Take Back Control: Nationalise Public Utilities and Services

Britain is currently going through one of its worst national economic crises ever, just after the supposedly empowering move of Brexit.

In amongst soundbites on freedom from the tyranny of the EU and a magical NHS (represented by a magic all bus) the slogan that reportedly clinched Brexit was as we all by now know “take back control”,

Clearly that has failed, and the majority of the British people have no control at all over their present let alone their future. Matters have become worse after Brexit and the country is now at the mercy of greedy energy companies and other corporate controlled entities. Inflation is more than 10%, salaries static or shrinking, and the task of staying alive now a choice between “heating and eating”, with options for healthcare ranging from pulling your own teeth out and dying, whilst waiting for treatment by an underfunded and poorly run NHS, if you are lucky.

The ordinary citizen will likely be thrown some humiliating handouts by the new Prime Minister Liz Truss, but no major change will take place to either bring to account the people who have created this mess (Russia’s war on Ukraine is not causal but contributing), or make the necessary changes to ensure it never happens again.

Those necessary changes consist in nationalising all the basic, life-sustaining assets of the country: the energy and water utilities, public transport, and healthcare.

Notwithstanding the shameful mendacity of the Brexit slogan thought up by Dominic Cummings and his understudy Boris Johnson (or The Convict, as the exquisite though utterly terrifying John Crace calls the former Prime Minister), it is precisely what the people need to do: take back control. Take back control of the basic assets of this country and no longer allow yourselves to be lied to and robbed whilst waiting for a handout.

Why Did a Jewish Filmaker Raised in a Zionist family make “The Tinderbox”?

Many reviews of Anglo-Jewish filmmaker Gillian Mosely’s documentary, The Tinderbox: Israel and Palestine – The Untold Story, highlight that it raises uncomfortable questions, mostly for the pro-Israel camp. (See JW3, Jewish News and various film critic reviews, and a discussion with Mosely at Oxford University Middle East Centre).

A fact based, emotionally and politically neutral look at the roots and history of the Israel-Palestine conflict, it presents a remarkably balanced and honest take on the events that led to the creation of Israel and the subsequent grossly unbalanced status of the two sides as they currently stand.

However, aside from the uncomfortable questions raised by the film for those who feel Israel can do no wrong, there is also a striking observation to make about the actual making of the film itself: someone raised as a Zionist made this documentary.

This raises an obvious question: why, how come?

Mosely explains it is because she later came to question what she was taught to believe. Yet though the actual details of why Mosely made this shift will be of interest, they are not of direct interest here. What is of great interest here is what Zionists and those in unquestioning support of Israel’s actions have to say about the fact of such a dramatic change. How do they explain it?

Although Mosely is by far not the first Zionist to have the scales fall from her eyes to gradually see the world in a different light, (one example being the American journalist and former liberal Zionist Peter Beinart), her film is perhaps the clearest and most accessible testimony of such a colossal shift from early indoctrination to later truth and fact, as well as the honesty and courage that go along with making that shift.

What then do Zionists and loyal, uncritical supporters of Israel have to say about those who abandon their side to embrace not the other side, but truth and fairness?

One of the most frequent explanations for the shift is the “self-hating Jew” syndrome. This consists of the supposed weariness of being a Jew, of finally succumbing to the pernicious lies of antisemitism and wishing to cover one’s Jewishness by assimilating, for which adopting views opposed to Zionism, and distancing themselves from their Jewishness even, is proof of their sameness to non-Jews. Therefore, they will be accepted by them, and also hailed as “good Jews”.

The epithet of “self-hater” is not in fact offered as an explanation, but rather is leveled by Zionists as an accusation at any Jew who dares speak the truth. Or in Mosely’s case, simply document the truth without even commenting on it judgmentally. Mosely will undoubtedly be weathering a lot of flak of this type, though she will likely be smart enough to realise that far from being a reason to feel shame and recant her errant ways, it is confirmation of just how right she is.

Queen Elizabeth II: Free At Last

The Queen of the United Kingdom has died.

The nation mourns her death, and every subject takes from it – or perhaps projects onto it – a meaning that feels both personal and profound.

But looking beyond the outpouring of grief, praise and inevitable celebration, what we see is less a remarkable woman born to lavish privilege and more an individual who never released her own authentic potential.

Not even the act of bearing children was wholly her own. The births of her children were public events that re-stocked the monarchy, providing an heir, a second heir, a third, and finally a fourth. Until, that is, the heirs had children, when the already complex succession table was reset and her grandchildren entered into the running.

Apparently the reason why she was not so close or motherly to Charles was that he represented her death, because his primary purpose is to replace her. Yet one cannot believe that a woman with such a pleasant face and warm demeanor would feel the threat in terms of power and importance, and rather it will have been the awareness that her eldest son was first an heir and only second a son that would act to distance them.

The only person for whom there was no official retirement, finally she has managed to escape this state of half existence. To serve the people cost her her life even while she lived it. In some sense Elizabeth died when she became queen, and the life we saw her live was not hers but the people’s. It was planned, choreographed and measured in every aspect and to the minutest degree, rather like that of a prisoner. Indeed, if she did not quite die at her coronation then she was handed a life sentence, a life her uncle David, King Edward VIII, had the good sense to realise would not have been his own.

Even her husband was not her own, whom she was forced to publicly emasculate in front of the entire world when he knelt in submission before her. Men should do that for their women anyway, but not in public for the benefit of a primeval institution.

Throughout her life as a monarch people did not see her as a person. Everyone, most of all Elizabeth herself, was taught that she is a monarch first and a person second. As with all those deemed royal, in the context of other people Elizabeth never knew who she really could be and only knew what she was expected to be. Most assuredly she will have had thoughts that were authentically her own regarding who she was and how she felt about her predicament, and perhaps there were one or two people who on occasion were privy to these untainted aspects. But they were unlikely to have been people ordinary enough to give her the sense of freedom from scrutiny and expectation necessary to forge an authentic self in a community of peers. She had no peers, no equals, and lived instead on the lonely pedestal upon which all others beneath had raised her.

It is right to feel sadness for this woman, particularly because she was used as the sacrificial lamb that saved the monarchy. Undoubtedly she knew moments of happiness, and perhaps at times was grateful for not having to bother with the mundane daily tasks most of us are compelled to carry out. But we will likely never know, because no one was ever allowed to ask, and she was never allowed to divulge, her true feelings on this or any other matter. Perhaps if she had been offered a life of anonymity of a reasonable standard she might have taken it. Or Perhaps not. The important point is that she did not even have the option to choose free of the threat of censure and disgrace hanging over, and opprobrium would surely have been poured over her by the establishment that imprisoned her as it still pours it over her uncle. Besides, she had been bred for the part as soon as it was clear it would fall to her, more so than if she had remained a minor royal in the shadows. She knew little else.

Many compare Elizabeth to their own mother or grandmother. I share this sentiment, and recall how I realised only too late that my mother longed for her own time and space, especially in her later years, yet rarely enjoyed them to any meaningful degree. With five children, each of whom would phone or pass by each day, much of her time was spent on us and our cares, with little left to call her own. Time and space in which she was free of the necessity to be a mother and simply to be herself, to do as she pleased or indeed do nothing at all.

Multiply this a thousand times for Elizabeth. With the scrutiny of a global press, royal duties, the necessity to attend countless public events and make small talk with those she met, gushing and fawning at her, one begins to appreciate the enormity of the sacrifice made of her. There were things that she liked of course – her horses, corgis, hunting, and her Land Rover, to make a swift though quite comprehensive review of her apparent pleasures in life. Only they were little compensation when set against the impositions of being queen. Having to record a Christmas message each year and make it heart felt and convincing is manageable, but the relentless affairs of state, travel, introductions, and trivial exchanges with those she met will have exacted a cost far greater than any privilege or comfort she was able to enjoy. Right up till the end, Elizabeth lived a life similar to her horses, though with one important difference. She was kept, groomed, trained and put out on show like them, yet unlike her horses, never allowed to retire and they flogged her till the last. All of us with older parents and grandparents know how tranquil respite is so necessary for older people, to be in their own time, at their own pace and at their own whim. She wasn’t even allowed that.

Finally, God saved Elizabeth. Though as Charles might be thinking, he took his time.

The Paradox of Anti-Abortion, Gun Loving, Death Penalty Advocates Explained

In 2006, the ultra-right conservative, Christian fundamentalist Amy Coney Barrett, later appointed to the US supreme Court in 2022, signed her name to a newspaper ad taken out by an anti-abortion group. The ad condemned what the group characterised as “abortion on demand”, further declaring support for “the right to life from fertilization to natural death.”

Experience shows, and a swift google confirms, that the same people voicing these supposedly Christian values in support of the rights of a fetus over that of a pregnant woman also support gun rights and state executions.

They are also, in my personal experience, spectacularly short on irony. Evidently they miss the paradox of calling for “the right to life from fertilization to natural death” whilst simultaneously claiming a right to carry guns and potentially kill someone long before their natural death (and tragically in some cases, not that long after fertilisation), along with holding a belief in the death penalty as a form of justice (with one fundamentalist Christian once telling me that if someone innocent is executed by mistake, the responsibility is not on the state and death penalty advocates but is just one more crime the real murderer will need to answer for when he meets the Lord. The real murderer, they argue, will in effect have committed two murders by remaining silent when an innocent person is condemned to death in their place.)

How is it possible to retain such starkly opposing stances on the right to life within the same mind and remain balanced and sane? Although by some appearances it does look that in some cases many who hold these beliefs do not quite manage it, as we find with the likes of Sarah Palin, Marjorie Taylor Green, and indeed Coney Barrett herself, her unflinching eyes unnerving anyone who needs to see the occasional glimmer of a soul. (Of course we have left out Donald Trump and roughly half of the Republican party).

The paradox is easily solved when we realise this is not about principles, ethical convictions, or upholding the supposed will of an imaginary god. It is, as we have by now come to recognise, about power and control. The reason there is no internal psychological tension – meaning they c an sleep at night – in those who openly advocate such extreme and opposing beliefs that deny others their rights is because they do not care about rights, principles or in particular about being consistent in what they advocate. If they did, they would immediately see the paradox of such a position and never adopt it. To them the anti-abortion stance is not about protecting life but about controlling it, in this case controlling women by controlling their bodies.

The control of woman has of course a long history, traced in particular to the very foundations of religions millennia ago. Fundamentalists and conservatives often cite the religious, eschatological reasons for opposing a woman’s right to choose, though they have tried to re-frame the tone of the discourse from one of denial of a woman’s right to choose to protection of the life of an unborn fetus, which on their reckoning has more rights as a person than the pregnant woman carrying it.

To anyone reasonable and fair not to mention humane, a pregnant woman has vastly more person-hood (by virtue of having existed longer, being more complex etc.) and therefore rights as a person, than a fetus that may not even be viable. There is and must be room for sentiment and sensitivity in considering the potential life and potential person-hood to be terminated; but it is not life and person-hood as we know it to be in the life and person of a pregnant woman.

For those who find this very difficult, I would suggest that it is even possible to say that yes, the fetus is alive and probably, even very likely, has some degree of person-hood. But this life and this person-hood, though there is a potential for it to become a most beautiful and loved being, cannot in anyway take precedence over the greater, established and vastly more complex life and person-hood of the woman carrying it. A pregnant woman’s life and person-hood are incomparably more important than the potential life and person that she, and she alone, carries and therefore has the right to eventually give life to, or not.

This is not even to talk about the evils of rape and incest, medical complications, and sometimes the hard decisions a woman must make to protect a potential life from undue unhappiness, misery and perhaps great suffering under unsupportive circumstances, and perhaps even abuse at the hands of the father or others, should that potential life be born.

Piers Morgan and the “trans activist mob”

It’s actually difficult to decide which is worse when it comes to the former editor of THE Sun and currently almost-everywhere controversial media personality Piers Morgan: whether generally he believes what he says, or says it in the belief it will garner the most attention and approval?

This disclaimer aside, it’s not impossible that on occasion Morgan might say something with a little thought provoking sense to it, and his position on the transgender issue has one point I agree on, though he does state it somewhat crudely: that the drive by trans people and trans women in particular (who he collectively refers to as the “trans activist mob”) to obtain acceptance of trans women as women, has taken on a “linguistic tyranny” that will have real world repercussions on the healthcare of women as well as trans people who self identify as either women or men.

Doctors may miss a diagnosis necessary for a particular biological sex, he points out, and instead treat trans people for the gender they identify with, when they would in fact need treatment based on their biological sex. And cis gender people seeking advice on health issues may miss something relevant to their biological sex, if the language is stripped of specific terms related to sex and replaced with neutral phrases. After an outcry, the NHS, having previously substituted gender neutral terms in its online advice on women’s health, later reverted back to biological references. (I also stumbled on a Guardian article on US abortion rights that refers to a pregnant “person”.)

I agree with Morgan that the attempt to modify the language is nonsensical and potentially harmful, and unnecessary. I also cannot help wonder whether in part at least this arises from classic male coercion. Issues such as this cast a shadow over the idea that trans women have left all vestige of classic male (as opposed to female) masculinity behind, and uncompromisingly demanding women accept them as equals with the same identity and rights, and going as far as seeking legislative means (reform of Gender Recognition Act) could work against trans women. Such an approach could be viewed as trans women being still, fundamentally, males, behaving in the way women throughout history have experienced men to behave: pushy, demanding and domineering, with some cis gender men verbally and physically coercive, when not actually being brutal.

Here is where I part company with Morgan however. Beyond the linguistic debate, no one reasonable can object to the desire by trans women to be embraced and accepted as equals by women as a group. And if women decide to willingly and happily accept trans women as women, the story is over and no one will likely be able to come up with a reason-based argument to object to that. Society will no longer have even the reason of protecting women’s rights as an objection, since it will be women who take the decision to share their rights.

However, the best and arguably only way for trans women to achieve this is to unequivocally demonstrate to cis gender women they have truly left all classic male masculinity behind, including the most significant aspect of male masculinity that historically forms the defining characteristic of women’s objections to and fear of men’s encroachment: coercion in all its forms.

Ironically, the only way for trans women to do this is to forgo demanding what they believe is their right, and rather than demanding it, to wait for women to bestow them with that right. (The cliched Hollywood scene of a perceived enemy surrendering a gun to someone to prove their good intentions and gain trust comes to mind). Sometimes in order to obtain a right or a goal, one must be prepared to surrender it, until such time others, through an earned and credible trust, are happy and willing to grant it. It may also be the quickest route to gain acceptance, with the further benefit that it would be gracious rather than grudging.

My only reservation in all this is linking to a page by Piers Morgan. Although it may be justified if it shows that this is not a matter of political, cultural or religious view, as I don’t share many of those with Morgan. On the contrary, there is a rational path through all this independent of personal inclination and belief, and it is guided by what women need and justly demand: a reassurance that they are not being subjected to yet one more encroachment by classic male masculinity.

That, as I say, lies in the approach trans women choose in their efforts to be accepted as women by women. Push, and you may risk being seen as a “residual” biological male. Ask, engage and authentically reassure on the other hand, and be seen as part of the reasoned crowd. The best way to do that is Hollywood style: surrender yourself to the judgement, place yourself at the mercy even, of the person who’s confidence you wish to gain.

Greased Piglet makes pig’s ear out of being Prime Minister

The knives are out for Boris Johnson as events unfold at a pace even hungry reporters are finding dizzying to keep up with.

Till now it has proven difficult to pin down the Convict, as John Crace of the Guardian calls Johnson. Or, rather more aptly, to grab hold of the Greased Piglet, who after 3 years has made a right pig’s ear out of government and the office of Prime Minister.

But thanks to Chris “grab them by the bollocks” Pincher, the trail of corruption, incompetence and lies has finally led to where it was always going to lead: the slaughterhouse. Though Johnson for the time being hangs on like a turd that refuses to flush, soon we will hear him squeal his last, particularly since today he vowed he would still be Prime Minister in the morning, a defiant last stand of idiocy guaranteed to galvanize those calling for his departure into making sure he does.

The only note of caution of course is who comes next. Looking at the line-up – led by Sajid Javid, who thinks Ayan Rand’s soporific ode to capitalism Atlas Shrugged is the best book ever written, and Rishi Sunak, who built a swimming pool in his Yorkshire mansion whilst half the country survive on food banks – the country might not be any worse off if they kept Johnson.

At least Johnson is only self-obsessed, attracted like a moth to power, in need of adoration, and bloated with a sense of being a chummy leader who lets his minions have a good time boozing while they work. He is not ideologically driven and doesn’t care about policy, and would never be dangerous in the way Jacob Rees Mogg or Priti Patel would be.

Whoever it is, the country will still be in a mess until politics itself changes. That, as will be set out later, will only happen when AI is in control. Not of the people, but of the politicians and their corporate masters.

Love Guns, Hate Choice

This could pass as the average profile of a right wing conservative in America. The overturning of Roe v Wade in June 2022 is what some are calling the thin edge of the wedge. Soon, they fear, all other freedoms and rights will be under threat, all sanctioned by the highest authority in the land.

I pose a way out of this scenario, tentatively proposing that it meets with the principles of humanism:

Whoever defends the greatest freedom to be and the greatest freedom of expression, in accordance with the principles of moral reciprocity and equal consideration of interest, has the right to over-rule and if necessary subdue those who seek to limit and deny such expressions only in accordance with their personal, unsupported beliefs.

This could possibly be justified as follows:

The overruling of authoritarians, who by definition base their authority on unsupported claims and beliefs, should not be unacceptable to them, because overruling others without appeal is precisely what authoritarians advocate. Being overruled cannot therefore be seen as immoral or unjust on the part of authoritarians, and is on the contrary a natural consequence and indeed a practical application of their insistence of the denial of the rights of others without rational basis or appeal.

Perhaps with a little work this could fly and would meet with the principles of humanist reason and ethic.

Kier Starmer Delivers Rousing Call for Public Support in Rail Worker Strike

Hypothetical News Correspondent DPC Ed

Sir Kier Starmer delivered an impassioned plea to the British public to support the RMT in it’s bid for better pay and work conditions.

“I urge the British public to stand by our Rail workers,” Sir Kier said when visiting the RMT headquarters today. “It is in our interests as people who use public transport as much as it is in those who work to ensure it runs safely and reliably.

“Today we can work from home. Explain to your boss that to safeguard your future ability to travel into work you feel you must take action now.”

Sir Kier went on to mention ways in which ordinary people could support striking workers whilst minimizing personal disruption.

“If you are planning a pleasure trip, why not postpone it? If your trip is essential for health or grave personal reasons, take your car, or ask a friend or neighbor for a kindness. If you are in a position to offer transport then register on our app, where you will be put in touch with people in your area who need a lift to somewhere important. “

If you try these and other options and they prove impossible get in touch with your local Labour representative’s office. We’ll make sure your important journey takes place.”

Sir Kier then made a surprise statement on the politics, or on what he claimed was not the politics, of the strike action.

“I was asked what would a Labour government do if faced with a strike of similar circumstance. Or any strike in which the action is clearly justified. Are we not exploiting a situation that would, just as for the Tories, place us in a difficult position? Would not a Labour government feel its authority was being challenged regardless of the justice of the action? I answered that if a Labour government responded in the same way when the justice of the action was clear, I hope the public would respond as I am urging you to respond now. Support the strike.

“This is not about politics. Though politicians may reduce it to that. It is about people’s lives. Democracy means we can challenge our governments, and I would not be a democrat if I failed in my duty to support workers . Therefore I should be challenged if ever i failed to do what i am urging us all to do now. To support the strike.

“Let us stand together. The well being of those who serve us is the well being of us all.”

Confronting Capitalism

I imagine that many of us often raise our hands in despair when thinking of how to change the social and economic system under which an entire planet is yoked. A profit driven system, with those profits going to just a few as the planet is trashed and the majority struggle along, often going without.

It may be simpler than we think to stand up to Capitalism. Purchasing a train ticket recently I was outraged at the cost. Disproving Mrs Thatcher’s disingenuous argument that privatisation stimulates competition, drives down prices and raises standards as companies vie to attract customers, 35 years on the route is monopolised by the Great Western Railway, on which I was obliged to buy an unpleasant “sardine class” journey at an exorbitant price.

On this occasion I decided to do something and not simply accept my station in life. As I paid for the ticket I politely told the teller clerk that the cost is outrageous, the service inferior, and the experience unpleasant and that he should pass the message on to management. That I would also vote for political parties that promise to re-nationalise the rail system, and ask other passengers to do the same. (At which point I flashed my “Crusade for Public Transport” badge).

Perhaps he never passed it on. Though perhaps if enough people were to take that active stance, rather than passively standing there whilst shareholders rob us in broad day light, then maybe prices will come down. Though the long term aim is of course not just to bring prices down, but capitalism itself.

Guns ‘n Massacres. All the rage among teens

Tragically, we speak not a pop band but another senseless massacre by gun and, as nearly always, in the USA, this time in Texas.

Disingenuously, gun lobbyists declare it has nothing to do with guns. Gun control advocates; that it has everything to do with it.

The latter position might seem to be the most obvious and logical (see responses to bad faith arguments below). Yet gun supporters are unrepentant in their continued refusal to accept that guns, though they may not cause massacres or gun violence and killing in general, nonetheless facilitate these atrocities, as well as scale them up many more times than would be the case should other weapons be implicated.

Apparently there is no clear data on the matter either way, if that is to be believed. And we are left to argue for or against gun control depending on how we view the matter personally.

There is no need for this fruitless subjective wrangling, however. There is a simple way to find out once and for all which position is correct and beneficial to society and the individual. Guns have been widely and easily available for decades and in fact centuries in the USA. Therefore, it makes sense that a period without guns, or at least with severe gun control prohibiting use away from licensed shooting ranges, would almost certainly uncover the reality.

If gun advocates cannot produce scientific data that refutes without a shadow of a doubt the intuitive link between guns and the frequency and severity of mass killings then they are obliged to agree to the experiment of living without guns for a period of time, say 2 decades. That should be enough to show whether there are fewer events and/or fewer causalities and deaths.

It is a reasonable proposal, and rejecting it would reveal an unwillingness to address the problem in every way possible. If there is doubt as to whether or not guns engender more frequent and/or exacerbate gun violence and killing, this doubt is enough to justify living without them for a while to see if those doubts are born out.

Everything should be tried, and questions should be asked of those unwilling to do so.

Some bad faith arguments offered by gun lobbyists in defence of lax gun control:

It’s not guns but people who are the problem.
Response: Sure, but guns add to it hugely.

Anyone with a knife can wreak havoc and kill many people.
Response: It can happen if the conditions are right, but rarely, in comparison to gun massacres. Usually knife attacks are limited in casualties and deaths, for obvious reasons. Such as: you can’t stab someone across a room; or way down a corridor as they run away. It is a physical fact that it is far, far easier to kill many people with a gun than with a knife or axe.

Owning guns allows people to intervene when someone runs amok.
Response: You wouldn’t need to intervene if guns were removed from general circulation and confined to ranges and resorts. Or at least tightly controlled. And besides, it is difficult to recall when an altruistic gun owner intervened and saved the day.