Wednesday, 22 June 2011

Left and Right = Public Sector vs Private Sector?

It seems to me that these days the left versus right divide, at least in the economic realm, is increasingly about public versus private sector employment.

Or to be more comprehensive, membership of a state funded client group versus non membership. But I think the narrower definition is more telling in terms of the tenor of public debate; a middle class exchange between two sets of workers who perceive themselves to be penalised by one form of government or the other.

The left long ceased to be much to do with the working class - in fact is actively hostile to it's interests, preferring by accident or design to cultivate it's client groups to the detriment of the bases of working class self sufficiency. More on that another time.

Despite this, Labour has continued to hold power in it's historic heartlands. No doubt tradition and inertia play a part in this, but these places are also often heavily reliant on state employment (as well  government funding generally). The working class in other regions do not seem bound by the loyalties of the past; a past which sometimes seems indeed like a foreign country.

So the question is; is the economic battleground no longer between classes (if it ever was) but between those who the state pays, and those who pay for the state?

Monday, 20 June 2011

'Liberalism' to authoritarianism in three easy steps

This pattern is repeated so frequently that I sometimes wonder whether it is simple stupidity
or something more malign;

1. Attack the values, taboos, and traditions through which society self regulates -
if those have an institutional embodiment, target that with special vigour

2. Watch things fall apart

3. Impose laws to contain the situation you have created

Wednesday, 8 June 2011

Abortion, sexism and lunacy

There are some times where the orthodoxy of the day plumbs such depths of incoherence it is hard to know where to begin.

Can there be a better example than the confusion encountered by liberal sorts when confronted by the issue of abortion motivated by gender selection?

As I commented on this Guardian thread - which is a carnival of all the confused, angry and incoherent tropes of the right-on collapsing under the weight of their internal contradictions - "The idea that a foetus has no right not to be killed, but has a right to be protected from sexism is truly some kind of nadir of addled pc 'liberalism'."

There is no doubt a longer post in this; the subject of abortion is one dominated by pseudo-science, argument shifting, non-sequiturs, logical fails, biological ignorance, and quasi religious redefinitions of reality itself. In short, fashionable nonsense par excellence.

But that's for another day...

Friday, 25 February 2011

Questions of coherence #1

Number one in an occasional series of grumblings, musings and squibs on the contradictions of contemporary orthodoxy...

....Why is it that the people who attack western values, or even deny their existence, often also believe that people from rich, coherent and confident cultures will spurn the latter in favour of adoption of those western values...

...Why do people who aspire to national characters and cultures breaking down and merging, also complain that american chains make every town look the same...

...Some suggest it is bigoted to seek to maintain a 'British culture' to British - or indeed dispute such a culture exists. One wonders how these people behave on holiday.

If holidaying in Spain, for example; do they stick to the Brit-pubs of the Costas, or do they prefer to immerse themselves in things with a more Spanish flavour? Visiting Italy, do they stick to McDonalds and Irish bars, or do they seek to sample what a society with an Italian character has to offer? Or perhaps they wander between Irish bars and Trattorias, between steak and kidney pie and tapas, without any particular distinction or intent, one not being differentiable from the other.

After all, presumably valuing Italy having an Italian culture or Spain a Spanish one, is racist. Unless of course, such cultures do not exist and Spain and Italy are in any case indistinguishable from Britain....

Thursday, 17 February 2011

Divorce rates down

For the sixth consecutive year;

I agree with the Guardian that it will be interesting to correlate these figures with updated marriage stats when they emerge.

It also be interesting to see analysis on whether this is related to the changing ethnic composition of the country.

Atheism is not a religion; but it has it's Churches

There are few sources of 'fashionable nonsense' which provide such a rich and plentiful bounty as the seemingly endless torrent of tosh that emanates from the growing gaggle of 'super atheists'.

It is an enduring mystery to me how these guys get away with it. People like Richard Dawkins might be experts in their field, but when they go into bat for atheism they frequently reveal themselves to be philosophically naive, historically unaware, and possessed of a pretty poor grasp of logic. On top of that, much of the incoherent nonsense they are wont to come out with is either explicitly or implicitly contradictory of their own materialist conceptions of reality.

Dinging them should be like shooting fish in a barrel. The fact they are not readily and regularly skewered, I can only put down to their own careful selection of soft targets and the complicity of a supine liberal media.

In short, precisely the sort of situation that this Blog has been set up to respond to, in however humble and insignificant a fashion. Expect this topic to resurface frequently, but to get the ball rolling, let's start with one of Dawkins basic claims / defensive postures; namely, that atheism is not comparable to religion and that the crimes perpetrated by atheist regimes cannot be attributed to atheism.

For example;

"I have said in my book that Hitler is not at all atheist, as he was religiously biased against Jewish people. Stalin was following communism dogmatically. I have already said that none of us, in effect derive our morality from religion. Stalin, in fact, used the dogmatic communism as his source of morality - if we call it morality at all. Being atheist does not ask you to become dogmatic or communist, but only ask you not to believe in God. A person working in a Mafia group can also be an atheist although it will be illogical to say that atheism pushed him to the Mafia group. There are other colleagues working with him who are religious."

Now, this is either naïve or disingenuous or possibly both. This despite the fact that I agree with atheists that atheism is not a religion.

The problem is, neither is theism. And Dawkins and co cannot have it both ways.

If all that atheism asks of you is disbelief in God, then all that theism asks of you is a belief in one (to be precise, and thus distinguish Theism from Deism, a God that intervenes in history). And so the proper comparison is indeed not atheism and religion; it is on one hand atheism and theism, and on the other, the ideologies and religions that proceed explicitly from theistic or atheistic kernels - from the conclusions and assumptions that theists and atheists have extrapolated from those starting points.

Atheism may appear to lack a continuously existing representative institution – something that super atheists are wont to exploit, when cackling over religious misdeeds of centuries gone by. But it has been attended by a continuity of philosophical development. And it has certainly had it's 'churches' , just as theism has. The history of atheist ideologies cannot be disavowed through the transparent double standards Dawkins deploys above.

Returning to the passage quoted; space does not afford dwelling long on the bonkers brew of Nazism here – though this blog will return to that subject it in the future. For now, suffice to say that while the history of Christian anti-Judaism surely played a part in establishing the context in which the holocaust occurred, Nazi anti-semitism (along with their wider catalogue of genetic obsessions) proceeded directly from the scientific racism and eugenic preoccupations of Edwardian atheistic 'progressives' . Moreover, the horrors of Christian pogroms notwithstanding, after a millennium of Christendom, it was in the first avowedly 'secular century' that an attempt at Jewish extermination was conceived.

Communism, meanwhile, is clear cut. It is an atheist religion; a purposeful attempt to purge Christian influences from society, and to reconstruct a social model and value structures based on a materialist conception of reality and atheistic 'rationalist' principles.

Communist is every bit as much an atheistic 'religion' as Catholicism or Shia Islam are theistic religions. If Dawkins doesn't want atheism linked to Communism then he shouldn't be linking theism to Catholicism. But then that would be absurd; just as his attempts to disavow the history of atheist excess through word games, is absurd. He cannot have it both ways.

Moreover, his comparisons or non-comparisons overlook another factor. One could argue that little more is required to understand the human capacity for violence, than a study of Darwin (whose account of the character of nature is rather closer to that described in Genesis, than it is to fluffy humanist fantasies). And one would have thought that no-one would be more aware of this than Dawkins, and the many other atheists for whom Darwin has been co-opted as some kind of prophet.

Against that backdrop, when we make value judgements about ideologies, we must surely be at least as concerned with their capacity to contain innate capacities for violence, as we are with their capacity to be harnessed in service of those instincts.

On both counts atheism does not have a good track record; it seems to spawn either brutalist ideologies that seek justification in Darwin or, conversely, schools of thought that recoil from what science tells us about reality. Systematic attempts to create atheist social-philosophies invariably tend to the utopian or the nihilistic – often starting with the former and landing in the latter. 

And in pursuit of those ideologies even the imperfect check on human nature afforded by the Christian beliefs, is easily shed. Small wonder then, that the multiple independent implementations of communism, justified by their materialist utopianism, were invariably at ease with killing as many in an afternoon as the Inquisition managed over three centuries. As Trotsky put it; We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."*

I could go on, and indeed, in due course, this blog will return to pick up aspects of this subject in greater detail. But I am familiarising myself with the blog format, and my hunch is that this is quite long enough for a single post.

In closing, there is in fact, and contra to the arguments of the super atheists, little reassurance from history that the proliferation of atheism in a society – and especially when it spawns ideologies of it's own - is anything other than negative in consequence. The same goes for the closely related but not identical radical secularism. For now, we have a largely benign humanism in the ascendance, essentially an atheist form of Christianity which is rather contradictory of the wider implications of atheism (another topic for another day). Despite problems of it's own, it seems to me that taking history as our guid, we should welcome those contradictions over a more rigorously rationalist atheist credo. Time will tell.

But one thing is for sure, whether through ignorance or disingenuousness; the super atheist narrative of an intrinsically benign atheism, isolated from the history of 'ideologies that happened to be the work of atheists' and thus pitched in stark contrast to the presentation of theistic religion, is, well, nonsense.

* This quote of Trotsky's, which can be found all over the internet, is, I believe, cited as being something he said. It is thus sometimes disputed by fans of the man. Well, I'm afraid he did indeed record the sentiments on paper, albeit in less snappy form. The interested reader will find the relevant passage in 'Communism and Terrorism' where it is expressed thus;

"If it is a question of seeking formal contradictions, then obviously we must do so on the side of the White Terror, which is the weapon of classes which consider themselves “Christian,” patronize idealist philosophy, and are firmly convinced that the individuality (their own) is an end-in-itself. We were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the “sacredness of human life”.”

What's in a name?

Something I should have perhaps explained in my first post, the title of this blog 'Fashionable Nonsense' encapsulates the 'manifesto' set out in that post; 

"to undermine contemporary dogma with it's countless irrationalities and inconsistencies. In so doing, I in turn hope to undermine - in whatever tiny way - the increasingly authoritarian tendencies that proceed from those politically correct credos. And hopefully have a laugh or two along the way."

The address of the blog reflects my nomme de plume, '' having been unavailable. 

This name also reflects my intentions. On one hand, through the reference to Edmund Burke, I refer also to what he represents - a beacon of sanity amidst the utopian zealots in his own time. On the other, through the substitution of Berk for Burke, hopefully a reminder to myself that I am no Burke, and to not take myself too seriously. 

It is also a signal of my second intention - to have a laugh. And finally, for those familiar with the origins of 'Berk' in cockney rhyming slang, I have also suitably labelled myself for the Guardian reading sorts who may take issue with what I have to say.

First Post

I have long been sceptical of the notion of blogging.

Ranting furiously into an uncaring void seemed like a vanity project for angry egomaniacs. It probably is, and despite the following rationalisation, that's probably why I have succumbed to it's appeal.

However, over time, I have been persuaded that there is truth in the cliche that blogging - along with the whole gamut of capabilities the internet provides - is an immensely powerful tool.

It gives ordinary people extraordinary reach, and seems to be rattling both the mainstream media and authoritarian politicians. While I don't want to get carried away, it seems to have played a part in recent earth-shaking events in the Arab world. The extent of that contribution is hard to judge, especially given all the blather and hype about the power of the tinternet; but it has certainly been in the mix.

Moreover, it is very much a tool for the times; while the notorious unreliability and splenetic nature of much web content remains an issue, the (western) mainstream media is itself grossly distorting and agenda led, invariably in the service of an increasingly authoritarian 'liberal' establishment (despite the emphasis given by the same, to the odd exception such as Fox).

And while in no way being the equivalent of the tyrants brave Arabs are rising against, that establishment is nevertheless fostering a social and political context where it is extremely difficult, and even dangerous, for people to air dissenting views.

Blogging seems to offer a platform well suited to making a stand - however small - against the creeping suffocation of western societies. The consternation it provokes in the establishment has begun to persuade me that however apparently insignificant the individual blogger, an accumulation of individual efforts, can have an affect. It seems that it is possible, after all,  to land blows against an establishment otherwise well protected through it's dominance of the institutions.

And so, in the spirit of the Burkean little platoon, of the fashionable concept of the Big Society, or simply through the plain old notion of civic participation, I have decided to have a go.

If you've stuck around this long, you may well be concluding, 'so far, so internet'; this mixture of self justification and malcontented rumblings against 'the man'. Well, we'll see. The reasons for my initial scepticism remain; handed a powerful tool, it's really up to the blogger to define him or herself through content.

My aim is to undermine contemporary dogma with it's countless irrationalities and inconsistencies. In so doing, I in turn hope to undermine - in whatever tiny way - the increasingly authoritarian tendencies that proceed from those politically correct credos. And hopefully have a laugh or two along the way.

Whether this turns out to be a worthwhile exercise or one of windy self-indulgence, only time will tell.

Thanks for reading this far, and I hope subsequent posts provide an argument for returning to the site.