The distraction of the ‘woke’: A continuation of class warfare.

Think back to around 2007-2008. What major worldwide disaster springs to mind? Correct, the Global Financial Crisis. It was a time when many people through first hand experience, became acutely aware that capitalism or more accurately named neoliberalism was failing for most of us. What followed was a slew of protests groups, such as Occupy Wall Street, whose message was for the 99% to fight back against the 1%. Suddenly, society as a whole appeared not to be duped by the fable of trickle down economics anymore. At around the same time a plethora of books and documentaries emerged imploring us to reject unbridled capitalism.

In 2007, Naomi Klein wrote the ‘Shock Doctrine’, describing the inhuman lengths the ruling elite would go to implement and maintain a system of neoliberalism throughout much of the world. This significant book partly followed on from where David Harvey’s ‘A Brief History of Neoliberalism’ left off, written in 2005. While Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett penned ‘The Spirit Level’ in 2009 providing page upon page of evidence to support why more equal societies are better for all of us. Finally, Thomas Piketty’s contribution Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013), gave a comprehensive critique regarding our desperately sick economic system. Online, there were countless documentaries highlighting the failings of capitalism and the people who were determined to keep this system in place, such as The Four Horseman, Inside Job, Plutocracy, Capitalism in Crisis among many others.

Politics also started to wake up to the shortcomings of capitalism, the US had Bernie Sanders and in the UK was Jeremy Corbyn. What do we hear about economic inequality now? Nothing, a deafening silence, zero. But this collective consciousness didn’t just naturally blow over, a concerted effort has been made to distract us from continuing the uprising that began following the financial collapse. When I was a personal trainer I used to say, “you can’t just cut something out it won’t work, you have to replace it with something else”. This is exactly what the ruling elite have done, people have been weened off talking about class politics and how neoliberalism has destroyed society, by replacing it with identity politics. A subject that purposefully creates deep societal fissures, while having little or no detrimental effects on the ruling classes.

One prime example regarding this shift of the political battleground from economic to identity is the Occupy Wall Street movement, which started 10 years ago in New York. At first this group was dismissed as a bunch of hippies, but it grew beyond that, attracting anti-capitalist writers and academics such as David Graeber and Chris Hedges. However, quickly rumours surfaced that this was a George Soros project (the eternal right wing bogeyman), supported by big labour and even the Democratic Party, designed not to other-throw the system, but merely to form a further outgrowth of the present system formed by Wall Street and the elites.

In truth, Occupy had some protracted processes such as the “peoples mic”, which resulted in every decision being a tedious drawn out exercise. Everyone’s voice at assemblies was heard and given the same credence regardless of how idiotic an idea may be, resulting in an incoherent mess. At about this time, identity politics started to make a profound impact on the left. Now class consciousness has almost evaporated from political discourse on the so called left. In fact, far from being on the left, I would argue that what we have in place is woke capitalism.

The ideology of wokeness largely believes that;

• Society is intrinsically racist/sexist/patriarchal and colonialist and must be destroyed in its present state.
• Inclusion and diversity of appearance is good, diversity of thought is not.
• Class politics is unimportant, and so is the 20th century.
• Wrong think must be punished, for which there will be no forgiveness.
• If you disagree with any of these thoughts you are a fascist, racist, white supremacist, Nazi.

These views are promoted by pseudo academics such as Ibrahim Kendi X, Robin DiAngelo and Reni Eddo-Lodge in the UK. However the big question is, how does a movement supported by a comparatively small minority possess so much power over corporations, academic institutions, the media, governments and the arts (such as Hollywood)? Especially one that has been on the fringes of political debate since the late 80’s, driven by people such as Kimberle Crenshaw and her theory of intersectionality. Crenshaw too is an elitist, a student of Cornell and Harvard, she went on to lecture at Columbia and UCLA. Not surprisingly, this theory suggests that our biggest problem is not economic disparity, but a war against certain races, genders or sexual orientation. Of course, this is hugely appealing and championed by liberal elites, thus maintaining the status quo.

Corporations, governments, Hollywood and universities can now claim the moral high-ground of identity politics by paying lip service, complete with rainbow logos and authoritarian legislation, for example hate speech laws. This appeases the baying middle class bourgeoisie incurring no ill effects for the elite, whilst maintaining a middle class buffer between them and the disgruntled working class. To future proof this, most of the mainstream media have promoted this new religion as a societal change for good, while many schools are indoctrinating the next generation with stories of systemic racism and industrial scale transphobia. Unsurprisingly, following the 2008 financial crisis, race based discourse in the media rose dramatically, with news outlets proclaiming racism to be at epidemic proportions across the west.

We need to recognise who it is at the forefront of this huge societal change. The answer, big banks, silicon valley, elite academic institutions and so called left leaning parties for example, the Democrats, the Liberals in Canada, plus the Labour Parties of Australia, UK and New Zealand. Even the right wing parties in the west are generally not pushing back hard enough against this perceived orthodoxy. Although, identity politics is not strongly supported by the majority of those within the working class, regardless of race, gender or sexuality. With this in mind, it feels safe to conclude that a class war continues to be waged by the elite and that identity politics is the weapon of mass distraction.

Over the last few decades the rich have got infinitely richer, yet government policies have done nothing to curb this. For the working class, jobs are generally shittier providing less workers rights and inadequate wages, while house prices by enlarge have spiraled out of control. Each year, more money and power is in the hands of fewer people, directly circumventing the democratic process. Currently 2,153 billionaires have more wealth than 4.6 billion people combined. The 8 richest men own more than the poorest 50% on the planet. The reality is, millions of people fail to obtain enough money for adequate shelter, while the rich often have hundreds of square metres of unoccupied housing just sitting there.

So with society catching on that neoliberalism has failed, what would be the perfect solution for the ruling elite to do in order to maintain control, without hurting themselves? The answer is, confuse the masses, while blinding them to what the real issues are. Rich people are not stupid, using the Critical Social Justice movement they can virtue signal their support for the group of their choice, thus, helping to keep society divided and others alienated, all the while appearing on the right side of history. From a business perspective it’s a savvy move, remaining on the side of people with power, from a moral perspective it is dire, however, we would be foolish to expect any corporation to be a beacon of all that is good.

Not surprisingly, governments across the west are doing a similar thing, but in their case the goal is to remain in power. It makes sense to support Critical Social Justice adherents, who are largely a collection of middle class goody goodies, pseudo academics, professional victims, narcissists and those who generally mean well, but want to be seen as doing the ‘right’ thing. Politically this is a good move, these groups make up quite a broad base of what is collectively called the professional and management classes, knowing many of which will actually get out and vote come election day.

Meanwhile, they can continue to punch down at the poor, the under-educated, the unemployed, the underemployed working class, who have been generally despised by the ruling elite since Thatcher, Reagan and even Roger Douglas here in New Zealand. It is a group although relatively large in number, has no discernible political or financial power, therefore, carrying the least threat to the status quo, provided they are kept in varying disparate groups. Despite this, the working class are not fooled into thinking identity trumps economic issues, purely because many witness what it’s like to have very little on a daily basis, directly affecting their lives.

In recent times distraction has been utilised by western powers in a variety of ways, Brexit in the UK, the rise of Trump in the US and identity politics across the entire ‘Anglosphere’. Identity politics has been instrumental in keeping ever rising economic inequality out of the media and consequently away from the public sphere. In the meantime, we continuously read tales of woe about how “hard done to” middle class, educated narcissists are, while working class people struggle to put food on the table or pay rent. Forgive me if I appear to not give a shit about these exceptionally first world issues, such as what pronouns people have decided to use this week and how the non use of them somehow invalidates their existence.

What we need to do is, shift the debate kicking and screaming back to economic inequality. Massive economic gaps affect education levels, crime rates, health and democracy, regardless of the identity of an individual. Therefore, policies based on this disparity would benefit those who are in most material need. All of these outcomes are real, tangible and measurable, plus supported by masses of research. Furthermore, narrowing the chasm between rich and poor would foster stronger communities, who would be better educated, healthier and more engaged in the democratic process, which is the very antithesis of what the ruling elite strive for. While identity fanatics argue over pronoun etiquette and same sex bathrooms on Twitter, the ruling elite continue to take more and more, including your right to free speech.

Class warfare: Crusher’s obesity slur, an attack on our poorest citizens.

In her latest bout of verbal diarrhoea, National Party leader Judith Collins appears to be playing to her support base, claiming obesity is a “personal choice”. Furthermore, she announced that there will be no government plan to tackle obesity in New Zealand if she becomes Prime Minister. Crusher emphatically declared that people needed to take personal responsibility for a situation that she considers entirely of their own making.

This callous rhetoric will be music to the ears of the affluent, self-obsessed big business types, supporters of small government and those who think the ‘free’ market has all the answers to our problems. These are the kind of people who boldly claim that any economic successes are due to their ability and hard work. All the while, conveniently ignoring that most financially successful people are often recipients of an excellent education, have good societal connections and receive a large chunk of luck (or cash) along the way.

What’s more disgusting about this recent tirade is, I strongly suspect Collins knows very well that obesity is a complex mix of biological, psychological and social issues. Alas, facts are presently of no concern to Collins as she continues in her attempt to awaken an vocal angry section of middle New Zealand, sick of both Jacinda Ardern’s compassion and perceived high taxes. An irate group who want Queen Judith at the helm, delivering ever vanishing taxes, miniscule public services, the ability to buy their 50th rental property without any financial penalties and the freedom to exploit others all in the name of profit.

Make no mistake, Judith’s outburst was directed at the poor and our most precarious in society. What’s undeniable is obesity has strong links to economic inequality, something which Collins would be sure to increase if ever elected. It has consistently been documented that countries with reduced economic inequality have less obesity. A factor that has been replicated in the US, between more and less equal states. When comparing nations using BMI as a measure in adults and income inequality, the US obesity rates are above 30%, while Japan a more economically egalitarian society sit around 2.5%. Sadly, similar patterns have been observed in children both internationally and between states of the US.

During Crusher’s ill informed rant, she simplistically boiled the whole issue down to calorie intake and personal responsibility. Although, it’s well worth acknowledging that calorie intake is notably higher in more unequal societies. However, calorie intake and exercise are only a part of the story, people with a long history of stress respond to food differently from people who are non-stressed. Stressed people deposit food around their body differently, primarily around the middle and lower abdomen, with those people being particularly vulnerable to obesity associated illnesses. Moreover, stress can contribute to an increase in food intake, while altering food choices, often consuming more fats and sugar. Collectively we know this as comfort eating, which we utilise as a way of coping with changes in our physiology when stressed.

Neoliberal parties such as National in New Zealand have helped to create a society that fosters uncertainty at the very basic level for many people. This includes, job insecurity, unaffordable housing or rent, unsustainable wages and a society where levels of participation are strongly linked to income. Life is undeniably more stressful for the poor, a view documented through Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs. A person who is unable to meet the very basic requirements is unlikely to flourish. Not only has the prevailing ideology of neoliberalism cultivated this type of society, National are hell bent on sustaining it, while sticking the boot in to the most vulnerable for their questionable coping strategies.

Judith Collins has made it abundantly clear in the run up to the election who her policies will benefit the most, which unsurprisingly is the rich and big business. ‘Profit over people’ is an often used slogan, but in this case it is a perfect fit. She is willing to sacrifice Labour’s reserve COVID fund to give temporary tax cuts that will mainly benefit the rich. Collins is also claiming to be on the side of farmers by scrapping regulations designed to protect the environment. This she offers will allow farmers to achieve better outcomes, most likely at the expense of the environment for future generations.

As the campaign has progressed Crusher has become ever more desperate, this week suggesting that Labour would implement the Green’s proposed wealth tax policy. As much as I would welcome such a plan, the idea here is to strike fear into the hearts of middle New Zealand. Her dog whistle allegations are devoid of any truth, but will have likely pricked up the ears of right wing, economically stable boomers, by calling it the “wealth envy tax”.

The choice is obvious, if you are a narcissistic, well off, self absorbed type, who believes all your success is the product of your own skill and hard work, crack on vote for Collins. If you have a fetish for stern matronly figures who have all the compassion of stage 4 bone cancer go ahead, put two ticks for National. Furthermore, if you believe that the more impoverished end of society have nothing but themselves to blame and that this is just a natural order of things, firstly you may be a psychopath and secondly Judith probably has everything you are looking for in a leader. However, if you are none of the above and have even the slightest regard for other people please stay away from National, they’re seriously bad for your health.

Socialist ideas in a post identity politics world: A road less travelled?

The left has a major problem. Currently it has two main paths; one that is based on traditional socialist values viewing economic inequality as the major problem facing society, the other, demands that inequality of identity is our most pressing concern. Although there is some crossover, most people will regard one narrative as more important than the other. Those who have read my previous articles will be aware that I regard economic disparity as one of the biggest problems the western world faces. Generally, because this has negative effects on health, education, crime and also how we treat one another. In a capitalist world where we primarily pay to play, members of the public who have less monetary resources simply cannot access the world in the same way as others.

To be clear, by this I do not mean access to high end experiences or goods and services. I am referring to obtaining basic needs that the majority of us get to enjoy without much thought. Whilst our poorest citizens end up with sub standard education, healthcare (especially in the US), food, transport, shelter, warmth and a shorter lifespan. They are also more likely to live in unsafe environments, have little in the way of support and struggle to find employment. Thus, this group is essentially excluded from society and unable to partake in what many would describe as everyday life. Poverty and hardship such as this transcends skin colour or gender, if you are poor in the west you are screwed.

The other increasingly common pathway focuses on identity, which opines that certain groups are oppressed simply by possessing an immutable trait, such as; race and gender. Groups are ranked according to their perceived oppression, while individual agency or general experiences gathered through life are not accounted for. This recent incarnation of primarily a postmodernist worldview proposes that white, able bodied, heterosexual, men are the most privileged of all, regardless of any personal circumstances. Thinking in such a way it could be suggested that a white man living on the streets for example is more privileged than a university educated, upper middle class black women. A conclusion such as this could only be reached purely by using a person’s assigned physical identity.

Despite this, I’m hopeful that out of the wreckage of 40 years of neoliberalism, which has destroyed society to the benefit of the few, plus the current culture war which is demolishing any remnants of community, a new kind of political sensibility will emerge. Ideally, one that focuses on democratic socialist economic principles while adopting a liberal approach to cultural issues. This would include the now unfashionable idea of valuing the individual, based on the content of their character rather than traits we can do little about. After all, human beings are far too complicated and wonderful to be evaluated in such a crude way.

In the late 1970 through to the 80’s Thatcher and Reagan ushered in the radical free market ideology called neoliberalism. This was quickly viewed as the only economically viable way of running a country. Forty years later, mainstream political parties from the right to centre-left completely embrace this once fringe idea as gospel. Now, a new chapter is being written in the west, as certain movements are attempting to indoctrinate the English speaking world into adopting an extreme form of Social Justice, driven by Critical Social Justice and Intersectional theories. Just like neoliberalism, this ideology has been percolating for decades prior to being unleashed into the mainstream.

Contrary to what’s described in the media, the left is by no means one cohesive and unified camp. As previously mentioned it now consists primarily of two distinct groups who have very little fundamental commonalities. In one corner there are “economic socialists”, largely considered as out of touch dinosaurs by the cultural left who lurk in the opposite corner. Who in turn, are often thought of by their detractors (including me) as; postmodernist, anti-science, “champagne socialists”, with no real interest in class struggle. Which is why I propose a split from the cultural left, in an effort to address economic issues that affect people from all cultures, rather than certain prioritised identity groups.

Plenty of people out there agree with the principle of reducing economic inequality for the good of the most amount of people. Furthermore, there are countless socialists who feel disenfranchised from the narrative of identity politics and believe humanity amounts to much more than our immutable traits. With this in mind, there is room for a movement that would reject neoliberalism as the principle economic orthodoxy, while advocating for increased economic equality. Additionally, current identity politics inspired by Critical Race Theory would be dismissed as the prevailing doctrine of social progress.

So what would this look like in practical terms? Firstly, I think Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs offers some clues as to what should be emphasised in any genuine pursuit of human advancement.

Loosely using a utilitarian model of thought, a primary focus would be to provide the most amount of people with a chance to flourish. With this in mind, basic needs towards the bottom of the pyramid concerning our essential requirements would have to be met as a matter of priority. If these are not addressed it is impossible to consistently fulfil needs found among the higher levels. This is why all people should have access to quality shelter, food, warmth, physical security, education, employment and healthcare to name a few factors.

Wealth redistribution can certainly be achieved by methods such as progressive taxes, but beyond this, ideas such as workers co-operatives should also be encouraged and rewarded. A resurgence of strong unions based on fighting not only for workers rights, but worthwhile pay and job satisfaction are required more than ever before. Admittedly, all this is difficult to sell to a population who have been indoctrinated by the “free market economy” ideology or those who have possibly gained from it. For the majority though, this system for decades has failed to deliver a sustained increase in our quality of life.

On the right, freedom is generally referred to as economic freedom. This is a very specific interpretation of the word, which in reality has only been achieved and enjoyed by a tiny minority. In the “anglosphere” wages have stagnated and have even began to decrease, especially since the early 2000’s. This has been reflected by incredibly slow financial growth among moderate and low income families. For the vast majority, stagnation has not been created by abstract economic trends, but by calculated political choices made on behalf of individuals with the most wealth and power.

An article by the Economic Policy Institute offered that US citizens in the broad middle classes would have been earning $18,000 more by 2007 if economic inequality had been zero since 1979. In the UK, it is estimated that real wages grew by about 2% between 1980 and 2000, followed by a slow down until 2007 and since 2008 real wages have decreased by 8-10%. All across the west it also noticeable that while productivity has increased dramatically (72.2% between 1979 and 2014 in the US), hourly wages have gone up by just 9.2% over this time.

It’s interesting to note that this clear disconnect between wages and productivity began in the late 1970’s early 80’s at a time when neoliberalism dominated the economic conversation. Further evidence highlights that during this period of rising inequality since 1979 the top 1% have seen their wages grow by 138%, while the bottom 90% have witnessed a modest 15% gain. The news is worse still for the working class and low wage workers, who have witnessed their wages reduced by 5%.

Many factors have been implicated regarding these disparities. First up, CEO’s are taking a larger share of the wages. In the US this ratio has increased from the CEO earning 22 times the average worker in 1974 to 296 times in 2012. Secondly, throughout the western world the minimum wage has lagged behind productivity and thirdly union membership has declined dramatically. This background information is purely to support the premise that economic inequality has grown substantially over 4 decades and these impacts are crucial to address if we want to move forward as a society.

Even a small reduction in economic inequality changes how people interact with each other, which has been proven to lead to more altruistic acts. Economically unequal societies have less participation in social and civic matters, including political activities such as voting. In addition to this, nations with larger economic disparities display a lower level of trust, which in turn is associated to a higher homicide rate and a decline in health. The mechanism behind this is based around the idea of social distancing, which is exacerbated by income inequality, leading to a decline of social capital, thus preventing strong relationships forming.

Trust plummets in more unequal societies and people start to want increasingly authoritarian leaders. Furthermore, in these types of countries people tend to believe that those at the top of the tree are more competent, while thinking competition between groups and individuals lead to the best outcomes. Finally, it is proposed that individuals in unequal societies are on the whole more disagreeable and less empathetic than people in more equal populations.

There is plenty evidence to suggest that reducing economic inequality doesn’t just positively affect most people from a physical perspective such as an increase of resources to partake fully in society, but would actually contribute to repairing many social fissures in the community, by focusing on what we have in common as human beings. This is in stark contrast to identity politics which sets out to fragment society into arbitrary groups based on things we cannot control. This ultimately will increase tribality within the population, allowing the ruling elite to continue securing all the spoils, while we fight among ourselves.

It’s not just neoliberalism that works against the plight of the working class, while destroying any form of solidarity, Critical Social Justice is equally as guilty. The primary purpose being, to unceremoniously split society into binaries, that of the oppressed and the oppressor. Inevitably, this leads to the so called oppressed groups fighting over the title of biggest victim. This has the effect of pitting group against group, distracting us from what is really important such as; climate change, health, crime, education, global armed conflict among many other topics.

To be truly on the left is to fight for universals such as; excellent education and healthcare for everyone on the planet. Our shared humanity is what binds us together, in as much as we endure pain, fragility, helplessness simply as part our human condition. There are 4.2 billion people in the world without sanitation and 2.2 billion without adequate clean drinking water, as well as genocide, torture and widespread violence all around the planet. But, Critical Race Theory or Intersectionality has very little interest in global inequality and offers nothing in the way of solutions.

We all acknowledge racism and prejudice exists, but here in the west we are living in some of the safest times in human history. This has been achieved by primarily socially liberal movements such as; the civil rights movement and second wave liberal feminism. It is clear that both universal liberalism and identity politics oppose social inequalities while seeking to remedy them, but each use substantially different approaches.

As opposed to identity politics, the liberal solution focuses on the individual and our shared humanity in order to attain a cohesive society, allowing everybody full access to rights, freedom and all the opportunities a society has to offer. Unlike identity politics universal liberalism is not a political position per se, but a philosophy founded on individuality, liberty, equal opportunities and universal human rights, which grew out of the Enlightenment.

It is worth pointing out that for decades these liberal ideals sat very comfortably on the left. Of course, this was until the arrival of the postmodern inspired Critical Social Justice Theory. Despite it’s persistent claim, Critical Social Justice is not in any way an extension of the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. In fact this ideology could be considered as the antithesis of civil rights, focusing on group dynamics and not the individual which was what the original movement was founded upon.

Whether this proposed blend of economic and social theories will take hold remains to be seen. What does seem apparent is the left’s adoption of Critical Social Justice Theory will continue to fragment and diminish the prospect of any left leaning governments across the western world. However, if we can implement the notion of respecting our fellow human as a unique person, by making sure all members of society are considered equally valuable, supported and given the best environment to flourish, maybe we can start to advance together. My hope is, that we can rediscover what binds us together, while respecting, appreciating and celebrating our differences.

Britain dutifully bows down to the ruling elite.

Congratulations to the people of ‘Great’ Britain for voting the ruling elite into power yet again. You certainly do know your place. Now they have a mandate to treat people with disdain and contempt, for the next five years. I always thought people in the US were dumb, but there is a new kid on the block vying for the title. How can a party offering no credible policies, with a history of inflicting misery on millions, with a leader who hides in a fridge when things get mildly difficult remain in power. I could glibly say you get what you deserve, but that would be grossly unfair to the millions who can see through this charade of thinly veiled fascism.

It would appear that many people from where I grew up in the north have had a lobotomy, believing all that the billionaire controlled media had to say pre-election, because surely they wouldn’t lie to the peasants. Would they? Or is it Brexit that swayed them? Now that you have your country back, so you say, is it suddenly going to become compulsory to sing “Ing…….err…….land” at nauseatingly high volumes while consuming copious amounts of beer? Is having a tattoo of a bulldog on your arse from the age of 10, going to be a new kind of branding?

Well done, you are now free, from what, I’m not entirely sure. The Conservatives will continue destroying workers rights at a frenzied pace. Expect full steam ahead with zero hour contracts, bogus self-employment, underemployment, all topped off with an ever eroding safety net. So when the walls come tumbling down following a job loss, nothing will exist to help you out of the mess. Well done, you must be very proud. “But we’ve got our country back”, you may cry. Have you, have you really?

The result would suggest that large portions of the populace have little capacity to critically think. “But we’ve got our country back” I hear once more. “But clearly not the NHS for much longer” I reply. I’m sure some will complain that I’m calling people stupid for their political beliefs. To clarify this, yes, that’s exactly what I am doing. If only some of these individuals could have put their crayons down or possibly read a book without pictures at least once in their lives, maybe things might have turned out differently.

In contrast to the US, where they were voting for change, regardless of what that looked like, it was ultimately a vote against the establishment, albeit misguided. Conversely, the UK have voted overwhelmingly for the establishment. I’m sure the Tories are delighted you all know your place in the societal pecking order. At the bottom, with a very expensive Oxford lace up shoe, made by peasants, kicking you repeatedly in the balls, while you ask for more. After 9 years of crippling cuts to public services, austerity, a decrease in wages and a health system which is about to be privatised, you still voted for a Conservative government. Amazing!!! But not in a good way.

Admittedly, the ruling elite’s propaganda machine has been running on all cylinders and it’s clearly worked like a dream. In contrast, vast swathes of people are about to enter a dystopian nightmare, orchestrated by people who just couldn’t care about you any less. Put a fork in the UK, it’s done! Scotland will rightly feck off into the sunset, as England will be led by a man who can barely form a coherent sentence. Supported by a cabinet who know nothing outside of their privileged, privately educated, corporate run universe from which they rarely venture out of.

You could have made it more difficult for the establishment, a glimmer of resistance protecting yourself from the bombardment of excrement raining down from billionaire penthouses would have been nice. Maybe more people could have searched behind the headlines of the Sun and the Mail to dig a little for the truth. Instead the population by in large responded to a hollow slogan, “Get Brexit Done”. At which point you ran in like a little puppy dog hoping your master would tickle your tummy. Instead of fighting for something better, you gave up, handing the nation to psychopaths, billionaires, millionaires and right wing ideologues.

The establishment will be laughing their collective cocks off, sat in their private London clubs drinking brandy and smoking cigars. Patting each other on their backs for getting the working class plebs to vote for the abstract construct of Brexit, over real issues such as; healthcare, education, public services and increasing poverty. The people of Leigh, Bolsover, Blyth Valley, and Durham among others should be disgusted with themselves, scoring an own goal of monumental proportions.

You had a chance to elect a decent man, who has fought for peace and fairness all his life, who wanted a better place for everyone. But you blew it Britain. Now you will have to live with the consequences, while explaining to your children and grandchildren what you did on that fateful day in December 2019. My sincere condolences for those who chose wisely, who could see behind the slurs and right wing bile. Good luck in the future, I suspect you will need it.

The Conservative party: For the rich, selfish and naïve.

If you are stinking rich and you don’t give a shit about anybody else, then the Tories is the perfect party for you. In short, they are a bunch of pompous, entitled, unempathic bastards, who I would suggest reflect a large proportion of the people who generally vote for them. You would have to be very well off and/or a self-obsessed moron to think voting for Boris Johnson would be the smart thing to do. As a disclaimer, if you are expecting to read something measured, balanced, with lashings of cold hard facts (although they do appear later on), look away now, as this piece will be unashamedly biased.

For the last few weeks I have tried to get into the minds of people, particularly the working class in an effort to discover why those who have very little would vote Tory. My basic advice at this stage would be to read some information regarding what each party is proposing. However, this is relatively simple to summarise, the Conservatives are offering zero and the Labour Party is attempting to make life better for as many people as possible. So put down the Sun or The Daily Mail spouting some bollocks or other about Corbyn being anti-Semitic and investigate what each party actually wants to achieve. What you should discover is unless you are a millionaire or billionaire, or possibly someone who is dealing with unresolved self hatred, voting Tory is not going to help your cause.

You may be angry about Brexit, your family could be lifelong Tory voters, you might even believe all that the Daily Mail has to offer, such as; Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser, an IRA member, an Anti-Semite, a Russian spy, a traitor or an evil road hogging cyclist. However, non of this rubbish is going to help you to make a rational decision on the 12th of December. All that this will ultimately uncover is that you have been duped by a multi billion pound propaganda machine, that will throw as much money at this election as required to maintain the status quo. You could erroneously be thinking that a Boris Johnson led Conservative Party is ideally suited to “Get Brexit Done” as their pithy slogan implies. My question would be, what have they being doing for the past 3 and a half years? After all, they are currently in government.

Jeremy on his mean machine

It’s abundantly obvious what the Tories have done, they have systematically run the country down by using the discredited theory of austerity to supposedly ‘balance the books’. Cunningly the middle class have been coerced into blaming the working class, as shown by their reaction to Brexit and their collective arrogance towards people who chose to leave. Meanwhile, Johnson and Farage have conned the working class into thinking the primary problem is those ‘bloody immigrants’ and that leaving the EU will solve all of their problems. The real culprits of course are the very people who have created this web of illusion and ultimately distraction. This consists of a powerful amalgam of corporate interests plus a right wing government with little concern regarding the wellbeing of its inhabitants.

The Tories has presided over nasty vindictive policies for almost a decade, chiefly designed to penalise the most vulnerable and powerless in society. I have provided a little taster regarding the effects of some of these policies. To start with, there is a general misconception that right wing parties are better for the economy, this is a shameless lie unless of course you are rich. Since 2010 the Conservatives have increased the national debt from £850bn to £2.27tn and counting. Across the country four million kids live in poverty, the number of rough sleepers has increased nationwide by 165% since 2010, while food bank use in the last 5 years is up 73%. Furthermore, the pound is worth approximately 15% less against both the Euro and the US dollar. Economic experts? Maybe not.

On observing employment or the lack of, the OECD calculates that there are about 3 million hidden unemployed people, which works out to be 13.2%. Shockingly, 10 million workers are in insecure employment such as; zero hours contracts, underemployment or false self-employment. Additionally, it’s estimated that 80% of the 5.3 million self-employed workers now live below the poverty line, with workers in general still £13 worse off than 2007. The Conservatives have also been guilty of utilising cruel benefit sanctions and millions have been left with no funds through the Universal Credit system.

In the public domain, government and council departments have been slashed by 25-30%, with half the councils close to bankruptcy. There are 20,600 less police officers, 7,000 fewer prison officers, plus 11,000 firefighters nationwide have been cut. The NHS has 43,000 unfilled nursing posts, which has been compounded by the abolishment of student nursing bursaries. There are also 10,000 fewer medical professionals and a loss of 5 million bed spaces per year. The NHS has persistently been the target of increased privatisation and this is expected to spiral following Brexit, as US corporations will be invited to pick over the carcass.

Sadly, I could ramble on for another ten paragraphs regarding callous Tory policies, but hopefully by now you get the point. The Conservatives are offering nothing that would benefit the vast majority of people, in fairness they have had 9 years to do something vaguely positive. I suppose in all honesty they have fulfilled plenty of their objectives for example, systematically destroying peoples lives up and down the country, at the same time as enriching those privileged few. With a victory this week, the Tories will steer more assuredly towards the far right, as the inappropriately named moderates have largely been cast aside. In affect, all the Tory government will provide under Johnson is further disdain, contempt and hatred of the working class.

Cabinet Ministers Liz Truss and Priti Patel described British workers as “the worst idlers in the world“. Dominic Raab has suggested that British employment legislation is a “straitjacket” for the economy. Good old Boris Johnson has previously advocated for charges within the NHS, while Dominic Raab and Michael Gove have both expressed their desire to privatise it. The Conservative’s unimaginative motto is “get Brexit done”, a win on Thursday and the misery will continue unabated, with basic human rights and environmental protections high on their hit list. So, if you happen to be working class and are thinking of voting for the Conservatives, it’s time to stop this masochistic behaviour and do yourself a favour by choosing Labour.

Mental illness and economic inequality: A compassionate case for an egalitarian society.

There are many contributing factors leading to a deterioration of one’s mental health; environmental, genetic and of course abuse in all its varying forms. Each of these elements can have a profound effect on someone’s psychological wellbeing. However, there is one particular aspect that is linked to practically all mental health conditions and that is poverty. More specifically, economic inequality or what can otherwise be termed as relative poverty.

A paper published in the Lancet Psychiatry by Dr Wagner Ribiero investigated the correlation between income inequality, mental health problems, the use of services and resilience. This inquiry was conducted via a systematic review and a meta analysis. What Ribeiro found was that widening economic inequality is associated with higher rates of mental health incidents, particularly with regards to depression and anxiety. Additional studies suggest that schizophrenia, narcissism and psychotic symptoms are also more common in unequal societies.

Furthermore, this proposed link appears to be more prevalent in English speaking countries, particularly in the US and the UK, which incidentally are two of the most unequal countries in the developed world. To put this into perspective, Sweden is considered a rich country, but displays markedly lower levels of economic inequality than the UK. Similarly to the UK, Sweden boasts a comprehensive health system, but contrastingly has substantially lower levels of social and mental health problems. Findings by Wilkinson and Pickett published in their book The Spirit Level similarly highlighted a disparity between the ‘anglosphere’ and mainland Europe with regards to mental health issues and economic inequality.

With this in mind, surely if we truly care about society as a whole and how our species can flourish, it makes complete sense to investigate this pathway in a little more detail. As previously mentioned, a key driver persistent throughout the research is that of economic inequality as opposed to absolute poverty. In a nutshell, impaired health and in this case mental health is less about being poor and more about feeling poor. It is proposed that relative poverty is related to perceptions of social failure and inferiority, in addition to social isolation, alienation and loneliness.

Notions such as these are exacerbated when living in societies that encourages people to incessantly compare themselves to much wealthier individuals. A practice which by no means is healthy, possessing all the qualities of a sadistic form of motivation and self-punishment. Without doubt, millions of people throughout the world have been subjected to this repeated questioning of the self in the form of advertisement campaigns, TV, magazines and social media.

One theory that attempts to explain the correlation between mental illness and relative poverty, centres around the brain’s dominance behavioural system (DBS). Processing information related to subordination and social dominance, this system is likely connected to a broad range of mental illnesses and personality disorders. It is purported that externalising disorders, mania proneness and narcissistic traits are related to heightened dominance motivation, particularly in individuals exhibiting dominant aggressive traits within this framework (see diagram below for details).

Conversely, in the book The Inner Level, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett suggests that anxiety and depression are linked to subordination and submissiveness. Anxiety in particular, is described as an emotion linked to a sense of powerlessness, social defeat, and a loss of control. Anxious people are regularly checking their social standing, fearful of humiliation and view themselves as possessing minimal power. Studies offer that individuals who display anxiety and depression are likely to hold feelings of shame and submission, while being prone to comparing themselves unfavourably to others.

A commonly held belief suggests that anxiety and stress levels rise as you climb the ladder, undertaking positions of leadership, thus, increasing demands and responsibility, however, this is incongruent to the bulk of the research. A Harvard University paper comparing cortisol levels (elevated when stressed) between leaders and non-leaders, reported lower levels among the former group. Further to this, a study which measured fibrinogen levels (a blood clotting factor which increases when under stress) with a group of UK civil servants discovered that levels were higher in both men and women, the further down the hierarchy they were.

Using a different approach, Dr Robert Sapolsky a neuroendocrinology  professor at Stanford University proposes a further explanation. Dr Sapolsky offers that relative poverty generates stress, which in turn produces an overactivity of hormones and neural responses, including the secretion of cortisol. The theory proposes that, surviving at the lower end of the socio-economic scale is associated with raised levels of stress. It is also well documented that elevated cortisol levels is a risk factor for depression, with relatively poor kids displaying higher levels than their richer peers.

High levels of glucocorticoids (of which cortisol is one) affects a part of the brain called the hippocampus, which is critical for memory and learning. Regular exposure to excessive glucocorticoids via stress impairs memory and learning by reducing the excitability in this area. In another portion of the brain called the amygdala, central to fear and anxiety, glucocorticoids increases in excitability, while expanding neuronal connections contributing to heightened responses.

Sapolski’s rationale offers one explanation as to why a condition such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder shrinks the size of the hippocampus, while expanding the amygdala. Furthermore, glucocorticoids can impact the mesolimbic dopamine system, responsible for reward, anticipation and motivation. This disruption predisposes individuals to anhedonia a component of depression, plus heightening the possibility of addiction. Anhedonia is generally described as a reduced ability to experience pleasure.

The pre-frontal cortex (PFC) is a region of the brain pivotal for long term planning, executive function and impulse control. An excess of glucocorticoids in the PFC results in poor decision making, primarily focusing on short-term gains. As mentioned, stress leads to raised levels of glucocorticoids, making it more difficult to choose long-term health over instant gratification. This process is considered to be a contributing factor as to why people with substantial levels of stress increase in weight, smoke and drink more than people with less stressors. Unsurprisingly, lower socio-economic standing can affect long-term decision making. When day to day living is proving difficult and life is seemingly so precarious, the future can suddenly appear less important.

Financial concerns resulting in a lower socio-economic status are generally exhausting, demoralising and distracting for the individual. Although some of these people may have more money than some people from developing countries, poverty in relation to the rest of society contributes to being despised, shamed and humiliated. As stated earlier, economic inequality automatically emphasises the importance placed on social status. In unequal societies, the dramatic disparities in income can make the rich appear as superior beings. There is also a tendency among capitalist countries to equate an individual’s wealth with their internal worth, thus compounding any negative self-perceptions for people who find themselves battling to make ends meet.

On top of all this, as status anxiety increases along with the inequality of a nation, these societies are also likely to feel less trust towards one another, falling from 60-65% who are trusting in the most egalitarian nations to about 20% in the most unequal. All this can contribute to a reduction in participation within society, for instance, being less likely to volunteer and partake in local activities. The consequences of this is often displayed through an increase of violence, combined with a lack of willingness to help each other out.

All of the above contribute to increasingly stressful social lives and social anxiety, as we worry about how we appear and perform in the world. Responses to this threat can be exhibited as defensive narcissism or alternatively through low self esteem and a lack of confidence. There are multiple reasons to assert that mental health and neoliberalism are not only interconnected, but the former is exploited by the latter. Raised social anxiety and narcissism directly feeds consumerism, which in turn provides a dopamine hit. Additionally, purchases and possessions can be used as a way of giving off a good impression, while attempting to create a sense of self worth. In sum, money becomes essential for many as a means of communicating our value as a person.

Citizens in unequal societies not only work longer hours, but save less and borrow more. In these nations debt rises in a desperate attempt to maintain appearances. Collective emotional vulnerabilities are seized upon by corporations and advertisers, callously using our fears for profit, confirming that status anxiety sells. Meanwhile, economic inequality negatively impacts our mental health, friendships, societal bonds and community life, all of which are integral for our general wellbeing. If somebody does not possess a sufficient income, full participation in society becomes practically impossible. Particularly in a world that prioritises GDP, while celebrating personal wealth and corporate gains over the wellbeing of our fellow human beings.

There are a variety of compelling arguments to suggest why we should reject neoliberalism, of which mental health is just one. This is especially pertinent when considering whether our current system really is the best we can do. Simply put, we could persist with our current dominant political ideology, whereby, a tiny group of people will continue to accrue the bulk of money and power, forever loading the dice in their favour. Or, we can challenge the status quo, constructing a society that works for the most amount of people as possible. Moreover, neoliberalism does not work in harmony with our beleaguered planet or indeed the vast majority of people who inhabit it.

Effective change must involve questioning all that is utilised to support the present doctrine; politics, media, education, the law and in particular how we do business. No area of society should be off limits when trying to imagine a better world for us all and future generations. This article was written to uncover the extent in which economic inequality contributes to mental distress and to ensure this too is added to a growing list of reasons why we should fight for a serious paradigm shift towards a more compassionate and fairer world.

Tackle the policies, not the man: Personal insults will not win back the working class.

The UK has recently acquired yet another upper class Etonian, much the same as David Cameron. A man who has no political principles or moral convictions, someone who will say anything to obtain and maintain power. This is a potential gift for Jeremy Corbyn and Labour if they play it right. Unfortunately, I predict this will be another opportunity lost. I suspect the left in the UK might just mimic the Democrats in the US resorting to name calling, hollow allegations and memes.

Already the signs are there, literally, with protests featuring placards with “not my Prime Minister” on them. This eerily reminds me of the bourgeois middle class in the US, who threw a collective tantrum after the defeat of corporate stooge Hilary Clinton in 2016. Rather than reflecting on why people are drawn to such characters as Trump, many in opposition lazily resorted to pointless ad hominem attacks and his alleged actions of the past.

This line of protest may well be considered a valid tactic on Twitter and Facebook, but is it really a pathway to changing the political landscape? I suggest not. Within minutes of any political disagreement on social media vast numbers of people regress to adolescence, often resorting to the petty ‘strategy’ of slinging personal insults at those who dare to disagree. When trying to unite a nation, in particular, attracting the working class back to their traditional parties, these methods only serve to polarise and harden opinion.

In the UK the left historically fought for the working class, but many now feel abandoned, even politically isolated, after decades of blue and later red neoliberalism. Subsequently, many people have voted for change regardless of the outcome. For a left leaning party such as Labour to enter government they need the working class, while the working class require a party or political movement to truly champion their cause.

Labelling whole swathes of a population racist, misogynistic, dumb or simply stupid, won’t endear them to you or promote healthy debate. Brexiteers and corporate Democrats, both who lost recent votes insist on suggesting they are the enlightened ones, while approaching life from an exceptionally myopic and rather advantaged perspective.

For those who struggle for money on a daily basis in areas such as the former industrial heartlands, there is still very much a class war going on, which incidentally they are spectacularly losing. This partly explains why citizens who are financially at the lower end of society in the western world have developed strange bed fellows such as, Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and to a certain extent Boris Johnson.

All of these characters are ridiculously privileged, having absolutely no affinity to the very people they pretend to support. Weirdly from the “Rust Belt” in the US to the former industrial north in the UK, right wing parties continue to attract working class voters. All this, despite the Republican’s and Conservative’s open declaration of support for corporations, the rich, low taxation and minimal funding of any state services.

Often the phrase “it’s like turkeys voting for Christmas” does the rounds during election time. This sadly, fails to ask the hard but obvious question…….why? Why are people content to vote against their best interests? Or more reflectively, what have the left done wrong to lose the very group that would benefit the most from traditional left values and when did this start.

A quick and admittedly slightly glib answer to the problem, particularly in the UK could be summed up with one word, Blair. In truth, many leaders of traditional left leaning parties have ignored the plight of the working class, while searching for voters among the middle classes. But Blair even stated in a speech to the centrist think tank Public Policy Research “I want to make you all middle class“, as if this was some sort of aspirational comment. By many, this was seen and with good cause, as an abandonment of the working class. The Labour Party membership not surprisingly dropped from approximately 405,000 in 1997 to 156,000 by 2009.

I’m sure some people who claim to be on the left may suggest that we don’t need the working class, especially those who voted for Brexit. I would argue, that ending neoliberalism, reducing economic inequality, working for a sustainable future, protecting our human rights are all more important issues than the side-show that is Brexit. All these aspirations are heavily dependent on engaging and winning over the working class who largely feel neglected by previous incarnations of so called progressive politics.

Memes inferring a likeness of Boris Johnson to Donald Trump and targeting his repeated gaffs aren’t going to help persuade people to move over and vote for Corbyn’s Labour, for example. We’ve seen the same tactic aimed at Trump in the US having little to no effect. Working class Trump voters often reply with, “but the economy is doing better and unemployment is down”. This is where people in the UK need to deviate from the US strategy by pushing back on the issues, while not focusing on Boris Johnson’s bumbling demeanour, dress sense or hairstyle.

However, if we look back at Trump and his supporters claims, just using GDP as one metric, growth under Trump is admittedly consistent, but Obama had even greater periods at times during his presidency. Regarding unemployment, this has consistently been on the decline since 2011, although primarily due to the rise of the gig economy and other precarious methods of employment. For the left in the UK, finding out why working class voters have switched to right wing parties and challenging their assertions, while offering well thought out answers is better than calling Conservative’s heartless bastards. As true as this may be, it does not help the debate.

One Bullingdon Club photo, two UK Prime Ministers

The UK is now on to its second upper class former Etonian and Bullingdon Club Prime Minister within 5 years of each other. If this photo isn’t an example of a failed democracy, I’m not sure what is. Johnson’s recently unveiled cabinet is equally disturbing, starting with Chancellor of Exchequer Sajid Javid. Despite his humble Rochdale roots, Javid is a former investment banker in the US, who can hardly be described as a man of the people. Next, the recently appointed Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab is even considered a right-winger among his own party. Raab studied at both Oxford and Cambridge University, just like most kids do (1% of the UK population graduate from Oxbridge).

Boris Johnson’s pick for home secretary is Priti Patel. Ms Patel is keen on the death penalty, but not so much on basic human rights. The daughter of Gujarati Indian parents who fled Uganda in the 1960’s, she seems desperate to kick the ladder away, advocating for stricter asylum rules and stronger enforcement of immigration laws. Along with the Prime Minister, this completes the line-up for the country’s top four political jobs, handed to those who have nothing in common with or any interest in the real world.

This is an ideal time to catapult an anti-neoliberal narrative into the minds of working class people. Although some people may not be convinced by Jeremy Corbyn (I’m not one of them), this a perfect opportunity for him. His main problem, however, continues to be elements within his own party who are determined to hamper any concerted effort to deliver discernible change.

Personally I see Jeremy Corbyn, as the first step, someone who can get the UK back on track. This involves moving away from a government that benefits the rich and idolises money, to a system that supports all of humanity. This progress could, therefore, be used as a springboard to promote further radical change in the future. Firstly Labour need to win their traditional base of support back, that of the working class and that will be a huge challenge.

 

 

Wealth over wellbeing: How neoliberalism stole our freedom.

Freedom, it’s a funny word and from a practical sense oddly illusive. I’m going to make the case that the meaning has been hijacked both figuratively and literally. In the early 2000’s George W Bush irritated me on a daily basis, when he justified the destruction of Iraq, as “defending our freedoms”. Not only was he was happy to go to war on a whim with his best mate Tony Blair without any supporting evidence, he also had the audacity to pluralise “freedom”. Surely, we do not have a multitude of “freedoms”, we either have “freedom”, contributions to freedom, degrees of freedom or even none at all, but I digress. So what is it, and does it actually exist in the western world?

Firstly, we need to define it. Mirriam Webster’s Dictionary states:

Freedom

1. The quality or state of being free: such as:

a) The absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.

b) Liberation from slavery or restraint or power of another: Independence.

c) The quality or state of being exempt or released from something onerous.

d) Unrestricted use.

e) Ease, facility.

f) The quality of being frank, open or outspoken.

g) Improper familiarity.

h) Boldness of conception or execution.

2.

a) A political right.

b) Franchise, privilege.

Evidently freedom can be described in a multitude of ways, however, throughout the Neoliberal world the notion of freedom is much more specific. In 1962 Milton Friedman, US economist and one of the primary proponents of neoliberalism (which was largely referred to as free market economics) published a book called “Capitalism and Freedom“. In this, one of his main ideas opined that, economic freedom must be a prerequisite for political freedom. This was a view supported by right wing/ libertarian thinkers and luminaries such as, Ludwig van Mises, Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek. Friedman argues that freedom should include economic freedom. This idea goes beyond simply proclaiming that individuals have a right to act freely in the market, but that the market itself should be free from government regulation.

Neoliberalism in theory, through economic freedom was alleged to allow autonomy and creativity to develop. What has occurred over time is practically all meaningful decisions boil down to money. Whether this involves shipping jobs off-shore to increase corporate profits, offering zero hour contracts or smashing the union’s ability to negotiate decent pay and workers rights, all resolutions are shaped by the bottom line. Government’s from the late 70’s in the UK, or early 80’s in the US and New Zealand started to operate in the same finance driven way. In New Zealand ‘reforms’ (code for cuts) were severe and brisk. Historically in NZ this period is referred to as Rogernomics, after the then Finance Minister Roger Douglas.

In typical neoliberal fashion, most state owned assets in New Zealand were sold off either partially or fully. Tax rates for high earners were massively reduced (66-33%), replaced by a regressive goods and services tax. Unemployment rose dramatically from 3.9% in 1985 to 10.7% by 1992. For Roger Douglas this was considered a triumph, as inflation dropped from 15.4% in 1985 to 6.4% by 1988. Douglas’s obsession with inflation was injected with steroids following the arrival of a National government in 1990, as levels of people out of work climbed to unprecedented levels. Compounding this misery, unemployment benefits were often reduced. The consensus of the time erroneously suggested that high payments reduced any incentive to work.

Using narrow metrics such as, inflation and national debt reduction, one could argue that this ideology, referred to by Naomi Klein as “shock doctrine” was a success. On the contrary, if we acknowledge that neoliberalism was purported to positively affect employment, income levels and economic growth, it’s clear that this was and is still an abject failure. In New Zealand the economy shrank by 1% between 1985 and 1992, contrasting with the average OECD country who saw growth of 20% over the same period. Poverty increased dramatically, with 1 in 6 people living below the poverty line in 1992. Even when employment eventually did improve it was primarily due to a huge rise in part-time work. During this time, unsurprisingly income inequality rose sharply as the nation’s richest citizens enjoyed the bulk of the gains.

New Zealand is just one example of the overall neoliberal social experiment. Of course, there have been similar stories all over the western world as people and their jobs were sacrificed in the name of profit. So the question must be asked, who’s freedom does this doctrine protect? It certainly wasn’t the miners in the UK during the 80’s or the forestry workers in New Zealand and it definitely isn’t the many homeless who live on the streets. While the wealthy continue to acquire greater freedom to become ever richer, many of the working class have lost or are losing their freedom in the form of dignity and autonomy due to a lack of employment or bullshit jobs. All this suggests that according to the neoliberal doctrine, unlimited freedom for the ruling elite, economic or otherwise clearly outstrips any humble needs required by the vast majority of its citizens.

The middle classes are another group tied to this perpetual neoliberal nightmare. Firstly, most of these people have sustainable enough work to allow them a veneer of freedom, obtaining suitable housing, food, education and other services. However, this group is only given the illusion of choice in the form of unlimited obtainable goods for which to purchase. This commodification of freedom is a powerful opiate in which to keep the middle classes occupied as they purchase more crap than they need, in order to fill a gaping hole in their meaningless empty lives. Another way to anaesthetise the middle classes is by proposing a differing form of equality, in the shape of identity politics. This divides people into ever increasing competing tribes, often based on gender, race and sexuality.

This type of political participation is well suited to the professional and middle classes. It offers a way of feeling virtuous, all the while providing a faint whiff of moral superiority. One now has a way of feeling righteous without pandering to those uncultured grubby working class types, who are often labelled racist, uneducated and sexist. In the 1990’s identity politics burst onto the scene, largely endorsed by the likes of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. Now it provides a standard blueprint for mainstream politics, allowing governments to adhere to unbridled capitalism while appeasing the masses. This political “sleight of hand” cunningly shifts any blame or guilt away from the rich and the middle classes back to the most powerless in society, namely the working class.

Identity politics also has the added bonus of providing the middle classes, who have less to worry about, a way feeling smugly principled in the comfort of their own suburban four bedroom detached house. This pious morality and elevated sense of superiority manifests in just about every Brexit debate ever witnessed online involving a Remainer. This politically insulated group have an incredible ability of failing to understand why anybody in their right mind would vote against the EU. Despite the fact that many working class families in locations such as; South Wales, the North and the Midlands have witnessed a catastrophic collapse of industry and by association the disappearance of skilled jobs from these areas.

The funny thing is, the real or old left have always cared about minorities, as it was felt these groups often made up the most precarious and vulnerable people in society. In this current political climate, however, the idea of considering yourself for example as colour-blind is in itself now considered racist. The game has dramatically changed, now groups compete for the title of most oppressed, seeking to eradicate racism and sexual discrimination, with further racism and sexual discrimination. Apparently, this time around it’s all OK, as we are told this is the good type of bigotry. With the ‘woke’ certain to be on “the right side of history” and thus delivered from evil.

In truth, the middle classes are only offered a limited bandwidth of freedom, that of the right to choose which new car to buy or maybe the colour of kitchen to install. In addition, they get to experience feelings of intellectual and moral dominance other those who have been systematically crapped on for roughly 40 years. As long they don’t look up and ask the big questions, such as, is there a better system than this, all will be hunky-dory on planet bourgeois. Freedom is an illusive beast, while the middle class have a slither of freedom, the working class generally have none.

So where is freedom’s natural habitat? Is it to be found in our democracy? Do we even have a democracy? If so, is it functioning? Furthermore, are democracy and freedom even compatible? I would like to suggest freedom is a not zero sum game, but quite often one person’s exercising of their rights can generally have an impact on other people, rather like “cause and affect”. Can we maximise the amount of people having access to freedom? What would be the human cost? To satisfy this, would our idea of freedom be compelled to change? So many questions, all lacking satisfactory answers.

As a thought experiment; consider a family who may exercise their freedom to buy a SUV to pick up their kids from school, plus embark on a couple of long haul holidays each year, purely because they feel they work hard and therefore deserve it. This in isolation could appear totally innocuous and reasonable. Over time, however, it may well be argued this would contribute to rising CO2 in our atmosphere (note the word contribute not cause), leading to sea level rises. Climate Change according to the data available will have a profound effect on atolls such as the Cook Islands, ironically a holiday destination. The rise of oceans will have a deeply detrimental affect on people such as the Cook Islanders, impacting their homes, food sources and their livelihood. So who’s freedom is more important?

In business Jeff Bezos has a right to make a bucket full of money to fulfil his idea of freedom, which incidentally amounted to over $150 billion until his recent divorce. Mr Bezos who presides over the Amazon retail empire, while accommodating his substantial financial appetite also has a reputation for treating his workers, who’s labour create his wealth, particularly badly. I’m sure some people reading this may declare that people don’t have to work for him and this is of course true. Sadly many communities have seen whole industries vanish due to neoliberalism and with little transferable skills many often have to grab whatever is available to feed their family.

What’s more, in a quest to rake in even more obscene amounts of cash, Jeff Bezos isn’t too fond of paying taxes and like many of the rich, he has the means to navigate around the tax laws. In addition, during Amazon’s early days there was a concerted effort to undercut any opposition with the express intention of eliminating all competition. In a neoliberal and indeed a libertarian universe this is considered fine and dandy. Through his pursuit of freedom (aka capital) Bezos has consequently left a trail of people who had their freedom trampled upon. This includes his workers dignity, who are expected to process 300 packages in an hour, at times urinating in bottles to reduce ‘idle time’. Or indeed, the freedom of small businesses to provide customers with choice and indeed a decent income for themselves.

If the system most of us reside in is chiefly concerned with money, implying that this leads to freedom, by that logic those with the biggest pile of dosh must obviously have the most freedom. I’m sure some people sympathetic to Mr Bezos will offer that his lack of tax payments fall well within current laws. But this legal leniency conveniently omits the glaring truth that the rich can lobby (bribe) political representatives to adjust or remove troublesome legislative roadblocks accordingly. On top of this, taxes enables society to function for the many who are reliant on the state for a wide range of services, such as; education, health and the implementation of the law.

Sickeningly, an overt use of money and power is routinely exercised during the US election cycle, undeniably with significant outcomes. For example, in the 2014 US midterm elections the biggest spenders generally won, this occurred 94% of the time in the House of Representatives and 82% in the senate. As Neil Diamond once sang in the song Forever in Blue Jeans, “money talks”. In stark contrast to the wealthy movers and shakers, the rest of the populous get to vote every 3 to 4 years or so nationally. This charade offers a modicum of democracy, despite that the overwhelming majority of real power lies in the hands of a few.

Each time these democratic extravaganzas (elections) arise it is made ever more difficult to take part. This is particularly true in the US and to some extent the UK. For many it is difficult to build up the enthusiasm in order to exercise our fleeting democratic rights. Realistically, we get to vote for someone who has nothing in common with most normal folk, often with no interest in them (apart from their vote) and who generally doesn’t represent the ideas or principles of the people. Furthermore, voting restrictions in the US, such as ID legislation has created more barriers to this alleged democracy. This travesty is currently taking place in a country which reported a 55% voter turnout in 2016.

Specific ID requirements are also being pushed by the Conservative government in UK. It’s worth noting that the parties supporting these types of policies are right wing entities, in the form of the Tories and the Republican’s. It is strongly suggested that these restrictions disproportionately affect some of the most marginalised people in society. Groups such as the homeless, older voters and others from minority backgrounds are less likely to possess the forms of ID accepted though these changes.

Freedom appears to be very much a one way street. What we have is, neoliberal parties intent on erecting obstacles preventing certain sections of the community, who are often sympathetic to left wing ideas a chance to vote. Predictably, both right wing tribes in the UK and the US have stated that these proposed measures are intended to prevent voter fraud, which incidentally is negligible on either side of the pond. This a typical tactic, whereby a solution is created for a problem that doesn’t exist, which usually possesses another often darker purpose

So, answering the questions above; do we have freedom in the western world? Clearly this depends on your interpretation of freedom. Using a neoliberal definition, most of us only have a limited amount of freedom, with many of our fellow citizens being excluded from participating in society at a very basic level. The bourgeois middle class and even most individuals in the upper echelon, only have freedom primarily with regards to consumer choice, with some possible minor political clout.

However, this group is still wedded to a system that prevents many from dispensing with their meaningless jobs to pursue more worthwhile and satisfying endeavours. Undoubtedly this bunch are in a bind. By renouncing their comfortable and for some, well paying dreary existences, this could result in decreased consumer freedom and economic status. Conversely, this type of rejection of the status quo may well lead to a new psychological flexibility, devoid of this maniacal pursuit of status.

Referring to an earlier thought; do we live in a democracy? It’s worth pointing out that neither of the last two UK Prime Ministers, Theresa May and the newly crowned Boris Johnson were voted in by the nation’s populous. In contrast both were selected via a tiny section of Conservative party supporters with a distinctly myopic perception of the world. This route is also popular in Australia, where inner party coups, resignations and early retirements have recently been the norm when choosing a new Prime Minister. Judging by this current trend of handing over the baton of power at the very top level thereby bypassing the general population, I would offer that the future of democracy is shaky at best.

The merging of the state and powerful corporations renders the voice of the many effectively irrelevant. Claims of a democracy are devoid of any substance, while freedom is only permitted within the narrow parameters of a neoliberal framework. This unholy alliance between business and government is where the true power lies. Meanwhile,  each citizen has the privilege of choosing between different flavours of the same product every few years. Is democracy synonymous with freedom? If what we have is a democracy, then the answer surely must be no. Although, if we can cultivate a society where direct democracy is available on every conceivable level of society, then maybe freedom still has a chance.

Under this more numerically inclusive vision of freedom, Billionaires such as the Koch brothers could conceivably argue that their freedom to wreck the planet while making a truck load of cash would be inhibited. Here lies the problem, if someone pursues self-determination to the nth degree, another’s freedom possibly set at a more modest or basic level will unquestionably be in jeopardy. Maybe as an alternative we should take a utilitarian approach, in other words, endeavouring to secure freedom at a humanitarian level for the most amount of people first.

In this spirit, the optimal outcome would be to ensure; food, shelter, warmth, education, healthcare, security, an equal say in societal decisions and other many tools enabling people to flourish in life. Not everyone can obtain the highest level of freedom that they desire at the same time. Therefore, an individual’s quest for unlimited levels of autonomy must be tempered and prioritised to ensure all members of society have a base level of freedom providing all an opportunity to engage in society.

 

 

 

 

Antifa: friend or foe?

I’ll nail my colours to the mast right from the start. I am primarily a Libertarian/ Democratic Socialist, mainly in tune with the works of Rosa Luxemburg and Mikhail Bakunin. I certainly agree with a more civil path to implement change. You could say a peaceful revolution, and no that isn’t an oxymoron. I strongly suggest that we must have direct democracy on every conceivable level. The class struggle and the fight against suffocating economic inequality is vitally important.

We need a message and a reason to bring people together, such as the quest to end neoliberalism and grotesque inequality. For me this makes sense, as someone who also has a strong utilitarian streak, this would have a positive affect on the most amount of people, regardless of their identity. This is why I reject identity politics, because it fragments society and counters discrimination with more discrimination. So the question is, does Antifa who claim to fight fascism, represent me, the majority of the left and the working class?

The simple answer is no. Violence rarely solves anything and cannot create a stable platform for long term democracy. On both sides of the political spectrum, something that has been created on the back of hostility generally requires strong arm tactics to maintain it. This has been witnessed in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Chile, Argentina and Palestine. If your starting point is violence it can only escalate in a desperate attempt to keep control.

So who are Antifa? This is essentially a difficult question to answer, because it is generally used as an umbrella term. Plus they’re a fairly secretive bunch. On the whole Antifa have claimed the moral high-ground and yet they attack people who offer no physical threat to them, only a difference of opinion. When I looked on the Portland Oregon Antifa group, called Rose City Antifa, I saw a malleable use of language and an abundance of double standards. Even by their own admission, fascism is difficult to define. So let me help them out, because it surely must be difficult to fight something you can’t define. Here’s Merriam Webster’s crack at it;

Definition of Fascism

1. Often capitalised: a political theory, movement, or regime (such as that of Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralised autocratic government, headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation and forcible suppression of opposition.
2. A tendency or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality – J.W Aldridge

In contrast, Antifa’s FAQ’s page makes for exceptionally opaque reading regarding a definition of fascism. It is wordy and yet doesn’t actually say a great deal. The term fascism has been broadened to the point of being a meaningless catch all term. In effect fascism seems to be, whatever they choose it to be. If you ignore their ideology and focus on their actions you could be forgiven for thinking they are describing themselves. The “FAQ’s” section is littered with hypocrisy and inaccuracies, which are clearly used to justify their warped existence.

As an example, they offer that fascists are hostile towards Enlightenment values, which is hard to argue against, however, many of the issues Antifa fight for are antithetical to these very values they claim to defend. The Philly Antifa group offer that they defend trans rights, which is fine, but much of the trans argument is not based on the values of the Enlightenment, such as; science, logic and objectivity. In fact, the very nature of self identification is subjective and not grounded in any scientific rigour, such as the notion that sex and gender is on a spectrum. These ideas share more common ground with Postmodernism, which incidentally strongly opposes the Enlightenment.

There is no argument that Mussolini was a fascist, so too was Pinochet, General Videla could also claim the mantle of a full blooded fascist. A man who headed the Junta in Argentina, who among other generals oversaw the disappearance of 30,000 people between 1976 and 1983. But these are not the sort of characters Antifa are targeting. In contrast Antifa’s victims fail to occupy the same lofty and frightening fascist credentials of the men mentioned above.

Their recent assault on photojournalist and Quillette Editor Andy Ngo would seem to support the suggestion that this is less about halting fascism and more about preventing any dissenting voices to emerge. Without doubt Ngo has been a vociferous critic of Antifa, but quite clearly posed no physical threat to them whatsoever. For his troubles, he received punches to the face, had his equipment stolen and a milkshake thrown on him (which seems to be the trendy tactic of identarians these days). In the end, this cowardice attack landed Ngo in the emergency room with head injuries.

On the Rose City Antifa website, these ‘moral guardians’ claim to do battle against xenophobia, racism and homophobia and yet Andy Ngo is a gay, Vietnamese man. It would appear Mr Ngo is the wrong kind of homosexual son of immigrant’s. All this strongly infers Antifa’s moral claims are flimsy at best and more likely blatant lies in an effort to legitimise their violent actions. I fail to be convinced that Antifa possess any principled convictions, only a childish desperation to get their own way, like a petulant child.

Antifa is claimed by the right wing media to be made up of Marxists, Communists, Stalinists and any other ‘ist’ they can possibly dream up on Fox News. This is all done generally without any knowledge of what Marx even wrote about. This group I would hazard a guess, would be happy to be connected with such ideologies, feeling it would add some form of credence to their misguided cause. Both sides appear content with these convenient labels and so the idea of Antifa being on the far-left has stuck. However, when we dig a little into a couple of Antifa’s webpages, the idea of a proletarian Antifa carrying the fight to fascists and the bourgeois doesn’t ring true.

On the Philly Antifa site, their front page suggests they “are in direct conflict with Racism, Homophobia, Sexism, Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Transphobia, and all other flavours of Fascism”. Firstly, if you direct you gaze back to the definition of fascism, most of these issues, although distasteful, uncivil, and surely scary if on the receiving end of such bigotry, are not directly connected to fascism. Secondly, on any of the Antifa sites I’ve browsed their is no mention of fighting for the working class, securing workers control and abolishing capitalism. This is an important point, as this crucially was Marx’s main thrust.

Marx’s primary work (unsurprisingly called Capital) consisted of critiquing capitalism to the nth degree. However, confusingly for a supposed leftist group there is no sign of a counter narrative calling for a push against capitalism on their sites. Undoubtedly, according to the content of their websites this appears to stir little interest among the ranks of Antifa. In fact their main objectives could be considered centrist/3rd way goals, as championed by Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and Justin Trudeau in Canada. Obviously these areas that they mention as their core issues, are unsavoury and it would be great if we could live in a world where discrimination of any sort wasn’t a factor, but equally these views do not constitute fascism.

Trudeau virtue signalling

Third way politics headed by people like Tony Blair presented identity politics as a way to combat societal views considered unacceptable in his idea of a utopian world, while deflecting the populous away from the fact he was a neoliberal disciple. Democrats and Labour Parties around the world suddenly found themselves with a new enemy to rally against. Primarily anyone who didn’t think the same way as them. Meanwhile, the likes of Blair and Clinton continued to deregulate the financial sector with little resistance. This neoliberal blueprint has since been handed down to successive Prime Minister’s and President’s. During this time, the disenfranchised working class have been labelled public enemy number one, for not subserviently going along with this masterplan.

It is apparent that Antifa has more in common with the corporatist status quo, than they would care to admit. Incidentally, they only seem to have resurfaced since the arrival of Donald Trump. This is significant, because many workings of the government have changed little since Obama’s departure. For example the US have continued with their usual aggressive foreign policy. Of course, Trump is a narcissistic, sexist, bigoted idiot, who has no moral integrity, uttering anything so that he can maintain power. However, Antifa are more concerned with this loud mouthed political puppet, rather than the government machinery that continues to perpetuate massive inequality, climate change inaction and endless bombings of sovereign nations.

I have a very strong suspicion that Antifa are comprised of middle class, relatively well educated, financially comfortable, identarians and are the attack dogs of the liberal elite. This political class have recently been rejected by the working class, in the form of Brexit and the election of Trump. With many people voting against both Hilary Clinton and the chance to remain in the EU. This maligned group are now used as a conduit for hate, therefore, a seemingly appropriate target for these masked thugs. Cunningly, conflicting or opposing worldviews have been rebranded as hate speech, providing a justification for such violence.

This slide from a differing point of view, to suddenly branding an opinion as hate is known as concept creep, where definitions broaden and behaviour that is less extreme is suddenly considered dangerous, such as ‘problematic’ opinions. It’s this very idea that supports the notion that “words are violence“, leading to punishment, which includes no platforming, censorship or violence. This is then passed off as a valid response and classified as a form of self-defence.

Far from being defenders of the free world Antifa are authoritarian and these self-proclaimed arbiters of morality silence all murmurings of dissent in any way they see fit. This includes the shutting down of free speech, peacefully or otherwise. On the Rose City website this group admits that it is no fan of free speech, describing it as “not applicable”. They would also prefer the state to take a back seat when tackling far-right views or fascism, so that these vigilantes can directly confront transgressors. This is worrying as Antifa clearly have no idea what fascism is, making fighting it I would imagine, pretty tough going.

Equally disturbing, is the leeway mainstream media grants this group, playing down or at times openly supporting their actions. This should be seen as a red flag, signalling that this is not an anarchic left wing group, but a violent wing of the liberal elite, emboldened by selective mainstream journalism. The media regularly appear very keen to report that Antifa has a long storied history, all in an attempt to add a shred of legitimacy or decency to their questionable cause. This again is an effort to silence detractors, implying that if you are against Antifa you must be in support of fascists. Joe Rogan recently described them as middle class, privileged kids doing cos-play. I think they are slightly more dangerous than that, primarily because they hunt in packs and pick soft targets.

Does Antifa speak or act for me as a self proclaimed member of the left? Absolutely not. Do they support and protect the working class, the traditional core of the left? Not even in the slightest. They are defending the capitalist status quo, under the pretence of activism. Antifa are bourgeois, middle class, privileged thugs and bullies. They are more outraged by regrettable but relatively isolated incidents of racism or sexism than a system that has created a despicable level of inequality. This political ideology of neoliberalism is strongly connected to poor health, rising crime rates, sub-par education, a planet that is collapsing from over consumption and a precession of never ending wars.

Antifa has a myopic moral perspective, protecting dubious theories such as intersectionalism. They preach an authoritarian, puritanical, doctrine that has a religious quality to it, demanding full obedience at all times. As a group they fail on every conceivable level to protect and support the working class, the homeless and the powerless. All the while, endeavouring to do everything within their power to control how we act, what we say and how we think.

“How the left was won”. The planned demise of a working class movement.

The left as it was once known is withering away. Of course there are pockets of resistance, the much maligned Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters being a prime example. There are certain politicians who show signs of leftist principles based on the pursuance of economic equality, who then feel the need to balance it up, succumbing to the pressure of identity politics. This is principally because many of the identarian left also make up the rank and file of Bernie Sanders (US), Jeremy Corbyn (UK) and Jacinda Ardern’s (NZ) supporters. To ignore them would be committing political suicide, in a world where winning is paramount to implementing any sort of change within the ‘democratic system’.

This erosion of the economic left has occurred from many directions, from within and indeed externally of the leftist citadel. In the mid to late 70’s Keynesian social democratic policies were running out of steam and so entered Thatcher in 1979, with an individualistic ideology known as neoliberalism. This is a brutal system of capitalism that had been waiting in the wings for the day Keynesian economics eventually spluttered and finally collapsed. Thatcher began an overt attack on the working class, that still persists today, as she laid to waste any remaining industries, selling them off at an alarming rate, for the rich and middle classes to benefit from.

The ‘Iron Lady’ made no attempt to hide her disdain for any semblance of a community, as the UK miners can attest to. The UK and also New Zealand a little later from 1984 entered a rabid world of competition and consumption, where more was better and if you didn’t succeed, you only had yourself to blame. Sadly today, this attitude is considered the societal norm across much of the world, where people fight for whatever metaphorical scraps are left on the table. Neoliberalism for many is the only political system they have ever known. With this in mind it’s not surprising the left with a more collectivist, traditionally compassionate perspective struggles to gain traction among the wolves of capitalism.

It makes sense that right wing policies from the Conservatives, Republican’s and National would attempt to manipulate the working class to gain more profit for their mates, but these attacks also occurred from inside “camp lefty”. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair made it clear that they were switching targets in the 90’s, coveting the middle class vote. While the relaxing of financial restrictions, such as Glass Steagall in the US echoed these sentiments. In the UK, Brown and Blair allowed the banks ever more leeway, contributing to the financial crash of 2008.

To appease their newly found middle class and professional class voters, these disciples of the “third way” focused on social justice concessions. This fight for rights for minorities was music to middle class ears, who had little money worries, just everyday dilemmas such as; where to go on holiday that year, or whether to build a summer house or install a new kitchen. Meanwhile, industry after industry was decimated and areas such as the North, the Midlands and South Wales, became one huge call centre, up until these jobs were inevitably shipped off shore, leading to even more unemployment

Now in the UK, the gig economy (bullshit jobs to you and me) account for 4.7 million workers, doubling in just three years. These jobs possess sparse workers rights, no paid holidays, little security and often requires employees to take on two jobs to cover the bills. This is not a basis for a secure society, but the disparity between the haves and have nots can be witnessed in voting habits. Starting with Blair and Clinton, these traditional working class parties gave up on the very people they were supposed to represent, in search of a less grimy class of voter. This societal neglect has since been returned with interest by the working class, in the form of Brexit and the election of Trump.

The middle class and lefty elite’s reactions on both sides of the pond, was to blame the very people who been shafted for decades, calling them xenophobic, racist or just plain dumb. I’m sure victim blaming is a massive taboo among the identarian left, but alas, maybe they are just the wrong kind of victim. In centrist, middle class land, the gender wage gap (which is a dubious statistic at best) and the crusade to get an even 50% of men and women in all high powered jobs, seems to be on the forefront of the identarian mind. Often they are people who come from very comfortable backgrounds, have attended university, possess very little life experiences, but insist on taking the moral high ground, but chiefly only on issues that directly concern them.

Maybe, just maybe there isn’t enough women who want to be CEO’s in top corporations to make up the 50% quota, or even MP’s or engineers for that matter. Lets be honest, who would blame them, CEO’s are often “Alpha Male” narcissists, who put their life and family on hold, working 80 hours a week for the sake of financial success, both theirs and the company’s. Incidentally, I have never seen identarians protesting to make up 50% of oil rig workers or other dangerous jobs. It also becomes eerily silent when highlighting areas women dominate, such as education (60% are of university graduates are women), new graduate medical students, psychology and publishing.

I am using this as an example to show the disconnect regarding the priorities of middle class, bourgeois, educated, professionals and the working class. Who’s main preoccupations are centred around feeding the kids, paying the bills, debts and getting decent work. If we look at “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs“, many working class people are desperately trying to get out of “Maslow’s Cellar”. While the champagne identarian pretend socialists are focused on growth needs, self-actualisation and trying get into the penthouse. To the centrist middle classes (who often classify themselves as left), the working class are an eyesore, an inconvenience and an enemy of civility. Personally, I would describe them as being crapped on from a great height, repeatedly for 4 decades and who are increasingly desperate for change.

The problem is, the working class have little representation. Most unions are toothless and throughout the western world working class MP’s are as rare as “rocking horse shit”. In the 1920’s 70% of Labour MP’s in the UK came from working class backgrounds. Since the 1980’s this has plummeted to today’s figure of just 8%. The powerless clearly lack any representation from people who can actually enact change. We are now awash with career MP’s, who are more interested in keeping their positions, with little experience outside of the political bubble. This is significant, in a recent study it was shown that working class MP’s have much more interest in welfare policies than careerists. In contrast these professional politicians are increasingly likely to adopt policies for political or strategic reasons in order to win over swing voters and ultimately elections.

None of this is set to change, as the working class will continue to be marginalised, silenced and underrepresented. In all likelihood this group will continue to avoid traditional left leaning parties such as Labour and its ilk. Despite Jeremy Corbyn’s hard work in this area, many people from the working class still consider Labour and the Democrats, as not representative of their values and concerns. The legacies of both Clinton and Blair are of course huge reasons for their warranted mistrust. I will conclude by suggesting that this has been a purposeful act by the right wing, the centrists, the media and the identarian left in order to quash working class concerns, while elevating their own self-serving agendas.