The Alternative Debunk: Far-right populism, privilege and coming to terms with change

Britain, as a country, is depicted around the world as the very personification of privilege. We are tea-supping, tradition-adhering, aristocracy-adoring, wearers of bowler hats. There are people in this country who are proud of that depiction.

That isn't really a recognisable image of Britain today. Except for the privilege. At the core of British concept of liberty is privilege: middle class affluence, home ownership, private schools, inherited wealth, the older sort of social networks.

This privileged middle sort have done well out of globalism - well prepared and adapted for the rising demand for high skill, education and flexibility. But in Britain, globalisation has seen both winners and losers.

As the cushioned middle class have gained, the fragile lives of the working class have been threatened. The old dependable industries have gone, deemed to costly. With them has gone job security, in the name of chasing efficiency.

Pressure to be productive has risen, even as security and stability has declined. It shouldn't be a major surprise that since the 1990s a new era of civil rights movements has sprung up, working to unite people and push back.

There is a point of view that it has also forced working class people to be seduced by the hate-filled, divisive, rhetoric of the far right - to get on board with populist movements that scapegoat refugees and immigrants and minorities.

However, the facts don't support it.

The reality: the far right isn't a working class movement. It never has been. In fact, populism tends to be better supported by the petit bourgeosie and the rich - with the backing only of a violent minority of working class people. Far-right populism is, at it's core, reactionary politics. It is the establishment pushing back against reform. It is about the fear of losing status amidst crisis - it is the moderately well off frightened of losing their privilege.

Something held up against this view are the voters who backed the latest President of the United States into office. Their lack of a college education was presented as a fait accompli of poor, white, racist and ignorant, working class men. But the facts paint a more complex picture. It is true that 70% of Fourtyfive's supporters didn't have college degrees - but then 71% of Americans don't have college degrees. And most of his supporters earn over the median income $50,000 a year.

Now, the middle class base of far right populism doesn't mean appeals are not made for support from ordinary working people. In times of crisis, the populist narrative finds fertile soil among people whose interests it does less to serve. It must be tweaked to include the working class in a narrative of privilege, but it remains simple, emotive and effective.

For the far right, and the privileged few who drive it, the impact of neoliberalism must have been a dream come true: post-industrial Britain, Wales and The North, Labour and left-wing heartlands, excluded from the benefits of globalisation - even as it dismantled the basis for prosperity under the old order.

Huge numbers of people left without job security, sometimes even social security. Communities stripped of their resources, their high streets becoming abandoned. All that was left was to exploit their fears and give them scapegoats.

The story is not an original one: of a majority that are going to lose their status and money to a minority, or minorities, courtesy of a discredited establishment - itself painted as a minority that no longer represent this fearful majority. Legitimacy is questioned. Mandates undermined. A web of emotive propaganda aimed at dividing society, turning the affluent in fear against it's fringes, to the benefit of a reactionary few.

This is the core of the narrative that divided and felled the Second Spanish Republic, used to justify a military coup. The toppling of the Weimar Republic. The upholding of first slavery and then segregation in the Deep South by Dixiecrats.

There have been few places, even in these times of a 'far-right populist wave', where populists have secured a broad base of public support - broad enough to make a claim of significant support from working class people. The barrier that seemed to have some significance was 13% - the level of popular support the far-right in Western Europe have struggled to break through. But the rise of authoritarian governments in Eastern Europe, threaten to make the West less an anti-populist bloc than an enclave.

There are more exceptions. The Fortyfifth President in the United States, Jair Bolsonaro as President in Brazil, and the FPO in government in Austria, the electoral success of Lega and M5S in Italy - these are among the few to have made major electoral breakthroughs in the West. But we know Fortyfive's supporters were mostly affluent and middle class. Are the supporters of Bolsonaro, Heinz-Christian Strache, Salvini and Grillo, much different?

In Britain, rising inequality has started to bite even the privileged middle class. Fears about pensions and wellbeing in old age, stress and pressure at work - core fears of the working class - are worrying Middle England. That made them the dominant supporters of Brexit, some 60% of all Brexit voters - to just 17% of Brexiters who were working class. Populism succeeded, with Brexit, in pulling the middle class apart from the working class, and turning them against the liberal democratic political establishment.

Under pressure and fearful of change, it is the middle class who are the movers of the times. The statistics tell us that when the working class face these crises, they don't vote - their feelings of disenfranchisment become inaction.

Yet there is hope in this analysis. There is common cause to be found between the middle class and the working class. They have the same fears and face the same pressures - though one is far more insulated from them than the other, and felt them later. There is a common platform to be found. One that can unite people on what they have in common: a desire for social security, for wellbeing at work and in old age, for a functioning local community - and a desire for opportunity.

The question left for progressives is, what party or alliance will be the vehicle for such a programme? Whoever they are, they need to get to grips with a simple fact: change scares people. Our answer needs to be bring them together in solidarity.

Fear and hatred have found fertile soil amidst the artificial scarcity of austerity

Today sees the latest in a sustained run of demonstrations in the UK since Donald Trump was inaugurated President of the United States. For many progressives, his election has crystallised their anxieties.

They have watched, maybe even supported under the banners of New Labour, years of exclusionary conservative neoliberalism. That system reaped unequal rewards and ultimately unleashed widespread consequences. The austerity that was imposed to manage them has created an artificial scarcity.

Those actions, results and reactions have left some quarters of society - not few in number and faced on all sides by shortfalls and cutbacks in the name of 'scarce' resources - deprived, disregarded and ultimately disaffected. The political disconnect is tangible.

As wary progressives have worried, this fertile ground for fear and anger - prepared under the inattentive rule of those who were too busy enjoying the fruits of the good times to tend or care for it - is now being exploited.

The most virulent of the poisonous crop that has been sewn is xenophobia. That dangerous weed is being grown deliberately in some places and spreading all by itself in others - though it is perhaps reassuring that it must first be dressed up and sold only through distorting and distancing filters, that shows blatant hatred of outsiders, without an 'excuse', is not accepted.

But people are bringing it home. Making it part of their everyday. It would be a toxic mischief to allow the mistrust and hatred of outsiders to be normalised. The frontline against that threat is challenging the negative attitudes towards people seeking refuge or looking for a better life in a new land.

A major part of events will be the 'One Day Without Us' event, a 'labour boycott' by migrants, and those standing in solidarity with them, to demonstrate the value of migrants to our economy - an event months in the planning (Garcia, 2017; Taylor, 2017).

The day was chosen because it coincides with the United Nations World Day of Social Justice. It theme for 2017 is "Preventing conflict and sustaining peace through decent work":

"Social justice is an underlying principle for peaceful and prosperous coexistence within and among nations. We uphold the principles of social justice when we promote gender equality or the rights of indigenous peoples and migrants. We advance social justice when we remove barriers that people face because of gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion, culture or disability."

Therein lies the inclusive message that has so far run through the opposition to Trump. The exclusivity that the new President stands for is being opposed by a movement for a more egalitarian and inclusive society.

But to create such a society, equality and inclusivity needs to be achieved on an economic as well as social level - and the times seem to be making clear that you really cannot have one without the other.

The anger that stewed within those who felt discarded or ignored, even during the so called 'salad days' when the global economy was booming and Labour was in office, is now fueling a desperate turn inwards that public policy has frequently, if often unwittingly, aided.

Austerity, by slashing public spending, has imposed an artificial scarcity. That sense of a finite limit is being used to fan fears that were more easily assuaged during the years of plenty. Fears of shortage, of limited places and supplies, are forcing people into adopting a triage mentality.

While conservatives talk of austerity in terms of of doing things efficiently to save tax payers some money, myths are spreading, and being spread, about the skivers and the cheats that is feeding sectarian and segregationist mentalities.

These are lines being drawn - borders, classes, and talk of the deserving and the undeserving - and with the fear of scarcity at their backs, no one wants to be on the wrong side of those lines.

After years of exclusion from the gains of globalism, austerity has turned a economic setback into desperation and a society-wide scrambling retreat. Those gathering at today's protests must think carefully on how to reach out with their message, beyond the progressives who will gather around them.

The rise of xenophobia and the rising fear of scarcity have gone hand in hand. Progressives must poke through the propaganda that surrounds the supporters of their opponents and find the desperate people within that noxious cloud and let them know: the choice between aiding our kin and aiding a stranger is a false choice.

Avengers: Age of Ultron warns of the danger when we let fear and powerful emotions drive us to trust in power without vigilance

Spoiler warning: This article contains spoilers for Marvel's Avengers: Age of Ultron

When the times are evil, and the world is at its worst, we look to  protect ourselves and those traditionally dearest to us - our family, our friends, our people. Whatever the motivation - fear, regret, vengeance, or even ambition - it does not necessarily guarantee that we will act cleverly.

In Marvel's latest entry to their Cinematic Universe (MCU), Avengers: Age of Ultron, the inception of Ultron, and the events for which Ultron is the catalyst, serve as an exploration of the danger that such motivations can pose.

The main driving force behind the events of the MCU so far have been these deep motivations, crystallised in forms such as Tony Stark's fears and Loki's ambitions. In Avengers: Age of Ultron, we see Tony Stark's fears exposed. Stark, in response to those fears, seeks control over events, even over the world, as his way to combat the danger that chaos brings. In Ultron, he seeks to create an entity that cares about humanity and will act independently in its stead as a suit of armour around the world.

The Maximoff twins, Wanda and Pietro - Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver - enter the MCU driven by a desire to seek redress for what they have suffered at the hands of Tony Stark. Yet, their quest for vengeance against one man, for the death of their parents and to protect their people, draws them into dark and dangerous alliances with villainous figures like Hydra and Ultron, that ultimately threaten far more people.

Into that mix of motivations comes Ultron. The artificial intelligence offers to those seeking action a means - but in their need, driven by their own persuasive motivations, they do not consider that Ultron may have its own purposes and ways of achieving them. In their fear, in their wrath, they are not careful and so they get something for which did not plan.

Stark and the Maximoff twins saw something that could be a tool to their own ends, but they did not consider what that tool might mean in context or what it could do in the wrong hands. Their strong emotional motivations allowed practical necessity to win out over the ideal, and so they perceived that the power of  Ultron could help themselves achieve their goals, but did not take the time to properly comprehend the full nature of the AI and what it might or could do. As the enigmatic Lutece siblings remind us in BioShock Infinite:

"Perception without comprehension is a dangerous combination."

In the old world you were warned to beware Greeks bearing gifts, for fear of a Trojan horse. In all worlds you must also beware false heroes bearing a Trojan cause. Those who will bring their own purposes, veiled within populist solutions, pose an incredible threat to those who are not vigilant and allow their own fears or selfish motivations to blind them. Marvel's Avengers: Age of Ultron reminds us that they may be used against us and exploited to achieve ends which we never intended.

Australia's leadership challenge is just the latest embarrassment for the two-party majoritarian system

Last week Australian politics found itself thrown into crisis, as once again the position of Prime Minister was turned into the subject of an internal party squabble. Tony Abbot, PM and Liberal Party leader, has had his leadership challenged following collapsing ratings in the polls (Jabour & Hurst, 2015).

This is just the latest embarrassment for the old two-party system. That system - which revolves around two monolithic groups, with machine politician leaders, using cheap popular appeals and sound bites to build workable majorities, or to struggle over control of them - in the end merely demonstrates its own weakness.

By centralising power around individual figures, the focus is put on the squabbles for control over the establishment. Those squabbles, over often marginal differences, only leads to an increasing detachment from reality that alienates voters and shuts down open political discussions. The disaffection of voters and the narrowing of choice reduces politics to little more than a stagnant and unstable popularity contest.

This is not the first time that Australia has faced this particular kind of crisis (Howden, 2015). Both major parties, Liberal and Labor, have had a number of so called leadership 'spills', where the party leadership is challenged, over the last half decade. The Labor Party suffered through four contests in just four years, as Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd repeatedly clashed between 2010 and 2013 (Phillips, 2012; Pearlman, 2013).

Coming into power on the back of that Labor Party squabbling, the Liberal leader Tony Abbott was elected offering stability (BBC, 2015). And yet, even if Abbott survives this challenge, his time as leader is limited. His rivals are circling and his authority, or popularity, has been undermined (Massola & Kenny; 2015).

In his desperate attempts to ward off those challengers, Abbot has been telling the same old story, warning Australians, and his own party, to be wary of turning leadership into a Game of Thrones (Pearlman, 2015). But it's a tired tale, used to justify centralised and unchallenged leadership. Justifying centrality and authority, not on their own merits, but as a ward and bastion against chaos.

It is the same story in the UK, where a free political choice is suppressed by the two major parties, Conservative and Labour, who cling to power by scaremongering against third parties, warning against split votes, hung parliaments and coalitions (BBC, 2010). These methods are justified as a practical and necessary response to the iniquities of the electoral system, and yet they persist in their refusal to pursue the meaningful electoral reform needed to make politics more representative - all to protect the fragile balance of their system. And so far those methods have worked.

However, the two-party system is fracturing all over the world. The squabbles over power and the suppression of alternatives should, by now, simply act as a reminder that the majoritarian two-party system simply does not offer enough accountability or representation.

These leadership squabbles simply emphasise the detachment from reality suffered at the highest levels of power. In Australia, both Liberals (who in Australia are conservatives in everything but name) and Labor, and in the UK, both Conservatives and Labour, all of the mainstream parties are guilty.

These parties support a system that hands power to one person, who is surrounded by a small group that represents just a fraction of the population, and has been tightly whipped into an ideological line. People are alienated from control over political decisions. Even parliaments and assemblies are regularly cut out of the process.

There is a great danger in structuring the stability of our institutions around any one individual and the power they can muster in support. It has frequently become the means by which an isolated elite make serious and impactful decisions - affecting real people's lives - in ivory towers detached from reality.

We need to find new ways to govern. We need more choice, more representation, and governments that reflect the whole electorate not just the loudest minority.

==========
References:
==========
+ Bridie Jabour & Daniel Hurst's 'Australian prime minister Tony Abbott may be deposed after party revolt'; in The Guardian; 6 February 2015.

+ Saffron Howden's 'Australian politics: Why is it so tumultuous?'; on The BBC; 8 February 2015.

+ Liam Phillips' 'Labor leadership challenge - Gillard vs Rudd'; in The Sydney Morning Herald; 27 February 2012.

+ Jonathan Pearlman's 'Julia Gillard defeated by Kevin Rudd in leadership challenge'; in The Telegraph; 26 June 2013.

+ 'Australian PM Tony Abbott 'will fight leadership challenge'; on The BBC; 6 February 2015.

+ James Massola & Mark Kenny's 'Supporters say Malcolm Turnbull will run against Tony Abbott for Liberal Party leader if spill motion succeeds'; The Sydney Morning Herald; 7 February 2015.

+ Jonathan Pearlman's 'Tony Abbott faces 'Games of Thrones' showdown'; in The Telegraph; 8 February 2015.

+ 'Election 2010: Cameron warns over hung parliament'; on The BBC; 17 April 2010.

Charlie Hebdo, John Stuart Mill and the Harm Principle

The events in Paris have put freedom of speech at the front and centre of political debate around the world. Governments are discussing their response, including expansion of surveillance powers particularly in the domestic sphere (Watt, 2015).

In the light of the attack upon the offices of Charlie Hebdo, which has been defended as a satirical publication, conservative voices are arguing that some things are sacred, and cannot be ridiculed (Topping, 2015). In response, others have accused conservatives of blaming victims for 'provocation', rather than condemning those who wield violence to achieve their ends (Toynbee, 2015).

The question is, what is free speech? What does it look like? Why is it important? How can we use it?

John Stuart Mill, an influential figure in liberal political philosophy and contributor to utilitarianism, argued that free thought and expression were key to the discovery of the truth, and to keeping honest the establishment that is supposed to embody that truth. Out of these ideas, Mill developed his harm principle:

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant... Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

The point of individual freedom is that you may do as you will freely, but only where you do not impose upon the freedoms of others. The question raised by recent events, and by the opinions thrown out by public figures, is what happens in the grey area?

For Mill, there exists, between the clear freedoms of any two parties and the clear infringements of those freedoms, a grey area of debate. It is in that space that governance takes place - and it requires two voices: one liberal and one conservative, one for progress and one for the status quo. Freedom of speech plays an integral role in the relationship between the two. It is part of the encouragement of individuality, and protection of it. It is part of our defence against powerful establishments that reinforce their own opinions against criticism, tyrannies both of government and of the majority.

Something that the events in Paris brought into particular focus are the tools that those without institutional power use within that grey area. Protest, terror and satire.

Protest and terror are two sides of the same coin. They seek to create an alternative form of power to that of the establishment, in order to project their views and challenge the authority of the established position. One of them is about peaceful civil action or disobedience designed to persuade, and the other is about using force, fear and violence in order to coerce.

Satire follows a different path. Rather than creating a source of power, it instead seeks to undermine power with humour - ostensibly in order to hold it to account. It is meant to be the tool of those who want to challenge a powerful establishment, from a position of relative weakness or powerlessness. The humour of satire aims to dispel the seriousness with which ritual and adherence are followed, to create a dehallowed critical space.

That is, of course, a difficult task. It means walking a line between irreverence towards the things that people hold dear, and a fall into racism, homophobia and sexism, the cheap tools of cheap victories. How do we go about challenging the presumptions of others, or basis of their power, without falling into those traps? How can we safely disrespect the taboos of others, in order to shine a light on the unquestioned, unchallenged or corrupt?

On the matter of how we express ourselves through free speech, and the idea that we ought only to be 'temperate' in that speech, Mill's answer was pragmatic. He argued that while law and government could not, and probably should not, shut down sophistic, 'invective' or 'intemperate discussion', they were none the less tools best not used.

"The gravest of [the principal offences] is, to argue sophistically, to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case, or misrepresent the opposite opinion. But all this, even to the most aggravated degree, is so continually done in perfect good faith by persons who are not considered, and in many other respects may not deserve to be considered, ignorant or incompetent, that it is rarely possible, on adequate grounds, conscientiously to stamp the misrepresentation as morally culpable, and still less could law presume to interfere with this kind of controversial misconduct."

While those methods - like lying about your opponent and their views or using generalised slurs to sully your opponent and therefore anything they say - are effective at shutting down debate, these tools serve only to sully the causes connected to their use, and to damage our chances of understanding truth by distorting or stopping the contributions of free voices.

"It is, however, obvious that law and authority have no business with restraining either [intemperate argument professing the prevailing or contrary positions], while opinion ought, in every instance, to determine its verdict by the circumstances of the individual case - condemning everyone, on whichever side of the argument he places himself, in whose mode of advocacy either want of candor, or malignity, bigotry, or intolerance of feeling manifest themselves; but not inferring these vices from the side which a person takes, though it be the contrary side of the question to our own; and giving merited honor to everyone, whatever opinion he may hold, who has calmness to see and honesty to state what his opponents and their opinions really are, exaggerating nothing to their discredit, keeping nothing back which tells, or can be supposed to tell, in their favor."

Conservatism seeks to argue that some things are sacred, and cannot be made fun of. To build up dogmas, religious and ideological, to be adhered to. The whole point of satire is to the contrary - to poke fun at, and so undermine, the things people hold sacred when they become corrupt and despotic. To call into question those things that people fail to think about, to critique, for themselves and instead follow blindly.

That aim is at the heart of free speech. We are to be free in our opinions so that truth will not be lost or suppressed, and so that the powerful may be held to account. Those who seek to shut down free speech likely have a vested interest in the prevailing opinions, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Those who fall into racism, homophobia, sexism and other kinds of chauvinistic bigotry also wish to protect a vested interest in an opinion, but through the use of such methods only mark themselves and their cause.

Free speech for Mill was about peaceful, calm and reasoned debate, a process necessary for the discovery of truth and for the advancement of good governance. In the everyday sense, it translates to thinking and expressing yourself freely, but that those thoughts and expressions are not free of criticism, from being challenged and proved false, and that this is the very point of free speech. It is how we move forward, how we learn, how we discover the truth. Ad hominem attacks, bigotry and violence contribute nothing.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Guardian's World News section devoted to the Charlie Hebdo attack.

+ Nicholas Watt's 'Ed Miliband rejects calls for revival of snooper’s charter after Paris attacks'; in The Guardian; 11 January 2015.

+ Alexandra Topping's 'Pope Francis: freedom of expression has limits'; in The Guardian; 15 January 2015.

+ Polly Toynbee's 'On Charlie Hebdo Pope Francis is using the wife-beater’s defence'; in The Guardian; 16 January 2015.

+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859. [Buy Now]

A Short Review of 2014

For those with a progressive political leaning, the themes of 2014 have been pretty dark. Austerity, cuts, and reactionary opportunism from the mainstream parties to try and respond to the rise of the Far-Right. The main hope for The Left has been in ideas like the Citizen's Income entering into serious political discussion, widespread vocal championing of feminism, and some fresh young left-wing parties beginning to gather support.

The early part of 2014 was dominated by the return of Far-Right politics, with right-wing nationalist parties polling in increasing numbers across Europe on the back of immigration scaremongering. While the Far-Right managed to make some breakthroughs, for the most part it simply served to make it easier for those pushing austerity to make scapegoats of the poorest and most vulnerable to draw attention away from the real powerbrokers.

In an intensely pragmatic response to the small victories won by the Far-Right, parts of the Labour Party believed in making opportunistic appeals to those persuaded by anti-immigration propaganda. It gave the impression only of an effort to stave off the threat posed by right-wing parties to the party's supporter base, under threat already in Scotland by the continued rise in popularity of the SNP and its campaign for Scottish Independence.

The summer saw the Scottish Independence Referendum campaign draw unusual lines of division through Britain, with splits between Unionists and Separatists pulling up issues of nationality and nationalism. Yet the campaign was plagued by negative campaigning, particularly from the No group, which rejected Scottish nationalism with its own rather hypocritical British nationalism and played heavily on economic fears by calling on voters to stick with the Westminster status quo in the name of economic security.

Despite the negativity, the world was watching. Separatist voters in Catalonia waited to see if it was possible to construct a democratic path out of the nation-state settlement. In the end independence was rejected - though by much less of a margin than most were willing to admit. That left the matter, at least partially, unresolved. In particular the general discontent with central government, echoed across Europe, was not truly addressed.

Those feelings probably helped to fuel the newly fire lit that saw, in autumn, a rising popular response to conservative driven austerity. In response to the far right and to Conservative cuts, the UK has seen the Green Party finally making a breakthrough, by polling at the same kind of levels as the other mainstream parties. In Spain, the brand new Podemos party has caused a major shock by polling ahead of all of the established parties.

In many ways, conference season and the Autumn Statement in the UK have only stoked that fire further. Both high coverage events where used by the Conservatives to lay out their plans for further austerity measures and cuts. As autumn turned to winter, those moves have led to the Liberal Democrats, junior coalition partners, to distance themselves from the plans for further cuts - something that reopens the possibility of a positive dialogue amongst leftist groups.

Despite some dark moments, particularly in the Far-Right rearing its head, there are reasons to be hopeful. There are pieces moving into position for a progressive alliance in the UK following the election next spring, with the various groups on The Left opening up to working together in common cause.

We will be back in January with more subjective observation and analysis of politics, ideology and public life.

Fear poisons the democratic well and leaves us ripe for exploitation

Over the past few weeks and months there have been attempted armed assaults on elected officials in two Western countries (The Guardian, 2014; Roberts, 2014); there has been war, kidnap and murder in the Middle East (Swinford, 2014); a deadly disease has posed a threat to three continents (BBC, 2014); and crude and aggressive attempts are being made to stop women from speaking up for their rights (Hern, 2014). All of these events have one thing in common: Fear.

In the UK, from welfare to migration (Wintour, 2014; The Guardian, 2013), fear has started to play too large a part in the political arena, much too often. A rash of issues have been blown up into alarmist struggles, with the disproportionate and scary language used feeding the negative emotions that complicate and confuse matters (Jenkins, 2014).

The US has faired little better. The arrival of the Ebola virus has sparked all sorts of animated and colourful reactions from conservative commentators (Younge, 2014). The fear these events spark upset the order of people's lives, destabilise the things that they depend upon, and that makes them feel vulnerable and afraid, and that fear can lead to escalation (The Guardian, 2013).

Fear, either as a result of fear-mongering or ignorance, is potentially extremely powerful. It can be a potent mover of public opinion, but it does so only by poisoning the popular democratic environment. It poisons debate, it drowns out reason in a howl of noise, and it corrupts our ideals. When that happens, our liberty is at stake. It is a dark road down which we travel when we let fear, and our frightened reactions, override our reason.

Niccolo Machiavelli, the much maligned Florentine political philosopher, gave us an insight into the power that fear, when we let it control us, gives to those who might exploit it:

'And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. For of men it may generally be affirmed, that they are thankless, fickle, false studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you are able to confer benefits upon them, and ready, as I said before, while danger is distant... For love is held by the tie of obligation, which, because men are a sorry breed, is broken on every whisper of private interest; but fear is bound by the apprehension of punishment which never relaxes its grasp.'

That cynical view on how the fears of the people may be exploited serve us now as a warning. During the good times, when people have freedom, and their lives have some measure of stability and security, it is easier for them to think clearly and make good decisions. But when their world is upset, they feel vulnerable and so close ranks.

Fear, whether it is of change, violence, chaos or punishment, can be used to control us, or to steer us towards extreme solutions. As we retreat to familiar ground, shut out others and become less tolerant, we give life to extreme solutions. Our fears present a potentially profitable exploit to others willing to react to the situation and give us a sense of security.

However, as reactionaries offer us the extreme solutions that we, in our fear, desire, they only affirm those fears and exacerbate them (The Guardian, 2013). Fear and reaction can this way become a vicious cycle, each causing the other in turn to escalate.

We need to find a way to be calm, to be considered and thoughtful, as we take important decisions. When the world is at its worst is the time when cherished values like kindness, hope and generosity are needed the most. The answer to violence and danger, to exploitation and fear, is not to retreat into narrow tribal groups. Instead we need to find more friendship, and more support for our most cherished values, amongst more people and across many and more diverse cultures.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Guardian's 'The Guardian view on the terror attacks in Ottawa: hold fast to tolerance and diversity'; 23 October 2014.

+ Dan Roberts' 'Armed intruder had penetrated farther into White House than admitted'; in The Guardian; 29 September 2014.

+ Steven Swinford's 'David Cameron breaks off holiday after 'British' jihadist beheads kidnapped journalist'; in The Telegraph; 20 August 2014.

+ BBC's 'Ebola: Mapping the outbreak'; 22 October 2014.

+ Alex Hern's 'Felicia Day's public details put online after she described Gamergate fears'; in The Guardian; 23 October 2014.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Welfare state presides over 'culture of fear', charities say'; in The Guardian; 18 February 2014.

+ The Guardian's 'Migration: politics of fear'; 30 December 2013.

+ Simon Jenkins' 'Downing Street’s Ebola panic is a classic case of the politics of fear'; in The Guardian; 17 October 2014.

+ Gary Younge's 'Ebola has exposed America's fear, and Barack Obama's vulnerability'; in The Guardian; 19 October 2014.

+ Niccolo Machiavelli's 'The Prince'; from Chapter XVII; 1513. [Buy Now]

At Liberty to Object

As we remember today all those who have given their lives in the name of freedom and peace, let us not forget those who risked their lives by refusing utterly the order to kill.

As we remember the unequivocal resolve of the Partisan Guerrilla Fighters of Spain during the Napoleonic Invasion or the French Maquis & Polish Post Office Workers in the face of the Nazi occupation; or the many lives of people of all nationalities of all wars who fought in defence of their homes and their freedom, let us not forget the powerful volitions of the conscientious objectors, who chose a hard path in the face anger, fear and accusations of cowardice.

As we remember those who choose to give their lives for our safety, liberty and peace, let us not forget that still in this world their are men, women and children who still do not have a choice.

In this world there still exists conscription, national service and groups putting guns into the hands of children.

In this world there still exists tribunals to whom you must justify your unwillingness to kill.

In this world there still exists punishments for soldiers who hold conscientious objections to wars their nations wage.

In this world, are we still not past Kennedy's 'What you can do for your country' speech? Are we yet mere peasant subjects, commodities to be traded by medieval institutions? It certainly seemed to be a sentiment John Lennon believed.

In a decade when there are serious moves towards multi-lateral nuclear disarmament; with no more cold war; when the death of soldiers on foreign soil is front-page tabloid scandal; with no great war to fight; the human right not to kill has never been more relevant to the world stage.

I believe society can only reach its individual & collective potential through cooperation. But for that to happen, we need new kinds of sense and some old kinds of courage.

'There is one thing that nobody can deny them: and that is courage. The most difficult form of courage in the world. The courage of the individual against the crowd.'
(Capt Stephen Gwynn MP, on Conscientious Objectors)

==========
References:
==========
+Ian Hislop's 'Not Forgotten: The Men who Wouldn't Fight';

Condemnation & Recognition

This is not the article I wished to begin with. I find it, however, to be unavoidable. So I will use my first post here to roundly condemn Mr Nicolas Sarkozy, the 23rd President of the French Republic, for his 'ethnic' policies towards the Roma people.

These policies, as reported last month, involved orders to target the ethnic Roma people for eviction and expulsion from France. Investigations are already under way to determine whether it is in violation of International Human Rights. It is most certainly in violation of all decent morality, not to mention European Union Freedom of Movement laws.

This kind of cynical abuse of a minority in order to bolster flagging political support, as is the accusation levelled at Mr Sarkozy by his critics, is outrageous.

The only light that can be found in the murky depths of this issue is the bravery of the EU Justice Commissioner in standing up to the French State on this issue. Ms Viviane Reding's actions have been nothing short of admirable and gives hope I think both for the future of the EU and for the peaceful and satisfactory resolution of this issue.

==========
References:
==========
For more on these serious events:
- Nicolas Sarkozy rounds on critics and vows to keep dismantling Roma camps (The Guardian, Sept 16 2010)
- Orders to police on Roma expulsions from France leaked (The Guardian, Sept 13 2010)
- Nicolas Sarkozy tells Luxembourg to take in Roma (The Guardian, Sept 15 2010)
- Germany contradicts French statement on Roma camps (BBC News, Sept 16 2010)
- Reding did not mean the Holocaust, but the 'Great Devouring,' Andor says (EU Observer, 17 Sept 2010)
- European Commissioner likens France's deportations of Roma to Nazi genocide (Telegraph Blogs, 18 Sept 2010)
- Angry Nicolas Sarkozy pledges to deport more gypsies (The Metro, Set 16 2010)

For more on International Human Rights:
- http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Introduction.aspx
- http://www.amnesty.org/
- http://tinyurl.com/2vze6cm