How equal? How radical?

It shouldn't surprise me, but it does. This excerpt from the Education Secretary Michael Gove's speech to Brighton College does make me wonder what has happened to the working classes, who flooded into public life after WW2. They've even been kicked out of their own institutions by the upper middle classes, who then claim to speak on their behalf.

It's not just the Socialist Worker's Party that's a sham then.


Excerpt:
"It is remarkable how many of the positions of wealth, influence, celebrity and power in our society are held by individuals who were privately educated.

Around the Cabinet table – a majority – including myself – were privately educated.

Around the Shadow Cabinet table the Deputy Leader, the Shadow Chancellor, the Shadow Business Secretary, the Shadow Olympics Secretary, the Shadow Welsh Secretary and the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development were all educated at independent schools.
On the bench of our supreme court, in the precincts of the bar, in our medical schools and university science faculties, at the helm of FTSE 100 companies
and in the boardrooms of our banks, independent schools are – how can I best put this – handsomely represented.

You might hear some argue that these peaks have been scaled by older alumni of our great independent schools – and things have changed for younger generations.

But I fear that is not so.

Take sport – where by definition the biggest names are in their teens, twenties and thirties.

As Ed Smith, the Tonbridge-educated former England player, and current Times journalist, points out in his wonderful new book “Luck”:
Twenty-five years ago, of the 13 players who represented England on a tour of Pakistan, only one had been to a private school. In contrast, over two thirds of the current team are privately educated. You’re 20 times more likely to go on and play for England if you go to private school rather than state school.

The composition of the England rugby union team and the British Olympic team reveal the same trend.
Of those members of England’s first 15 born in England, more than half were privately educated.

And again, half the UK’s gold medallists at the last Olympics were privately educated, compared with seven per cent of the population.

It’s not just in sport that the new young stars all have old school ties.

It’s in Hollywood, Broadway and on our TV screens.

Hugh Laurie, Dominic West, Damian Lewis, Tom Hiddleston and Eddie Redmayne – all old Etonians.

One almost feels sorry for Benedict Cumberbatch – a lowly Harrovian – and Dan Stevens – heir to Downton Abbey and old boy of Tonbridge – is practically a street urchin in comparison.

If acting is increasingly a stage for public school talent one might have thought that at least comedy or music would be an alternative platform for outsiders.

But then –

Armando Iannucci, David Baddiel, Michael McIntyre, Jack Whitehall, Miles Jupp, Armstrong from Armstrong and Miller and Mitchell from Mitchell and Webb were all privately educated.

2010’s Mercury Music Prize was a battle between privately educated Laura Marling and privately-educated Marcus Mumford.

And from Chris Martin of Coldplay to Tom Chaplin of Keane – popular music is populated by public school boys.

Indeed when Keane were playing last Sunday on the Andrew Marr show everyone in that studio – the band, the presenter and the other guests – Lib Dem peer Matthew Oakeshott, Radio 3 Presenter Clemency Burton-Hill and Sarah Sands, editor of the London Evening Standard - were all privately educated.

Indeed it’s in the media that the public school stranglehold is strongest.
The Chairman of the BBC and its Director-General are public school boys.

And it’s not just the Evening Standard which has a privately-educated editor.

My old paper The Times is edited by an old boy of St Pauls and its sister paper the Sunday Times by an old Bedfordian.

The new editor of the Mail on Sunday is an old Etonian, the editor of the Financial Times is an old Alleynian and the editor of the Guardian is an Old Cranleighan.

Indeed the Guardian has been edited by privately educated men for the last 60 years…

But then many of our most prominent contemporary radical and activist writers are also privately educated.

George Monbiot of the Guardian was at Stowe, Seumas Milne of the Guardian was at Winchester and perhaps the most radical new voice of all --Laurie Penny of the Independent – was educated here at Brighton College."

This State is mine

"Everyone, atheists, Christian conservatives, feminists, Islamists, even, yes, many gays and lesbians, seems to want to remake society in their own image, without regard for anyone elses thoughts or beliefs. We think only of ourselves and our own little groups. A little consideration for the other people we share this country with would go a long way."

Comment on American Conservative by Geoff Guth.

Moral Relativism

I confess that I had some trouble understanding this concept at first. It's not a term used often in UK political debates, though it crops up frequently in US debates in the 'culture wars', usually as an attack on the left, from the right wing of politics, and especially the 'religious right'.

As far as I can see, moral relativism can be linked to the Utilitarian strand of Liberalism, which states that the best way to be is that which benefits the majority, or which is accepted in some way by the majority. All very democratic, as befits the work of John Stuart Mill, who helped popularise Utilitarianism. It means that, in essence, there is no absolute right value. If the majority accepts one value, then it is right. Should the majority change their mind, then so be it, the old value is now wrong and the new value is now right. What matters is not what is right, but what works. It's a philosophy that actually eschews values, or rather, denies that they are set in stone for all time. It says, let the people choose, then go with the flow.

This differs from, say, the moral absolutism of a religion, which declares what is right and what is wrong according to its creed, not according to what the people want. If the people disagree, then they must be converted.

In the Chick-fil-A furore recently, the CEO of the company, in an interview, declared that same-sex marriage was wrong, because of his Christian beliefs. This is moral absolutism. It says same-sex marriage is wrong, regardless of whether it is practised happily in other cultures, or whatever. It is considered wrong, and there is no negotiation possible on the position, even if the same-sex couple are not Christians themselves. It would be wrong anywhere in the world - anywhere in the universe, in fact.

The same stance of moral absolutism is taken by those who criticised the CEO for daring to declare this belief, and who protested against it by boycotting Chick-fil-A and holding protests outside their restaurants. To the protesters, any declaration against same-sex marriage is wrong, and non-negotiable. The fact that it's a long standing Christian doctrine is not accepted as a mitigating factor. The fact that many in the US agree with the stance is not accepted either. It's wrong, and that's that.

Both stances of moral absolutism are examples of intolerance and illiberalism. Both stances are also supportive of monoculturism - with their own culture dominant - rather than multiculturism.

They are also examples of how religions, and civic religions, are formed. All that is required is a set of ideals, and the power to enforce those ideals, with the opposition being soundly defeated.

The 'culture war' is not about relativism versus absolutism. It is a civil war between two diametrically opposed forms of absolutism.

Traditions

"...traditions are never defended. If they need to be defended, the cause is already lost. Traditions are supported and, if they’re no longer supported, collapse."

Comment by bjk on The American Conservative.

It's all about me

Apparently there was once a book published, entitled Everything That Men Know About Women.

Every page was blank.

Ho, ho, ho.

Of course, as a stunt, a book entitled Everything That Women Know About Men would be too expensive to produce.

Every page would be a mirror.

Syria

It's the truth, man.

What is happening in Syria? Has civil war broken out between the ethnic and religious factions that make up the country, with some factions allying with others, and all trying to gain control of the country? Are Saudi Arabia and Qatar pouring money and arms towards their chosen factions? Is Turkey supplying, and giving safe haven, to one of the factions? Is the UN, under the guise of promoting peace, pushing for resolutions that, coincidentally, favour the factions chosen by the West? Are Jihadi fighters - Sunni mercenaries basically - pouring into Syria from Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq? Is the most powerful country in the world, along with opportunistic allies, trying to destabilise Syria, and possibly the middle east?

Well apparently not. According to mainstream media like the BBC and Reuters, what is happening in Syria is that 'the people', led by young activists and rebels, are trying to topple a dictatorial regime, which is responding by unleashing its armed forces upon civilians. And massacring them.

Journalism, we are told, is about reporting the truth. Well, no it's not. It's about selling print and air time to customers, and you do that by giving them a narrative. The narrative being sold to us regarding Syria is, like most narratives, a good vs evil one. We like our dualities in the West, and there's always someone to demonise, whether it's Muslims, Jews, Liberals, Bankers, Capitalists, Climate Change Deniers, whatever. There's a narrative to suit every taste. So for your delectation, dear readers, in Syria it's about young hip radicals versus the ruthless, titanic monster dictator.

Remember Libya? Then, it was about Gaddafi versus 'the people'. One evil man and his black mercenaries against the freedom loving people of Libya. They would fight against overwhelming odds, and then celebrate in the streets when victory is won. Like in the movies.

Gaddafi's dead now, and the media couldn't wait to leave the subject behind. They left the country so fast that they left dust trails. The tribal factions involved in the war (not 'the people') carried on fighting anyway, each taking over a piece of the country and sidelining the West's chosen faction. The country may be about to split into two.

But that doesn't align with the narrative, so best not to report it at all. Wouldn't want all those highly paid reporters to look wrong, would we?

The 'Arab Spring' is another example of a narrative that bore little resemblance to reality. Most of our journalists and media commentators appear to be obsessed with the Sixties, because the various revolts were presented to us as youth revolutions shaking the stuffy, conservative dictatorships out of power, and demanding democracy, equality, social justice and freedom of speech. All on twitter and facebook.

The kids are alright, man.

The reality is that, in Tunisia and Egypt, the Islamists took the popular vote, and the nice looking liberals favoured by our journalists were ignored.

When we look at the world, it seems, we see only what we want to see.

So, what is going on in the middle-east?

The ending of the Cold War, that's what.


Jigsaw pieces.

The middle-east as we know it was formed after WW1, when the European powers divided it up among themselves. WW2 shattered this post-Ottoman entity and the European powers, weakened by the war, pulled out.

Into this void came the USSR and USA, claiming their prize as victors of WW2. The middle-east had oil. For Russia it was also a gateway to the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, bypassing potential NATO blockading of the Baltic. For NATO, the middle-east was a gateway to Asia, bypassing the Iron Curtain.

In strategic terms a clash was inevitable and the two regimes divided up the region along new lines, changing regimes they couldn't do business with and funding their own proxies generously.

When the Soviet Union imploded, this whole arrangement became obsolete and, for two decades, America dispensed with its odious allies and adopted a policy of impunity, doing whatever it liked and doing it directly, with its own forces.

The background to all this activity however is that, since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Islamism has bided its time in the region - often repressed, but never eradicated, and always close to its grass roots.


What now?

The Cold War is now over, but, so it seems, is America's attempt at direct hegemony. The debacle in Iraq ended in humiliation and the failure of every single one of its objectives. Islamism, repressed again, survived the attempt to eradicate it and now takes heart from seeing the giant stumble away.

America has switched back to more covert means of meddling. It is also switching its military emphasis towards the Pacific now, with a view to containing its new lukewarm war rival, China. This leaves a vacuum in the middle-east, into which lesser, local powers are rushing into.

Islamism, in all its various and often disconnected guises, has not been wounded by the 'war on terror'. In many ways it has actually been strengthened by it. In the middle-east Islamism is proving to be the soil that everyone must water or fertilise. Anything planted outside of Islamism withers and fails to grow.

America funded Islamism in the Cold War against Russia (just as Germany and Britain did in WW1), then it went to war against Islamism, trying to crush it. Now it tries to crush it in Yemen and Somalia while funding it in Libya and Syria. Time will tell whether this is a good idea or not, but there is little doubt that, as the old map of the middle-east cracks up, Islamism will remain the dominant strand. Whether it becomes moderate or radical will depend on a whole host of unforeseen factors.

Qatar is the new rising power in the middle-east. It sent its special forces operatives and oil dollars into Libya and Syria. It broadcasts the narrative it wants to see on Al-Jazeera, the pseudo-radical news outlet that supports 'democratic revolutions' abroad while remaining quiet about the political situation back home. Is Al-Jazeera a Qatari government tool? Possibly.

Qatar is currently allied to Saudi Arabia. Whether the House of Saud can withstand the coming changes in the region is an open question, even as it actively funds Sunni Islamism. Both nations are actively supported by the same western countries that are targeted by such Islamism - an act of irony that only future historians will fully appreciate.

Iran is being systematically weakened by the West. This is to Qatar's benefit. Iraq however is divided between Sunni and Shia. If Syria falls, then the battleground may return there, with Qatar and the West (perhaps) funding the rise of the Sunnis and the attempt to humble the Shias once more in another attempt to isolate Iran, another historical cycle rich in irony.

If Iran falls or fails, the battle for dominance in the middle-east may well be between Qatar and Turkey, a country recently rebuffed by Europe and now becoming more Islamist and attempting to grow its influence in the region (another historical cycle?).

Russia and China both watch anxiously from the sides, cautiously moving a pawn here or a Go stone there.

And India? Conspicuously absent from much of the region, which might say something about its global diplomatic status - parochial, immature, or both.

Meanwhile, the cauldron of Syria boils, stirred by many new hands.

Who can say what kind of dish will be served up on the menu?