Showing posts with label Quakerism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Quakerism. Show all posts

Monday, 26 November 2012

Tim Minchin & atheist pseudo-philosophy



As the Another Angry Voice Facebook page has grown in popularity, more and more other pages have dropped by to promote their work by posting links and images on my wall. I don't mind this at all, it is one of the techniques I have used to promote my page, so it would be utterly hypocritical to block others from using my page to do the same now that it is becoming reasonably popular. in fact much of the things that are posted are brilliant and enlightening stuff.

One thing I do mind is when people post things that are completely at odds with the ethos of informed critical analysis I've tried to foster on the AAV page. One such item was this quotation by the Australian comedian Tim Minchin.





In a similar way to the fact that my political stance is nuanced and difficult to define, so too is my stance on God and religion. An awful lot of harms have been caused by organised religion, however it would take a huge amount of confirmation bias to maintain that an a lot of good hasn't come of it too. I am perfectly happy to see informed criticism of religious dogma, however I am fundamentally opposed to the modern trend of generalisation ridden militant atheist pseudo-philosophy, which to me is as intolerant as many of the faiths the atheist ranter brigade are attempting to criticise. This Facebook meme that was posted to my page seems to be a classic example of this kind of over-simplified anti-theist propaganda.

That there are so many very strong arguments to be made against the specific crimes and abuses of specific religions, makes this kind of pathetic anti-religious generalisation all the worse.

Instead of criticising the Catholi
c paedophilia cover-up, Islamist fanatics, religiously inspired child genital mutilation, the absurd melding of the CoE and the UK state, homophobia in Africa, Israeli Zionist apartheid, Hindu fascism, widespread religious indoctrination, the complicity of the Catholic church with Nazi Germany, countless examples of religious hypocrisy or any one of hundreds of other specific examples of religious crime and intolerance, this kind of lazy pseudo-philosophical generalisation simply lumps all religious moderates and all religious extremists together as the same.

If you agree with Minchin's glib pseudo-philosophical analysis, perhaps you could tell me:

Which aspects of reality are "denied" when a Quaker maintains faith that there is that of good within every person that should be sought out and nurtured?

What element of the Buddhist philosophy, that contemplation is the key to inner peace and enlightenment, relies on "the denial of observation"?

How about the deist position (that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge). How is that a denial of reality? It actually seems to be an ideology based on the empirical examination of reality in order to prove a hypothesis, which is pretty damn close to the "philosophy of science".
Yes blind adherence to many faiths has lead to many terrible consequences, but the tarring of all faiths as "irrational" in order to appeal to the reactionary atheist mob is just lazy divisive bigotry. Unless of course it is a joke (he is a stand-up comedian after all) in which case it is an excellent satire of the unthinking reactionary atheist position and I commend him for it.
 

See Also

Saturday, 10 November 2012

The White Poppy

The poem that inspired the red poppy symbol
In early November the red poppy of remembrance becomes an almost ubiquitous sight on British lapels. These paper and plastic symbols are sold by the Royal British Legion and the Haig Fund. It is estimated that the Poppy appeal sells around 35 million red poppy symbols a year and raises £75 million for people who have carried out armed service and for their dependants.

In Britain, all politicians, all TV presenters and all professional sports players are expected to wear the poppy or endure a tide of criticism from bitter reactionaries. In 2009 the Guardian journalist Marina Hyde pointed out that an impressive 15 of the 20 Premier League football clubs had had the red poppy symbol especially emblazoned on their shirts during Remembrance Week, yet the Daily Mail worked themselves up into a frothing fit of rage over the five that hadn't.

The Channel 4 news presenter John Snow described this tide of criticism aimed at any remotely public figure or organisation that doesn't display the red poppy symbol during the week preceding Remembrance Sunday as "poppy fascism". A striking term, given that so many of the fallen that we are supposed to be remembering died fighting the fascists of Europe during World War Two to secure the right for British people to express themselves freely.

The idea that the absence of a plastic and paper poppy on your lapel represents some kind of insult to the country's war dead is actually a disgusting cheapening of the whole occasion. The idea of Remembrance Sunday is to remember the war dead and to consider the tragic consequences of war, not to bicker over symbolism and deride those that decline overt displays of symbolism as disrespectful or unpatriotic. In fact, those that would cheapen the occasion by whining and complaining that another person isn't wearing a poppy are showing infinitely more disrespect to the idea of remembrance than those that they criticise.

This WWI war bonds poster is an example of the 
 red poppy symbol being used as war propaganda .
One of the ironic things about the right-wing reactionary types that tends to engage in 'poppy fascism' is that they don't even seem to realise that what they are doing, is in effect, is enforcing their own brand of political correctness. They are essentially saying that it is politically incorrect to not wear a poppy, however when it comes to other forms of political correctness (lets say gay rights or criticism of overtly racist language) these very same people are more than likely to start chuntering on about how "political correctness has gone mad".

An even more provocative gesture than the not-wearing-of-a-poppy, is the wearing of a white poppy. The white poppy is a pacifist symbol to remind us that not only military personnel suffer and die in conflicts. The colour white was chosen both because white is the traditional colour of peace and because during the First World War, conscientious objectors were presented with white feathers of 'cowardice' by women. Many conscientious objectors such as Quakers and members of the other Peace Churches were imprisoned and abused at Richmond castle in North Yorkshire during the First World War. These included 'the Richmond 16' who were taken to France from the castle, charged under Field Regulations and then sentenced to death for their refusal to fight. The death sentences were later commuted to ten years hard labour. The act of conscientiously refusing to fight even under the threat of death, must be considered an outstanding act of bravery. The white poppy appeal is tiny in comparison to the red poppy appeal, only selling around 50,000 a year (0.14% of poppies sold during remembrance week).

The organisers of the Red Poppy Appeal, the Royal British Legion have stated that "it is a matter of choice, the Legion doesn't have a problem whether you wear a red one or a white one, both or none at all". However the right-wing reactionary types ignore this message of respectful remembrance and freedom of choice. Margaret Thatcher was a vociferous opponent of the white poppy symbol, a fact that massively popularised the white poppy appeal in the 1980s. The right-wing tabloid press sided with Thatcher and ran witch-hunt articles against the organisers of the white poppy appeal, many of whom were elderly pacifist ladies. Politicising Remembrance Sunday by turning it into a demonisation campaign against elderly pacifists was not just distasteful, it was an affront to the whole idea of remembrance. The same can be said of the modern day reactionary 'poppy fascist' brigade.

In 2006 the white poppy did find an unexpected supporter, a man called Jonathan Bartley, the head of the religious think-tank, Ekklesia, and former advisor to John Major (Margaret Thatcher's successor as Tory Prime Minister) who suggested that it may actually be more Christian to wear the pacifist white poppy rather than the red one, an understandable stance given Christ's message of peace and love. Bartley also claimed that the red poppy had become a symbol of political correctness with public figures forced to wear one as an "article of faith". This is the idea that the red poppy has become more of a badge of political correctness and conformity, rather than a symbol of remembrance. Many people find themselves wearing the poppy simply because it is expected of them, not because they have any intention of remembrance. The enforced ubiquitousness of the red poppy has diminished it's meaning.

In November 2012 The UK Prime Minister David Cameron took the wearing of the red poppy whilst completely disregarding it's meaning to a whole new level. He undertook a tour of the middle east with a group of leading British arms manufacturers, with the express purpose of selling weaponry to despotic regimes, all the time with a red poppy of remembrance on his lapel. Even worse than that, he even proposed that Britain attempt to bypass the EU arms embargo on Syria in order that British firms could escalate the bloody civil war by flooding the country with weapons, again with the red poppy on his chest.

David Cameron wearing the red poppy symbol whilst on a mission
to hawk military hardware to middle eastern despots.
To wear the red poppy whilst brazenly hawking weapons to despots and speaking of busting arms embargoes to provide British weapons to one side of a bloody civil war, surely diminishes the red poppy symbol to utter meaninglessness. The same kind of meaninglessness achieved by the Nobel committee when they awarded  the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize to the warmonger and chief architect of the Operation Menu war crimes in Cambodia and Laos, Henry Kissinger.

Although I am a pacifist, I am very sympathetic to the suffering of military personnel, after all several of my paternal relatives fought and died in the Second World War. My maternal grandfather on the other hand was a Quaker conscientious objector, who didn't fight in the war, but did serve in the merchant navy during the conflict. A war contribution every bit as dangerous and deadly as active service. I'm sympathetic towards both poppy appeals, although I have a preference for the white poppy because it doesn't have the baggage of having been used as overt war propaganda like the red one has.

Look at the image above, the one of Cameron and the middle eastern despots he is trying to sell British weapons too. The presence of the poppy symbol is a double insult to the concept of remembrance. Not only is Cameron there to sell weapons, whilst wearing a symbol of remembrance, the people he is attempting to sell them to are a bunch of despotic dictators. All of those brave men that fought and died during the Second World War that Cameron is supposedly 'remembering' (my relatives included), did so on the pretext of fighting against dictatorship and oppression for the causes of freedom and democracy. The people that red poppy wearing Cameron is pictured with are dictators and opprossors who would use their British weapons to continue their fight against the very concepts of freedom and democracy.

I was already inclined to wear the white poppy in remembrance of the many thousands of merchant seamen that were killed during the course of the Second World War. However now I'm certain of one thing, now that David Cameron has utterly besmirched the red poppy symbol by wearing it whilst demanding that British arms companies should be allowed to profit by providing weapons to Islamist militants in Syria (the same militias that just the week before were committing grotesque war crimes in Saraqeb), I won't be wearing a red poppy, I'll buy one of the 0.14% of poppies that are white, if I can find one.

Wednesday, 3 October 2012

Religious moderates, atheists and religious fanatics



A common theme amongst preachers of atheism is the idea that "religious moderation fosters extremism". This is the idea that all religious faith is toxic because extremists can use religious faith to pursue their fundamentalist agendas. The idea is hinted at in the title of chapter 8.7 of the sacred text of atheism; "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. The chapter is entitled "How 'moderation' in faith fosters fanaticism" and the reason I said the argument is "hinted at" is that the chapter does absolutely nothing like demonstrate "how moderation in faith fosters fanaticism", it is perhaps one of the most misleading chapter titles I've ever seen in a lifetime of reading.

To begin with, Dawkins doesn't make a single mention of any of what I'd describe as the "moderate faiths" (Buddhism, Quakerism, the other peace churches, liberal Anglicanism, Sufism, Zoroastrianism), he doesn't even mention any middle ground faiths (Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, Church of England) either, preferring instead to focus the whole chapter on a polemic about the activities of the most extreme religious fanatics. After a quick count I found at least 35 mentions of Islam and Islamic fundamentalism (suicide bombing, Bin Laden, 9/11, martyrdom, London bombings, Saudi Arabia, Taliban, Al Qaida, Ayatollahs, jihadists, and on and on he went) plus three mentions of Christian fundamentalism (abortion terrorists, rapture Christians) in the chapter. This is a chapter that is supposed to be about the dangers of "religious moderation" but it doesn't mention a single moderate faith, not even once, it doesn't even make a single mention of any of the semi-extremist faiths such as Catholicism, but it mentions Islam and Islamic fundamentalism at least 35 times.

Dawkins utterly failed to demonstrate his theory that "religious moderation fosters religious fanaticism" simply because he spent the whole chapter ranting on about extremism and forgot to actually mention any religious moderates, relying on the confirmation bias of readers to sell the message, after all it is difficult to disagree with criticism of murderous Islamic fundamentalism.

Once you have mentally agreed that murderous religious extremism is bad so many times, it is easy to overlook the fact that the chapter doesn't even come close to establishing what is claimed in the title.  Had this been a first year Philosophy of Religion undergraduate essay, I'd have failed it because it completely failed to establish what is claimed in the title. Not only that, it was also full of petty unsubstantiated generalisations, such as the idea that "religion discourages questioning". This is such a facile generalisation it's remarkable, it is as if Dawkins has never even heard of Søren Kierkegaard, or has simply wished out of existence the school of thought that "man cannot truly understand that which he has not doubted" (quite a thing to do for someone that preaches the scientific method).


Just in case one thinks that the chapter title was perhaps a publishing error, and that he actually meant to call it "An angry polemic against murderous religious fanaticism", Dawkins drops this one liner into the middle of the chapter:
"The teachings of moderate religion though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism."
 A sentence that makes it absolutely clear what he is supposedly trying to establish. The problem is though, that he doesn't establish it at all, he just thrusts this sentence into the middle of the text, then continues on with his rambling polemic. He doesn't actually demonstrate the validity of this statement at all. He fails to establish validity because this quote is is practically the only (extremely vague and generalised) reference to "moderate religion" in the entire chapter.

Had Dawkins actually demonstrated how aspects of moderate religion (Quaker lobbying for the UK establishment to legally recognise their gay marriage ceremonies; the Rastafarian leader Haile Selassie's repeated calls for human equality; or the Dalai Lama's calls for respect and tolerance between people of all faiths and none) had fostered religious extremism, I'd have been mightily impressed. However he failed to do it, and he failed quite spectacularly from a philosophical point of view. Not that I expected him to succeed in proving such an ill defined and generalisation riddled assertion of course. In fact, I challenge anyone to create a reason and logic based essay demonstrating how a specific example of "moderate faith", lets say, the Quaker peace testimony has fostered such extreme religious fanaticism.

After defending "religious moderates" from Dawkins' rambling onslaught, I have to say that I strongly believe that religious fanatics must be confronted, in fact I have used this website to speak out against religious bigotry and creationist drivel on a regular basis.

In my view, the most important thing when speaking out against religious fanaticism is to be careful about the language we use to make these criticisms. If we use lazy generalisations (generalisations are one of the very lowest forms of fallacious reasoning) like "religious people" instead of specifics like "creationists" to make these criticisms, then we are completely undermining our own position and driving anyone moderate or rational away from the debate.

Driving away moderate and rational voices ends up leaving just the all too familiar shouting match between inarticulate, or just plain ignorant atheist ranters (that can't even understand the fallaciousness of their own arguments or believe that invoking "sky pixies" or "spaghetti monsters" ever, under any circumstances, actually adds value to the debate) and fanatical religious extremists (that are deluded enough to think they can win an argument simply by quoting bits of ancient religious text or threatening divine retribution!).


These extremists on either side of the debate are precisely the people that should be ignored (and derided by anyone rational if they simply wont stop spouting irrational nonsense).

Any real progress is only ever going to be made through co-operation between reasonably rational and tolerant people (sceptical agnostics, humanists, Buddhists, Quakers, other peace churches, religious moderates within less moderate churches, liberal atheists, liberal secularists, ignostics, etc). Therefore; carefully considered and rational language is hugely important from all sides, especially from the side that so often tends to assume that the rational high-ground belongs to them.


When Dawkins creates incoherent criticisms of "religious moderates" which rely on nothing more than abject generalisations and rabble-rousing polemics, he actually undermines the atheist position. It is quite remarkable to see a "man of science" make such an appalling mess of an argument, devoid of reason or coherent methodology as it is. One wonders whether Dawkins would accept an evolutionary biology essay from a student at Oxford University (where he teaches), which substitutes vapid generalisations and angry polemics for the normal methodologies of empirical evidence gathering and rational analysis.

It is undeniable that Dawkins made a complete mess of his so called critique of "religious moderation". A friend of mine called David Simon Banbery framed the argument much better than Dawkins ever has, when he defined the problem as being "moderates' inaction against extreme factions within their own religion". This at least removes the huge generalised, homogeneous label "moderate religion" that Dawkins was relying upon and places the emphasis onto moderate individuals within specific religions.

I think it is fair to say that myself and David share the view that whatever the organisation, there will always be individuals determined to use their power within that organisation to suit their own objectives. Whether this desire is based on pure selfish self-interest or on underlying psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies; powerful individuals will use political, corporate or religious power structures to promote their own (often warped) moralities.

I believe that I am not being unfair to summarise David's position as "extremists exist in all walks of life, and that it is a particular failing of some religions that they have allowed extremist factions to develop within their midst". I broadly agree with the view but I'd say the problem isn't just limited to religions though. For example; democratic political organisations are by no means immune to infiltration by extremists. The classic example being the rise of neoliberalism (a right-wing ideology which seeks to undermine democratic control over the economy). Even nominally left-wing organisations like the UK Labour party, the Polish Solidarity party and the South African ANC have been infiltrated by neoliberal extremists. The fact that neoliberals actually want to undermine democratic control over the economy demonstrates that this infiltration by political extremists is perhaps even more dangerous than infiltration by religious extremists from a structural perspective, since most religious extremists at least want to maintain the power structures of the religious system they are bastardising, rather than trying to destroy the entire structure from within by severely limiting the powers and capabilities of their own institutions in line with some external dogma (orthodox corporatist neoliberalism).

I think David's argument that moderates within any given religion have an obligation to prevent their organisation being hijacked by extremist usurpers is much stronger than Dawkins' argument (I hesitate to even use the word "argument" it is so poorly constructed) that religious moderation (in general) fosters (very specific and extreme kinds of) religious fanaticism. Whether these extremist usurpers are driven by self-interest, sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies or they are people pursuing some personal or political vendetta, I believe that it is the moral obligation of moderates within any given organisation to stop them.

If you believe this to be the case, then what I said previously about rational language is especially important. These religious moderates (with the moral obligation to fight extremism) need to be engaged in rational discourse, rather than just getting lumped into the same generalised category as the extremists and ruthlessly derided by shouty "all religion is evil" atheists.

Religious moderates must actually be engaged in constructive discourse and then supported by voices of reason and sanity as they fight to root out extremist elements from their religion. If however, they are abused and derided by people who are simply pretending to be rational and tolerant, who are these moderates going to turn to? To the extremist voices within their own religion of course.

In my opinion, irrational obnoxious atheism actually "fosters religious extremism" by abusing religious moderates and pushing them towards religious extremists, who are always delighted to hear their concerns and build new audiences to mindwash with their anti-scientific mumbo-jumbo (and worse).

The rise of religious extremism is absolutely great for ranty atheists: Confirmation bias tells them that they were right about the inevitable rise of religious extremism, making them feel nice and smug and giving them even more self-justification to continue their half-witted ranting. After all, the last thing the "all religion is evil" ranter brigade would like to see is the growth of a new era of respect and compromise between people of moderate faith and people of none; a compromise of moderates with a mission to eradicate religious extremism.

The kind of intolerant atheist ranter that would like to see all religious thought eradicated, would see this kind of compromise between rational and tolerant theists and rational and tolerant atheists as a catastrophic and intolerable defeat. Therefore, in their minds it is always necessary to keep stoking the flames of religious hatred. These intolerant atheists fear statements like "We need an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without" (from the Dalai Lama) as much as the religious fanatic does, because this sentiment clearly demonstrates that their simplistic "all religion is evil" worldview is exactly the same kind of inaccurate and divisive "us and them" lunacy that drives religious fundamentalism.

The rise in religious extremism is great for the religious extremists too of course, but it is extremely bad for almost everyone else: At best we have to listen to even more demented gibbering from these morons (ranty atheists and theist science-deniers alike) and at worst we must suffer the very real consequences of religious fundamentalism (violence, oppression, misogyny, homophobia, anti-scientific propaganda, barbaric practices...).

Next time you see Richard Dawkins trying to direct his followers to deride and ridicule all religious people and treat them with "naked contempt", I believe you should think carefully about what his agenda actually is (is this kind of ridicule and naked contempt strategy a reason based strategy or something else?), what the outcomes could be (could this kind of insulting and intolerant derision strategy actually turn moderate people away from science and reason and foster more religious extremism?) and remember that this is a man that has a history of basing his anti-religious arguments on extremely broad generalisations and extremely narrow polemics.

 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.



See Also




Sunday, 26 August 2012

Scottish Catholics and their campaign against gay equality



Cardinal Keith O'Brien, a man that believes he has the right to impose Catholic
 ideology on non-Catholics against the will of the majority of Scottish people.
In August 2012 the leaders of the Catholic church in Scotland took the extraordinary measure of sending letters to every parish, to be read out to the congregation during Sunday service. The letter outlined the Catholic opposition to the concept of gay marriage, criticised the Scottish National Party government for promising to legalise gay marriage and called upon their followers to continue to act against efforts to "redefine marriage".

The Scottish government have defended their right to introduce same-sex marriages and made clear their determination to bring in the legislation by 2015, despite the objections of the Catholic church. 

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Church in Scotland, a man who has described the concept of gay marriage as a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right" also used the letter to announce the launch of a new group called the National Commission for Marriage and the Family to co-ordinate a campaign against gay marriage.

This letter and the wider Catholic campaign against gay marriage can be seen as yet another example of Catholic bigotry. If they don't believe in Gay marriage, then they don't have to carry out the ceremonies, but their attempts to deny this right to non-Catholics is an absolutely clear demonstration of their determination to impose their own ideology on others. I can't see why any right thinking gay couple would want to be married in a Catholic church (other than perhaps to try and kick up a massive stink), so the Catholics actually have nothing to fear from this legislation.

The Catholic church likes to dress up their stance as an attempt to "support and sustain marriage" and "defend families", but it is quite clearly an expression of their homophobic bigotry and an attempt to impose their values on the rest of Scottish society.

In June 2012 an Ipsus Mori poll found that 64% of Scots agreed that same-sex couples should have the right to marry and 68% agreed that churches should have the freedom to wed same-sex couples if they choose. These results show that the majority of Scots are reasonable and tolerant people that believe that gay couples should be able to express their love and commitment for each other through marriage. The fact that the Catholic church have expressed their determination to undermine same-sex marriage legislation shows that they are a divisive influence acting against the will of the majority of Scottish people.

One particularly interesting fact about gay marriage is that many of the very first nations to have introduced gay marriage legislation have been traditionally Catholic countries (Spain, Argentina, Mexico and Portugal). Perhaps this is indicative of the fact that people in Catholic countries are becoming increasingly sick of Catholic attempts to interfere in secular affairs.

Once the newspapers began reporting the Catholic anti-gay letter, there were a lot of predictable comments from the usual band of atheist reactionaries and anti-theists claiming that this is yet another example of religious bigotry and using the homophobic stance of the Catholic church in order to have a go at religious people and religious organisations in general.

There is one piece of information that should shut up these obnoxious atheists, which is that the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) have been lobbying the government (and even the Queen) for years to recognise their gay marriage ceremonies as legal marriages. This is an absolutely clear demonstration that not all religious people and organisations are bigots and homophobes.

Anyone making generalised claims of bigotry against all religions and all religious organisations, should be considered bigots themselves. They are displaying their intolerance by lumping all religious people together and then defining them by the attributes of the worst members of the group, exactly the same kind of generalisation and stereotyping strategies used by religious extremists to demonise those that they deem to be "sinners", "heretics" or "apostates".

Sure, atheists and anti-theists should feel free to criticise the Catholic church for their homophobic stance, but they should quit using obvious double-standards to tar all religious people and organisations with the same brush, since some religious organisations are actually very progressive and have done a lot more to bring about gay equality than these reactionary atheists (that ignorantly condemn such religious progressives as bigots with their pathetic generalisations) have ever done.

The Catholic stance on gay marriage and their determination to impose their (warped) values on everyone else is revolting, however having a dig at religion in general isn't going to help. Progressive people; Quakers, deists, atheists, humanists, agnostics, spiritualists or whoever, should stand together in united opposition to Catholic bigotry and condemn their desire to impose Catholic values on many millions of non-Catholics.


See Also





Thursday, 26 July 2012

Barclays and their multi-million rewards for blatant criminality

Only in the financial sector could a key player in organised
 criminal activity like Jerry Del Missier expect to be allowed to
 walk away from the crime scene with a multi-million payoff.
In July 2012 it was revealed that disgraced former chief operating officer at Barclays Jerry Del Missier had been allowed to walk away from the company with an £8.75 million payoff. In the banking world massive financial rewards for failure are commonplace, but De Misser's payoff isn't just a reward for failure, it is a reward for outright criminality.

De Misser was forced to resign after it was revealed that he was the highest ranking Barclays employee to explicitly instruct staff at the bank to fraudulently manipulate the Libor inter bank lending rate. The bank was fined £290 million by regulators in the US and UK and now faces the possibility of defending dozens of £multi-million civil lawsuits brought by investors and other financial institutions as well as the possibility of facing criminal proceedings in jurisdictions where they have not bought themselves immunity from prosecution.

It is quite incredible to see a guilty party leaving the crime scene with a multi-million pound payoff, something that could only happen in the world of high finance. Had the crime been drug dealing, benefit fraud, VAT fraud or illicit arms dealing, does anyone believe that one of the key players would be allowed to simply walk away with such a vast payoff?

One of the most shocking aspects to the Libor fixing scandal is that Barclays were originally founded as an ethical Quaker bank. For those of you that don't know much about Quakerism, there are no hard and fast rules but the religion was founded on a platform of egalitarianism, abstinence and an opposition to gambling. Barclays and the numerous other small Quaker banks it subsumed were originally founded in order to provide credit to ethical enterprises. As the bank became ever larger and further separated from it's historical roots, the baggage of ethical consideration was jettisoned in the pursuit of ever bigger profits. 

The warning signs that the Quakers had inadvertently spawned an amoral monster were there from as early as the 1980s, when Barclays were one of the few UK based financial institutions to completely ignore the boycott of apartheid South Africa, earning them the nickname "Boerclays". 

In 1997 De Missier and Bob Diamond were two of the key players in the formation of Barclays Capital, the casino banking wing of the institution. It is hugely ironic that a bank originally founded by people with a strong ethical objection to gambling went on to become one of the biggest players on the global banking casino. If it wasn't bad enough that an ethically founded institution became a big player in the world of financial sector gambling, they also set about deliberately defrauding the global casino by manipulating the Libor rate.

Barclays are far from the only criminal institution in the UK financial sector, RBS and Lloyds are also being investigated for rigging Libor rates and HSBC have recently been caught laundering money for drugs cartels. However it seems these institutions and their employees have little to fear. A fine that is orders of magnitude smaller than the profits they made from their criminal activities, multi-million pound payoffs for guilty parties and no threat of criminal prosecutions would be the worst they could expect in the current climate. If the UK authorities do not bring criminal charges, lock up some corrupt bankers and begin confiscating their ill gotten gains, this will send a signal that there is absolutely no deterrent to financial sector corruption and criminality in the UK and bankers will continue to behave like a bunch of corrupt, amoral criminals.

The UK should follow the example set by Iceland, a nation that refused to assume the odious debts of their neoliberalised financial sector and have hired a team of international bounty hunters to track down the corrupt bankers that destroyed their economy. The problem is of course, that the financial sector have a de facto controlling interest in the Tory party, meaning that the Tories will do absolutely anything within their powers to protect the interests of the criminals that operate out of the deregulated, neoliberalised London banking casino.


See Also




 

Friday, 2 September 2011

Neo-Victorianism, nostalgia or revisionism

During his McTaggart lecture Google chairman Eric Schmidt joined
the growing number of people who openly romanticise the Victorian Era.
In recent years it has become a regular feature of British life to hear vague Neo-Victorian sentiments from political and economic leaders. Several prominent Conservatives have called for a return to "Victorian values", their nauseating education minister Michael Gove went as far as to claim that "I don't think there has been a better time in our history". During the annual McTaggart lecture in August 2011 the American chairman of Google advised the UK to "look back to glory days of Victorian era" during his devastating critique of contemporary British educational standards.

You would hope that in romanticising the Victorian era these people are not pining for the return of child labour, unregulated, dangerous and polluting industries, low pay, horrible working conditions, a class system built on foundations of economic discrimination, racism, sexism and homophobia. An era of disgusting and poorly sanitised slums for the masses with pockets of staggering wealth for the economic elite with a political system that disenfranchised women and all but a tiny minority of landed gentlemen.


Thanks to numerous television programmes, on the subject many people are
aware of the magnificent engineering achievements of the Victorian era,
including Brunel's magnificent Clifton Suspension Bridge.
I hope what inspires people to idealise Victorian standards and values are the magnificent engineering achievements of the age, the "protestant work ethic" that powered so many world leading industries, the philanthropism of the Victorian super-rich, the pioneering introduction of many fundamental social reforms, the grandiose buildings and the national pride at being empire builders and world leaders in so many fields of human endeavour.

In my opinion this much romanticised "Great British" age stretches far beyond the lengthy reign of Queen Victoria, after all it would be absurd to think that an epoch could begin and end with the rule of one woman. To take a modern example, no matter how much they try to disguise it these days with their talk of the "big society" and "social mobility", Thatcherism is still at the heart of modern Conservative party policy more than two decades after the great witch herself was deposed.

In my opinion the beginning of the most progressive period in British history can be traced back much further than the coronation of Queen Victoria in 1837. There are a number of credible origins for the narrative of this enterprising and pioneering spirit, the elimination of Catholic heterodoxy in the mid sixteenth century is one plausible starting point however I'm going to fast forward to the birth of the industrial revolution and the development of modern capitalism.

Many of the pioneering capitalist enterprises were brought about under states of overt state oppression. Followers of nonconformist religions were tolerated by the Church of England based elite, but they were barred from the establishment, barred from attending university and from working in legal professions, they were barred from sitting as MPs, prevented from trading in Corporation towns and regularly imprisoned for refusing to pay tithes to the establishment church.

Followers of many of these dissident faiths found their access to the traditional sources of wealth blocked by the state, so as persecuted minorities have done throughout the ages, they turned to their resourcefulness and their sense of community to create their own wealth. The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) were amongst these early industrial pioneers, playing important roles in the development and financing of nascent technologies such as the iron casting process and steam powered factories and transportation, technologies that went on to become fundamental components of the industrial revolution.

The Quakers and many of the other non-conformist religions insisted upon conducting their business in an ethically motivated manner, meaning that they became the leading social reformers of the age. Their convictions led them to provide decent housing and less exploitative working conditions for their employees as well as pioneering the provision of workers' welfare such as education, healthcare and pensions for the communities they founded to populate their factories.

It was in the mid 19th Century that the establishment finally began to practice serious religious toleration, the English universities finally began admitting Quakers and John Dalton became the first Quaker MP in 1830. Eventually the huge social benefit of the non-conformist welfare schemes became undeniable to the socio-political elite who gradually began to use the state to provide social welfare instead of leaving it up to the personal disposition of the factory owners. One of the great pioneering social reforms enacted by government was the 1870 Universal Education Act, which came into force against a background of working class enlightenment through the provision of public libraries and countless literary and philosophical societies.


The work of pioneering social reformers like Robert Owen helped
make the Victorian era great, modern day reactionaries tend to consider
the whole topic of strategic social reform with contempt.
Religious conviction was by no means the only inspiration for social reform, the great Robert Owen of the unincorporated town of Manchester honed his egalitarian ideals alongside religious non-conformists such as the great Quaker scientist John Dalton and the Congregationalist minister Joseph Whitworth at the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, he shared egalitarian ideals with the non-conformists and used Quaker businessmen such as William Allen to fund his early business ventures but despite all of this he remained a vocal critic of organised religion until his unexpected conversion to spititualism shortly before his death.

Idealistic factory towns like Robert Owen's New Lanark factory (the site of the first infant school in Britain), the Congregationalist mill at Saltaire, Bradford and the Quaker chocolate village at Bournville, Birmingham became places of pilgrimage for the social reformers and philanthropists of their day. Visitors included royal families, intellectuals, politicians and businessmen from around the globe, who realised the virtues of compassionate capitalism and set about instigating social reform in their own nations.

Many of the hard nosed establishment capitalists utilised the advanced production techniques developed by the non-conformist pioneers to undercut them by retaining traditional disgustingly exploitative working and living conditions and refusing to providing community welfare. However the ethically driven social reformers had clearly demonstrated that grotesque exploitation was not a fundamental part of industrialisation and eventually the benefits of employing a healthy, well educated and extremely loyal workforce became indisputable.

The Victorian enlightenment saw huge rises in living standards and literacy, providing a healthy and educated workforce capable of spreading English industrialism and social reform across the globe, most notably through the construction of railway infrastructure and the establishment of English schools. The pioneering social reforms of the Victorian era were followed by the introduction of the state pension in 1909 and cumulated in the post war consensus and the provision universal healthcare with the creation of the NHS in 1946.

Even though the era was famous for it's ethical social reformers and the mass enlightenment of ordinary people, the Victorian age was tainted by huge social problems and commonplace discrimination. Disgusting levels of urban poverty were as fundamental to the great works of Charles Dickens as they were to George Orwell's 1937 sociological investigations into the terrible poverty of the industrial north during the inter-war years, "Road to Wigan Pier" written 100 years after the coronation of Queen Victoria.

The Victorian era was also tainted by brutality and discrimination, corporal punishment in schools was nearly ubiquitous, for much of Queen Victoria's reign people convicted of minor offences were deported to Australia and sodomy was a capital offence. Even after the sodomy law was repealed in 1866 famous intellectuals such as Oscar Wilde were ruthlessly persecuted for their homosexuality. In the late nineteenth Century the newly founded Metropolitan Police employed agent provocateur's and planted evidence to undermine alternative political ideologies such as socialism and anarchism.

The Victorian democratic system was skewed towards the interests of the establishment elite, with only rich landed gentlemen allowed to vote in elections until the 1867 Reform Act, even then all women and huge numbers of working class men were excluded from political participation and the economic elite were compensated with multiple votes in order to maintain their grip on power and influence.

It is not surprising that people are inclined to romanticise the Victorian era for it's world leading industries and pioneering social reforms, despite the appalling living conditions of the masses. It is important to understand what this nation has lost in order that so many of us reminisce so fondly about an era that was so badly tainted by grinding poverty, illiteracy, low life expectancy and huge economic and political inequality. The British Empire has been replaced by neoconservative interventionism and neoliberal economic control, largely done through undemocratic American based institutions. Britain's Industrial power has been destroyed by elitist contempt for all forms of manual labour and establishment fears of an empowered working class. The social reforms that began in the nineteenth Century and cumulated in the post war consensus have been eroded away by 30 unbroken years of the neoliberal slash the state and privatise everything agenda.

The reactionary neoliberals that seem to make up the bulk of the modern day Conservative party could learn a lot from the Tories of the Victorian age. Instead of opposing much needed electoral reform of an anachronistic voting system for their own political benefit, Victorian Tories brought in the 1867 Reform Act which effectively gave the vote to swathes of the working class for the first time. Instead of allowing a parasitic slumlord rentier class to openly exploit the poor, Victorian Tories introduced powers to compel owners of slum dwelling to sell to local councils. Instead of cutting investment to universities and libraries and erecting more financial barriers to higher education, Victorians gave education to the masses through the Universal Education act. Instead of calling for the deregulation of industries for the benefit of corporate interests, several Victorian Tory governments introduced Factories Acts to limit corporate exploitation of the poor. Instead of commodifying justice in order to dissuade ordinary people from seeking legal redress, Victorian Tories introduced the first legislation to compel employers to compensate employees injured on the job.

Given the glee with which some leading Tories have been using "austerity measures" to undermine and destroy social provisions it is easy to imagine reactionary Tories fantasising about a return to the Dickensian levels of inequality. A time where the rich were only constrained by their own morality and there was no social safety net, meaning the truly desperate had to rely on the charity of faith organisations or the philanthropy of the economic elite in order to avoid ending up in the workhouse. The much hyped "Big Society" seems suspiciously like the Victorian reliance on individual charity and philanthropy instead of state intervention to address poverty, low educational standards and injustice. The Tory attacks on social services, the healthcare system and government funding for charitable projects as well as the defunding of universities, libraries and the arts contrast sharply with the many Victorian Era state interventions to improve the conditions of the poor and to raise educational standards.

Modern day Tory policies of opposing electoral reform, slashing investment in scientific research and education, commodifying justice and the undoing of social reforms in the name of "austerity" seem to be the polar opposite of the progressive social and economic policies that created such vast improvements in the living conditions of the masses. This contrast creates the suspicion that the Tory motivation for their calls for a return to "Victorian values" could actually be based on the desire to see the restoration of Dickensian levels of inequality, the renewal of Britain's discriminatory class hierarchy and it's elitist education system and the reawakening of unrestrained capitalism and all of its horrors.

Saturday, 19 February 2011

Barclays defiling their Quaker roots

A UK uncut protester in a branch of Barclays Bank
during a day of protest on 19 February 2011.
In early 2011 the American born Group Chief Executive of Barclays bank Bob Diamond chose to make a robust defence of his bank and of the global banking elite in general in his "evidence" to a Treasury Select Committee. He controversially stated that "There was a period of remorse and apology for banks - I think that period needs to be over”. Coming in the wake of huge bailouts to the banking sector, Quantitative Easing and massive interest minimised loans from the US Federal Reserve, his remarks understandably provoked widespread anger amongst the general public given the background of savage cuts inflicted on public services like libraries, universities, adult education and disability benefits across the UK being inflicted by a Conservative party that has received over £40 million pounds in funding from the super rich banking elite since 2005.

At the time of Diamond's remarks Barclays were the third biggest bank nominally based in the United Kingdom with assets of £1.5 trillion, a globally recognised brand thanks in part to their sponsorship of the English Premier League since 2004 and the 15th biggest bank in the world judged by their market share. I am not a banking expert but I do know a little bit about the subject and have an interest in the history of banking and industry in the United Kingdom. I believe that a quick look at the history of Barclays Bank can illustrate how the UK banking industry has lost it's moral bearings and spun out of control. 
 
Barclays bank was a Quaker institution founded in 1690 by David Barclay, a man of Quaker faith who's father Robert had been a highly influential Quaker writer. The bank was run on Quaker business principles and guided by the Quaker testimony of integrity (the other three testimonies being to equality, peace & simplicity).

Over the years the bank grew in strength through the amalgamation of other Quaker banks like the Backhouse Bank of Darlington and Gurney's bank of Norwich. Through the centuries Barclays has subsumed dozens of Quaker and other non-conformist banks, credit unions and building societies.
Backhouse bank in Darlington was one of the many
Quaker & non-conformist banks
subsumed into what is now Barclays Bank
A look at the Backhouse family and their Darlington Bank which was located only a couple of minutes walk away from Darlington Quaker Meeting house gives us a fine example of how Quaker run banks helped to stimulate the industrial revolution through the provision of finance to people outside the economic elite of the era. At the time Quakers were still being persecuted for their beliefs, they were prevented from attending university, standing for Parliament, becoming judiciary or trading in corporation towns. Since Quakers were barred from playing a role in the establishment economy many influential Quaker families established their own businesses and became leading bankers and industrialists of their age.

The Backhouse family of Darlington were providers of credit to local industrialists like the town's famous railway pioneers as well as being industrialists in their own rights and noted biology experts too. The Backhouses played a clearly defined and important role in their local communities which extended far beyond their role as money lenders. A far cry from the frenzied and obscure trading activities of Barclays Capital in things like derivatives, hedge funds, short sales and futures, that are pretty much abstract intangible ideas to the majority of the British population. 

Considering the Quaker disapproval of gambling and their numerous campaigns against poverty it would be galling for the founders of these constituent banks to think the institutions that they had created would be subsumed into a megalithic institution that feeds into the huge casino that is the global investment banking sector through Barclays Capital and that the results of bad bets made by these casino banks can impoverish millions of people while the gamblers within the international banking community continue to make obscene amounts of money for themselves.

Going back to Diamond’s speech, he said that "No bank should be a burden on the taxpayer" and insisted that  Barclays had not taken any direct support from the taxpayer. Maybe they can claim that they had no direct assistance from the British tax payer but according to the Guardian and Private Eye in 2009 Barclays took $232bn in (Term Auction Facility) TAF loans from the US Federal Reserve (The American taxpayer) with minuscule interest rates unavailable to the money markets and definitely unavailable to plebs like us. They also borrowed $212bn from a similar scheme called the Primary Dealers Credit Facility (PDCF) in 2008. All this ultra low interest borrowing from the Federal Reserve (US taxpayer) adds up to at least $680bn since the credit crunch began. The most galling thing is that they obviously used this slush fund of cheap money to lend on to other people at the usual high interest rates and creamed off the profits.

The fact that the Americans pumped hundreds of billions of dollars through Barclays with near 0% interest rates raises a number of questions such as: Could the UK have even afforded the burden of lending nearly half a trillion pounds to Barclays at negligable interest rates? How much of a controlling interest in Barclays activities did all those billions of dollars buy for the Americans? How can Diamond continue in his job when he made such transparently disingenuous remarks to a Parliamentary Select Committee? How would the Quaker founders of Barclays and other constituent banks feel about recent Barclays activities and Diamond's unfamiliarity with the Quaker testimony of integrity, the single standard of truthfulness and the belief that honest dealing with others means more than simply avoiding direct lies?


Diamond giving "evidence" to the Treasury Select Committee,
where he made disingenuous claims that Barclays
had received no government assistance in 2009.
In his speech Diamond boasted that "In 2009, "we lent £35bn more [than the previous year] and in 2010 we lent £35bn more again in the first nine months alone," but it seems that they only managed to do this by borrowing £680bn in easy money from the Fed. 

Even if we forget about the direct assistance loans they took from the Americans, the bank also benefited from the climate in which the UK government was pumping billions of pounds into the banking sector to support toppling institutions like Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley, HBOS and RBS in order to prevent the destruction of London as the financial capital of the world and billions more injected into the banking sector through its Quantitative Easing program.

It is pretty difficult to judge the scale of the negative effects that Quantitative Easing has had on the global economy, however the futility of creating new money to pump into an economic system was one of the few economic ideas that seeped through to me from the idiosyncratically structured British mass education system. To me it doesn't matter whether you are creating money to directly fund government spending (monetising) or printing money in order to deliberately invest it in buying up the remnants of hundreds of billions of pounds worth of toxic bad bets that the banks can't afford to service (quantitative easing). Printing money in order to stop the banking system from collapsing distorts the whole economy and is the kind of government subsidisation that consecutive UK governments have doggedly avoided giving to once proud industries like coal, steel, shipbuilding, cars and trains, thus allowing swathes of our economy that actually used to produce things to fall into ruin leaving the UK completely dependent on foreign imports of commodities of which until relatively recently we were global leaders in production.

To me it is a disgrace that our elected leaders took the ideological decision to let British mining, manufacturing and engineering fall into ruin rather than pay subsidies to help them through difficult periods, always citing the mantra of their free-marketeer friends and paymasters that "subsidisation is bad because it distorts economic systems". Instead of supporting British industry they concentrated on turning the city of London into the banking capital of the world. As soon as the banking sector ran into difficulties they poured countless billions that British miners and manufacturers could never even have dreamed of into a banking sector dominated by the same free-marketeer parasites that would have bitterly opposed emergency subsidisation of any other part of the UK economy.

To make matters worse, in February 2011 it was revealed that  in 2009 Barclays used a whirlpool of tax-avoidance subsidiaries based in tax-efficient countries. (tax havens) to reduce their tax bill to just £113m on profits of £11.6bn, which is a rate of taxation of less than 1%. If they had paid the 28% tax rate that many businesses in the struggling British manufacturing sector cant avoid, they would have ended up making a contribution of £3.25bn to the UK economy.

The fact that this kind of large scale tax avoidance amongst the global capitalist elites has been going on has been public knowledge for a long time and Barclays are by no means unusual in their aversion to paying tax. This public knowledge was because the intricacies of Barclays tax avoidance schemes were being freely circulated elsewhere on the internet as Barclays lawyers were making determined efforts to gag the Gaurdian from revealing some of the complex tax avoidance strategies they had been using in 2008. This latest revelation of the sheer scale of Barclays tax avoidance has come as shock even to seasoned politicians and fair tax campaigners like UK Uncut and the Robin Hood Tax Campaign.

So to recap, in his speech Diamond cited Barclays 2009 lending figures as reason that everyone should stop criticising bankers and let them get on with doing their jobs and made the disingenuous claim that the banks had received no government assistance to achieve these figures when in reality they had taken secretive loans of more that half a trillion dollars for the American Federal reserve, benefited from the British government's use of quantitative easing and the ridiculously low tax burden expected of them by their host nation. He then issued veiled threats by talking about how they needed to be allowed to pay obscene bonuses or their "best staff" would simply leave to claim their vast bonuses in less regulated economies and then pointedly reiterated Barclays' intention to remain based in London.

The fact is that the values of the small local banks with strong community ties, clear community benefits and ethical motivation have been forgotten as Barclays bank has grown into this monolithic and amoral profit driven entity that is structured to avoid billions in tax and pay out almost as much as they avoided in tax as bonuses for their super rich traders and executives, many of whom use the same tax evasion strategies as Barclays in order to avoid paying tax on their earnings while communities all over the UK are stripped of their services to pay off government debts that have been massively exacerbated by the unprecedented billions of public money used to prop up the banking system.

It is clear that Barclays have moved on from providing ethically motivated community banking to become an institution that diverts billions of pounds into the pockets of a tiny economic elite and avoids paying tax, while the communities from which it rose are impoverished by rising price inflation, wage repression and increased job insecurity as their public infrastructure is devastated by vicious cuts orchestrated by a demonstrably bankrolled Tory party.

UPDATE: In 2012 Bob Diamond resigned in disgrace after the LIBOR rigging scandal. He walked away with an £8.75 million payoff.


 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.


More articles from
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
             
Who is to blame for the economic crisis?
            
Barclays and their £multi-million rewards for failure
             
Too big to fail? Too big to jail
                 
What is ... Wage Repression?

The JP Morgan plan for Europe
        
What is ... Quantitative Easing?
                  
What is ... a Credit Default Swap?