practices were the exception rather than the norm.

With the decline of the Church, the parasitic Christian overlay has clearly become as tokenistic as the Dickensian myth of the “White Christmas” so, more recently, the festival has been further appropriated, and commodified, by the machinery of capitalism, creating a grotesque & cloyingly sentimental orgy of consumption which epitomises the unsustainable fallacy of market economics. 

As the holiday approaches, if you haven’t already done so, I would urge you to read Monbiot’s excellent essay on the destructive nature of materialism, and any of the several recent exposés of the reality behind Amazon’s global empire of easy consumerism (ref) (ref). 

Boris Johnson - Top Cornflake ?

Delivering the annual Margaret Thatcher (Beyond Satire) Lecture to the Centre for Policy Studies last night, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson was apparently positioning himself to replace David Cameron as Tory leader, playing to the neglected right wing of the party as he mocked the 16% "of our species" with an IQ below 85, and called for more to be done to help that needy 2% of the population who have an IQ above 130. [1]

"Inequality is essential for the spirit of envy and keeping up with the Joneses that is, like greed, a valuable spur to economic activity." Said Boris.

"The harder you shake the pack the easier it will be for some cornflakes to get to the top." Said Boris.

Memorable and worrying sound bites - but what do they actually mean ?

A high IQ score is synonymous with a desire for material wealth ?

The larger the gap between rich and poor, the greater the chance of sustainable economic growth ?

 Most of the Royal family will have their state benefits withdrawn because they’re too thick ?

Johnson’s bravura performances frequently seem to involve a lot of smoke & mirrors to conceal his vicious and ruthless ambition, so it’s probably not worth too much effort in trying to unpick the detail of this latest display of lamp-post pissing.

What does seem clear though is that, between the Tories and UKIP, a major tranche of the Westminster political establishment is returning unashamedly to the right, which at least should reduce the disingenuous waffle that has prevailed from both sides of the arena over the last few years and, hopefully, make any up-coming referendum and election campaigns much more transparent. An interesting couple of years lie ahead.....

---

[1] From the context of Johnson’s speech it’s difficult to know whether he is referring here to the human species as a whole or specifically to ex-members of the Bullingdon Club.

Of bears and beavers

And so the Scottish government have produced their blueprint for independence. 

Amidst the all the clamour from scrutineers and nit-pickers, a refreshing piece by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian today makes the point that the goal of independence isn’t to get rich, it’s to become independent of the domineering neighbour, in the same way that some 30 other countries have done in the last 50 years.

There is an interesting, and only slightly tenuous, parallel with the growing appetite for re-wilding[1] the countryside which has finally reached even Britain. This is not so much to do with re-introducing bears and beavers as giving a place more freedom to achieve a natural equilibrium, with all the joyful diversity that results, instead of imposing an alien and destructive mono-culture. That freedom, of course, comes with uncertainty about what will evolve, but that is the fundamental point - the possibility of change. A liberated process, rather than a prescribed outcome. No wonder the paternalistic & backwards-looking elite are worried.

In Scotland, where currently more than half the land is owned by fewer than 500 people, few of whom live there (ref), and where barren deserts for shooting grouse & deer, the so-called sporting estates, amount to 5.2 million acres (ref), the time for political and ecological re-wilding is long overdue. (Apologies for repeating the stat about half the land owned by fewer than 500 people twice in a row - but it does beggar belief !)

---

[1] For more about rewilding, read George Monbiot’s slightly rambling but otherwise excellent Feral, and look at the fine work of Trees For Life

Bring on the bigots

The outcome of next year’s referendum on Scottish independence remains very uncertain, not made any clearer by the plethora of partisan opinion polls from both sides.

Independence would undoubtedly create the opportunity for a radically different future, free from sickening delusions of imperial grandeur, a future with greater ecological, social, and fiscal responsibility than seems otherwise likely if we remain tied to London.

On the other hand, many people in Scotland seem fearful of the unknown, or of the prospect of ending up with a magnified version of the less inspiring aspects of Scottish local authorities. Three hundred years of subjugation have successfully eroded the collective self-confidence. And half of the land remains in the private ownership of fewer than 500 people – most of whom are either Anglo-Scottish aristocracy or foreign investors (ref). Neither group is known for their progressive liberalism.

But nine months is a long time in politics. If, as seems likely, UKIP flourish in the European elections next May, then the prospect of the lovely Nigel Farage joining forces with Cameron, Osborne and Hunt could easily tip the balance for Scotland, as David Gow suggested in the Guardian this week. Even the uncertainties of independence would become attractive in comparison, and Farage might yet go down in history with Mel Gibson as a surreal poster-boy for Scottish independence.

Old age pensioners and other paupers

Charles, Prince of Wales, Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Cornwall, heir apparent to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms, turned 65 today, making him eligible for a free bus pass and a state pension. Fortunately, for him at least, he probably doesn’t need any further state hand-outs. Between the Royal Tax-Avoidance Team of accountants (ref) and the fact that much of the UK is unaccountably still locked into a ludicrously medieval mindset of feudalism, he can already look forward to a reasonably comfortable old age, courtesy of his loyal serfs and vassals.

Meanwhile, continuing another spectacularly outmoded tradition, the Right Honourable David Cameron, Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, stood up on his hind legs this week to address the privileged assembly of lords, ladies and other dignitaries at the gilded tables of the Lord Mayor’s banquet, declaring grandly that the Age of Austerity will continue (ref).

Now, we have to be a little discerning here. After all, this materialist, class-obsessed society of ours could certainly benefit from some evenly distributed austerity. So, if he was flagging up the end of gross corporate profiteering, and tax-avoidance by the very rich, the end of government by a coterie of self-serving elitist idiots, the end of monarchy, then raise your glasses.

On the other hand, he was probably just paving the way for the next election, to show that increasing hardship for the least well-off is all part of his grand plan for the greater good of his chums (sorry – I meant to write for the greater good of society), using this particularly lavish occasion with his usual unerring judgement, to show his understanding of what it’s like with a tightened cummerbund.

To vote or not to vote

Writing at length in the Guardian, motley-coated jester Russell Brand has sparked a timely debate about the purpose of voting in a “mature” democracy such as we are alleged to have here in the UK.

In most societies the universal right to vote has been only achieved after a lengthy struggle, and is not to be discarded lightly. On the other hand, in our consumerist capitalist world, the real power no longer lies with our elected governments – it’s in the sticky hands of the multi-national corporations of food, fuel, weapons, banking, news media, et al, so the concept of meaningful democratic governance is wearing a little thin. On that basis, the relevance of which lickspittle government we vote for is also fading, although probably still better done than not.

What seems increasingly important though is how we respond to the insidious corporate pressures that bombard us on a daily basis to win our hearts, minds, and purses. And every choice we make, whether we reject or accept those pressures, is another form of voting – and one which has the capacity to be infinitely more liberating & affirming than the quinquennial fiasco of parliamentary elections. 

Human Rights & Wrongs

November 12^th is the date of elections to the UN Council on Human Rights. Amongst this year’s candidates are such luminaries of liberty as Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria and China.

That is the Council set up to replace the previous UN Commission on Human Rights, which had lost credibility by extending membership to countries with poor human rights records, so it will be an interesting election.

To be fair, everybody’s new best friend and trading partner, China, has claimed unremitting efforts for promotion of Human Rights, although judging by their continuing repression of Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang, they are being a wee bit selective in just which humans they mean. Their policy in Tibet continues to be particularly vicious, and this is an auspicious time to sign (and circulate) a petition to add to the pressure for them to back off. 

We are experiencing a high volume of other stuff to do

Whilst the NSA, GCHQ, and quite possibly the BND in Germany, probably know this already, I have to apologise to everyone else for another break in transmission whilst my editorial staff are otherwise engaged with installing a heating system in our secret bunker somewhere in the Highlands.

We know you are waiting, and your visit to this blog is important to us. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.

Defensible defence

The SNP have indicated that, post-independence, the Scottish government would spend £2.5bn annually on defence. The UK government are, predictably, deriding that figure as amateurish and incompetent (ref), and as an indicator of how unsuited Scotland is to full independence. 

In global terms, £2.5bn would place Scotland at No 51 in the military spending table of 154 countries (ref), which seems quite adequate (and rather higher than the similarly sized Ireland & New Zealand), but maybe the UK government knows better. After all, they do maintain  4^th place in the same table. 

Admittedly that level of spending is a hangover from the days when there was an empire to defend, which covered 25% of the planet and 20% of its population (ref). Now that empire is reduced to a few remote outposts, with a total estimated population of around 2 million people and some penguins, but the government apparently still have to appease the captains and shareholders of a highly profitable armaments industry, and some bellicose reactionaries in denial about the world having moved on in the last 100 years. In so doing the UK certainly buys a lot of guns and warplanes, so they should know how much money it takes. Or they would do, were it not for the recent levels of spending excess & waste greater than the entire annual defence budgets of Finland or Austria (ref) (ref) (ref).

However if we assume, just for the sake of argument, that defence spending is simply and accurately aimed at defending a country from invasion, terrorism, and insurrection, then just maybe a peaceful foreign policy and a fair internal distribution of wealth would be a better way of protecting that country than buying loads of weapons. In that case, the modest military ambitions outlined by Alex Salmond would be more of a cause for hope than for concern. 

More reasons for Scottish independence

Back in Scotland, the SNP conference has just finished, with a buoyant Alex Salmond further unveiling the details of his vision for independence in the run-up to next September’s referendum (ref).

Simultaneously, Tory leaders-in-waiting George Osborne & Boris Johnson have been pontificating in their inimitable, London-centric, reactionary and socially divisive way, as they return from their fishing trip to China, seemingly intoxicated by what they’d been shown, though possibly both a little confused between cause & effect.

Speaking from the airport, Osborne was grandly pressing "second-rate Britain" to emulate China and return to the glory-days of the Victorian era (ref) despite the lack of an empire to exploit, whilst cuddly jackal Johnson seemingly still hopes to plough eye-watering amounts of the money we don't have into more mega airports for London (ref), perhaps to make it easier for wealthy Chinese investors to come and admire the Queen and the dodgy business practices of her heir (ref).  Who needs friends when the SNP have opponents such as these ?

Rutting and pimping

At this time of the year in the Highlands, adult male deer are engaged in their annual ritual of roaring at each other as loudly and deeply as possible in order to demonstrate their worthiness to lead the electorate of hinds and younger stags. Sometimes the ritual involves an antler to antler fight, but more often they simply roar in the hope that the opposition will back down and allow the federal debt limit to be raised. No, sorry, that should read - allow the stag to stay in charge of his herd.

Meanwhile on the other side of the world, in a rather more sleazy mating ritual, UK Pimp-in-Chief George Osborne has concluded a deal to keep his London banker pals happy by offering London as the patsy for Chinese off-shore financial business, in exchange for a controlling interest in the future of the UK nuclear energy industry (ref).

Whatever one thinks of nuclear power generation, giving away control of such a sensitive and potentially catastrophic process to a secretive and alien super-power 22 times larger than the UK, on the other side of the planet, shows a short-sighted and reckless arrogance more consistent with personality disorder than with democratic governance. Given the track record of Cameron's government we shouldn't be surprised, just increasingly angry.

Follow-up links:
http://stophinkley.org
http://stopnuclearpoweruk.net/node/hinkley
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/21/farce-hinckley-nuclear-reactor-haunt-britain

Arctic pirates

It is tempting to ridicule Vladimir Putin as someone constantly seeking to prove his macho credentials, or indeed as just another national leader with a penchant for taking his shirt off, but what is happening, and might happen, to the 28 Greenpeace activists from 19 countries looks like the latest in a lengthy series of viciously repressive moves to quash opposition to an increasingly authoritarian regime, and is far too serious for such flippancy.

The focus of the Greenpeace action, Gazprom, is a massive, state-controlled energy company which is hungry for new oil & gas reserves to exploit (ref). Naturally the oil & gas-dependent Russian authorities are not happy with Greenpeace’s efforts to stop them, but their response begs the question of which group are the pirates.  The peaceful protestors, or the brutal government intent on filling its coffers from beyond its national boundaries and seemingly regardless of the wider environmental impact ?

Of course, Gazprom are simply first in the queue for a piece of the Arctic pie, but Russia appears to regard the Arctic as its own, having planted their national flag under the North Pole. Their stated aims do include protecting the ecosystem whilst they, ahem, develop 8 floating nuclear power stations and extract a large proportion of the estimated 90 billion barrels of oil & 1670 trillion cubic feet of gas north of the Arctic Circle (ref). Given the potential risks to the fragile Arctic ecosystem, and the longer term environmental implications of such short term profiteering, the scepticism of Greenpeace and others doesn’t seem unreasonable.

Meanwhile, for those of us lacking the courage and commitment of those activists, the least we can do is add our voices to the protest against their imprisonment. 

Back again

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

We’ve reached another autumn, bringing its fading light and fading warmth, chilly morning runs, and melancholic musings. 

In the 20 months since my previous post, much water has gone under the bridge, and yet so many things remain unchanged. Will Self recently cited Raoul Vaneigem (ref) writing almost 50 years ago: “The organisation of work and the organisation of leisure are the blades of the castrating shears whose job is to improve the race of fawning dogs.” [1] The continuing truth of that analysis is quickly evidenced by a brief trawl through a list of the most popular television programmes (ref), and a more dispiriting list of infantilising, head-in-the-sand anaesthetic would be hard to imagine, although of course if castration is unavoidable then better with anaesthetic than without.

Meanwhile, the illuminating but complex debate over national security, covert surveillance, and unwarranted erosion of privacy continues (ref), with a particular focus on the US & UK, whose state machineries are maybe not unique in their illegal activities but quite outstanding in their hubris & hypocrisy. 

At the same time, being alert to where the real economic power lies, Cameron & Osborne are also doing their bit to keep the funds coming in for their cronies, by twerking their over-fed arses at Brazil, Russia, India, & especially China (ref).

And they are continuing their enthusiastic privatisation of the state’s assets by flogging off the Royal Mail, to raise more cash for buying some smoke & mirrors in preparation for the next election.

Worryingly, the Queen’s “rainy day fund” is down to the last  million pounds, so presumably in case it rains over the winter, or perhaps in compensation for losing her postal service, she has been awarded a 22% pay-rise (ref). 

As a complete non-sequitur, overall income inequality in the UK is currently higher than at any other time in the last 30 years (ref).

---

[1] The Revolution of Everyday Life, 1967