THE FUTURE OF ISRAEL

30 April 2024

               Zionism has lost its raison d'être

There was a really appalling episode a few days ago on Columbia University campus where a professor, a female professor, was thrown to the ground and zip tied by the police.

That shocked most ordinary people everywhere.  That is regarded as the American authorities betraying the First Amendment. Zionists are doing the same kind of thing in Israel today. 

We all, I mean all peoples, have a wellspring of fundamental beliefs and values that guide our actions and establish what's good and what's evil. 

The Jewish have theirs - found in the Tanakh, the Talmud etc, Christians defer to The Bible. People of the Jewish faith argue that the establishment of a Jewish state should only occur with the coming of the Messiah and that human-led efforts are presumptuous or even blasphemous. The Jewish people are in a spiritual exile, they argue, and must await the coming of the messiah for a divine rather than human-led restoration. 

Then in the 19C, along came Zionism in response to Russian and European pogroms (Why these pogroms? That's a sensitive subject!!) - pogroms are the original acts of  anti-semitism.

Zionism was largely a secular movement, motivated more by nationalist and pragmatic considerations than by religious. The Zionists wanted to create a safe and sovereign state for Jews, practising or not. And Balfour, the British, supported this, but with a clear proviso:

"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"

It's just not possible in the modern world, especially not in the West, to have a state where some groups receive second class treatment. It's not possible in Israel and it's not possible in Ukraine either. The law is applied to everyone equally and we cannot have discrimination on grounds of race, creed etc etc  

Yet Zionism is about self-determination for a religious group. You just cannot have one group within a nation state dominating other groups : all members expect equality of treatment under the law and in a democracy one person one vote should be the guarantee of that - that's obvious to every free-thinking person.

The only way in practice for one group to obtain dominance is through an apartheid regime, or ethnic cleansing which can be mass murder or genocide if you prefer, or through mass deportation. It goes without saying that these days all these practices are forbidden under international law.

But this is what's happening now in Gaza and the West Bank, which are provinces within the nation state of Israel.

There's a compromise attempt to resolve this called the Two State Solution. Historically, this was the British answer - the Mandate proposed three states: one Jewish, one other, and Jerusalem as accessible to both, rather like the Vatican.

Neither side has been able to accept a two-state solution however, for reasons we've discussed elsewhere - it's about ownership of land; it's about self-determination and power-sharing*; it's also, thirdly, strategic because two governments would be weak governments and open to invasion or dependence or loss of sovereignty.

(* Here again, the British have more or less succeeded over time with power-sharing in Northern Ireland and more generally in the United Kingdom.)

But let's ask one that important question: is there really any need for Zionism today? Surely the threat to the Jews has dissipated? Isn't it much the same with NATO? Where is the threat to Europe? Surely the only threat to Europe comes from America seeking to divide and rule Europe and prevent the rise of a regional hegemon (based on cheap Russian Energy and resources incidentally) which might grow to threaten it?

CONCLUSION

Zionism is a political movement - the Zionists want a  democratic homeland where their religious base, the Jews, can find safety and "cultural continuation".

Zionism to a religious Jew is a false idol, not God-given.

Zionism to a modern person is a form of democratic national socialism that priviledges one religious group over other groups, and is considered to be an ideology favours the practises of apartheid, aggressive expansionism and genocide.

No group is going to roll over and extinguish their self-respect. While the Jews get massive support and enjoy massive power and priviledge, no-one outside that religious group can accept a Zionist political ideology. This is impossible in today's world. And to repeat anti-Zionism Is not at all anti-Semitism.

So either the Israeli government accepts the principle of power-sharing, ie abandons Zionism and apartheid, or else all the Jews who support that govt - which is 80% and more, recent surveys show - will eventually be forced to leave Israel.

Under what circumstances might this happen? Well it can only happen when Israel loses American support. We have seen since October 7th that Congress appears to be dominated by representatives of the American people who are prepared to support Israel unequivocably. If this is so then Israel will be destroyed when the American "empire" collapses. Seems to me that there'll be much bloodshed and destruction before we get to that point as the Americans are a very ruthless people.

Read More

PARIS PRICES OVER THE HIGH BAR

29 April 2024

SUMMARY

1. Tourist Price Hikes in Paris

The upcoming Olympics in Paris this summer are driving up costs for tourists across various services, from accommodation to public transport and museum entries.

2. Significant Increase in Accommodation Costs

Hotel rates and Airbnb prices in Paris have surged due to the expected influx of visitors for the Olympics. Hotel prices have increased by 54% on average, and Airbnb rates have risen by 50%, with a peak increase of 98% in August.

3. Steep Public Transport Fare Rises

Public transport prices are set to increase by 90% during the Olympic period. The cost for a single journey on the Paris Metro and bus network will almost double, affecting tourists significantly as these increases are aimed at covering the costs of making the Olympics accessible via public transport.

4. Higher Entry Fees to Popular Attractions

Tourist attractions such as the Louvre, Musée Rodin, and the Eiffel Tower have also raised their entry fees, some by up to 30%. These increases come as the city prepares for the higher demand during the Olympic Games.

5. Impact on Dining and Casual Purchases

The cost of dining out in Paris is expected to increase, influenced by the higher demand and possibly by a shift towards a tipping culture similar to that in the USA. Everyday items like beer and snacks are also predicted to become more expensive during the Olympics.

6. Airfare and Travel Costs

While most travel costs are rising, including a 21% increase in airfares with British Airways, the Eurostar offers a contrasting trend with prices decreasing for travel dates in late summer.

7. Conclusion: Timing Your Visit

For those not interested in the Olympics, it may be wise to postpone travel plans until after the event concludes, when prices for transport, accommodation, and attractions are expected to return to lower levels.

ARTICLE

How Paris is fleecing tourists this summer

Visitors to the French capital during the Olympics will pay more for hotels, meals out, entry to tourist attractions and public transport.

A typical trip to Paris involves wandering around art galleries, eating croissants in Amelie-esque cafés and staying in a bijou hotel. This year, however, is not a typical one. It’s an Olympic year, and with three million tourists expected to descend on the City of Light, prices have risen in kind. Whether you’re visiting for the Games itself, or just for a standard city break, all of those stereotypical Parisian activities are going to cost considerably more this summer.

How much more, exactly? We looked at the changes to everything from accommodation rates to entry to the Louvre. 

Hotel prices: up 54 per cent

Head to Paris on Monday May 20, for example, and a room at Le Grand Quartier, a boutique hotel in the 10th arrondissement, will cost £187 per night. On Monday July 29, just after the opening weekend, that rate rises to £488. Reports suggest that there has been, on average, a 54 per cent rise in hotel room prices compared to 2023. 

A room at the four-star Le Grand Quartier will cost you considerably more in July than in May

Airbnbs: up 50 per cent

Airbnbs and similar self-catering properties have seen equivalent changes: rates for a one-bedroom rental in Paris are 50 per cent more expensive than in the summer of 2022, with a near doubling of rates during August (up 98 per cent). It’s a sharp increase, one that’s likely to see holidaymakers uninterested in the Olympics give the city a wide berth. If a summer trip is vital, tickets for the Games are still on sale – but be warned, depending on the event they range from €24 (£21) to €2,700 (£2,310). 

Public transport: up 90 per cent

If you can stomach the accommodation price rises, there is still public transport to contend with. From July to September a ticket for a single journey on the city’s Metro and bus network, usually €2.10 (£1.80), will rise some 90 per cent to €4 (£3.40). Blocks of 10 tickets, currently €16.90 (£14.50), will rise to €32 (£27.30) in July. The head of the Parisian transport authority has said that “it is out of the question that people living in the Paris region should pay for the extra cost”, advising locals to stock up on the cheaper tickets in advance of the changes.

“The prices will go up so that the Olympics are 100 per cent accessible by public transport,” she added. “Public services have a cost and pretending otherwise is a lie. It’s a fair price.” Regardless, the structure means that tourists, whether or not they are attending the Games, will have to cover the cost. 

Paris's Gare du Nord railway station, already the busiest station in Europe, will undoutedly be even more crowded this summer 

Museum entry: up 30 per cent

What about activities? Most holidaymakers in Paris visit the Louvre, or, perhaps to avoid the queues, spend time at the Musée Rodin. But these, too, are getting costlier. At the beginning of the year, the price of admission at the Louvre rocketed by almost 30 per cent to €22 (£19). The jump from €17 was the first change in seven years, although the gallery has extended its opening hours and promises that nearly half of visitors will be eligible for free tickets; these include under-25s, the low-paid and unemployed, disabled people, teachers and journalists.

At the Musée Rodin, prices have increased by €2. Musée Picasso has added a single euro to its entry fee, while tickets for the Palace of Versailles have jumped by €1.50. And at the Eiffel Tower, the symbol of the city which features on almost all tourist itineraries, has raised ticket prices from €29.40 (£25.15) to €31 (£26.50), while the cheaper ascent to the second floor now costs €19 (£16.25) – up from €11.80 (£10). Officials did not cite the Olympics as the reason for the price rises, however, blaming instead the impact of the pandemic.

Prices at the Musée Rodin have increased by €2 

Pricier beers – and pressure to tip

Even everyday items will cost more. “Beer, chips, condoms and wine are among many products whose sales will explode during the Olympic Games,” lamented a recent report by Le Parisien. It’s thought that “pleasure products” such as these will be in high demand during the summer season.

It stands to reason that eating out will cost more, too, with restaurateurs keen to profit from the big occasion. And reports are also suggesting that America’s high-pressure tipping culture has spread to French shores. 

“A legal requirement that a 15 per cent service charge – the service compris – must be included in the prices on the menu has sometimes been blamed for the surly service that can be received by diners,” The Times reports. “It ensures, however, that there is usually no fumbling for the right tip at the end of a meal.

“Now, perhaps related to this summer’s Paris Olympics, restaurants are starting to push customers to tip. The suggestion that tipping has become common in the capital is being taken so seriously that the broadcaster BFMTV devoted a prime-time segment to it at the weekend.”

A refreshing beer or glass of wine after visiting one of Paris's key sights, such as the Sacre Coeur Basilica, will cost you more this summer.

Airfares: up 21 per cent

As for getting to Paris in the first place, air fares (usually higher in summer, even before factoring in the Olympics factor) are also pricier. A return flight to the capital with British Airways will set you back around £162 in May. By July, the cheapest return is £196. 

Interestingly, however, the Eurostar bucks the trend. For a long weekend in late May (24-27) you’ll need to pay at least £298 for a return journey. For August 2-5, the price falls to £243. 

On balance...

If you can, leave your visit to the romantic city of Paris until after the Olympic and Paralympic Games have finished.

On balance, though, if you have no interest in the Olympics and have the opportunity to delay your trip to Paris – you probably should. Officials have promised that transport fares will have returned to normal by the end of September. Prices for that same Le Grand Quartier hotel room drop to £257 by September 23. Flight prices with BA drop to £95. And the Olympics crowds will have long since departed. 

Read More

BUY GOLD NOW

28 April 2024

CONCLUSION

Gold looks like a good place to be for the next few years.

DRIVERS

Here are some rules for the success of monetary policy, with a recap of where we are now with respect to each of these golden rules.

1. GOLD

At times of global financial shifts and uncertainties, gold has historically proven to be a safe place to store wealth.

The price of gold is rising significantly proof of increasing demand.

2. RESERVE CURRENCY

The country with the world's reserve currency has a great privilege and a great power. 

Notably, the power to bully and vassalise weaker economies, and the privilege to borrow from the rest of the world to cheaply finance its deficits.

3. ASSET CLASSES

A country generating a surplus on its balance of payments will need to save this money somewhere, and the world's reserve currency should be a good place to put it. 

More specifically, equities have long-run historically given the best return against govt bonds and property and commodities. 

While commodities have been a long run hedge against inflation.

4. DIVERSIFICATION

Putting all your savings in one currency, in this case the US dollar treasuries, is a risk. 

To mitigate this risk, many govt treasury departments have been diversifying into other currencies, for example by lending to other countries under such schemes as the Belt and Road; or more broadly by giving a greater weighting to stockpiling gold in their central bank vaults; and by buying long-term supply contracts for commodities.

5. STORES OF WEALTH

There is a limited market depth for gold compared to U.S. Treasuries. Shifts from dollars to gold, esp demand from Central banks, will in circumstances of a shortage of supply, significantly driving up gold prices.

The Chinese hold an estimated trillion dollars in U.S treasuries which they may be slowly ridding themselves of. Where to move it?

6. DEBT DEFICIT AND INTEREST RATES

One way to counter unwanted depreciation of a currency is by hiking interest rates.

An erosion of trust in the dollar, a result of a huge and growing U.S. debt, aggravated by asset seizures, is likely to frustrate attempts to reduce interest rates. 

The U.S. debt is:

- HUGE the debt-to-GDP ratio is 130% where 60% is generally accepted as the limit for sound technical ¡not random! reasons.

- AND GROWING exponentially as the US needs to finance its deficit of 6% of the budget deficit through more and more borrowing, where 3% is an acceptable prudent manageable maximum limit.

- a bill to seize Russian assets in America is likely to sail through the Senate this week and Europe is likely to follow suit, where the bulk of Russian eurodollars are held.

7. INFLATION

Inflation comes from demand outstripping supply or when there's an inadequate or shrinking supply. 

Credit markets are key to demand as demand is mainly financed by borrowing.

So prudent monetary policy is to increase interest rates to make money more expensive and dampen down demand. 

Yet higher interest rates are needed to maintain the value of the currency, since it will keep down the cost of imports and inflation; but higher interest rates also drive down exports and risk crashing the home economy.

These struggles to control inflation - which against expectations looks to remain higher than target - need higher interest rates, further complicating the economic outlook.

CONCLUSION

Between all the global geopolitical struggles and the struggles with debt and inflation, higher interest rates are needed to defend the currency.

Higher interest rates, "higher for longer", are needed, putting downward pressure on GDP growth and the value of treasuries and equities and more significantly higher interest rates will crash the economy.

Yet without higher interest rates who is going to buy American treasuries given the new and significant risks of the American government not redeeming its debt? Without borrowing, how will the government continue to finance its operations and foreign policy (note that unlike Japan, most American govt debt is held by foreigners)?

The consequences of seizing the savings of foreign powers, and candidate Trump threatening to devalue the dollar, can only  mean rising economic pressures on ithe dollar and very real concerns over its stability and future value.

The attractiveness of gold and other commodities as secure stores of wealth is intensifying. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

For these reasons, it might be prudent to shift investment strategies away from dollar-based assets, into physical assets, and favour a tilt towards gold and commodities and quality properties in quality locations.

Read More

THE TRIUNE BRAIN

27 April 2024

Today we shall link Marxism with the Triune brain to isolate Neocon thinking.

CAFE MARXIST

Café Marxiste meeting this week was ram packed for a pretty lively talk followed by Q & A.

The focus was on the origins of Marxism from Hegel to Engels and of course Marx himself, early to late 19C. It is very much "today" for them, same as the bible meetings I went along to a few times. 

How the USSR betrayed Marxism is very much in the here and now, a bitter pill to swallow.

The most recent event in the discussion was the Soviet Union being first into space with Sputnik in 1957.

That sounds an amazing meeting, doesn't it. Where else in the world except France could you find such a discussion ?

Well that's a good question about Marxism Today. In fact, there's China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba and N Korea, all claiming to be a little bit Marxist still, although Vietnam it's not so sure.

Of all the stuff presented this afternoon,  the most interesting was the claim that "we are all Marxists", because what distinguishes us from animals is that we make and use tools, and tools make our economy and our culture -  this is what Marxists call "materialism". Change in our world is from the collision of new ideas with old, which is called "dialectical materialism".

THE TRIUNE MODEL OF THE BRAIN

We started to get a head (a neocortex) from the moment we started using tools. This is about the "triune brain" it's called - see below for a simple three-step model can describe how the brain works.

There is this idea that through our five senses we take in readings from the world around us and they bubble up through the three stages or storeys or layers of the triune brain,

- from the amigydala or 'id' if you prefer

- they rise into the limbic 'ego' region 

- and then climb another story into the neocortex 'superego' (that's the grey matter above the eye line). 

NEOCON THINKING

                               Planning the next war

                (Our leaders are lizards in lounge suits)

Except that's not how it works for the Neocons - for them,

- it seems that the bubbling-up process stops in the basement, the 'id' if you prefer: the reptile brain, home to basic fears and greed; 

- after that, they run out of puff; can't make it to the limbic ground floor where we operate, learn and bond and love and get motivated and feel for others; 

- and certainly not to the first floor command-and-control centre of reason, a governance function where all the computers are found, the 'superego', the holy books, our mission-vision-values statements.

If only our politicians and leaders in the West could integrate the basic selfish drivers of greed and fear, with our compassion for others, and balance it all off with some mature rational and logical thinking, to come to conclusions that show "connection" with humanity and the universe (as Eckart Tolle would call it).

THE REPTILIAN BRAIN

For info, the reptilian brain just asks simple questions:

- can I eat it ?

- will it eat me ?

- can I f*** it ?

This reptitilian brain sounds very much like the only brain the Neocons possess, ha ha, our leaders are lizards in lounge suits.

FOR REFERENCE - THE TRIUNE BRAIN

The Reptilian Brain (Basal Ganglia): 

This is the oldest and most primitive part of the brain, responsible for instinctual behaviors involved in aggression, dominance, territoriality, and ritual displays.

The Limbic System: 

Often referred to as the mammalian brain, this area controls emotions and memories. It includes structures such as the amygdala, hippocampus, and hypothalamus, and is crucial for value judgments that are made largely unconsciously.

The Neocortex: 

This is the most recent evolutionarily speaking and is particularly developed in humans. It is involved in higher-order brain functions such as sensory perception, cognition, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning, and language. 

====

27 April 2024

 Hari ini kita akan menghubungkan Marxisme dengan otak Tritunggal untuk mengisolasi pemikiran Neocon.

 CAFE MARKSIS

 Pertemuan Café Marxiste minggu ini dikemas dengan diskusi yang cukup meriah dan dilanjutkan dengan sesi tanya jawab.

 Fokusnya adalah pada asal usul Marxisme dari Hegel hingga Engels dan tentu saja Marx sendiri, awal hingga akhir tahun 19C.  Ini sangat berarti "hari ini" bagi mereka, sama seperti pertemuan Alkitab yang saya ikuti beberapa kali.

 Bagaimana Uni Soviet mengkhianati Marxisme adalah sebuah pil pahit yang harus ditelan.

 Peristiwa terbaru dalam diskusi tersebut adalah Uni Soviet yang pertama kali melakukan perjalanan luar angkasa dengan Sputnik pada tahun 1957.

 Kedengarannya pertemuan yang luar biasa, bukan.  Dimana lagi di dunia ini selain Perancis Anda dapat menemukan diskusi seperti itu?

 Itu pertanyaan bagus tentang Marxisme Saat Ini.  Faktanya, ada Tiongkok, Vietnam, Laos, Kuba, dan Korea Utara, semuanya mengaku masih sedikit Marxis, meski Vietnam tidak begitu yakin.

 Dari semua hal yang disampaikan siang ini, yang paling menarik adalah pernyataan bahwa “kita semua adalah Marxis”, karena yang membedakan kita dengan binatang adalah kita membuat dan menggunakan alat, dan alat itulah yang membentuk perekonomian dan budaya kita - inilah yang disebut oleh kaum Marxis  "materialisme".  Perubahan di dunia kita berasal dari benturan ide-ide baru dengan ide-ide lama, yang disebut “materialisme dialektis”.

 MODEL TRIUN OTAK

 Kami mulai mendapatkan kepala (neokorteks) sejak kami mulai menggunakan alat.  Ini tentang "otak tritunggal" yang disebut - lihat di bawah untuk model tiga langkah sederhana yang dapat menggambarkan cara kerja otak.

 Ada gagasan bahwa melalui panca indera, kita menerima bacaan dari dunia sekitar kita dan bacaan tersebut mengalir melalui tiga tahap, tingkat, atau lapisan otak tritunggal,

 - dari amigydala atau 'id' jika Anda mau

 - mereka naik ke wilayah 'ego' limbik

 - dan kemudian naik cerita lain ke dalam 'superego' neokorteks (yaitu materi abu-abu di atas garis mata).

 BERPIKIR NEOCON

 Merencanakan perang berikutnya

 (Pemimpin kita adalah kadal yang mengenakan pakaian santai)

 Namun hal itu tidak berlaku bagi Neocons - bagi mereka,

 - sepertinya proses yang meluap-luap berhenti di ruang bawah tanah, 'id' jika Anda mau: otak reptil, rumah bagi ketakutan dasar dan keserakahan;

 - setelah itu, mereka kehabisan kepulan;  tidak dapat mencapai tingkat dasar limbik tempat kita beroperasi, belajar, menjalin ikatan, mencintai, dan mendapatkan motivasi serta merasakan perasaan terhadap orang lain;

 - dan tentu saja tidak ke pusat nalar komando dan kendali di lantai pertama, sebuah fungsi tata kelola di mana semua komputer ditemukan, 'superego', kitab suci, pernyataan nilai-nilai misi-visi kita.

 Andai saja para politisi dan pemimpin kita di Barat dapat mengintegrasikan faktor-faktor egois yang mendorong keserakahan dan ketakutan, dengan belas kasih kita terhadap orang lain, dan menyeimbangkannya dengan pemikiran rasional dan logis yang matang, untuk sampai pada kesimpulan yang menunjukkan “hubungan” dengan kemanusiaan.  dan alam semesta (sebagaimana Eckart Tolle menyebutnya).

 OTAK REPTILIA

 Sebagai info, otak reptil hanya menanyakan pertanyaan sederhana:

 - bolehkah aku memakannya?

 - apakah dia akan memakanku?

 - bolehkah aku menidurinya?

 Otak reptilia ini terdengar sangat mirip dengan satu-satunya otak yang dimiliki kaum Neocon, ha ha, pemimpin kita adalah kadal yang mengenakan pakaian santai.

 UNTUK REFERENSI - OTAK TRIUN

 Otak Reptil (Basal Ganglia):

 Ini adalah bagian otak tertua dan paling primitif, yang bertanggung jawab atas perilaku naluri yang terlibat dalam agresi, dominasi, teritorial, dan tampilan ritual.

 Sistem Limbik:

 Sering disebut sebagai otak mamalia, area ini mengontrol emosi dan ingatan.  Ini mencakup struktur seperti amigdala, hipokampus, dan hipotalamus, dan sangat penting untuk penilaian nilai yang sebagian besar dilakukan secara tidak sadar.

 Neokorteks:

 Ini adalah cara evolusi terbaru dan terutama dikembangkan pada manusia.  Ini terlibat dalam fungsi otak tingkat tinggi seperti persepsi sensorik, kognisi, pembangkitan perintah motorik, penalaran spasial, dan bahasa.

Read More

MEARSHEIMER'S MOST CHALLENGING Q & A

27 April 2024

Undoubtedly the best interview of the year so far. I appreciate that there are many who do not appreciate Piers Morgan, and we'll see why in a moment, but he really put Mearsheimer through his paces and I think Mearsheimer came out on top.

https://youtu.be/vlLubLH5QfE?si=uR0TsHFXH5V7Qi7X

As is normal practise, Mearsheimer invites questions at the end of every lecture he delivers, but I think this was the stiffest test he has ever had to face.

Whether you like Piers Morgan or not, his interviews are always very highly prepared and he doesn't hesitate to go full frontal with the main issues and controversies of the day.

What I don't really like about Morgan's interview technique is two things. One is that he is always interrupting the interviewee, and makes it sound as if the interviewee is trying to interrupt him! 

And the other thing is that he just falls silent when he is beaten in an argument and moves on to the next topic. So you don't get proper resolution.

You could say that both these techniques are really the result of having limited time in the interview, but it does make him become across as something of a bully.

What is good about Morgan is that he is very well prepared on his subject and he identifies the major issues and he manages always to have a debate that is perfectly calm based on logic and reason, even while he throws out numerous emotional statements.

LINKS

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer

Read More

FRANCE'S COLONIAL LEGACY

26 April 2024

https://youtu.be/3xnVO8X3Mqc?si=PamegJWwL8Om3dIv

Haiti is filing for compensation from France - how might France defend itself in any court action?

These days, we recognise the dynamics of power and exploitation, esp. in colonial / post-colonial contexts. The threat of  military action if the sum was not paid could be viewed today as gangsterism or maybe blackmail. It was blatant coercion or economic pressure, we are more sophisticated than this today.

Incidentally, I looked up the case - the 150m Francs was later reduced to 90.

Even by the ethics of France's contemporaries at the time, this must have seemed truly scandalous. France today would probably argue this was another era, a different France, like it has taken no responsibility for its Vichy regime.

It will say this was a sovereign agreement between two independent states, and was internationally recognised. Historical agreements are made in geopolitical and economic conditions particular to the time - altering them retrospectively could open up complex legal and moral challenges. 

If Haiti's arguments are recognised, this would trigger numerous other demands for retribution...and that is the context today....imagine if...! International agreements are respected, they are "final", this is to maintain stability between nations, it is practical more than ethical. There's no precedent for revisiting an historic accord. Doing so could open up numerous cases globally where nations who feel they've been injured / suffered a wrong seek reparations for historic grievances, potentially destabilising international relations....bla bla blah...British gun boat diplomacy, China's century of humiliation. How could you possibly redress all that, and going back how far?

And what indeed about any statute of limitations? It's too late chum, more than a century has passed since the original agreement.

I'm sure France has been a good girl since then, providing aid, aid it could frame as in some way a certain compensation to mitigate any historic "wrong".

What a terrible time that must have been, shipping millions of people from the African jungle to the sugar cane plantations, taking away their freedom and giving them a life of hard labour. And then making them pay if they wanted to be left alone in their new country. We must learn from this and put it behind us.

Read More

TECHNOCRAT OR HUMANIST - BLAIR V FIELD

26 April 2024

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/25/tony-blair-offers-a-terrifying-glimpse-into-our-future/

Is it better that the country be governed by a philosopher king and his best solutions, or by the people and their values?

SUMMARY

1. Contrasting Political Philosophies of Tony Blair and Frank Field

Background and Ideological Differences

Tony Blair and Frank Field represent two distinctly different approaches within the Labour Party. Frank Field, influenced by a fading Christian socialist tradition, emphasised the dangers of rationalism in politics and advocated for acknowledging human nature's limitations and promoting self-interested altruism. In contrast, Tony Blair operates a global governance organisation, viewing government as a tool that functions best under competent leadership, irrespective of the democratic quality of the system.

2. Blair's Governance Philosophy

Pragmatic, technocratic, focus on competence over form

Blair's approach to politics is highly pragmatic, focusing on competence over the form of government. He suggests that non-democratic systems can function effectively if led by smart individuals, although this perspective overlooks the broader implications of such governance styles. Blair supports his view by pointing to exceptions like Singapore and the UAE, which he sees as examples of effective governance due to competent leadership.

3. Critique of Competence as a Sole Leadership Quality

Effective leadership requires strong moral beliefs

The notion that only competence should drive government is critiqued. Competence alone, without a strong value system, is seen as insufficient for effective leadership. Historical policies like the poll tax and the Covid lockdowns are cited as examples where competent leaders may still make poor decisions if they lack a robust guiding philosophy.

4. The Role of Values in Politics

Solutions flow from values

The article argues against the idea that there are definitive "right answers" in politics, suggesting instead that solutions depend significantly on the underlying values and priorities. 

For instance, Frank Field's approach to reforming the benefits system was deeply rooted in his values, focusing on promoting work and individual freedom over reducing inequality.

5. Dangers of Technocratic Governance

Real choice requires that the "why" must precede the "what"

There is a significant criticism of reducing politics to mere administration without underlying principles. The article expresses concerns about technocracy, where politics is merely about managing public opinion to support "the right" policies, which could lead to a lack of genuine political choice and engagement.

6. The Potential Perils of a Labour Election Win

Leave people free to learn from their mistakes

The commentary expresses fear that a Labour victory could lead to governance by those who are overly confident in their moral and intellectual positions, leading to incessant interventions in personal freedoms under the guise of achieving societal perfection.

7. Preference for Human-Centred Governance

Ultimately, the author expresses a preference for leaders like Frank Field, who, despite their flaws, are seen as more in tune with human nature and less likely to pursue overly ambitious or unrealistic goals at the expense of practical consensual governance. Humanity over execution competence, a trust in the people, if reform is needed it is rather to "the system".

Glossary of Terms

- Christian Socialism

An ideological perspective within Christianity that combines elements of socialism with some Christian ethics, focusing on social justice and welfare.

- Rationalism in Politics 

A belief in reason and logic as the primary sources of authority and legitimacy in political decision-making and technology for execution. Cf. a more conservative belief in people and values adaption by consensus.

- Technocracy 

A system of governance where decision-makers are selected based on their expertise or technical knowledge rather than popular support.

ARTICLE

I don’t generally wish to send traffic to The Telegraph’s competitors, but if you can bear it, I urge you to have a look at The Times’s interview last weekend with Sir Tony Blair. Then contrast his approach to politics with the sadly departed Frank Field’s. Two Labour Party figures, two Christians – and yet how different their worldviews.

Frank Field came from a Christian socialist tradition that has almost died out in the Labour Party – more’s the pity, as it was the source of most of what is good in that party’s philosophy. Field wrote in his final book last year of Michael Oakeshott’s “emphasis on the danger of rationalism in politics”, of the need to recognise the limits inherent in human nature, the importance of “a sense of self-interested altruism”.

Blair runs a global governance organisation. Not surprisingly, his philosophy is quite different – and we must take it seriously given his obvious influence on Keir Starmer. He sees government in entirely instrumental terms. “The problem with countries that aren’t democracies is they’re fine if you happen to have really smart people running them, but if you don’t, there’s a problem.” Here, competence is the only test for good government: the important thing is not the system, but having “smart” people in charge. 

Look around the world, though, and neither democracies nor authoritarian states seem to be particularly good at giving political power to smart or competent people. The system doesn’t select for that. The odd exception, like Singapore or maybe the UAE, about both of which Blair speaks approvingly, doesn’t disprove the general point. 

But in any case, competence and smartness are not the most valuable qualities for leadership. Able and intelligent people can become prey to intellectual fads just as easily as anyone else – maybe more so – and take the most terrible decisions. Consider the poll tax, the Exchange Rate Mechanism, net zero, or the Covid lockdowns, if you doubt me.

Blair seems blind to this. Indeed he goes on to claim that “politics works when policy comes first and politics comes second. When you ask what’s the right answer to a problem and then you shape the politics around that.” 

He isn’t, of course, unique in thinking this. This centrist dad worldview, the idea that men and women of good will from all parties can get together and find the indisputably right answer to our difficulties, is widely shared across the so-called centre ground of politics, from the Blairite Left to the supposedly “One Nation” Right. 

It’s still wrong. There aren’t unambiguous “right answers” to problems in politics. Everything depends on the value system you bring to them. 

Suppose you are trying to reform the benefits system, as Frank Field spent much of his life trying to do. If your priority is to encourage work, aspiration, and individual freedom, then you will arrive at one set of solutions. You’ll come to quite different ones if your primary aim is to reduce inequality and make sure absolutely no one can slip through the net. 

Or: if democracy, national cohesion, and immigration control are your top priorities, then you probably supported leaving the EU. If you favour diversity, migration, and being part of a bigger power bloc, then you probably didn’t. It depends what you think is more important. The value system, the politics, comes first. 

This is why competent administration, the capable managerialism that so many seem to wish for, simply isn’t enough on its own. In the end, however well done, it must fail. It’s no good being good at doing things if you don’t know why you want to do them. There has to be a value system that visibly drives actions. 

And you have to win the arguments in public for that value system. That’s how to bring people with you. If instead you take the view that there are self-evidently “right” policies supported by all sensible people, and then reduce politics to the task of shaping public opinion so it supports them, that squeezes out political choice and turns politics into a technocracy. Blair says the country has had too much politics: I say it hasn’t had enough. 

Yet that isn’t even the worst consequence of this way of thinking. It’s: where do you stop? If you think every problem can be solved by clever people, then why not try to solve every problem? 

But there will never be an end to problems – which means there is no limit in principle to what the government can do. The only constraint is a practical one, and AI, digital currencies, restrictions on speech, or China’s emerging social credit system show that the limits to social control are weakening all the time. 

So that’s the politics I fear if Labour wins the election: that of the moral improvers, the politicians who think they know best, and will not give up trying to make us live as they think we should. Give me the Frank Field’s any day. I’d much rather be governed by normal capable human beings who may have flaws but who understand human nature, than by relentless high-achieving busybodies with noble goals. Those people will never leave us alone until they have achieved perfection – and they never will.

Read More